You think agar is better yet you would accept him putting up inferior numbers to lyon, i just don't get it.
Fair enough if you want lyon dumped but his replacement should then be expected to put up superior figures not inferior.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement. -
Supercoach Rd 20 SC Talk - Trade Talk - Capt/VC - BigFooty Cup - Quarter Finals - Last Coach Standing - Final 6 ,//, AFLW Fantasy 2025! ,//, AFL Fantasy Rd 20 AFF Talk Rd 20 - AF Trades - Captains/VCs
Changes for 4th test
- Thread starter big_sav
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
You think agar is better yet you would accept him putting up inferior numbers to lyon, i just don't get it.
Fair enough if you want lyon dumped but his replacement should then be expected to put up superior figures not inferior.
Arm ball =/= doosra.
Lyon has bowled in one innings, hard to judge but I thought he bowled well and his figures in that innings did not do him justice, he bowled with good flight, generated good rev's and had the ball dipping and spinning. I'll try and dig up the interview with Swann in "The Cricketer" mag were Swann out and out says he doesn't have a doosra, but a genuine arm ball as you say. Lyon has one as well and it's also rarely used.
I watch a fair bit of cricket live and on the box, I have to say that for me Fawad Ahmed is not the panancea some think he might be. He bowls very fast and flat, Lyon is a better option for the short to medium term. The 5th Test will hopefully give us a better guide to Lyon's abilities going forward.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Agar is 19....Lyon is 25 or 26. There is a massive difference. One has 6 years of potential. I would be very surprised if Agar doesn't at least get Lyon's figures. He is ALREADY a bowler with a number of variations.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Pretty sure that Swann was 'toying' with a doosra in the nets, just not sure he has used it in a game. That said he is that good he doesn't need to, he has an arm ball no-one can pick and a turning offie that turns a foot, he is probably the most perfect off spinner we have seen in quite a few years.
Ahmed at least is pretty accurate and turns the ball. I would rather that than Lyon bowling flat darts (see Adelaide for example)
For a traditional offie lyon is a youngster, as you said with agar he's only 19 but as you alluded to with your low expectations you clearly don't think he's actually a frontline test spinner right now.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
It doesn't but Swann's is that good that it probably does count.
And swann had his arm ball perfected 10 years ago when he was lyon's age?
If he did he would have been in the test side.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
What is so bad about that. Nothing wrong with having a spinning all rounder at no7 and having 4 quicks.
Basically if all are fit the side I would be going with would be
Warner
Rogers
Khawaja or Burns
Clarke
Smith
Haddin
Agar
Siddle
Cummins
Harris
Bird/Starc
That is a fine bowling attack, you have your 4 quicks + Agar + part timers in Smith, Clarke and Warner
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Probably did, he was a tool off the field which is why Giles was preferred.
The_Reaper
Hall of Famer
Swann was on Fletcher's blacklist.
courtjester
Cancelled
As soon as someone says something like "**** a real spinner, let's just play four quicks and a part time spinner" I lose interest in talking to them.
There's are reasons why teams keep picking proper spinners as part of their bowling attacks...
what did you say
All Australian
agar is not a all rounder now or anytime soon imo,leg side of the ball will get him into trouble.teams will figure him out in no time alot like hughes, patto is the one who could be that allrounder,in saying that his young so maybe he can work on his batting,
i india showed us anything you can't have to many allrounders an we have smith after all
There is also a reason why teams pick six specialist batsmen, a factor which is even more pressing when there are significant question marks over the batting order 1 through to 5.
I take it Smith's status in your eyes has changed from a bowler who bats a bit to a batsman who bowls a bit. Smith isn't good enough as a batsman in this role.
The reality of Lyon, regardless of how you assess his bowling in the last test - I rated it as a pass, is that he doesn't threaten any of the English batsmen.
Four seamers is the way to go for this next test match.
Our batting lineup is far too fragile and inconsistent to "carry" a bowling all rounder at 7.
And there is a HUGE difference between a bowler who can slog some handy runs down at #8-9, and a proper all rounder who is expected to deliver serious runs consistently at #6-7.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
You play a spinner if they deserve a spot- we don't have one that deserves a spot purely on their ability with the ball. Lyon is rubbish at bowling sides out and Agar is young, Zampa is just as young. Ahmed might be the one, although I would like some more wickets first. Every other side has a spinner in their best four bowlers. The Windies in the 80's didn't play a spinner- remind me how they went again?
Smith was never a bowler who bats a bit.
And Smith is perfectly acceptable as a batsman.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Also out of our top6 has the most sound technique. Never understood the hatred for Smith. Like Clarke came onto the scene probably a bit too early, has gone away worked on his flaws, and is one of the few that plays spin well.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,347
They actually played a spinner a lot more than people would have you believe. From 1975-1987 it was a little under half their tests with a specialist spinner, and often played two spinners in the late 70's. They would usually bat Dujon at 6 though when playing a spinner and bowl 5.... And as much potential we have in our bowling, it still isn't near the level of the West Indies.
Durham we might not play a spinner. We definitely will at the Oval.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
We didn't last time at the Oval with a much better option...why would we this year at the Oval!
Roger Harper and Carl Hooper both bowled off-spin and played tests but there must have been others. even Viv was handy at rolling the arm over. Harper was mainly a bowler - Hooper handy part-timer.
Hooper was a bloody good all-round player.
Roger Harper was the most phenomenal fielder. I'd go so far as to say he's the best all-round fielder the WI ever produced and bloody hell, did he have some competition.
yeah and not playing one on that deck worked a treat...
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,347
beat me to it. was a very poor decision. not even in hindsight.
- Mar 25, 2003
- 35,681
- 28,347
harper played about 20 tests, Jumadeen and Parry about a dozen each, and Lance Gibbs was at the tail of his career played a few tests during that period i mentioned. that's from about a 90 to 95 test period. as said too whenever they played harper it was almost always with dujon batting at 6 so they still played 4 quicks.
they had varying degrees of success. harper had a very good test record from limited opportunities.
obviously they were a very fast bowler dominant team, but it's a bit of a myth they completely abandoned spin during this period. a bit like the allan border wasn't a number 4 batsmen, even though he batted 4 more then any other position in his career (88 innnings compared to 70 at number 5 and 63 at number 6) and during the dark ages (1983/84 to 1985/86) he batted 31 of his 52 innings at 3 or 4.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Just saying that it would not be unheard of to NOT play a spinner there
Similar threads
- Poll
