Border Gavaskar Trophy, India v Australia, 2nd Test 17-21 Feb, 1430hrs at Delhi

[western royboy]

Great post .
A lot of people saw our batting issues a long way out so it isnt exactly a suprise unfortunately.
Issues from young juniors through club , rep and even through grade/premier cricket these days.

Some kids making rep sides now cannot go 6 balls without trying to hit a boundary , everything is bottom handed , closed or open faced , no patience or batsmanship.
And a lot lf the coaching encourages it .
Its a long way back from here

Thanks - sadly I’ve watched it decline before my eyes. Obviously there are some societal factors at play but in the rush for time long form cricket has to suffer. Crash Craddock made some good points in the news ltd papers today which I agree with, basically India through the IPL has taken a stranglehold on world cricket. At grassroots level in my neck of the woods we are in crisis and I suspect community footy isn’t far behind. Competitions are dwindling as is the general standard of the game.

 

[Voice of the G]

I don’t understand people pushing maxwell. You realise it’s test cricket right? He’s never shown he’s a quality first class player let alone test player, why would you bring him back at 34?

please stop pushing him.

Has a shield average of 45 plus one of the best fieldsman in the world and a handy spin baller.Has had no chance to play red ball cricket since 2019 and breaking his leg and then the injury today not much luck going his way in hopefully his return to red ball cricket.

 

[doggies ftw]

Thanks - sadly I’ve watched it decline before my eyes. Obviously there are some societal factors at play but in the rush for time long form cricket has to suffer. Crash Craddock made some good points in the news ltd papers today which I agree with, basically India through the IPL has taken a stranglehold on world cricket. At grassroots level in my neck of the woods we are in crisis and I suspect community footy isn’t far behind. Competitions are dwindling as is the general standard of the game.

I guess we’re pretty early on in the years of professional sport paying crazy money (in an overall view of things) maybe it’s a cyclical business that will play out over many decades, ie standard goes up > interest goes up > Money goes up > standard goes down > interest goes down > money goes down > people come back for love of the game etc > standard goes up and so on

I’m only in my 20s so I grew up with test cricket (although not the golden era) and loved it, but then also loved t20 as a kid when it became big. As I’ve gotten older my love of test cricket has grown and you couldn’t pay me to watch an international t20 and you’d have to put a gun to my head to watch franchise t20.

But I genuinely would love to know what it’s like for kids these days that have grown up on T20s? Does that interest stay as they grow up or do they get bored of it eventually? I can’t see test cricket dying but then I don’t really know how the next generation sees it, maybe it’ll take it almost dying out before coming back stronger due to the sheer shitness of t20s

 

[Gethelred]

Alright.

These are wickets in India in tests by each bowler.

James Anderson: 34 wickets at 29.43.
Stuart Broad: 10 wickets at 61.70.
Ian Botham: 30 wickets at 25.53.
Bob Willis: 32 wickets at 22.38.
Derek Underwood: 54 wickets at 26.52.
Richard Hadlee: 34 wickets at 23.65.
Daniel Vettori: 9 wickets at 61.00.
Tim Southee: 20 wickets at 28.70.
Trent Boult: 15 wickets at 38.67.
Wasim Akram: 27 wickets at 27.70.
Imran Khan: 27 wickets at 28.04.
Danish Kaneria: 31 wickets at 39.58.
Iqbal Qasim: 29 wickets at 33.86.
Dale Steyn: 26 wickets at 21.38.
Alan Donald: 17 wickets at 16.12.
Morne Morkel: 21 wickets at 32.29.
Muttiah Muralitharan: 40 wickets at 35.35.
Rangana Herath: 12 wickets at 54.33.
Courtney Walsh: 43 wickets at 18.56.
Malcolm Marshall: 36 wickets at 24.61.
Lance Gibbs: 39 wickets at 23.38.
Shane Warne: 34 wickets at 43.12
Glenn McGrath: 33 at 21.30.
Richie Benaut: 52 wickets at 18.38.

