Ashes Cricket Betting

[GotGameButNoName]

Watching this is actually pretty instructive on why I just can't get into cricket anywhere near as much as I used to.

That's not a criticism of the contest itself. Two flawed teams in the arena of test cricket can make for some compelling viewing and this Ashes series can definitely boast that. Stokes is almost Must See TV on his own these days - Botham on steroids. Cummins for his part has led from the front. Wood has been electric, and the series has had subtext and storyline aplenty - from the sad injury to Lyon to the triumphant return of Mitch Marsh.

And yet watching the absurd spectacle of Warner getting out to a bloke for the seventeenth time just can't help but undermine it all a little. I felt the same way watching forty year old Anderson have a trundle, or poor Ali being dragged out of retirement and looking hopelessly underdone. And Bairstow is a wicketkeeper in much the same way I'm an expert on Korean history - which is to say, not at all.

This is the very pinnacle of the game and yet there's more than a hint of the village green despite it all.

Put more simply, at what other stage in this great games' history would a bloke like Warner be allowed to get out to a bloke seventeen times? And what does that say about the games health more broadly?

Cricket can't seem to decide what the elite level of the game is. All of the best players in the world play the shortest form of the game and directly at the expense of the longer format and the international game more generally. The recent failure of a pretty limited West Indies team to qualify for the World Cup speaks directly to that. An Andre Russell or Kieron Pollard may have been useful out there but alas, they've been lost to international cricket for many years.

 

[greyhound punter]

Watching this is actually pretty instructive on why I just can't get into cricket anywhere near as much as I used to.

That's not a criticism of the contest itself. Two flawed teams in the arena of test cricket can make for some compelling viewing and this Ashes series can definitely boast that. Stokes is almost Must See TV on his own these days - Botham on steroids. Cummins for his part has led from the front. Wood has been electric, and the series has had subtext and storyline aplenty - from the sad injury to Lyon to the triumphant return of Mitch Marsh.

And yet watching the absurd spectacle of Warner getting out to a bloke for the seventeenth time just can't help but undermine it all a little. I felt the same way watching forty year old Anderson have a trundle, or poor Ali being dragged out of retirement and looking hopelessly underdone. And Bairstow is a wicketkeeper in much the same way I'm an expert on Korean history - which is to say, not at all.

This is the very pinnacle of the game and yet there's more than a hint of the village green despite it all.

Put more simply, at what other stage in this great games' history would a bloke like Warner be allowed to get out to a bloke seventeen times? And what does that say about the games health more broadly?

Cricket can't seem to decide what the elite level of the game is. All of the best players in the world play the shortest form of the game and directly at the expense of the longer format and the international game more generally. The recent failure of a pretty limited West Indies team to qualify for the World Cup speaks directly to that. An Andre Russell or Kieron Pollard may have been useful out there but alas, they've been lost to international cricket for many years.

I do see where you are coming from. I find watching the Ashes exhausting and at some points, i must admit, i am looking forward to it all being over. I suspect that is mainly due to becoming emotionally invested because Australia are half a chance of winning the series.

I remember getting smashed by England in 2009, 2010/11 and 2013 and almost not caring, obviously because we were all used to losing to the English.

You can't blame the players for wanting to play the shortest form of the game - that is where the money is. For all the talk about how Kerry Packer changed cricket - that was only really for the Australian players - a lot of international players are still paid poorly.

Test cricket outside of Australia/India/England is really a moot point. The Ashes is every 2 years and everything else in between is pretty much preparation for that.

 

[iluvparis]

I mean times have changed. In any other era Warners test career would have been over 2 years ago. If the Aussies lose this test it will be solely the selectors fault for persisting with him

 

[HTPunter]

Watching this is actually pretty instructive on why I just can't get into cricket anywhere near as much as I used to.

That's not a criticism of the contest itself. Two flawed teams in the arena of test cricket can make for some compelling viewing and this Ashes series can definitely boast that. Stokes is almost Must See TV on his own these days - Botham on steroids. Cummins for his part has led from the front. Wood has been electric, and the series has had subtext and storyline aplenty - from the sad injury to Lyon to the triumphant return of Mitch Marsh.

And yet watching the absurd spectacle of Warner getting out to a bloke for the seventeenth time just can't help but undermine it all a little. I felt the same way watching forty year old Anderson have a trundle, or poor Ali being dragged out of retirement and looking hopelessly underdone. And Bairstow is a wicketkeeper in much the same way I'm an expert on Korean history - which is to say, not at all.

