Australia vs. Sri Lanka - 1st Test - Jan 2019

[PT Bar None]

Like crack addicts, CA Selectors can't resist one more hit of that sweet, sweet all-rounder

 

[LukeParkerno1]

At least it’s not Marsh that’s a positive

 

[swanssince2002]

They must have been giddy seeing Holder score 200 a day ago and they think Stoinis can be that guy.... smh. Talk about overreacting.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Inb4 Patterson gets dropped for Stoinis and never gets back because he "didn't make the most of his chance".

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

Clearly a CA conspiracy to prevent the Stars from winning the BBL.

 

[PT Bar None]

At least we know now why Warney repeats himself incessantly. Because it works.



From his perspective anyway

 

[carnthemlions]

I recall Haze being bog average in England, bowled too short too often. Also thought he was largely lacklustre against India.

Richardson is perfectly suited to the conditions and I’d comfortably pick him ahead of Starc or Haze.

His main issue in England was that he couldn't control the swing.

 

[Richard Pryor]

So sick of reading ‘if conditions dictate we need a 5th bowler’. He only batter you could drop from that side is Burns and if they do it should be for Pucovski. If the 4 frontline bowlers can’t take the 20 wickets then what makes anyone think a batting all-rounder who is more suited to white ball cricket is going to get it done? Thought we already had Labuschagne to chip in with some overs if needed anyway.

This all-rounder fetish is beyond a joke!

And on the other end of the spectrum, if your bowling can beat a team by an innings with a lead under 200 in 50 overs what makes you think you're going to need a fifth bowler as insurance?

 

[gordo2016]

Taking predictions now. At what time in Canberra will Warne say "Stoinis really brings something to the table."

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

Ok, I get their thinking. Manuka is traditionally a road so you might need an extra seamer to give our primary seamers a rest.

But this is Sri Lanka. And no offense to Sri Lanka but they're in all sorts at the moment. Why would this bowling attack need a rest after finishing a test in two and a half days?

I swear these selectors are braindead.

This stinks of Warnie's influence and if selectors are being influenced by outside sources, that is corruption.

 

[ROOTA#6]

Hope Warne isn't commentating at Canberra as things could get messy in the commentary box.

As many have said...we bowled these bastards out both times for under 150 and in bugger all overs...Lyon hardly bowled....WE DONT NEED AN ALL ROUNDER

 

[swanssince2002]

Warnie after Stoinis gets out: Gee that was the best 9 runs I have ever seen in my life.

 

[The Casey Cat]

Yep, I've seen enough of this kid to see he is hungry as hell and incredibly skilled. A breath of fresh air.

Bowled more threatening and lively deliveries in his first spell against Sri Lanka than Starc did the entire series v India.

 

[DaRick]

The fetishistic obsession our selectors have with an all-rounder has done much more harm than good to AUS cricket in recent times.

RE the match just gone, I will note that Cummins/Richardson bowled fuller lengths than Hazlewood/Cummins/Starc did against India. As well as he bowled at times I thought Cummins bowled a little bit too short against the Indians on the whole - here, he used the short ball to set up the batsmen before enticing the drive. Richardson on the other hand didn't bowl as many short deliveries (instead pitching it up and getting the edge) but instead varied his position on the crease more. I don't remember Hazlewood doing that against India and Hazlewood also tried to bowl too fast and short IMO.

I have defended Starc for a long while because of his left-arm variety and his tendency to strike early, but he's looked more ragged as the summer has progressed. He isn't swinging the ball like he used to because IMO his wrist position isn't quite right. I wouldn't be opposed to 1) have him sit out the next Test and 2) have someone like Wasim Akram or even Bollinger (who swung the ball fairly consistently in his time) working with him over the next few months.

 

[Lynnsanity]

Who’d have thought that in 2019 (14 years after the 2005 Ashes) that Andrew Flintoff would still be causing panic amongst the Australian Selectors [emoji848]

 

[Nel_cats]

It was interesting to see Paine talk about him. Basically said 'we know he can be erratic sometimes but when he's on he's the best bowler in the world'. Also added that they use the other three bowlers as the accurate/consistent options and bring in starc as the x-factor.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Funny thing is though, in 2013 (they also played Pattinson and Faulkner in a couple tests in that series), the bowlers were definitely not the issue for Australia, it was the batting that was. Harris in particular was sensational in that 2013 series.

Yes, the batting was shite, and Harris was awesome but Johnson could always win us at least one test match whenever he played in the Ashes.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I don't think bowlers with slingy side arm-ish actions are meant to be new ball bowlers because it's a bit hard to be accurate with that action and accuracy is by far the most important thing when it comes to new ball bowling. Slingy bowlers like Starc and MJ with almost a catapult like action are meant to be intimidating, to get that ball bouncing into the arm pit of the batsman.

