Endless Summer of Cricket

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vader said:
Gotta be happy with this lineup.
Click to expand...
Certainly a better squad than the last one.
Wade's omission puzzles me. Clearly they're sticking with Labuschagne whose bowling in Test 4 was understandably nervous and expensive.
VERY happy to see no Marshes. Time will tell if Pucovski is an inspired choice.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

CrowBloke said:
Certainly a better squad than the last one.
Wade's omission puzzles me. Clearly they're sticking with Labuschagne whose bowling in Test 4 was understandably nervous and expensive.
VERY happy to see no Marshes. Time will tell if Pucovski is an inspired choice.
Click to expand...
Trevor Hohns clearly sees him only as a wicketkeeper/batsman, and they already have one of those. He wants to see Wade batting higher up the order (for Tasmania) before he'll consider selecting him purely as a batsman.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/crick...a/news-story/a88afed3e9f91cbd6b10728121878077

Personally, I think Wade is being omitted because of his connection to the old cricket culture. They just don't think he's capable of being part of the new culture, where they actually play the game according to the rules.
 
Vader said:
Trevor Hohns clearly sees him only as a wicketkeeper/batsman, and they already have one of those. He wants to see Wade batting higher up the order (for Tasmania) before he'll consider selecting him purely as a batsman.
https://www.news.com.au/sport/crick...a/news-story/a88afed3e9f91cbd6b10728121878077

Personally, I think Wade is being omitted because of his connection to the old cricket culture. They just don't think he's capable of being part of the new culture, where they actually play the game according to the rules.
Click to expand...
It kind of puzzles me, where you talk about old culture and unable to change according to the rules. Do you think ball tampering is easy to do in today’s modern era of cameras and social media? In the aftermath of Smith/Warner fiasco, one would need to be a complete idiot if he is attempting to do more sandpaper/material handling on a cricket ball!
 
Vader said:
How many times have I stated that Australia winning would have been "a travesty of justice", or words to that effect?

Did Australia deserve to win the series? Hell no. India comprehensively outplayed Australia, particularly in Sydney & Melbourne. That doesn't alter the fact that the series may well have been decided by the coin toss in Adelaide.
Click to expand...

Risking a permaban, I quote Bicks

"Ifs, buts and candy nuts!"
 
FR0GGY said:
No marshes! Burns, Renshaw and Pucovski in!
Click to expand...
About bloody time!

These would have been better selections for the Indian series as we already knew the Marshes are duds, Finch isn't a red ball opener & both Queenslanders were unlucky to be dropped in the first place.
 
Vader said:
I've just realised that there is one downside to the axing of MMarsh. He'll probably never be able to regain his title, as the worst #6 batsman in the history of test match cricket. Doh!
Click to expand...
I can live with that...
 
Elite Crow said:
Oh such a witty reply. I’ve picked up your biased hypocritical garbage plenty, now it seems you’d like me to do it more.

India played disciplined good cricket. Their batters were patient and didn’t throw away their wickets. Their bowlers again were accurate and maintained the pressure. Their bowlers moved the ball when ours couldnt.

Our batsmen weren’t getting out to unplayable bowling they were getting out because of rash s**t shot making. Our bowlers were pedestrian.

Rain saved us from going down 3-1.

Talk India down as much as you want to protect our own, but that’s exactly what Rowey does, so if the shoe fits.
Click to expand...
Sorry - how many times have I posted about how embarrassing our team was? Maybe a dozen times?

Read what I actually say before you start to dribble s**t.

India were good. But Kholi only averaged 40, and they were 8-100 in Melbourne, which showed how vulnerable their batting was once they were on a pitch that gave the bowlers some help.

Our pitches were mediocre, and India got the run of the decks being true in Adelaide and Melbourne.

I'm sick of the media breaking their arm trying to beat India off, when things could have been different. We did everything we could to guarantee our side would lose, from naming a s**t lineup to not presenting fast pitches.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Kristof said:
Sorry - how many times have I posted about how embarrassing our team was? Maybe a dozen times?