And finally,

Nathan Lyon: 42 wickets at 30.52.

Of those who have been to India as spinners (Underwood, Vettori, Kaneria, Qasim, Murali, Herath, Warne, Gibbs, Lyon and Benaut) only Benaut and Underwood boast superior wicket tallies than Lyon, and only Gibbs, Underwood and Benaut have better averages.

What this list of bowlers really demonstrates is that you need not bowl spin to take wickets in India. If you're a good enough bowler - or, if you can find something about the conditions to latch onto - you can absolutely succeed in India.

But the problem we have is the following:

Josh Hazlewood: 9 wickets at 32.78 from 4 tests.
Mitchel Starc: 7 wickets at 50.14 from 4 tests.
Pat Cummins: 11 wickets at 32.82 from 4 tests.

You can win a test using pace in India, but not when your entire bowling lineup averages over 30 with the ball.

The other side of the problem is each of our three quicks have only played the 4 tests in India. If they are to learn how to be successful - and the above list would suggest that a good bowler can work their way into wickets in Indian conditions - then they need to play more, not less. Horses for courses might sound good, but you need the alternatives to be better than the incumbent bowler first.

From the other side of the equation, we have the batting:

Kim Hughes: 12 innings at 59.40.
Andy Flower: 10 innings at 117.14.
Garry Sobers: 13 innings at 99.89.
Ken Barrington: 10 innings at 96.29.
Younis Khan: 12 innings at 76.80.
Clive Lloyd: 12 innings at 75.60.
Bert Sutcliffe: 16 innings at 68.08.
Rohan Kanhai: 12 innings at 63.75.
Mahela Jayawardene: 10 innings at 62.80.
Hashim Amla: 17 innings at 62.73.
Jacques Kallis: 15 innings at 58.46.
Alvin Kallicharran: 19 innings at 58.35.
Wasim Raja: 13 innings at 57.27.
Neil Harvey: 11 innings at 55.36.
Inzamam-ul-Haq: 10 wickets at 54.89.
Andrew Strauss: 10 innings at 54.33.
Steve Smith: 16 innings at 52.21.
Tony Greig: 16 at 51.71.
Alastair Cook: 26 innings at 51.46.
Allan Border: 16 at 51.07.
Brendon McCullum: 10 innings at 50.75.

The thing that you can tell most from this list is that only Smith, Strauss, Cook, Kallis, Amla, McCullum and Khan have truly played this current incarnation of India; there is a small group (Inzamam, Jayawardene, Flower, Raja) who played in the previous decade, but outside of that the majority of these players are from much earlier eras.

Since 2000, India have lost two series at home (once to us in 2004, once to England in 2012) with 5 drawn; once to NZ, Pakistan, England and SA twice. However, if you confine that to the last 10 years - since they lost to England in 2012 - they have not lost or drawn a series at home, and in that time have lost two tests; one to England in 20-21, one to us in 2015-17.

As such, you cannot really conclude an awful lot from series statistics, but from the series win by England in 2012:

Cook: 562 runs at 80.29
Pieterson: 338 runs at 48.29
Trott: 294 runs at 42.00
Prior: 258 runs at 51.00.

Now, bear in mind that Sehwag and Tendulkar both played all series and were mediocre; that was arguably their weakest period since 2000, and they certainly have not been weaker since. But this gives you an image of how you beat them: you need to be able to beat their bowlers. It isn't about spin or taking wickets, or anything other than being better than their bowling attack in their conditions.

Find a way to score, and press your advantage home.

 

[Topkent]

Look whilst I think Bancroft has issues, him or Renshaw will do me. Look yeah I get it Reshaw hasn't looked great but the bloke is not a number 5, he's an opener. Pucovski the wildcard if he plays the last shield game or two

Renshaw a guy with 100 first class matches who averages 36. He's barely good enough to get a first class game atm let alone a test.