Generally bowlers with nice high arm actions get the most movement out of the ball. I think he's struggling to find his radar in the good length and it would be better if he's used as a first change bowler and instructed to do a specific role, the one MJ did in that famous Ashes. Be the intimidator in that attack because he has got the most pace out of all the Australian bowlers. Of course, it's easier said than done.

Harris and Johnson were the new ball bowlers for that Ashes. Harris was very important as it made Johnson feel that he wasn't leading the attack and that suited his temperament.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

That seriously reads like a joke post. The amount of times they've pulled the "maybe we'll just go with 6 batsman from now on" line and then retract it within a Test or two is getting beyond ridiculous. Also there's no one to leave out without it being yet another player who plays 1-2 Tests and then gets the axe before we actually find out if they're Test quality or not. Are we seriously picking an all-rounder to account for the fact that Starc is useless at the moment?

You really have to laugh.

 

[Ohitsthatguy]

Are we seriously picking an all-rounder to account for the fact that Starc is useless at the moment?

They're picking an all-rounder because Manuka is road.

But it makes no sense. Our quicks aren't tired. Very light workload this test. They're not going to struggle against Sri Lanka's weak batting order on a road.

If we were playing India, sure, I get it, but against SL it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Park cricketer]

This is bad news for Australia. This means that Stoinis is in the selectors' minds for the Ashes.

If there was one thing I learnt from our series in England, it's that you definitely need six batsmen and not an all rounder. Thing with English conditions is that, you get enough help from the pitch and atmosphere that 3 pacers is more than enough to get the opposition out, the important thing being that all 3 should be quality pacers and no one should be a liability. We did have 3 quality pacers on the park in England, but we played Hardik Pandya thinking an all rounder is a must in overseas conditions. Pandya is a decent bat and a bowler, but he wouldn't make the team purely on a single discipline.

In England, more often than not we found ourselves 80/3 because of the sheer relentlessness of the english attack. Another wicket meant that our all rounder walked in to bat and Pandya was nowhere near reliable enough with the bat at no 6 in the series. Our attack ran through the top 5 of the English side in almost all the matches but Buttler and then Curran would string a 50-70 run partnership and that proved to be the difference in nearly every match. Pandya was ruining our team balance by not allowing us to play 6 proper batsmen and I thought that was a crucial difference in hindsight after the end of the series.

I know it's poor form but I was actually relieved to know that Pandya would miss the Australian series through injury because that meant that we would be forced to play 6 batsmen in the series. I'm pretty convinced that we wouldn't have been able to win the Australian series had Pandya played in the XI because unless you have a genuine all rounder like say Botham (in the past) or even Stokes for that matter who can contribute reliably with both disciplines, there's no point in picking a bits and pieces all rounder just for the sake of picking an all rounder. The lower order batting is extremely crucial in England where matches tend to be low scoring and the contribution of 6-8 will be the difference more often than not in the end. Picking a bits and pieces all rounder will ruin the balance of the line up and might prove costly for Australia. Australia should just pick the best 6 batsmen in the country, then Paine followed by 4 bowlers (Lyon, Cummins, Hazlewood, Richardson).

 

[weetert]

Stoinis, oh dear. The only good thing to come out of the Canberra test will be the fact Canberra finally got to host one.

 

[red+black]

Cummins BBI 6/23:
- better than Jeff Thomson, Joel Garner, Mitchell Starc, Brett Lee, Jacques Kallis, Andy Flintoff, Garry Sobers

Cummins BBM 10/62:
- better than Jeff Thomson, Brett Lee, Vernon Philander, Shaun Pollock, Bob Willis, Andy Flintoff, Garry Sobers

 

[Topkent]

Cummins BBI 6/23:
- better than Jeff Thomson, Joel Garner, Mitchell Starc, Brett Lee, Jacques Kallis, Andy Flintoff, Garry Sobers

Cummins BBM 10/62:
- better than Jeff Thomson, Brett Lee, Vernon Philander, Shaun Pollock, Bob Willis, Andy Flintoff, Garry Sobers

Those are pretty pointless.
Garner had 3 other superstar fast bowlers taking wickets.
Lee had Warne and McGrath Australia's 2 greatest bowlers
Pollock and Flintoff were all rounders etc

It was good good from Cummins but it helps that Starc couldn't take a wicket to save his life.

 

[frankrizzo]

That seriously reads like a joke post. The amount of times they've pulled the "maybe we'll just go with 6 batsman from now on" line and then retract it within a Test or two is getting beyond ridiculous. Also there's no one to leave out without it being yet another player who plays 1-2 Tests and then gets the axe before we actually find out if they're Test quality or not. Are we seriously picking an all-rounder to account for the fact that Starc is useless at the moment?

Yeah they just wait till we get a test win or series win and with the heat off them they go right back to the allrounder rubbish, the batting is still a mess and rolling a shithouse sl doesn't mean we can pick blokes at 6 just because they can bowl.

Why not just instruct curators to stop producing dead pitches and the bowlers won't need backup.