This is the very pinnacle of the game and yet there's more than a hint of the village green despite it all.

Put more simply, at what other stage in this great games' history would a bloke like Warner be allowed to get out to a bloke seventeen times? And what does that say about the games health more broadly?

Cricket can't seem to decide what the elite level of the game is. All of the best players in the world play the shortest form of the game and directly at the expense of the longer format and the international game more generally. The recent failure of a pretty limited West Indies team to qualify for the World Cup speaks directly to that. An Andre Russell or Kieron Pollard may have been useful out there but alas, they've been lost to international cricket for many years.

Atherton? ?

 

[Long Shot Louie]

There is serious money to be made here.

The Inclusions of Wood and possibly Ali are huge for the Poms. Wood brings much needed X factor and Ali transforms a weak tail into a deep batting lineup. No Nathan Lyon for the Aussie’s is a big blow.

Headingley offers a significantly greater home ground advantage than the usually tame Lords crowd and is the home ground of multiple key England players, including Root and Bairstow.

The way England plays and their being 2 down in the series eliminates the possibility of the draw. England have been in winning positions in both games, with the Aussies falling over the line in the first game and what happened in the second game is what happened.

Factoring in all these things, I am stunned that the poms are rated as significantly worse than a coin flip chance. I personally think they should be strong favourites and will hereby declare the English to be veritable LOCKS to win this test@ the incredible price of $2.60
10 units

+16 units

Louie the Lock is usually extremely magnanimous and humble in victory(+160.2U/year) but on this occasion I just wasn’t able to connect with most of you as gamblers and sportsmen. The bias was too great and the echo chamber too vast.

So on that sour note, I will bid goodbye to all you ingrate Cricket w***ers. I truly hope that your WeetBix turn soggy and you all suffer tremendously in your sandpaper lined jocks.



Yours, In the spirit of the game

Louie

 

[balmainforever]

+16 units

Louie the Lock is usually extremely magnanimous and humble in victory(+160.2U/year) but on this occasion I just wasn’t able to connect with most of you as gamblers and sportsmen. The bias was too great and the echo chamber too vast.

So on that sour note, I will bid goodbye to all you ingrate Cricket w***ers. I truly hope that your WeetBix turn soggy and you all suffer tremendously in your sandpaper lined jocks.



Yours, In the spirit of the game

Louie

Some people never seem to learn.
Calling people words starting with w?

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[greyhound punter]

+16 units

Louie the Lock is usually extremely magnanimous and humble in victory(+160.2U/year) but on this occasion I just wasn’t able to connect with most of you as gamblers and sportsmen. The bias was too great and the echo chamber too vast.

So on that sour note, I will bid goodbye to all you ingrate Cricket w***ers. I truly hope that your WeetBix turn soggy and you all suffer tremendously in your sandpaper lined jocks.



Yours, In the spirit of the game

Louie

Tell it walking.

 

[greyhound punter]

Some people never seem to learn.
Calling people words starting with w?

Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

I'm always suspicious of people who use huge unit sizes....sounds great but it is nearly always a dodge.

 

[iluvparis]

I'm always suspicious of people who use huge unit sizes....sounds great but it is nearly always a dodge.

The implied overs you would need for a 10 unit bet should come around about once in your punting lifetime

 

[ash_1050]

The implied overs you would need for a 10 unit bet should come around about once in your punting lifetime

I've had two of these in memory.

One was a pre-season game between I think Richmond and Essendon where it came out that a lot of the players for one team had gastro and I jumped on the opposition at ~$1.70 before the odds corrected.

The other one was a similar mid season game where St Kilda had a bout of illness, which was from memory one of the games played in China, and I was able to jump on Port while they were ~$1.40 favourites.

Basically my 10+ unit occasion is where where one team is absolutely wrecked by a viral illness ~48 hours out from a game.

As you say far and few between.

 

[Bucking Bronco]

Louie is one of the sharpest minds I have had the pleasure of encountering in punting and the fact anyone would have the audacity to oppose him is utter hilarity.

 

[burge13]

The implied overs you would need for a 10 unit bet should come around about once in your punting lifetime

Mayweather over McGregor. Wasnt fussed and units and nonsense. Just unloading as much as possible on something that was 1.36 and should have been 1.001

Never seen anything close since imo

 

[ferrisb]

Watching this is actually pretty instructive on why I just can't get into cricket anywhere near as much as I used to.