 

[sherb]

Renshaw a guy with 100 first class matches who averages 36. He's barely good enough to get a first class game atm let alone a test.

I think that's about the standard for batsmen in Australian first-class cricket these days (career averages in the 30s I mean). Although I can't be bothered researching it to confirm my view.

It's amazing to think that it's not that long ago - relatively - that we had the likes of Siddons, Cox & DiVenuto running around in the Shield. Each of them had career averages in the 40s and had 146 f-c hundreds between them, yet they couldn't get into the Test side.

My how times have changed. For the worse.

 

[big_e]

Alright.

These are wickets in India in tests by each bowler.

James Anderson: 34 wickets at 29.43.
Stuart Broad: 10 wickets at 61.70.
Ian Botham: 30 wickets at 25.53.
Bob Willis: 32 wickets at 22.38.
Derek Underwood: 54 wickets at 26.52.
Richard Hadlee: 34 wickets at 23.65.
Daniel Vettori: 9 wickets at 61.00.
Tim Southee: 20 wickets at 28.70.
Trent Boult: 15 wickets at 38.67.
Wasim Akram: 27 wickets at 27.70.
Imran Khan: 27 wickets at 28.04.
Danish Kaneria: 31 wickets at 39.58.
Iqbal Qasim: 29 wickets at 33.86.
Dale Steyn: 26 wickets at 21.38.
Alan Donald: 17 wickets at 16.12.
Morne Morkel: 21 wickets at 32.29.
Muttiah Muralitharan: 40 wickets at 35.35.
Rangana Herath: 12 wickets at 54.33.
Courtney Walsh: 43 wickets at 18.56.
Malcolm Marshall: 36 wickets at 24.61.
Lance Gibbs: 39 wickets at 23.38.
Shane Warne: 34 wickets at 43.12
Glenn McGrath: 33 at 21.30.
Richie Benaut: 52 wickets at 18.38.

And finally,

Nathan Lyon: 42 wickets at 30.52.

Of those who have been to India as spinners (Underwood, Vettori, Kaneria, Qasim, Murali, Herath, Warne, Gibbs, Lyon and Benaut) only Benaut and Underwood boast superior wicket tallies than Lyon, and only Gibbs, Underwood and Benaut have better averages.

What this list of bowlers really demonstrates is that you need not bowl spin to take wickets in India. If you're a good enough bowler - or, if you can find something about the conditions to latch onto - you can absolutely succeed in India.

But the problem we have is the following:

Josh Hazlewood: 9 wickets at 32.78 from 4 tests.
Mitchel Starc: 7 wickets at 50.14 from 4 tests.
Pat Cummins: 11 wickets at 32.82 from 4 tests.

You can win a test using pace in India, but not when your entire bowling lineup averages over 30 with the ball.

The other side of the problem is each of our three quicks have only played the 4 tests in India. If they are to learn how to be successful - and the above list would suggest that a good bowler can work their way into wickets in Indian conditions - then they need to play more, not less. Horses for courses might sound good, but you need the alternatives to be better than the incumbent bowler first.

From the other side of the equation, we have the batting:

Kim Hughes: 12 innings at 59.40.
Andy Flower: 10 innings at 117.14.
Garry Sobers: 13 innings at 99.89.
Ken Barrington: 10 innings at 96.29.
Younis Khan: 12 innings at 76.80.
Clive Lloyd: 12 innings at 75.60.
Bert Sutcliffe: 16 innings at 68.08.
Rohan Kanhai: 12 innings at 63.75.
Mahela Jayawardene: 10 innings at 62.80.
Hashim Amla: 17 innings at 62.73.
Jacques Kallis: 15 innings at 58.46.
Alvin Kallicharran: 19 innings at 58.35.
Wasim Raja: 13 innings at 57.27.
Neil Harvey: 11 innings at 55.36.
Inzamam-ul-Haq: 10 wickets at 54.89.
Andrew Strauss: 10 innings at 54.33.
Steve Smith: 16 innings at 52.21.
Tony Greig: 16 at 51.71.
Alastair Cook: 26 innings at 51.46.
Allan Border: 16 at 51.07.
Brendon McCullum: 10 innings at 50.75.

