Remove this Banner Ad

Pakistan vs Australia (in the UAE)

  • Thread starter Thread starter ioppolo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Definitely, but only because he was a keeper as well. He probably could have held down number 4 but I doubt he would have averaged 47 doing so. Was definitely favoured by coming in at 7.

If he wasn't a keeper and batted #4, I reckon his average would've been 50+.
 
Was great stuff to watch!

Although I can belt a century in Don Bradman Cricket in 21 balls :D :oops:
Top score of 80 :(

Misbah puts my DBC efforts to shame :p:oops:
 
Misbah Ul-Haq what an absolute gun!

After all the question marks on his ODI position, he blasts a 21 ball fifty, amazing stuff!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Should open with Maxwell and Warner with Smith and Marsh coming in after and try and chase the runs down.

Marsh isn't normally that quick a scorer. Career FC strike rate of 52
 
Exactly Lyon or any other night watchman don't deserve to bat at three as these so called "batsman", we have in the team should go and do what their paid to do. Honestly at moment, it really doesn't matter who bats at three or any other position for that matter because none of them are deserving of their batting positions at the moment, let alone being in the team. Every single one of them have been pathetic to put it nicely. 1 hundred and only 3 or 4 50's in two tests is terrible batting, when compared to the Pakistan batting or just in general. Especially when 1 of those 50's came from Mitchell Johnson.

Lyon and Rogers are the only two of our batsmen (and let's face it, in our team the bowlers pull more than their weight regularly with the bat) who are temperamentally suited to not getting bored when not playing shots. Which is useful quality in a number 3. So I had no problems with seeing him there.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Oh come on, you don't pick your batsmen because they've kept at some point.

About Johnson, he must be completely knackered, he bowled a shitpile of overs in the first test.
Which begs the question, why exactly did we select Maxwell?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Oh come on, you don't pick your batsmen because they've kept at some point.

About Johnson, he must be completely knackered, he bowled a shitpile of overs in the first test.

We selected Maxwell over Hughes because of his bowling right?
 
Well I got to watch the Aussies beat the Barbarians at Twickenham yesterday in a fine, fast-running game and Warriors are doing well against Tassie at the WACA, so I can just about stomach the shenanigans going on in the UAE. Withouth those two things, I might feel a little differently.
 
Starc is one of the least threatening bowlers I've ever seen. I don't know how he's a test level bowler. He has no aggression at all.
 
Well I got to watch the Aussies beat the Barbarians at Twickenham yesterday in a fine, fast-running game and Warriors are doing well against Tassie at the WACA, so I can just about stomach the shenanigans going on in the UAE. Withouth those two things, I might feel a little differently.

Coulter-Nile is bowling well
 
We selected Maxwell over Hughes because of his bowling right?

Maxwell was always going to be chosen before Hughes as he's better against spin, or that's what I would have thought. I thought they should have kept the same team as the first test, but hey, result probably would have been the same anyway.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom