Sport The Hangar Cricket Thread IV

[BrunoV]

Handscombe is stiff but selectors cannot indefinitely persist with young players who get selected because they make a few big scores at the right time (as was the case for Handscombe, Renshaw and Bancroft). It's not the same as giving an experienced player with a first class average of 47-50 the time to work his way through a lean patch. Hayden, Langer and Martyn all spent long periods on the sidelines following initial selection as test players.

It doesn't help that Handscombe's technique looks shot to pieces. I doubt it is anyone other than Victorians who are going to miss him. The problem for him becomes the freeze on first class cricket for the next 8 - 10 weeks but, again, that's no reason to keep him in the side.

Whether Marsh is the proper replacement remains to be seen. He's averaging 48 runs per innings or 68 per wicket across both forms of the game this year while batting at 4. Not amazing numbers (given that he's helped by a lot of not outs in the one day game) but solid enough.

Again, if you're not Victorian are you really looking at Maxwell as any more reliable at 5? I doubt it though he's been pretty solid in the last 12 months of Shield cricket. The obvious appeal of Marsh is that if he can get his batting right they've got another 192cm quick who can bowl around 140km once he is fully fit and that's clearly what this selection is about.

These speculative decisions will keep repeating themselves until a few batsmen (other than Cowan) can get their s**t together and mount a real case for selection.

 

[eth-dog]

Are you saying they should be making changes for the sake of making changes?
That should replace a batsman with someone who they perceive as a weaker player just because they lost?
That's called results based thinking and it's not a good thing

When plan A fails, you go to plan B. Plan A from Australia didn't work re: Hank, so they went to plan B.

AA's definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results.

 

[Yoda_]

Handscombe is stiff but selectors cannot indefinitely persist with young players who get selected because they make a few big scores at the right time (as was the case for Handscombe, Renshaw and Bancroft). It's not the same as giving an experienced player with a first class average of 47-50 the time to work his way through a lean patch. Hayden, Langer and Martyn all spent long periods on the sidelines following initial selection as test players.

It doesn't help that Handscombe's technique looks shot to pieces. I doubt it is anyone other than Victorians who are going to miss him. The problem for him becomes the freeze on first class cricket for the next 8 - 10 weeks but, again, that's no reason to keep him in the side.

Whether Marsh is the proper replacement remains to be seen. He's averaging 48 runs per innings or 68 per wicket across both forms of the game this year while batting at 4. Not amazing numbers (given that he's helped by a lot of not outs in the one day game) but solid enough.

Again, if you're not Victorian are you really looking at Maxwell as any more reliable at 5? I doubt it though he's been pretty solid in the last 12 months of Shield cricket. The obvious appeal of Marsh is that if he can get his batting right they've got another 192cm quick who can bowl around 140km once he is fully fit and that's clearly what this selection is about.

These speculative decisions will keep repeating themselves until a few batsmen (other than Cowan) can get their s**t together and mount a real case for selection.

Cant think of any guys who have played or been around the test side (as batsmen) other than Joe Burns who hasn't exactly gone back to FC level and put in 1000+ run shield seasons.

 

[BrunoV]

Every now and then Hazlewood bowls spells on pitches where the conditions are even just good, as opposed to being favourable, that indicate that he is not really a McGrath clone as much as he is the new and improved model. Amazing control and stamina but in a more powerful body and capable of consistently bowling in the mid-to-low 140s.

But in standard Australian conditions these days he doesn't seem to have the penetration required to consistently take bags of wickets.

I've heard a few discussions in the last few weeks in which there was always the conclusion that he would never be as good as McGrath but I don't think that it has anything to do with the players. If Hazlewood struggles for penetration in Australian conditions it's pretty clear that McGrath would have the same problem.

 

[eth-dog]

Cant think of any guys who have played or been around the test side (as batsmen) other than Joe Burns who hasn't exactly gone back to FC level and put in 1000+ run shield seasons.

He's made nearly 500 runs this season already

 

[Yoda_]

Every now and then Hazlewood bowls spells on pitches where the conditions are even just good, as opposed to being favourable, that indicate that he is not really a McGrath clone as much as he is the new and improved model. Amazing control and stamina but in a more powerful body and capable of consistently bowling in the mid-to-low 140s.

But in standard Australian conditions these days he doesn't seem to have the penetration required to consistently take bags of wickets.

I've heard a few discussions in the last few weeks in which there was always the conclusion that he would never be as good as McGrath but I don't think that it has anything to do with the players. If Hazlewood struggles for penetration in Australian conditions it's pretty clear that McGrath would have the same problem.

Hazelwood is no where near as penetrating as McGrath, seems to be able to bowl more 'wicket taking' balls though. That little nip off the pitch, sideways through the air (although that wasn't really McGrath's main fortay) to catch the edge.