The thing that you can tell most from this list is that only Smith, Strauss, Cook, Kallis, Amla, McCullum and Khan have truly played this current incarnation of India; there is a small group (Inzamam, Jayawardene, Flower, Raja) who played in the previous decade, but outside of that the majority of these players are from much earlier eras.

Since 2000, India have lost two series at home (once to us in 2004, once to England in 2012) with 5 drawn; once to NZ, Pakistan, England and SA twice. However, if you confine that to the last 10 years - since they lost to England in 2012 - they have not lost or drawn a series at home, and in that time have lost two tests; one to England in 20-21, one to us in 2015-17.

As such, you cannot really conclude an awful lot from series statistics, but from the series win by England in 2012:

Cook: 562 runs at 80.29
Pieterson: 338 runs at 48.29
Trott: 294 runs at 42.00
Prior: 258 runs at 51.00.

Now, bear in mind that Sehwag and Tendulkar both played all series and were mediocre; that was arguably their weakest period since 2000, and they certainly have not been weaker since. But this gives you an image of how you beat them: you need to be able to beat their bowlers. It isn't about spin or taking wickets, or anything other than being better than their bowling attack in their conditions.

Find a way to score, and press your advantage home.

Batting is a hell of a lot harder since 2010 than it used to be. Stats here for reference:

You should not bat in India

And it has been that way for quite some time.

wickets.substack.com

So Bert Sutcliffe and Ken ******* Barrington making runs in the 1950s is completely irrelevant.

Also, it's all well and good to say our quicks need to play in India more often, but how the * do they do it?

Our best chance in 2027 is to hope Ashwin and Jadeja have retired and their replacements are as s**t as most of our post-Warnie spinners have been.

 

[Topkent]

I think that's about the standard for batsmen in Australian first-class cricket these days (career averages in the 30s I mean). Although I can't be bothered researching it to confirm my view.

It's amazing to think that it's not that long ago - relatively - that we had the likes of Siddons, Cox & DiVenuto running around in the Shield. Each of them had career averages in the 40s and had 146 f-c hundreds between them, yet they couldn't get into the Test side.

My how times have changed. For the worse.

For a long time too you could add Hodge, Hussey, Love, Katich etc averaging 50.

Renshaw in the last 5 years has averaged closer to 20 than 40. He's not gonna do s**t in India.

 

[Gethelred]

Batting is a hell of a lot harder since 2010 than it used to be. Stats here for reference:

You should not bat in India

And it has been that way for quite some time.

wickets.substack.com

Saw the link a little earlier. Thought I'd run my head over the things, see what I could conclude; I'm not a graph person.

So Bert Sutcliffe and Ken ******* Barrington making runs in the 1950s is completely irrelevant.

Cricket is a sport rich with history, and that history can be informative. You don't know what it'll tell you if you blanket dismiss things.

Also, it's all well and good to say our quicks need to play in India more often, but how the * do they do it?

Did I blame them for it? I can't really see where - in that rather lengthy post - I did.

Would that people on this board restricted themselves to reading, as opposed to reading between the lines.

Our best chance in 2027 is to hope Ashwin and Jadeja have retired and their replacements are as s**t as most of our post-Warnie spinners have been.

I'm not sure I know why you thought you'd reply to me, mate. This isn't really all that relevant to the post I made.

 

[sherb]

Batting is a hell of a lot harder since 2010 than it used to be. Stats here for reference:

You should not bat in India

And it has been that way for quite some time.

wickets.substack.com

So Bert Sutcliffe and Ken ******* Barrington making runs in the 1950s is completely irrelevant.

Also, it's all well and good to say our quicks need to play in India more often, but how the * do they do it?