Read what I actually say before you start to dribble s**t.

India were good. But Kholi only averaged 40, and they were 8-100 in Melbourne, which showed how vulnerable their batting was once they were on a pitch that gave the bowlers some help.

Our pitches were mediocre, and India got the run of the decks being true in Adelaide and Melbourne.

I'm sick of the media breaking their arm trying to beat India off, when things could have been different. We did everything we could to guarantee our side would lose, from naming a s**t lineup to not presenting fast pitches.
Click to expand...
Why are you sick of the media praising India? That’s something Rowey would say.
 
Kristof said:
India was 8-100 in the Melbourne test.

It was incredibly easy to bat on for two days and incredibly hard for three, once the pitch had dried out.

It was terrible groundskeeping, and a horrendous toss to lose.

Australia could have easily won Adelaide and Melbourne, with a different result at the toss.

And that doesn't change the fact we were embarrassingly bad.
Click to expand...
They were pretty much swinging the bat around looking for quick runs as they probably should have followed on.
8-100 meant bugger all.

Sent from my MI PAD 4 using Tapatalk
 
Dixie Normous said:
Is Will Pucovski the first Pole to play for Australia?
Click to expand...
o_O ... say what now?
Emojis are your friend and would help to explain your intention behind such a weird question.
My birth-surname has 12 letters and ends in -ski, but I was born in Oz to post-WW2 European parents.
I'm Australian and am ferociously pro-Australian and patriotic to the core.
Pucovski was born in Oz, too, so your question edited should be:
"Is Will Pucovski the first Australian to play for Australia?", to which the answer is clearly NO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I smell bullshit in this:
"“If Matthew wants to be considered as a straight-out batsman it would be nice to see him batting a little higher up for Tasmania and that conversation has been had,” Hohns said. "
(https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricke...-message-as-marshes-axed-20190109-p50qeo.html).
In-form Wade could bat at #6 and bat well with any of the remaining Top 5 batsmen, or Tim Paine at 7, and/or the tailenders if necessary. Vader said above:
Vader said:
I think Wade is being omitted because of his connection to the old cricket culture. They just don't think he's capable of being part of the new culture, where they actually play the game according to the rules.
Click to expand...
I don't recall Wade being a personally abusive line-crosser or rule-stretcher, but Vader might be right.
 
CrowBloke said:
o_O ... say what now?
Emojis are your friend and would help to explain your intention behind such a weird question.
My birth-surname has 12 letters and ends in -ski, but I was born in Oz to post-WW2 European parents.
I'm Australian and am ferociously pro-Australian and patriotic to the core.
Pucovski was born in Oz, too, so your question edited should be:
"Is Will Pucovski the first Australian to play for Australia?", to which the answer is clearly NO.
Click to expand...

I was born in the 20th century and I don't live with mother, hence I don't use 'emojis'
 
treeman said:
They were pretty much swinging the bat around looking for quick runs as they probably should have followed on.
8-100 meant bugger all.

Sent from my MI PAD 4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Exactly, they didn’t have a care factor and it was their only poor innings of the series.
 
Elite Crow said:
Why are you sick of the media praising India? That’s something Rowey would say.
Click to expand...
Because we were incredibly bad, and still the toss of the coin a couple of times could have changed results.

Keep up, you've got to get better at reading. I'd start with Gideon Haigh.
 
treeman said:
They were pretty much swinging the bat around looking for quick runs as they probably should have followed on.
8-100 meant bugger all.

Sent from my MI PAD 4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Bull.

s**t.

Pant was the only batsmen who swung the bat that innings. The rest struggled with the ball doing more and having inconsistent bounce.

They were 5-86 in Adelaide and 8-100 in Melbourne. Both if those tests were very winnable, except we ****ed it up.
 
Elite Crow said:
Exactly, they didn’t have a care factor and it was their only poor innings of the series.
Click to expand...
Completely wrong. Do you even watch cricket?

They had a run rate of 2.8 runs an over, you complete fool.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Competitions Crouch's Lock of the Week Game
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
5K
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top