McGrath had terrific patience, something no fast bowler today or the near future will have. Bowled that 4/4.5 stump line that forced batsmen to play. Hazelwood bowls too wide

 

[Yoda_]

He's made nearly 500 runs this season already

Back to back, as in make 1000 upon 1000 run seasons.

In the glory days of the 90's we had blokes like Hodge, Elliott, Lehman took years to break consistently into the test team, Martin Love etc. who nearly always had 1000 run FC seasons.

Australian cricket right now doesn't.

 

[BrunoV]

Hazelwood is no where near as penetrating as McGrath, seems to be able to bowl more 'wicket taking' balls though. That little nip off the pitch, sideways through the air (although that wasn't really McGrath's main fortay) to catch the edge.

McGrath had terrific patience, something no fast bowler today or the near future will have. Bowled that 4/4.5 stump line that forced batsmen to play. Hazelwood bowls too wide

That's kind of the point.

You haven't identified a point of difference between Hazlewood and McGrath that can't be explained by the conditions in a context in which Hazlewood's economy indicates that he is as similar to McGrath as the obvious comparison makes out.

 

[Yoda_]

The point of difference was McGrath's unreliance on conditions to bowl well.

He averaged under 25 against every country he played against (bar south africa which was still a miserly 27.33).

His average IN India (21.30) stacks up against the very best of all time.



Don't see Hazelwood boring batsmen out, even in todays gung ho, throw your wicket away when required helter skelter form of test match cricket.

 

[Doss]

I see Hazlewood as something of a blend of McGrath and McDermott.

 

[BrunoV]

The point of difference was McGrath's unreliance on conditions to bowl well.

He averaged under 25 against every country he played against (bar south africa which was still a miserly 27.33).

His average IN India (21.30) stacks up against the very best of all time.



Don't see Hazelwood boring batsmen out, even in todays gung ho, throw your wicket away when required helter skelter form of test match cricket.

I love the idea that McGrath 'bored' batsmen out. Which one of the bunnies, captains and top 5 batsmen in the world who he dominated actually hung around long enough to be bored? What usually happened is that the Laras and Tendulkars were destroyed while the series was in dispute and then got their s**t sorted when series were over which had the added benefit of padding out their averages in Australia.
If they were bored they must have had seriously short attention spans.

McGrath bowled an immaculate line and length and could coax just enough movement to be dangerous. Hazlewood bowls the 'boring' line and length and he does it for long periods. It's supported by his economy rates sitting well below 3 for many of the innings he's bowled in Australia in the last few seasons. No two bowlers are the same and they do have slightly different strengths. I reckon that what we are seeing now is that if a bowler can't consistently bowl in the 140s that he won't get enough help from pitches and conditions to be a huge wicket taker.

It's why the selections have had reservations about Sayers whose records is ridiculously good. The test pitches are usually nothing like the Shield ones and he doesn't have the pace to be a threat unless the ball in new. Philander is a good case in point. Would probably be one of the all time greats if he played 10 years earlier, and his still might be. He averages 22 across his career but averages 30 in Australia. An average of 30 for a bowler of his ability against some of the weaker teams we have had says a lot.

 

[Yoda_]

I love the idea that McGrath 'bored' batsmen out. Which one of the bunnies, captains and top 5 batsmen in the world who he dominated actually hung around long enough to be bored? What usually happened is that the Laras and Tendulkars were destroyed while the series was in dispute and then got their s**t sorted when series were over which had the added benefit of padding out their averages in Australia.
If they were bored they must have had seriously short attention spans.

McGrath bowled an immaculate line and length and could coax just enough movement to be dangerous. Hazlewood bowls the 'boring' line and length and he does it for long periods. It's supported by his economy rates sitting well below 3 for many of the innings he's bowled in Australia in the last few seasons. No two bowlers are the same and they do have slightly different strengths. I reckon that what we are seeing now is that if a bowler can't consistently bowl in the 140s that he won't get enough help from pitches and conditions to be a huge wicket taker.

It's why the selections have had reservations about Sayers whose records is ridiculously good. The test pitches are usually nothing like the Shield ones and he doesn't have the pace to be a threat unless the ball in new. Philander is a good case in point. Would probably be one of the all time greats if he played 10 years earlier, and his still might be. He averages 22 across his career but averages 30 in Australia. An average of 30 for a bowler of his ability against some of the weaker teams we have had says a lot.

Think you are missing my point that Hazelwood's line and length is perennially 5th/6th stump line, McGrath's was off stump angling past 4th stump which forced batsmen to play more often than not which is what separates Hazelwood from McGrath imho.

 

[Doss]

Think you are missing my point that Hazelwood's line and length is perennially 5th/6th stump line, McGrath's was off stump angling past 4th stump which forced batsmen to play more often than not which is what separates Hazelwood from McGrath imho.

I don't think Hazlewood bowls as wide as you say he does.

I just don't think he has quite the same metronome capability. He's still something of a metronome, however not in the McGrath class of one.

