2nd Test Australia v Pakistan Dec 26--30 1000hrs @ the MCG

Who will win?


  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .

Remove this Banner Ad

They'd be regretting all of those extras, a bit of discipline in that area and they would have been right in it.

There’s just so many little things that other countries don’t do that the best teams do, that are IN their control, that they overlook and it is mind blowing that they don’t.

West Indies when they dominated: they were tough and they imbued their cricket with a particular attitude and once Australia ‘got’ that and replicated it they too matched them. SA were Australia’s closest competition for most of the 90s and it was because they fielded well and they weren’t profligate with things like extras and they were fit and ready made like Australia’s players. England finally got competitive when they started to play attacking cricket and field well and get in Australia’s face and bowl fast and India have started to win abroad (not right now admittedly) once they realised they HAD to field better, bat better and develop more fast bowlers to match the teams ahead of them.

It isn’t rocket science yet sides still don’t seem to take those simple steps that they have some control over. It doesn’t have to be ALL of them - you can’t just manufacture great attacks, 10 great fielders, 6 batsmen that can handle foreign conditions, a squad of hardened tough as nails cricketers etc etc but you can control a few of those things at a time
 
There’s just so many little things that other countries don’t do that the best teams do, that are IN their control, that they overlook and it is mind blowing that they don’t.

West Indies when they dominated: they were tough and they imbued their cricket with a particular attitude and once Australia ‘got’ that and replicated it they too matched them. SA were Australia’s closest competition for most of the 90s and it was because they fielded well and they weren’t profligate with things like extras and they were fit and ready made like Australia’s players. England finally got competitive when they started to play attacking cricket and field well and get in Australia’s face and bowl fast and India have started to win abroad (not right now admittedly) once they realised they HAD to field better, bat better and develop more fast bowlers to match the teams ahead of them.

It isn’t rocket science yet sides still don’t seem to take those simple steps that they have some control over. It doesn’t have to be ALL of them - you can’t just manufacture great attacks, 10 great fielders, 6 batsmen that can handle foreign conditions, a squad of hardened tough as nails cricketers etc etc but you can control a few of those things at a time

I don't know what touring sides do in terms of local intel, but this would help with regards to field placings, length to bowl, what the pitch might be like etc. Most touring sides drop catches, bowl too short and don't seem to know local trends, like how close to have slips at certain grounds.

They didn't help themselves with how they used the left arm quicks. Fleming rightly identified they should have been operating from one end as the both swung the ball predominately. the same way, so find the end that helped that swing.
 
There’s a few things to consider with it. Yes there are some obviously poor techniques - but there were back in the day too, plenty of videos of batters looking like a lost puppy to a good bouncer back in the day - that’s why bowlers bowl them. Another thing is fitness - cricketers are generally a lot fitter these days, bowlers can bowl fast and accurately for longer, as such the bouncers bowled should continue to be harder to negotiate. Are batters wise at playing them now than previously? Hard to say in my opinion.
Fats bowler fitness is one thing that didn't come to mind, tbh.
One thing with old video is its generally highlights packages or lethal bouncer compilations.

Players really do seem to get struck more now. I think partly because they take it on more often and in new ways (e.g. the front foot pull was a very rare thing until maybe 20 years ago), partly growing up in youth cricket with the short ball often banned, partly equipment, and yes now its mentioned bowler fitness meaning the short ball can stay more dangerous for longer.
Bowlers may be better at directing it now as well (obviously not Pakistan in the first innings in Melbourne, but generally).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Fats bowler fitness is one thing that didn't come to mind, tbh.
One thing with old video is its generally highlights packages or lethal bouncer compilations.

Players really do seem to get struck more now. I think partly because they take it on more often and in new ways (e.g. the front foot pull was a very rare thing until maybe 20 years ago), partly growing up in youth cricket with the short ball often banned, partly equipment, and yes now its mentioned bowler fitness meaning the short ball can stay more dangerous for longer.
Bowlers may be better at directing it now as well (obviously not Pakistan in the first innings in Melbourne, but generally).
Need Keith Stackpole jnr to come back and show them how to play the hook shot.
 