That's not a criticism of the contest itself. Two flawed teams in the arena of test cricket can make for some compelling viewing and this Ashes series can definitely boast that. Stokes is almost Must See TV on his own these days - Botham on steroids. Cummins for his part has led from the front. Wood has been electric, and the series has had subtext and storyline aplenty - from the sad injury to Lyon to the triumphant return of Mitch Marsh.

And yet watching the absurd spectacle of Warner getting out to a bloke for the seventeenth time just can't help but undermine it all a little. I felt the same way watching forty year old Anderson have a trundle, or poor Ali being dragged out of retirement and looking hopelessly underdone. And Bairstow is a wicketkeeper in much the same way I'm an expert on Korean history - which is to say, not at all.

This is the very pinnacle of the game and yet there's more than a hint of the village green despite it all.

Put more simply, at what other stage in this great games' history would a bloke like Warner be allowed to get out to a bloke seventeen times? And what does that say about the games health more broadly?

Cricket can't seem to decide what the elite level of the game is. All of the best players in the world play the shortest form of the game and directly at the expense of the longer format and the international game more generally. The recent failure of a pretty limited West Indies team to qualify for the World Cup speaks directly to that. An Andre Russell or Kieron Pollard may have been useful out there but alas, they've been lost to international cricket for many years.

All your concerns over Warner, Anderson, Bairstow, Ali etc are valid. But I see their weaknesses in a different light.

In Aus, we are used to thinking specialist batsmen are supposed to average 50. Bowlers are supposed to average <25 and take around 4 wickets per test (and fast bowlers should bowl 145kmh+ too). And keepers should average 30-35+ and still be A+ behind the stumps. And that beyond the top 11, there are another five unlucky to miss out.

The reality is that most countries don't have 11 world class players.

Instead, most countries have a couple of elite batsmen, a couple of elite bowlers and a keeper that is probably a specialist with the gloves OR the bat. At any given time, a team is going to have a few ordinary players. Or ones in form slumps. Very few players are world-class in all conditions, home and away.

Imagine you took the world's top 100 tennis players and split them up into 9 teams of 11 (with a 100th man left over?). Each XI would have 'a few duds'. These guys might be the 80th best tennis player in the world and they would look pretty ordinary against those ranked 1-5.

You make a point re losing the Andre Russell and Keiron Pollards of the world. But there were dud players at international level well before talent pools were diluted by T20.

Ishant Sharma played over 100 tests as a frontline bowler despite averaging 32 and taking less than 3 wickets a test.

Shaun Marsh played 38 despite averaging 34.

Graeme Hick played 65 tests for an average of 31. David Warner has an average of almost 30 in the last two years (yeah, I know it's boosted by his 200 against RSA) Graeme Hick played test cricket for England for a decade batting like Warner has for the last two!!!

I could go on, but the point is there are always going to be some weak players, some bunnies and some players unsuited to the conditions. Which just makes performances of someone like Steve Smith, Pat Cummins or Ben Stokes all the more incredible.

 

[GotGameButNoName]

All your concerns over Warner, Anderson, Bairstow, Ali etc are valid. But I see their weaknesses in a different light.

In Aus, we are used to thinking specialist batsmen are supposed to average 50. Bowlers are supposed to average <25 and take around 4 wickets per test (and fast bowlers should bowl 145kmh+ too). And keepers should average 30-35+ and still be A+ behind the stumps. And that beyond the top 11, there are another five unlucky to miss out.

The reality is that most countries don't have 11 world class players.

Instead, most countries have a couple of elite batsmen, a couple of elite bowlers and a keeper that is probably a specialist with the gloves OR the bat. At any given time, a team is going to have a few ordinary players. Or ones in form slumps. Very few players are world-class in all conditions, home and away.

Imagine you took the world's top 100 tennis players and split them up into 9 teams of 11 (with a 100th man left over?). Each XI would have 'a few duds'. These guys might be the 80th best tennis player in the world and they would look pretty ordinary against those ranked 1-5.

You make a point re losing the Andre Russell and Keiron Pollards of the world. But there were dud players at international level well before talent pools were diluted by T20.

Ishant Sharma played over 100 tests as a frontline bowler despite averaging 32 and taking less than 3 wickets a test.

Shaun Marsh played 38 despite averaging 34.

