Australia v New Zealand 1st Test at Perth December 12-16

[Seedsfan]

You know that match was cut short due to rain don't you? He bowled 15 overs and got 2 wickets (bowled a 3rd one out but overstepped on that occasion). His performance against Worcester got him the gig in the 3rd Test did it not?

About the Division 2 focus. There's not a huge difference between 1st & 2nd Division county cricket. They all played in the same league until 2000 when they introduced the two division format. Joe Root earnt his Test Cap from a 2nd Division county side as did Joe Denly. Jofra Archer comes from the Division 2 Sussex side, Stuart Broad from 2nd Division Leicestershire and the list goes on. Labuschagne was playing Division 2 when he got called up.

Still refusing to answer #4,706 ?

You made a statement so there is nothing to answer. It’s not like you asked for a response at all.

So the fact he got a wicket of a no ball is a positive?

The fact remains he only took two wickets against a weak side he got a game due to the rotation policy and then failed to take his chance.

Also I included division 2 to give it some context it shows they are the second worst first class side in English cricket so hardly a line up of note. A lot of very good players play down in the second division and have done for a long time. But one average performance against a poor side isn’t much to hang your hat on. Someone like Labuschange had to fight through the division 2 stigma by being the standout batsmen of the competition.

To say Starc should of played the Ashes due to his form in the home summer is revisionist.

Credit has to be given to him for the work he has put in to get back into the side and to improve his bowling

 

[Crankitup]

How much did Labuschange’s wicket count then

Was wondering who would bring that up. I think Starc's 51 runs for the match was worth more than Labuschagne's solitary wicket.

 

[Seedsfan]

I disagree. The biggest factor in this game was NZ having to play a Test within 3 days of arriving in the country. Australia would never agree to that sort of thing occurring in our schedule overseas.

If they bat first completely different story they get the best of the conditions. I agree though that the preparation was rushed and the wicket in Hamilton to Perth was very different so would of taken time to adjust.

They had 9 days between tests and while that is enough time of it doesn’t really give them enough time to have any sort of prep.

I know the Pakistan series was s**t and they had to get home for an important series against Sri Lanka but I wouldn’t of minded say a third test against Pakistan say in Tassie or the ACT and then had this test played in the new year

 

[Crankitup]

You made a statement so there is nothing to answer. It’s not like you asked for a response at all.

I've made many other statements that didn't involve questions that you have nevertheless felt the need to respond to but for some reason you don't want to respond to #4,706. Fair enough. I can only deduce that you concede the point that I made in that post then. That is (and I'll paraphrase myself here) your view that Labuschagne was dudded out of the MOTM award shouldn't surprise based on your past hatred towards Starc.

To say Starc should of played the Ashes due to his form in the home summer is revisionist.

It's getting annoying so I'll point out what another poster already has that you seem to have taken no notice of. "Should have' or "should've". Not "should of".

Who has said Starc should've played the Ashes due to his home form? I haven't. I argued for his inclusion right through the Ashes. I'll tell you what is revisionist though. Your statement tonight that he bowled 'trash' against Worcester and 'trash' in the 3rd Ashes Test. That's revisionism right there.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

Great start to the series for us beating a quality team, winning the toss I think was massive, but we still played a top game of cricket. I feel NZ will play better in Melbourne and Sydney so we need to be ready. Pattinson for Hazelwood likely to be the only change ? Or will Nesser play ?

 

[PhatBoy]

It appears the Man of the Match committee disagrees with you. They think Starc was the match winner with 9/97 while you think Southee's 9/162 representing a side that got beaten by a whisker under 300 runs was just as good.

View attachment 794253

Getting back to Labuschagne, on the one hand you say his performance was above everyone elses but OTOH you say Australia's 400 in the first innings was our slowest for almost two decades when the batting conditions were at their best. Remind me when Labuschagne scored the bulk of his runs in this game again?

Is there any danger of any person in this forum, reading what is actually being written rather than just what they want to see?

Where did anyone say Australia won by a whisker? Because I sure as s**t didn’t.
Oh that’s right, I mentioned that an opponent did a similar job to Starc so I must have really meant ‘the entire NZ side actually outplayed Australia but just got unlucky.’


Read what I’m saying mate.

Starc bowled excellent. No argument. Best bowler in the match. But his performance wasn’t unique, there was another outstanding bowling performance.

Marnus was so far above every other batsman, in a game where batting was tough, that it provided the main point of difference.

 

[Vegeta]

When I die, I want Kane to be a pallbearer.. so he can let me down one last time.

King of Soft runs.