It’s very very easy to say this from the safety of a lounge room but I’m consistently amazed by the amount of batsmen - specialist ones - who get into a tangle with the short ball and fail to get the bat and gloves out of the vicinity of the ball.


Say what you want about Matthew Wade’s odd method a few years ago against Wagner(?), he wasn’t getting out to it. I appreciate that helmets, the declining standard of playing bouncers has played a part in this sort of thing but the lack of focus on just getting your gloves and bat away from the ball is bizarre

There's a rock flying toward your head. Very primitive parts of your brain can and do take over, even for well trained individuals. Fight or Flight is real and many times it causes us to do something counter-productive.

If there was any true way to "learn" how to not get out to short pitched deliveries they simply wouldn't be bowled any more.

I'm sure many, many cricketers have got out awkwardly to short pitched bowling but the farther back you go the less likely there is to be footage of it. All you are left with after the fact is c:BlokeB b:BlokeA or the more sinister retired:not out/hurt
 
It’s very very easy to say this from the safety of a lounge room but I’m consistently amazed by the amount of batsmen - specialist ones - who get into a tangle with the short ball and fail to get the bat and gloves out of the vicinity of the ball.


Say what you want about Matthew Wade’s odd method a few years ago against Wagner(?), he wasn’t getting out to it. I appreciate that helmets, the declining standard of playing bouncers has played a part in this sort of thing but the lack of focus on just getting your gloves and bat away from the ball is bizarre
The Pakistan bloke who was ducking the short balls & leaving up the periscope at full extension was interesting.
 
Fats bowler fitness is one thing that didn't come to mind, tbh.
One thing with old video is its generally highlights packages or lethal bouncer compilations.

Players really do seem to get struck more now. I think partly because they take it on more often and in new ways (e.g. the front foot pull was a very rare thing until maybe 20 years ago), partly growing up in youth cricket with the short ball often banned, partly equipment, and yes now its mentioned bowler fitness meaning the short ball can stay more dangerous for longer.
Bowlers may be better at directing it now as well (obviously not Pakistan in the first innings in Melbourne, but generally).
The thing that also makes it hard to compare is you don’t really remember players for being mediocre - you remember the players that dealt with bouncers well, and maybe the ones that were truly terrible.
 
The thing that also makes it hard to compare is you don’t really remember players for being mediocre - you remember the players that dealt with bouncers well, and maybe the ones that were truly terrible.

That’s a good point I guess they can’t all be ‘good’ at it any more than all players can be ‘good’ at handling spin

I just would have thought that in a situation where your pads and stumps are under no threat and you can’t ‘nick’ the ball as such and with the protection players have, we’d have gotten to a situation now where players would not necessarily get hit less but would have their equipment out of the way more often

I was a bit of a compulsive hooker and got hit a bit here and there and out occasionally and there weren’t many of, even in relative terms, what you would call express bowlers in our comp, I think we were lucky in that the quickest was in my own team for most of it.

I get what people are saying though, sometimes by the time you’ve made up your mind whether to evade, duck, or play a shot, all you are left with is just survival
 
I rank Lee, Starc and Johnson similar.

Got wickets but could go for runs.

Pace to the max .

Up there with wickets but maybe not up there with the great McGrath

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

I've got Starc a level above Lee and Johnson. Comparison is apt in terms of being similar types, but Starc is an all time great limited overs bowler, and his better average, strike rate, and uncanny ability to get wickets in his first two overs in Test cricket (which is a major psychological edge, and exposes the middle order to the new ball) puts him above those other two.

You don't fluke a Test average of 27 and strike rate of 48 over 84 Tests. You just don't. He's not always pretty, and because of his inconsistency he's comfortably a step below the likes of Lillee, McGrath, and Cummins, but he's a genuine match-winner and star.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Respectfully, Using the words “probably”, “pretty” and “suggest” in a sentence doesnt fill me with confidence that an umpires decision should be overturned.

