Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 81,426
- 81,975
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
They need a stadium with a roof in Sydney.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They need a stadium with a roof in Sydney.
The figure descrepency was somewhat surprising in an Australian Summer ......but given the difficulty of getting day/night Tests to be universally accepted ....the roof maybe a longtime comingThey need a stadium with a roof in Sydney.
It's not that surprising. Sydney & Brisbane both have sub-tropical climates, with a lot of summer rain. Brisbane loses relatively few days because it has historically hosted the 1st test of the season, which is usually early enough to escape the wetter weather.The figure descrepency was somewhat surprising in an Australian Summer ......but given the difficulty of getting day/night Tests to be universally accepted ....the roof maybe a longtime coming
To be fair, most of the criticisms have been around their selections of those "known quantities" - Marsh x2 & Finch. Very few people have criticised them for selecting Harris, Head, or Handscombe.The selectors are getting criticised heavily (and rightly so in some instances) but I'm yet to see consensus from any two experts/former players about who we should pick.
There's not an obvious Best XI by any stretch. The selectors have a difficult job.
However, while searching for the players who will take us forward and help the team improve you cannot afford to waste time on things you already know won't work.
Marcus Harris as opener is a good risk to take. He has had some first class success. He actually opens the batting. Reasonable technique.
No one knows how he'll fare going in as a newbie but there is at least a chance it will be a successful move.
Aaron Finch opening though we already know from his entire career of red ball cricket will be a failure. There's no possibility that anything else will happen.
Likewise Mitch Marsh. He's had 21 tests, so plenty of time. Looks like he has the tools in a Brett Chalmers sort of way. But, like Chalmers, he actually doesn't produce the goods. Picking him is a guaranteed failure.
So of the four or five actual selection decisions the selectors had to make this summer they had no possibility of success with half of them.
Given it's always a risk picking a largely unknown/untested player (Head, Handscomb) and they might end up fails too you cannot afford to waste opportunities.
Sorry, but no, they're not.Every side in world cricket is terrible away.
If.It may have affected the result of the Adelaide test. If Australia won in Adelaide, then the final result would have been 2-1 our way - a thoroughly undeserved series win, by (arguably) the worst Australian Test team ever.
That's the whole point of this particular discussion... how things may have been different if Paine didn't lose 3 of the 4 coin tosses.If.
"Would have been" does not count.
If Australia had won all 4 Tests, the result would have been 4-0 <== but I see no use at all in that kind of speculation, after the event.
We got done 2-1 by a very good side.
So accepting all this .....shouldn't the ACA be rescheduling the Sydney Test ?It's not that surprising. Sydney & Brisbane both have sub-tropical climates, with a lot of summer rain. Brisbane loses relatively few days because it has historically hosted the 1st test of the season, which is usually early enough to escape the wetter weather.
Perth has the weather which Sydney wishes it had (and tells the world it has), with blue skies almost every day during summer.
There's more to consider when planning the test match scheduling. The weather barely comes into it.So accepting all this .....shouldn't the ACA be rescheduling the Sydney Test ?
a) the financial impost of a game being rained out is significant ......I would imagine the TV stations have some claw back funds as well, if there's nothing to televiseThere's more to consider when planning the test match scheduling. The weather barely comes into it.
Yes, Sydney has now lost 25 full days, but it's been hosting Tests since 1882, so it's still only losing 1 full day every 6-7 years.
Traditionally, Brisbane has hosted the 1st test match of the series. That changed this season for 2 reasons. Firstly, the Brisbane crowds have been poor, and Adelaide & Perth have both gone past it as "premier" venues. Secondly, the Indians refused to play the season opener on a bouncy deck, preferring Adelaide where the batting conditions are more similar to Indian grounds.
Sydney is still Australia's most populous and international city. The Sydney test is well supported by the paying public, and the tradition of playing the New Years test there goes back a long way. The weather really is the only reason for stripping them of their premium position on the schedule (i.e. the New Years Test Match), and the weather really isn't that strong an argument.
Here's some climate info for Sydney:a) the financial impost of a game being rained out is significant ......I would imagine the TV stations have some claw back funds as well, if there's nothing to televise
b) Following on point a) .....good crowd support is irrelevant, if no-one's playing
c) Tradition is important .....but remember the rain could have prevented us from levelling the series & denying India their first Series win on Australian soil
****** I want to emphasise that in no-way am i suggesting there was a chance of us winning .....but B4 the game started, it could have ended any hope
South Africans, yes. The Indians haven't been that great away prior to this series. And even this series, against one of the worst Australian teams in history, they could certainly have lost other tests if the toss hadn't gone their way. We gloss over the fact they were 8 for 100 in the second innings of a test, and what kept them in the game was getting to bat for two days on a road.Sorry, but no, they're not.
The Indians were very good to win this series 2-1.
The South Africans are pretty good away as well.
I suspect then the same climate applies to Brisbane .....I'm already on record as saying the Test series is too sandwiched .....start the Test Series earlier & make the Sydney test either first or 2nd test with Brisbane .....no good having traditions when the game doesn't get played ......Brisbane seems to escape a lot of rain, albeit with their climate, the grounds also dry out very quicklyHere's some climate info for Sydney:
On average, they have 12.7 rainy days in October, 11.2 in December, 12.3 in January, and 12.9 in February. The driest months are from June to September.
When do you propose to hold the Sydney test?
So despite the fact sides are so terrible away we still needed to win the toss to win a test match?Every side in world cricket is terrible away.
A couple of different results at the toss, and India could have lost this series to a historically terrible team.
I’ve worked out who you remind me of, Rowey. He too is quick to defend the sporting teams/sportspeople he supports whilst he’s negative against those he doesn’t.Every side in world cricket is terrible away.
A couple of different results at the toss, and India could have lost this series to a historically terrible team.
Funnily enough Gideon Haigh has pretty much said the same thing.I’ve worked out who you remind me of, Rowey. He too is quick to defend the sporting teams/sportspeople he supports whilst he’s negative against those he doesn’t.
You both do it by making statements that aren’t overly accurate.
Who is Gideon Haigh?Funnily enough Gideon Haigh has pretty much said the same thing.
As long as the series loss was the last we ever see of Shaun Marsh, it was worth it.
Who is Gideon Haigh?
Arguably Australia's biggest cricket nerd with his knowledge of the game.Who is Gideon Haigh?
Yeeeaaaah ... BUT they didn't. Plus, they won the series 2-1 in actual fact, and dominated every major statistic along the way wrt to batting and bowling (have a look:And even this series, against one of the worst Australian teams in history, they could certainly have lost other tests if the toss hadn't gone their way.
This!!!I think the pitches in Melbourne and Sydney hurt us more than the toss. Our batsmen are incapable of reaching a competent total even on the flattest of decks, but those conditions were a lot friendlier for the Indians. We should stick to producing wickets which give the bowlers some assistance, like in Adelaide and Perth.
1) Equally, it may not. Australia might have been rolled for 80 etc etc etc but that didn't happen, either.1) It may have affected the result of the Adelaide test. 2) If Australia won in Adelaide, then the final result would have been 2-1 our way - a thoroughly undeserved series win, by (arguably) the worst Australian Test team ever.