Steady the ship my foot.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Where did anyone say Australia won by a whisker? Because I sure as s**t didn’t.

McCullum basically did. Only plausible defense for him is corporate was in his ear telling him to sell the next Tests.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Also have to say I'm finding the condescending "honorable brave New Zealand underdog battlers give Aus a hard fight" narrative I'm seeing pretty hilarious. They got rolled for under 200 twice by a three man attack.

 

[Vegeta]

Also have to say I'm finding the condescending "honorable brave New Zealand underdog battlers give Aus a hard fight" narrative I'm seeing pretty hilarious. They got rolled for under 200 twice by a three man attack.

it was a pathetic performance.

This is why it's so difficult to support this team.

No superstar players, no matter how much they hype up Kane he is nowhere near being the best in the world. The man gets out to the first good ball he faces every damn time, he can't see them out and acts surprised when something odd happens - good batsmen are able to see those balls out, Kane can't.

 

[Barlos Crathwaite]

it was a pathetic performance.

This is why it's so difficult to support this team.

No superstar players, no matter how much they hype up Kane he is nowhere near being the best in the world. The man gets out to the first good ball he faces every damn time, he can't see them out and acts surprised when something odd happens - good batsmen are able to see those balls out, Kane can't.

You're upset right now and rightly so but Kane is a great player. He just needs his openers to put a platform down and a spinner who attacks. Thus get rid of Raval and santner and you'll be ok

 

[Marklar_33]

Yeah, nah. If you knew anything about the commercial aspects of an Australian cricket summer you'd know 300 run/innings wins do nothing for ratings or crowds aside from Ashes series. And forget about NZ being rated 2, apart from their win in Tasmania, they've barely won a test here since the 1980s. And Pakistan have been almost as poor.

This match was decided at the toss and was compounded when Ferg went down. Yes, Haze got injured but if you were going to have a guy go down, the time when he did was almost perfect for the Aussies to not have to wear out the other seamers

NZ aren’t uncompetitive

 

[Marklar_33]

Yeah brilliant comparison. Warner averages 39.4 against England. Agaist the 25 that the crab averages. Thanks for playing.

Yes, we all know Warner can score runs at home and is a bit scratchy everywhere else

Good comparison though to take a win when comparing an opener to a wicket keeper

 

[lvandinter]

I actually think the crowds have been pretty good considering. 40 degree days are pretty gross to be in, would have put a lot of people off. I considered not going on Friday because of the weather, but went along anyway.

Then when you consider Thursday was a work/school night, Friday and Saturday nights this time of year lots of people are busy with Christmas parties etc, plus the Wildcats and Glory had home games yesterday. The turn out isn't actually too bad.

Doesn't look great on TV in a big stadium with everyone hiding up in the shade, but if this was at the WACA it would look like a near sellout with those crowd numbers.

At least the crowds were better than the Gabba. There are only 100 odd seats left for Day 1 of Boxing Day but it really does depend on the weather.

 

[lvandinter]

If they bat first completely different story they get the best of the conditions. I agree though that the preparation was rushed and the wicket in Hamilton to Perth was very different so would of taken time to adjust.

They had 9 days between tests and while that is enough time of it doesn’t really give them enough time to have any sort of prep.

I know the Pakistan series was s**t and they had to get home for an important series against Sri Lanka but I wouldn’t of minded say a third test against Pakistan say in Tassie or the ACT and then had this test played in the new year

Should’ve had Pakistan come here let’s say early December and play 3 tests, then have NZ for 3 tests in the new year, but it kind of depends where other teams are going to play internationally, like Australia are going to India and South Africa in the new year, after the SCG Test. I reckon NZ will play better in the Boxing Day Test and give us more of a challenge. You can’t realistically play a test match in another country straight after a home test match, and expect to be fully prepared like people were saying they were going to have a head full of steam.

 

[Crankitup]

Is there any danger of any person in this forum, reading what is actually being written rather than just what they want to see? Where did anyone say Australia won by a whisker? Because I sure as s**t didn’t.

Is there any danger of any person in this forum, reading what is actually being written? Where did I say that you'd said Australia won by a whisker? In response to your comment that "Starc bowled well but he didn’t do anything unique in the game that elevated his performance above others" I said that "It appears the Man of the Match committee disagrees with you. They think Starc was the match winner with 9/97 while you think Southee's 9/162 representing a side that got beaten by a whisker under 300 runs was just as good." 296 being so close to 300 I described it as a 'whisker under'.