Our best chance in 2027 is to hope Ashwin and Jadeja have retired and their replacements are as s**t as most of our post-Warnie spinners have been.

Yes, I'd think so too. I'm not sure the goat tracks that regularly get dished up these days in India were as prevalent back in those days.

My personal reference point would be the 69/70 tour, as that occurred roughly around when I first started following the game.
Australia won the series 3 (1st, 4th & 5th) - 1 (3rd), here are the Aust scores (wins in bold):
345, 2/67, 348, 0/95, 296, 107, 335, 0/42, 258, 153
And that was against an attack which included Prasanna, Venkat and Bedi. There isn't heavy scoring there, but there are only two sub-200 scores as well.
If the pitches then were like they are now, I'm pretty sure Bedi and co would have had a field day.

 

[Scorpus]

Also, it's all well and good to say our quicks need to play in India more often, but how the * do they do it?

We could pay someone to prepare India like conditions in the north of Australia where the climate roughly matches India. Get some specialists to research and prepare the pitch in the right environment, then play some Aus vs Aus A matches and Shield there. Take out the risk of India preparing a green top for us in a tour match by doing it ourselves. Teach our bowlers how to bowl spin on a turner, and teach our batters how to bat.

Instead we go to Sydney for our preparation this time, which will never, ever replicate India as the climate is wrong. It's lazy and cheap.

This sort of preparation would also strengthen us for tours to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Australia is actually quite diverse climate wise with everything from tropical savannah to arid deserts to temperate oceanic conditions and sub-tropical. If we're smart about it we have the ability to prepare on home soil to play anywhere from England to India, but we'd need to focus on actually using those conditions as practice and preparing accordingly.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Back in the horses for courses strategy

If we can parachute in a left arm spinner - we can parachute in a batter

Whomever we think plays spin the best - get them in

Personally think the handscomb decision was one of the few good decisions selectors have made

I haven’t seen enough shield cricket to know who is half decent

Inglis is handy against spin - but that’s white ball cricket

 

[Ephemeral Hope]

We could pay someone to prepare India like conditions in the north of Australia where the climate roughly matches India. Get some specialists to research and prepare the pitch in the right environment, then play some Aus vs Aus A matches and Shield there. Take out the risk of India preparing a green top for us in a tour match by doing it ourselves. Teach our bowlers how to bowl spin on a turner, and teach our batters how to bat.

Instead we go to Sydney for our preparation this time, which will never, ever replicate India as the climate is wrong. It's lazy and cheap.

This sort of preparation would also strengthen us for tours to Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Australia is actually quite diverse climate wise with everything from tropical savannah to arid deserts to temperate oceanic conditions and sub-tropical. If we're smart about it we have the ability to prepare on home soil to play anywhere from England to India, but we'd need to focus on actually using those conditions as practice and preparing accordingly.

Yeah what would happen if they made a spinning deck in desert Northern Territory. How would it play?

 

[Ginnieboy]

Yeah what would happen if they made a spinning deck in desert Northern Territory. How would it play?

Just bring in drop in wkts from over there perhaps and don’t water them for a year.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Thanks - sadly I’ve watched it decline before my eyes. Obviously there are some societal factors at play but in the rush for time long form cricket has to suffer. Crash Craddock made some good points in the news ltd papers today which I agree with, basically India through the IPL has taken a stranglehold on world cricket. At grassroots level in my neck of the woods we are in crisis and I suspect community footy isn’t far behind. Competitions are dwindling as is the general standard of the game.

Just thinking in terms of junior cricket, because it's all short-form stuff, kids don't get any opportunity to bat time. They need to 'retire' after like 11-12 balls, which gives them no opportunity to build an innings. They CAN come back in if everyone else is retired/dismissed, but this means it's usually towards the end of the game where they still are under pressure to score quickly from the start.

There's maybe 4-5 kids at my son's U12 squad of 15-16 kids who I'd say can bat 'properly'. The rest just slog across the line at everything they see.

