3rd ODI: Australia v Sri Lanka @ WACA Friday (D/N)

[Blotter]

Tremendous? He was serviceable, Mathews had a superior game to him as far as allrounders go.

Unsure if Christian is an international standard batsmen from what I've seen, would love him to make it though.

Perhaps tremendous is a tad strong, on reflection.

But he was a key figure in the win; there's no doubt about that.

I'd expect Clarke, Christian and Doherty to get the AB Medal votes for that game - as they were head and shoulders the best 3 Australians in the match.

Just Christian's fielding alone was crucial. Especially those 2 sensational saves on the boundary in the last few overs, that were worth 4 of the 5 runs that separated the teams in the end.

Add that to 2 wickets with the ball that Aus really needed, and an innings that helped restore Aus's momentum when it was flagging with the bat - and his game was very good.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Been having a good chuckle at those having a whinge about McKay and his slower balls. He bowled at the death and his last 3 overs (overs 45, 47 and 49 of the innings), when he bowled the majority of them, went for just 16 runs (compared to Starc's last 3, which went for 30, for instance, at the same time).
Less than a run a ball at the death is bloody good. Over 45, when they needed quick runs (52 off 36 balls), was the over where he bowled 6 slower balls (what many are complaining about) yet he went for just 1 run and got a wicket! Talk about hard to please! He then started his next over with two more slower balls and they played and missed at those two as well. So that was 8 slower balls in a row for 1 run and a wicket! And some on here are complaining about that! (And for the record he bowled 10 slower balls in a row, not 24, as I'm sure will soon become "fact" here, if it continues to be mentioned, without correction.) It wasn't until he bowled a fast one that they finally got him away to the boundary.
The slower ball was working brilliantly and they were struggling to lay bat on it, as they were consistently about a foot or so outside off stump, meaning they were dipping (from a great height, as Clint is tall) and landing at an awkward angle to reach and then bouncing high with the topspin. Damn hard to hit out there and he is amazingly consistent with it, meaning they can easily set fields to him. As they mentioned last night in commentary, Clarke had the field set for the slower ball. If he then threw in more fast ones, as some are suggesting here (even though they scored just 4 runs and lost a wicket off the 10 consecutive slower balls), they would have been vulnerable, as the field was set up to protect shots played to slower balls, not fast ones (as evidenced by the first faster ball after the 10 slower ones going for 4).
The simple fact is that what he was doing was working and given that Starc was going for plenty at the other end, it was essential to us keeping them below our score. I dare say if they had managed to work out how to lay bat on the slower ones we would have changed our approach, though, but last night there was no particular need to.

 

[Outshined]

Been having a good chuckle at those having a whinge about McKay and his slower balls. He bowled at the death and his last 3 overs (overs 45, 47 and 49 of the innings), when he bowled the majority of them, went for just 16 runs (compared to Starc's last 3, which went for 30, for instance, at the same time).
Less than a run a ball at the death is bloody good. Over 45, when they needed quick runs (52 off 36 balls), was the over where he bowled 6 slower balls (what many are complaining about) yet he went for just 1 run and got a wicket! Talk about hard to please! He then started his next over with two more slower balls and they played and missed at those two as well. So that was 8 slower balls in a row for 1 run and a wicket! And some on here are complaining about that! (And for the record he bowled 10 slower balls in a row, not 24, as I'm sure will soon become "fact" here, if it continues to be mentioned, without correction.) It wasn't until he bowled a fast one that they finally got him away to the boundary.
The slower ball was working brilliantly and they were struggling to lay bat on it, as they were consistently about a foot or so outside off stump, meaning they were dipping (from a great height, as Clint is tall) and landing at an awkward angle to reach and then bouncing high with the topspin. Damn hard to hit out there and he is amazingly consistent with it, meaning they can easily set fields to him. As they mentioned last night in commentary, Clarke had the field set for the slower ball. If he then threw in more fast ones, as some are suggesting here (even though they scored just 4 runs and lost a wicket off the 10 consecutive slower balls), they would have been vulnerable, as the field was set up to protect shots played to slower balls, not fast ones (as evidenced by the first faster ball after the 10 slower ones going for 4).
The simple fact is that what he was doing was working and given that Starc was going for plenty at the other end, it was essential to us keeping them below our score. I dare say if they had managed to work out how to lay bat on the slower ones we would have changed our approach, though, but last night there was no particular need to.

Dude. Paragraph.

 

[Tomnat Tigers]

Dussey needs to ball i would be bowling him at least 6 overs a game.

 

[damochandler]

Been having a good chuckle at those having a whinge about McKay and his slower balls. He bowled at the death and his last 3 overs (overs 45, 47 and 49 of the innings), when he bowled the majority of them, went for just 16 runs (compared to Starc's last 3, which went for 30, for instance, at the same time).
Less than a run a ball at the death is bloody good. Over 45, when they needed quick runs (52 off 36 balls), was the over where he bowled 6 slower balls (what many are complaining about) yet he went for just 1 run and got a wicket! Talk about hard to please! He then started his next over with two more slower balls and they played and missed at those two as well. So that was 8 slower balls in a row for 1 run and a wicket! And some on here are complaining about that! (And for the record he bowled 10 slower balls in a row, not 24, as I'm sure will soon become "fact" here, if it continues to be mentioned, without correction.) It wasn't until he bowled a fast one that they finally got him away to the boundary.
The slower ball was working brilliantly and they were struggling to lay bat on it, as they were consistently about a foot or so outside off stump, meaning they were dipping (from a great height, as Clint is tall) and landing at an awkward angle to reach and then bouncing high with the topspin. Damn hard to hit out there and he is amazingly consistent with it, meaning they can easily set fields to him. As they mentioned last night in commentary, Clarke had the field set for the slower ball. If he then threw in more fast ones, as some are suggesting here (even though they scored just 4 runs and lost a wicket off the 10 consecutive slower balls), they would have been vulnerable, as the field was set up to protect shots played to slower balls, not fast ones (as evidenced by the first faster ball after the 10 slower ones going for 4).
The simple fact is that what he was doing was working and given that Starc was going for plenty at the other end, it was essential to us keeping them below our score. I dare say if they had managed to work out how to lay bat on the slower ones we would have changed our approach, though, but last night there was no particular need to.

did you actually watch his last 4 overs. there was 1 maybe 2 balls that weren't slower balls at best. you're supposed to disguise the slower ball, not just bowl because you know how to. why didn't he throw in some yorkers. that's what you're supposed to do at the death. he threw a yorker in the game might have been over a lot quicker

 

[Blotter]

did you actually watch his last 4 overs. there was 1 maybe 2 balls that weren't slower balls at best. you're supposed to disguise the slower ball, not just bowl because you know how to. why didn't he throw in some yorkers. that's what you're supposed to do at the death. he threw a yorker in the game might have been over a lot quicker

Of course he didn't.

Just like he doesn't seem to know that McKay was bowling to the #10 and #11, for gawd's sake, for much of the period he is getting himself all worked up about.

McKay was awful last night and, tbh, I'm not sure why anyone would be silly enough to argue something different.

 

[aussierulesrules]

did you actually watch his last 4 overs. there was 1 maybe 2 balls that weren't slower balls at best. you're supposed to disguise the slower ball, not just bowl because you know how to. why didn't he throw in some yorkers. that's what you're supposed to do at the death. he threw a yorker in the game might have been over a lot quicker

Yes I did and I'm very well aware of how many he bowled. I'm also aware of how few runs he went for off those balls. I'm also aware that they had both fine leg and third man up in the circle, which would be why he didn't throw in any yorkers. Bowl fast yorkers at the death, with no-one protecting those areas and it can be runs central down there. Ramp shots (which would be a major reason many teams don't employ yorkers much any more), inside edges that fly down to fine leg and outside edges that fly down to 3rd man are why it can pay to not bowl yorkers at the end of an innings. It means you can bring up 3rd man and fine leg and protect the other boundaries, limiting the amount of areas boundaries can be scored. When he came on at the end they needed 52 runs off 6 overs (36 balls) and all we needed to do was stop them from scoring heavily to win. He did that brilliantly. He limited their scoring so much that they were able to hit Starc for 30 off his 3 overs at the time and still win.
I'm not sure which manual you're reading from that says "you're supposed to disguise the slower ball" or that "throw in some yorkers. that's what you're supposed to do at the death". There is no right way to play a game of cricket, you are in fact allowed to play to your strengths and bowl to your field and do it however the hell you want. He was basically just a "right arm slow bowler" at that stage and it worked a treat. He and the Australian team know what they are doing. They are not new to this.

Of course he didn't.

Just like he doesn't seem to know that McKay was bowling to the #10 and #11, for gawd's sake, for much of the period he is getting himself all worked up about.

McKay was awful last night and, tbh, I'm not sure why anyone would be silly enough to argue something different.

Your ignorance is staggering. I'm guessing you're in your teens?

 

[damochandler]

Yes I did and I'm very well aware of how many he bowled. I'm also aware of how few runs he went for off those balls. I'm also aware that they had both fine leg and third man up in the circle, which would be why he didn't throw in any yorkers. Bowl fast yorkers at the death, with no-one protecting those areas and it can be runs central down there. Ramp shots (which would be a major reason many teams don't employ yorkers much any more), inside edges that fly down to fine leg and outside edges that fly down to 3rd man are why it can pay to not bowl yorkers at the end of an innings. It means you can bring up 3rd man and fine leg and protect the other boundaries, limiting the amount of areas boundaries can be scored. When he came on at the end they needed 52 runs off 6 overs (36 balls) and all we needed to do was stop them from scoring heavily to win. He did that brilliantly. He limited their scoring so much that they were able to hit Starc for 30 off his 3 overs at the time and still win.
I'm not sure which manual you're reading from that says "you're supposed to disguise the slower ball" or that "throw in some yorkers. that's what you're supposed to do at the death". There is no right way to play a game of cricket, you are in fact allowed to play to your strengths and bowl to your field and do it however the hell you want. He was basically just a "right arm slow bowler" at that stage and it worked a treat. He and the Australian team know what they are doing. They are not new to this.