Graeme Hick played 65 tests for an average of 31. David Warner has an average of almost 30 in the last two years (yeah, I know it's boosted by his 200 against RSA) Graeme Hick played test cricket for England for a decade batting like Warner has for the last two!!!

I could go on, but the point is there are always going to be some weak players, some bunnies and some players unsuited to the conditions. Which just makes performances of someone like Steve Smith, Pat Cummins or Ben Stokes all the more incredible.

I respectfully disagree with most of what you've said if I'm honest - but a sincere thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully reply.

I do have to mention that Hick scored over one hundred first class centuries and averaged over fifty at first class level. It never translated to test level but it is a formidable record. Ditto for Mark Ramprakash. Both men scored more than thirty five thousand first class runs.

Marsh S scored 12 000 FC runs at 41.50. It is not terribly comparable to either Hick or Ramprakash first class record. The drop off in what is essentially a generation I feel underlines my point rather than undermining it.

 

[ferrisb]

I respectfully disagree with most of what you've said if I'm honest - but a sincere thank you for taking the time to thoughtfully reply.

I do have to mention that Hick scored over one hundred first class centuries and averaged over fifty at first class level. It never translated to test level but it is a formidable record. Ditto for Mark Ramprakash. Both men scored more than thirty five thousand first class runs.

Marsh S scored 12 000 FC runs at 41.50. It is not terribly comparable to either Hick or Ramprakash first class record. The drop off in what is essentially a generation I feel underlines my point rather than undermining it.

I don't want to get into a big argument, but didn't you just make my point for me?

Players like Hick, Ramprakash and SMarsh were elite cricketers and yet still weren't good enough to make decent test batsmen. Ramprakash played over 50 tests for an average of...... checks notes........ wait, this can't be right...... rechecks notes.....27.3. Nope, not a typo!!! Mitchel Starc averages 21.5 with the bat, ffs.

Just saying that test player duds are not a new thing. They were around in the noughties, nineties, 80s and probably earlier (pre-80s is before my time, can't confirm but I suspect in less professional eras, the difference between top talent and players on cusp of best XI would have been even greater).

In any case, I hope you enjoy the rest of the Ashes. I don't care what happens as long as we win. Been too many close calls against these damn Poms.

 

[GotGameButNoName]

I don't want to get into a big argument, but didn't you just make my point for me?

Players like Hick, Ramprakash and SMarsh were elite cricketers and yet still weren't good enough to make decent test batsmen. Ramprakash played over 50 tests for an average of...... checks notes........ wait, this can't be right...... rechecks notes.....27.3. Nope, not a typo!!! Mitchel Starc averages 21.5 with the bat, ffs.

Just saying that test player duds are not a new thing. They were around in the noughties, nineties, 80s and probably earlier (pre-80s is before my time, can't confirm but I suspect in less professional eras, the difference between top talent and players on cusp of best XI would have been even greater).

In any case, I hope you enjoy the rest of the Ashes. I don't care what happens as long as we win. Been too many close calls against these damn Poms.

I am very confused by whatever point you're trying to make I must admit. My point is guys like Ramps and Hick averaged at fifty at FC level yet couldn't make a fist of it at test level. There was an enormous gap between the two levels. Marsh averaged forty at first class level yet his performances at the test level were about the same as Hicks and Ramps. This suggests the gap between First Class level and Teast level narrowed enormously in a generation.

All of this as far as I can tell supports everything I've said point for point. I'm sorry I can't be any more clear.

 

[Red Dog Styles]

So where’s the punting in this forum?

England 1st over o2.5 @2.00 TAB

 

[Jugada]

Ill back the English weather to do its thing at $3.90

 

[Jugada]

Ill back the English weather to do its thing at $3.90

God bless that dreary miserable country

 

[iluvparis]

Good evidence you should almost never back the draw in modern cricket unless two full days are going to be washed out. Still almost a result!

 

[ash_1050]

Good evidence you should almost never back the draw in modern cricket unless two full days are going to be washed out. Still almost a result!

As I've demonstrated countless times on this forum backing the draw is a bad call. Something like 2W/8L from 10 attempts in play.

 

[Jugada]

Yeah the draw is just pretty much a weather bet now

 

[rank and file]

Wicket 1st over @$9
Expect the duke to do a bit early

 

[freddy mercury]

England $3.25 at SB not gonna find much better value anywhere on any sport.

 

[burge13]

England $3.25 at SB not gonna find much better value anywhere on any sport.

Rain around from lunch onwards. Doesn't look like much but could be enough to lose a session