Which is no slight, for there's probably never been someone who was more accurate than McGrath.

 

[Stopher]

I don't think Hazlewood bowls as wide as you say he does.

I just don't think he has quite the same metronome capability. He's still something of a metronome, however not in the McGrath class of one.

Which is no slight, for there's probably never been someone who was more accurate than McGrath.

Maybe Sir Curtly. Maybe. As you say though, no slight at all, as we are talking absolutely top-shelf bowlers.

 

[Howard Moon]

speaking of bowlers - I was on a you tube tangent the other day and was looking at fast balls.

top 5 fastest balls to be precise

Akthar- 161.3
Tait- 161.1
Lee- 161.1
Thommo- 160.6
Starc- 160.4

do you think we have maxed out? reached the peak speed a human can bowl at?

I believe a full toss will always be faster, physics would have any ball slow as it pitches. What if they had a pitch and a set of stumps and a speed gun, no match conditions, how much faster could a bloke go, if at all?

 

[eth-dog]

speaking of bowlers - I was on a you tube tangent the other day and was looking at fast balls.

top 5 fastest balls to be precise

Akthar- 161.3
Tait- 161.1
Lee- 161.1
Thommo- 160.6
Starc- 160.4

do you think we have maxed out? reached the peak speed a human can bowl at?

I believe a full toss will always be faster, physics would have any ball slow as it pitches. What if they had a pitch and a set of stumps and a speed gun, no match conditions, how much faster could a bloke go, if at all?

The speed gun is measured out of the hand

 

[Stopher]

In other news, South Africa will re-gain AB De Villiers and Dale Steyn from injury lay-offs in time to play Australia in March.

Suddenly their XI looks very strong indeed. Should be a cracker of a series, unlike the Ashes!

 

[Yoda_]

In other news, South Africa will re-gain AB De Villiers and Dale Steyn from injury lay-offs in time to play Australia in March.

Suddenly their XI looks very strong indeed. Should be a cracker of a series, unlike the Ashes!

Good!

Would be such a shame to not see us take on AB De Villiers one more time. Bloke should go down as one of the best Proteas ever.

 

[eth-dog]

South Africa have been a bit strange recently, they've been trying to bat Philander in the top 7.

I think they need to play Dwaine Pretorius against us as that #7 if they want 4 seamers (averages 40 with the bat and 23 with the ball in FC cricket) as I'm not sure if Philander is good enough to do so against stronger nations like us or England.

 

[Doss]

speaking of bowlers - I was on a you tube tangent the other day and was looking at fast balls.

top 5 fastest balls to be precise

Akthar- 161.3
Tait- 161.1
Lee- 161.1
Thommo- 160.6
Starc- 160.4

do you think we have maxed out? reached the peak speed a human can bowl at?

I believe a full toss will always be faster, physics would have any ball slow as it pitches. What if they had a pitch and a set of stumps and a speed gun, no match conditions, how much faster could a bloke go, if at all?

Thommo's 160.6 was:

a) recorded a long time ago, with technology probably not as accurate as today's
b) after his back injury. He was almost certainly faster prior to this

I don't buy that Thommo was off the scale quicker though, say 175-180 as some people claim. Maybe he got to 165 or so though.

 

[Howard Moon]

Thommo's 160.6 was:

a) recorded a long time ago, with technology probably not as accurate as today's
b) after his back injury. He was almost certainly faster prior to this

I don't buy that Thommo was off the scale quicker though, say 175-180 as some people claim. Maybe he got to 165 or so though.

Maybe its like the 100m sprint though, eventually they keep breaking through time points - be it by drugs or technique or equipment, or just general human evolution?

but have we capped bowling fast at say 161? is that peak human behavior?

I wonder in ten years will it still be 161? or will 165 be the new cap

 

[Doss]

I think physics and the normal bounds of human strength, but mostly physics, dictate that it will be very unlikely that the cap will really change.

 

[Howard Moon]

I think physics and the normal bounds of human strength, but mostly physics, dictate that it will be very unlikely that the cap will really change.

Seems the quickest bowlers are all 'slingers' rather than brute strength front on types or metronome types. Maybe by virture of that style slingers are less likely to make it to the top level anyway because they are prone to more inaccuracy? (huge generalization) as well as different strains on the body affecting durability.

 

[eth-dog]

Seems the quickest bowlers are all 'slingers' rather than brute strength front on types or metronome types. Maybe by virture of that style slingers are less likely to make it to the top level anyway because they are prone to more inaccuracy? (huge generalization) as well as different strains on the body affecting durability.

Brett Lee wasn't exactly a slinging type, he had a very proper action.

 

[Howard Moon]

Brett Lee wasn't exactly a slinging type, he had a very proper action.

maybe he was a hybrind, he was pretty proper but looking form the side view he had a sling, hence the chuck calls from some