My own son is getting frustrated because "You want me to play proper shots, but I can't score as many runs as these other guys". I try to explain to him that slogging 4, 4, 4, OUT is no preparation for higher forms of cricket. But the mentality of getting the sugar rush of "I smoked a bunch of boundaries then got unlucky" is overwhelming.

 

[Partridge]

Yes, I'd think so too. I'm not sure the goat tracks that regularly get dished up these days in India were as prevalent back in those days.

My personal reference point would be the 69/70 tour, as that occurred roughly around when I first started following the game.
Australia won the series 3 (1st, 4th & 5th) - 1 (3rd), here are the Aust scores (wins in bold):
345, 2/67, 348, 0/95, 296, 107, 335, 0/42, 258, 153
And that was against an attack which included Prasanna, Venkat and Bedi. There isn't heavy scoring there, but there are only two sub-200 scores as well.
If the pitches then were like they are now, I'm pretty sure Bedi and co would have had a field day.

Ian Chappell has always said a big factor in them winning that series is that they were confident playing spin bowling. There may not be massive totals there, but there's consistently solid (if not good) first innings totals to give bowlers a chance.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

Expect Green to play. Be sent home if he was not fit. Renshaw is shot so not opening with him even if Green does not play. Marnus as he has virtually been doing the role on and off over the summer. They wont drop Lyon, took a 5for last match. Hate to say it but our most disappointing bowler has been the skipper. Needs to lift big time. All the bowlers and specially the batsmen need to lift and give us back some respect.

To be fair pacemen have taken 11 wickets of the 60 total wickets taken by bowlers.

Cummins has taken wickets in every innings he's bowled in. Not sure we can expect much more over there given the wickets.

Shami has been the best by far, but even his total wickets stats are skewered by his 4 wickets in the first innings of the second test.

 

[PhatBoy]

Just thinking in terms of junior cricket, because it's all short-form stuff, kids don't get any opportunity to bat time. They need to 'retire' after like 11-12 balls, which gives them no opportunity to build an innings. They CAN come back in if everyone else is retired/dismissed, but this means it's usually towards the end of the game where they still are under pressure to score quickly from the start.

There's maybe 4-5 kids at my son's U12 squad of 15-16 kids who I'd say can bat 'properly'. The rest just slog across the line at everything they see.

My own son is getting frustrated because "You want me to play proper shots, but I can't score as many runs as these other guys". I try to explain to him that slogging 4, 4, 4, OUT is no preparation for higher forms of cricket. But the mentality of getting the sugar rush of "I smoked a bunch of boundaries then got unlucky" is overwhelming.

That has literally been the case for 30 years or certainly has been where I’m from.

The very first game of organised cricket I ever played was Primary B’s, basically under 10s, in 1992-93. I hit the first ball I ever faced over mid on and got a single, the other kid faced the next 5 balls. I did the same off the next over, same thing happened again. And that was it. Within a year or two it was ‘retire at 25.’

I’m sorry but in a scenario where ‘interest’ in the game is declining and that decline is being blamed for the lower standard of output, you can’t start scrapping rules that inherently serve to make sure kids are involved and enjoying the game.

I’m not going to sit there trying to foster my own son’s love of the game if he has the misfortune of facing the one 10 year old kid in town who bowls like the wind, and gets bowled first ball and tells me in a month ‘dad I never even get to bat, I don’t think I want to play anymore.’

They’re kids. Removing that would do more harm than good by a stupid margin, and as someone who does not work IN junior cricket but has done a f*** tonne of work around it, the ‘give everyone a go’ idea is not hurting anyone or anything.

Hell, even our Pres Cup side (a grade where you have to field 4 under 18s and 4 adults and the rest can be any age) is an example of why playing to win from the start doesn’t equate to success:

We went through a real s**t patch in first and second grade but had a Pres Cup side with a whole bunch of 13-14-15 year old kids that probably weren’t up to senior cricket but we prioritised giving them a go rather than trying to win. At least one of them, often two, opened the bowling every week. We made sure that we would never bat two seniors one after the other - always a kid batting with an adult even, again, if they weren’t up to it.