I will add now that Starc's bowling performance was unique. He was the only bowler in the match to get 9 wickets while conceding less than 100 runs. He also contributed 51 runs with the bat. He would've got 10 fer if he'd been given more opportunity to bowl in the second innings like his first innings performance warranted. Paine gave him 8 overs less than Lyon and 5 overs less than Cummins. Not as bad as how much Paine underbowled him in the second innings in the 3rd Ashes Test though.

 

[Chode1]

Also have to say I'm finding the condescending "honorable brave New Zealand underdog battlers give Aus a hard fight" narrative I'm seeing pretty hilarious. They got rolled for under 200 twice by a three man attack.

 

[dogs105]

Is that the same as Terry Wallace, "the list manager"?

Listologist

 

[Chode1]

Agree
What a crap summer of cricket. Another boring, uncompetitive and in the end predictable test match. Mcg and Sydney will go the same way cause the kiwis can’t bat and smith will make some runs sooner or later. Not great for cricket. Just want to see some competition.

 

[PhatBoy]

Also have to say I'm finding the condescending "honorable brave New Zealand underdog battlers give Aus a hard fight" narrative I'm seeing pretty hilarious. They got rolled for under 200 twice by a three man attack.

It has at least some merit.
You couldn’t criticise their bowling, santner aside. They were far, far better than Pakistan. And while Pakistan made some runs, they were generally inconsequential and after the horse had bolted. At least the opposition turned up with one facet of the game under some control

 

[Seedsfan]

I've made many other statements that didn't involve questions that you have nevertheless felt the need to respond to but for some reason you don't want to respond to #4,706. Fair enough. I can only deduce that you concede the point that I made in that post then. That is (and I'll paraphrase myself here) your view that Labuschagne was dudded out of the MOTM award shouldn't surprise based on your past hatred towards Starc.



It's getting annoying so I'll point out what another poster already has that you seem to have taken no notice of. "Should have' or "should've". Not "should of".

Who has said Starc should've played the Ashes due to his home form? I haven't. I argued for his inclusion right through the Ashes. I'll tell you what is revisionist though. Your statement tonight that he bowled 'trash' against Worcester and 'trash' in the 3rd Ashes Test. That's revisionism right there.

2-56 against the second worst first class side in English cricket, I fail to see that being an impressive performance. Even Labuschange as a part timer took 2-37. The fact his match figures in the Hick V Haddin game was 1-79 shows off 22 overs and was the most expensive bowler in a bowling dominated game shows where he was at. The only impressive bowling performance was against against Derbyshire when he had match figures of 7-85.

He should be getting credit for going away putting the work in and improving his game

 

[Seedsfan]

It has at least some merit.
You couldn’t criticise their bowling, santner aside. They were far, far better than Pakistan. And while Pakistan made some runs, they were generally inconsequential and after the horse had bolted. At least the opposition turned up with one facet of the game under some control

It’s very dependent of the toss if they win it we will not run through them in the first innings

 

[Seedsfan]

Also they simply can not pick Peter Siddle. His inclusion made sense in England for the conditions.

 

[CrowBloke]

Would've never guessed he was a Collingwood supporter would you?

Gotta say, I didn't notice and want to keep our own parochial footy interests out of it.
MotM is as subjective and open to opposing discussion as BoG in a game of footy, or the Norm Smith or Brownlow Medals, Mark of the Year etc.

People are entitled to disagree (with reasons) but unlike facts, performance can always be disputed eg many commented positively on Wagner's bowling and results. It might take energy and aggression to run in and bang the ball short time after time to a packed legside field, but it lacks guile and is one-dimensional. Australia does it sometimes, too, but it always reminds me of the despised Bodyline Leg Theory tactic. When within the Laws of the game it's legitimate (and it got rid of Smith twice, plus a few others), but I don't like it. I reckon the best bouncers are the occasional ones which rear at the batsmen's upper body and get fended off in panic for an easy catch. Bowling short again and again to hit or hurt a batsman is not just dangerous (think: Hughes, or even just a concussed Smith), it lacks bowling nuance/flair.
Ch7 showed a pitch map of Wagner's bowling lengths --- 25% "short" and 55% in the "bouncer" zone. That's 80%!! Another poster commented that if he tries that in Melbourne "he'll go for a thousand".
Maybe . I'm not prepared to say that he's an unimpressive bowler although he's certainly admirably spirited. I'd like to see what he does and achieves over the next 2 Tests.
End of rant, sorry. Ha, lol@me!

 

[CrowBloke]

When I die, I want Kane to be a pallbearer.. so he can let me down one last time. King of Soft runs. Steady the ship my foot.

Ooo, salty Kiwi
(but I loved the "let me down" gag!).