This sort of debate has been the norm in world football for a decade in the use of technology and various decisions such as offside and handball. It no doubt improves some of the decision making especially where referees are unsighted, however the margins that are being reviewed and debated are so fine and subject to misinterpretation that I personally feel it is going way too far. Yesterday is an example of this IMHO.

You can’t avoid debate about umpiring decisions. Were that given not out and Pakistan go onto win then there’d be the exact same discussions going on just reversed.

On the replay it appears it’s hit the wristband.

Snicko shows an accompanying noise at the same time the ball appears to make contact with the wristband.

Hot spot shows a mark on the wristband.

Three pieces of evidence that the ball hit the wristband. If you’re not going to overturn based on that then what’s the point of having the DRS?

Umpires call is there for when you can’t confidently make a decision based on replays and technology provided. If all the technology available tells you it hit the glove then you give it out. Maybe you can’t be 100% sure but you never can. It’s so bizarre that the margins for the Hawkeye technology is millimetres as to whether something is out or not and we accept that, but we won’t accept this?
 
Almost like big white mark on his arm was zinc you know the stuff he covers himself in, he knew it wasn't from ball he was running a game hoping it would add more doubt as he would have known ball hit his glove.
To be fair I think it is possible he didn’t realise it hit his wristband, however he would’ve known full well that mark wasn’t from the ball.
 
Just arrived back in Adelaide on a flight from Sydney - as I was collecting my luggage, who should I see but the West Indian cricket team. I didn't recognise too many faces.........

Tell Kraigg I said hi and tell Alick Athanaze I want to make children with the follow through on his cover drive

Pretty sure you could have recognised Josh da Silva, at least
 
There’s just so many little things that other countries don’t do that the best teams do, that are IN their control, that they overlook and it is mind blowing that they don’t.

West Indies when they dominated: they were tough and they imbued their cricket with a particular attitude and once Australia ‘got’ that and replicated it they too matched them. SA were Australia’s closest competition for most of the 90s and it was because they fielded well and they weren’t profligate with things like extras and they were fit and ready made like Australia’s players. England finally got competitive when they started to play attacking cricket and field well and get in Australia’s face and bowl fast and India have started to win abroad (not right now admittedly) once they realised they HAD to field better, bat better and develop more fast bowlers to match the teams ahead of them.

It isn’t rocket science yet sides still don’t seem to take those simple steps that they have some control over. It doesn’t have to be ALL of them - you can’t just manufacture great attacks, 10 great fielders, 6 batsmen that can handle foreign conditions, a squad of hardened tough as nails cricketers etc etc but you can control a few of those things at a time
Batting and bowling take some God given natural ability to start with. Fielding is the one phase of the game a player can make huge improvements if he’s willing to put in the work.
 
You know, I think we can all sympathise with PAK.

We've witnessed many tests, especially overseas, when we've gotten ourselves to level pegging or even wrested the advantage, only to be denied in the end because we made a mistake at a crucial moment or an opposition player stepped up.

Delhi, Headingly and The Oval are three examples from this year alone. Trent Bridge and Durham 2013, as well.

They fought well; far better than most expected them to coming into this series with their depleted bowling lineup.

As with the modern WI, their failings involve professionalism. PAK cricket has long struggled with this, so players are constantly at loggerheads with the board. That means they're not properly trained or managed (apparently the PCB treated Saqlain's knee injury with a traditional healer + they let Naseem Shah play some meaningless T20 tournament despite still recovering from injury), which leads to inconsistency and mistakes doing the basics (fielding, slip catching) which you wouldn't see from a better-drilled side.

Until they fix that problem, they're not returning to their 1990s heyday, when their brilliant talent (Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Saqlain, Mushtaq Ahmed, Saeed Anwar, Salim Malik, Yousuf Youhana, Inzamam) basically guaranteed their Top 3 status despite their lack of professionalism.
 
Back
Top