A season or two later we had to bin our first grade altogether. We were uncompetitive, blokes lost interest etc.

So the plan was to give these kids one more year in Pres cup, promote them to second grade, and fast track them to firsts.

They duly won Pres Cup, came out and destroyed second grade - I was lucky enough to play with them that season - and we returned to first grade last summer, missed the finals in a twin cities combined comp by one spot (two major regional NSW cities) and this season look headed for a finals spot.

Not everyone is the same and a regional country competition is not perfectly representative of the sport at large or test cricket.

But the fact is at every level, unconditional exposure and prioritising ‘giving people a go’ over just winning at all costs from the very start, achieves results.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

From cric info. No wonder we are getting flogged on turning pitches.

 

[PhatBoy]

I can well understand that in states other than WA, Tassie and SA. My state prioritizes white ball over red ball with our rep cricket from U16 up to U21 is white ball. Not a red ball comp to be seen. We all know that the main aim of limited overs is to score as many runs in the allotted time, so a technique goes out the window. By the time a rookie makes the seniors they are playing with what you have described, no patience or batsmanship. In other words they lack a solid technique and temperament needed for red ball. I recall being horrified when a young bloke on his Blues debut took his stance with his back leg at least a third of a metre behind his front, in readiness to execute a white ball stroke.

This, and the primary non-metro rep competition on the state is the Regional Bash: a T20 comp.

 

[Westend]

Batting coach Michael Di Venuto believes Australia's plans weren't wrong despite a horror 90-minute collapse.

He is kidding if he told the team to pick up a broom and sweep ourselves to victory. I dont see any improvement in our spin play since Divva took over the batting coach reins. In fact was he himself a good player of spin. I admit I dont recall much of how he batted in red ball cricket as he was somewhat of a white ball speciallist if memory serves. What this team needs is a full time spin coach, someone that played spin well and even bowled it at international level. Perhaps then we will finally leave India not humiliated.

Injuries the continuity of selection ...its a shambles atm and has F88ked us BGman

The medical advice that the team is receiving seriously needs to be looked at. They picked a injured hazelwood and greenie ...really they should of stayed home until fit.

Reckon they thought greenie would of been good for the first test and they where planning for starc fit for the 2nd. This has not happened and has seriously thrown the team into a spin.

Picking Agar for sydney then picking him in the squad then not playing

Picking swepson then sending him home then sending him back

Cummins going home which is understandable but not great for the team

and the biggest one the dropping of head for the first test was just stupid


But its not all doom and gloom lads it does seem that atm...with players back we can pick a stronger side and we can be competitive for the next two tests

 

[Gethelred]

That has literally been the case for 30 years or certainly has been where I’m from.

The very first game of organised cricket I ever played was Primary B’s, basically under 10s, in 1992-93. I hit the first ball I ever faced over mid on and got a single, the other kid faced the next 5 balls. I did the same off the next over, same thing happened again. And that was it. Within a year or two it was ‘retire at 25.’

I’m sorry but in a scenario where ‘interest’ in the game is declining and that decline is being blamed for the lower standard of output, you can’t start scrapping rules that inherently serve to make sure kids are involved and enjoying the game.

I’m not going to sit there trying to foster my own son’s love of the game if he has the misfortune of facing the one 10 year old kid in town who bowls like the wind, and gets bowled first ball and tells me in a month ‘dad I never even get to bat, I don’t think I want to play anymore.’

They’re kids. Removing that would do more harm than good by a stupid margin, and as someone who does not work IN junior cricket but has done a f*** tonne of work around it, the ‘give everyone a go’ idea is not hurting anyone or anything.