Your ignorance is staggering. I'm guessing you're in your teens?

well lets see. rule of thumb is. that tailenders swing at everything pitched up and short ball and they usually struggle to keep out the yorker. just like last night and many games before with australia in it. every other nation uses the yorker perfectly at the death in odi cricket. australia don't use it at all and look what happens

 

[aussierulesrules]

well lets see. rule of thumb is. that tailenders swing at everything pitched up and short ball and they usually struggle to keep out the yorker. just like last night and many games before with australia in it. every other nation uses the yorker perfectly at the death in odi cricket. australia don't use it at all and look what happens

I guess that's why we've been ranked no.1 in the world for years in ODI cricket and they're not.
No.. wait...

PS- If we'd had someone who's specialty is the yorker it probably would have been different, but we didn't, so we played to our strengths. And won. A game not many would have tipped us to win when we only made 230 or so.

Especially now that the ramp shot has been perfected (a shot that was brought in to nullify the effectiveness of yorkers), if you're not exceptional at bowling yorkers (like Malinga is), they are very risky. If they're slightly off (slightly short and they're right in the hitting zone, like the one that was hit for six in the last over last night, or slightly long and they're full tosses), they can be very costly and even if they're on the money, they can now be ramped over the top, for 4, or 6, as well (which was not the case previously, when yorkers were considered clearly the "way to go").

Now I'm not saying I agree with this or don't agree with doing this and before last night I also thought McKay should bowl more yorkers (which I even mentioned in the ODI squad thread, I think it was, the other day), but when they said in commentary last night that he was obviously going to be bowling more slower balls, once they saw how the field was set up, it made sense to me why he doesn't. (They had set the field up for shots played to slower balls, not yorkers, or faster balls).

And again, it worked. Starc looked a million dollars earlier in the night, but when called on to bowl at the death, he was hit around the park, trying to bowl yorkers and so on, while McKay went for almost half the runs he did, not trying to bowl yorkers. There's something to be learned from that, for those that don't think they know everything, like "Blotter" seems to.

 

[Blotter]

Your ignorance is staggering. I'm guessing you're in your teens?

No, nowhere near.

The very fact you have almost nothing to offer but consistent personal abuse says you are the one of limited age and intellect. Not anyone else.

The term 'ignorant' is also far more germane to someone whose only capacity for judging players or situations seems to rest on geography.

I couldn't care less where people live or come from when determining how good or bad they are at cricket. But, for you, it appears it's the one and only factor.

 

[Keys]

Of course he didn't.

Just like he doesn't seem to know that McKay was bowling to the #10 and #11, for gawd's sake, for much of the period he is getting himself all worked up about.

McKay was awful last night and, tbh, I'm not sure why anyone would be silly enough to argue something different.

I didn't see the end of the game but I just looked through the commentary on cricinfo - of McKays last three overs he bowled 10 balls to Matthews for 11 runs and 8 balls to the tail for 5 runs and a wicket. The commentary doesn't provide a description of which balls were slower but did make a comment at one stage that the Sri lankans were getting confused by his slow balls

Seems to me he did a reasonable job under the circumstances but I do wonder like others in this thread as to why we don't bowl more Yorkers at the death

 

[Underarm]

well lets see. rule of thumb is. that tailenders swing at everything pitched up and short ball and they usually struggle to keep out the yorker. just like last night and many games before with australia in it. every other nation uses the yorker perfectly at the death in odi cricket. australia don't use it at all and look what happens

Angelo Mathews isn't the tail though. He would be in their top 3 or 4 batsmen.

I guess that's why we've been ranked no.1 in the world for years in ODI cricket and they're not.
No.. wait...

Exactly. Play to your strengths. McKay was pretty good at the death on Friday. Made starc look really bad....

 

[dan warna]

jeez starc isn't a great but he isn't bowling the rubbish he was on his first couple of test outings.

I'm not a fan of his jumping cutting, but I think he'll be there abouts.

I don't think he deserves to be selected ahead of a few others but there you go.

Faulkner I think is the bowler we need in the ODI's <shrug>

 

[damochandler]

the point is. this team doesn't know how to knock the tail off quick enough. every other team does. australia wold rather use spinners when the tail gets in and refuse to bowl yorkers. back when they were number 1 for so long as someone has put. they ripped through the tail every time. it's cost us tests and one dayers over the lasr 5 years

 

[Underarm]

the point is. this team doesn't know how to knock the tail off quick enough. every other team does. australia wold rather use spinners when the tail gets in and refuse to bowl yorkers. back when they were number 1 for so long as someone has put. they ripped through the tail every time. it's cost us tests and one dayers over the lasr 5 years

In ODI's we are still no. 1 side...By a loooooooooong way.