Hell, even our Pres Cup side (a grade where you have to field 4 under 18s and 4 adults and the rest can be any age) is an example of why playing to win from the start doesn’t equate to success:

We went through a real s**t patch in first and second grade but had a Pres Cup side with a whole bunch of 13-14-15 year old kids that probably weren’t up to senior cricket but we prioritised giving them a go rather than trying to win. At least one of them, often two, opened the bowling every week. We made sure that we would never bat two seniors one after the other - always a kid batting with an adult even, again, if they weren’t up to it.

A season or two later we had to bin our first grade altogether. We were uncompetitive, blokes lost interest etc.

So the plan was to give these kids one more year in Pres cup, promote them to second grade, and fast track them to firsts.

They duly won Pres Cup, came out and destroyed second grade - I was lucky enough to play with them that season - and we returned to first grade last summer, missed the finals in a twin cities combined comp by one spot (two major regional NSW cities) and this season look headed for a finals spot.

Not everyone is the same and a regional country competition is not perfectly representative of the sport at large or test cricket.

But the fact is at every level, unconditional exposure and prioritising ‘giving people a go’ over just winning at all costs from the very start, achieves results.

The problem I have isn't with the early developmental stages - stages 1 and 2 - but once kids are playing two day cricket in their mid teens, 14-16.

If you're talented, you're playing 3 games a week, minimum; Friday night juniors, Saturday afternoon seniors, Sunday morning juniors. If you're hardcore, you're playing for your school or playing on Sunday afternoon, which can add 1-3 more games a week. You're training near constantly, but it's with a myriad of different people. Some of the people you're getting coached by know a lot, others a little, some none at all (usually they're the loudest); all of them offer their opinions on what you 'need' to do to get better. You're playing one dayers, T20's as often as you're playing two day games; Covid hasn't helped any, nor has El Nina this season.

You learn you need to be proactive; safest defense is being down the nonstriker's end and all that. You learn to read the field, to hit the ball from a good length to legside gaps, to rotate the strike. You develop your scoring shots, and you work on your ability to hit the ball; if you've only got 20 overs, you need to hit the ball. It's not about putting the bad one away; you've got to push the bowler on the back foot.

You've got reps carnivals, and you've got churn and burnout and you're wondering if you're getting any better or learning anything. You're playing long form cricket, and it has different needs/requirements but your methods still work. Only, you've not bat for anywhere near 25 overs or longer, ever.

A criticism I've had of Australian development is that we simply do not provide nearly enough true long form cricket or reward for batting time. How in utter * do we expect to bat out a draw in foreign conditions if the first time you have to try is on days 4-5 of a tour of India or England? Retirement scores in junior and senior cricket can also get in the bin; you need to provide people the opportunity to succeed and to practice batting focus for periods of time exceeding 30 overs.

I would genuinely like a show of hands from the entire first class establishment in Australia for this question: who before they reached the age of 18 had ever bat for more than 35 overs? 55 overs?

People wonder why it takes until someone's in their late 20's/early 30's to kick on with the bat; it takes them that long to form the required focus to bat long periods of time, and that development happens arguably too late if it's in prem 1-2 and shield cricket.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

From cric info. No wonder we are getting flogged on turning pitches.

View attachment 1613172

Even Shami is better than our number 8 and he bats at 10 that’s the story there. Those three are elite spinners in Indian conditions and all three are basically number 7’s with the bat. It’s a luxury

 

[Around the Wicket]

Gilespie - 33 wickets at 21.73 in India.

McGrath - 33 wickets at 21.30 in India.

Were those pair levels above Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood or what? Our quicks don't even look like getting a wicket in unfavourable conditions now aday.

 

[big_e]

From cric info. No wonder we are getting flogged on turning pitches.

View attachment 1613172

The only player to score 3 triple centuries in the Ranji Trophy is Ravindra Jadeja. Not Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Kohli, Laxman, etc. And he's not even in this side for his batting.

By way of comparison, the last to do it in the Sheffield Shield is Liam Davis, in 2012.