Remove this Banner Ad

Cricket Discussion - Part 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seanybruz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bangladesh are doing well against NZ in the second ODI. NZ are 7/198 after 43 overs. Bangladesh lost the first by 77 but it was closer than it appeared as Mushfqur Rahim had to retire hurt when he was 42* and building a good partnership with Mosaddek Hossain, who finished on 50*. Although at that point Bangladesh required 123 from 11.3 so still probably would have lost.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

LukeSA said:
He's out now, smith can breathe easier knowing he's safe for another innings. :p
Click to expand...
If he can get to 22, Lyon should be odds on to make a century......
 
Say what you like about Smith the captain, but the numbers for Smith the batsman make extraordinary reading. This is his 49th Test, so his average of 58 is no flash in the pan. And if he completes his 17th Test century, he'll be averaging better than a ton every 3 Tests. Even the great Ricky Ponting couldn't do that.
 
philreich said:
Say what you like about Smith the captain, but the numbers for Smith the batsman make extraordinary reading. This is his 49th Test, so his average of 58 is no flash in the pan. And if he completes his 17th Test century, he'll be averaging better than a ton every 3 Tests. Even the great Ricky Ponting couldn't do that.
Click to expand...

His development as a batsman since 2010 is pretty staggering. Back then on appearance and performances most quite justifiably felt that he had more to offer the side as a leg-spinner rather than a batsman.
 
Huge number of cynical posts about Maddinson, but I can understand them happening when other batsmen get no or little chance. I'd love to hear the chortles from the journos if Steve Smith tries to justify Maddinson's dismissal in "the search for quick runs". 22 at a strike rate of 40.00 in a match which will now be a draw unless Pakistan collapse for 200 on a pitch that has given up 908 runs for 15 wickets in 250.2 overs.
 
Hellgood said:
His development as a batsman since 2010 is pretty staggering. Back then on appearance and performances most quite justifiably felt that he had more to offer the side as a leg-spinner rather than a batsman.
Click to expand...
Any idea what his average is since he became captain? I'd imagine it's significantly higher than 58.
 
philreich said:
Any idea what his average is since he became captain? I'd imagine it's significantly higher than 58.
Click to expand...
He was first skip for the last three tests against India in Australia in 2014-2015. Michael Clarke was skip for the two 2015 series against West Indies in West Indies and England in England. Steve Smith then took over. His performance as captain is 33 innings, 5 not out, highest 192, 2126 runs, average 75.92. His overall record at stumps is 90 innings, 13 not out, highest 215, runs 4604, average 59.79. So his record while he is not captain is 57 innings, 8 not out, highest 215, 2478 runs, average 50.57.
Hellgood said:
His development as a batsman since 2010 is pretty staggering. Back then on appearance and performances most quite justifiably felt that he had more to offer the side as a leg-spinner rather than a batsman.
Click to expand...

If they did they didn't use him much, he only bowled in 13 out of 30 innings up till the end of 2013. But you're certainly on the money with the improvement in batting, up till the end of 2010 he had batted 9 times for 187 runs with a highest of 77 and an average of 20.77.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Hellgood said:
Really? I think that Pakistan's batting plan was perfectly fine, including how they went about it yesterday. At that point their best chance was to push into and up into the high 400's in the hope they could knock off Australia for a measly score first time round and then either back themselves to clean them up on the final day or enforce the follow on if possible. Obviously that hasn't happened with Warner and Khawaja having a field day yesterday but they were the best tactics to go for in the position.

Micky Arthur was the answer at the Proteas. They developed into the sustained number one under his watch and which involved exacting their revenge on Australia on home soil, beating the English on their own turf and drawing with the Indians over there. They went undefeated overseas in a test series for three to four years. You can whinge all you like as people did with Buchanan that the players can take all the credit, but that doesn't make it correct. As far as his Australian career went, well we had a mixed draw in the short NZ series, annihilated India at home, lost the series against the Proteas at home after Faf & AB turned the Adelaide test on it's head and then went into Perth with a horrendously outgunned bowling attack (yes, rotations) and we then knocked off the South African's at home. The big black mark then came with the demolition over in India.

I question however were his results actually that much worse than under the cult of Boof. We've had all of the same embarrassments and chartered new territory having Sri Lanka wipe the floor with us as well as being smashed (not just losing) at home by South Africa. We did have the highs of the home Ashes in 2013/14 and the world cup, but given that bipolar cricket has been characteristic of this Australian group of players for probably six or seven years now I don't think it's too much to claim that Arthur would have by virtue of longevity would have experienced the same or equivalent success in charge.
Click to expand...

The Pakis were 0-1 down and they needed to win this game Australia don't. Given the weather forecast occupying the crease was only part of the equation. At stumps on day 2 the Pakis were 6/310 and as I posted at the time all Australia had to do was bat for five sessions on a batting friendly strip. If the Pakis had been all out for 350 and had a crack at Australia for an hour or two before stumps on day 2 they might be in a better position. You cannot win if you do not leave yourself enough time to get 20 wickets. Case in point Azhar Ali faced 365 balls to get to 205 and while a double century looks good in the record books, David Warner needed only 143 balls to get to 144. My point is the Pakistani's needed Warner's innings not Ali's.

As for Mickey Arthur I believe you over rate him. The South African time at the top of the world rankings was not as prolonged as you think. True, Arthur got them there but they could not sustain it, in fact under Arthur the Proteas did nothing to rid them selves of the choker tag. I do not think setting the Australian players homework on the India tour or publicly buying into the Clarke/Watson feud helped the bonding process between Arthur, Michael Clarke and the team. Maybe Mickey Arthur was a victim of the Michael Clarke animosity but many, myself included, thought Arthur had reached his use by date well before the 2013 Tour of England. As Coach he was responsible, with the Captain for team discipline and when David Warner gave Joe Root an apparently well deserved smack in the mouth Arthur's position was on the line. The fact that Cricket Australia terminated Arthur's contract with two years left to run suggests they saw some issues.
 
Dwayne Bravo could have a broken ankle here.
 
Cricket Australia must love these closes BBL finishes. The ratings on TV are great, crowd at the ground on edge even if the home team loses. Ch 10 paid $20m /year x 5 years for the current TV deal. At 1 million viewers per night even in the non ratings period they can expect to get $60m/year next deal.

Its probably why the Australian Cricketers Association are fighting so hard for their cut in their negotiations with Cricket Oz over their MOU which will I reckon starts the year before the new TV deal starts. Love how Cricket Oz have put negotiations on hold because they don't want to distract the players. Its a bloody 12 month a year game for the players now days so it will always be a "distraction."
 
RussellEbertHandball said:
Cricket Australia must love these closes BBL finishes. The ratings on TV are great, crowd at the ground on edge even if the home team loses. Ch 10 paid $20m /year x 5 years for the current TV deal. At 1 million viewers per night even in the non ratings period they can expect to get $60m/year next deal.

Its probably why the Australian Cricketers Association are fighting so hard for their cut in their negotiations with Cricket Oz over their MOU which will I reckon starts the year before the new TV deal starts. Love how Cricket Oz have put negotiations on hold because they don't want to distract the players. Its a bloody 12 month a year game for the players now days so it will always be a "distraction."
Click to expand...

Whilst I still prefer the slow burning narrative of a test match, I don't see how any cricket fan could not get caught up in the remarkable momentum swings in the finish tonight. I mean Aaron Finch ditching in 100kph low full tosses isn't exactly in the cricketing manual, but to me there is still a certain skill to be appreciated as well as the nerve of Agar to get the job done.

raptalia said:
The Pakis were 0-1 down and they needed to win this game Australia don't. Given the weather forecast occupying the crease was only part of the equation. At stumps on day 2 the Pakis were 6/310 and as I posted at the time all Australia had to do was bat for five sessions on a batting friendly strip. If the Pakis had been all out for 350 and had a crack at Australia for an hour or two before stumps on day 2 they might be in a better position. You cannot win if you do not leave yourself enough time to get 20 wickets. Case in point Azhar Ali faced 365 balls to get to 205 and while a double century looks good in the record books, David Warner needed only 143 balls to get to 144. My point is the Pakistani's needed Warner's innings not Ali's.

As for Mickey Arthur I believe you over rate him. The South African time at the top of the world rankings was not as prolonged as you think. True, Arthur got them there but they could not sustain it, in fact under Arthur the Proteas did nothing to rid them selves of the choker tag. I do not think setting the Australian players homework on the India tour or publicly buying into the Clarke/Watson feud helped the bonding process between Arthur, Michael Clarke and the team. Maybe Mickey Arthur was a victim of the Michael Clarke animosity but many, myself included, thought Arthur had reached his use by date well before the 2013 Tour of England. As Coach he was responsible, with the Captain for team discipline and when David Warner gave Joe Root an apparently well deserved smack in the mouth Arthur's position was on the line. The fact that Cricket Australia terminated Arthur's contract with two years left to run suggests they saw some issues.
Click to expand...

They may have needed Warner's innings, but the fact is they do not have a batsman capable of doing so in Australian conditions (perhaps Sarfraz, but that's still a big stretch). Therefore attempting to do so would completely undermine any chance that they possibly could have in the match. They played to their strengths and Azhar executed beautifully - it would then be up to their bowlers to match his efforts but sadly they were proven incapable through lacklustre bowling and brilliant batting from Warner (well backed up by Smith & Khawaja). There are many ways to win a match and Pakistan went down the path most likely for them.

I think Arthur is as good a coach as any going around - which is backed up by his results. CA got antsy in the lead up to the double Ashes which led to the replacement with Lehmann whose style was more compatible with the immature group of players we had at the time. Lehmann did an excellent job in the immediate aftermath by settling the insecurity, but since then it's pretty apparent that the group as a whole has stagnated somewhat. It's not exactly a crime as every international coach it seems has faced similar issues in this day and age of players constantly transitioning between formats, franchises and time-zones, but I think Arthur is as good a leader as a cricketing body could have right now.
 
How did australia get out of that one, thought the pakis would stonewall a draw but credit to the aussie bowlers.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Would not have picked that result this time yesterday. The Australian players will remember this one for a while.

Steve Smith wins Man Of The Match.

Probably will not be too many changes for Sydney after that result but I feel that Maddinson and Wade are on notice. If the selectors are serious about India they should have a look at a second spinner and do something about Matthew Wade who will not cope with the turning Indian tracks.
 
There is just something very wrong with this table. Its been pretty standard for the 40 odd years I have been watching cricket to set highest averages table based on 20 test innings, sometimes 30. Voges will be 2nd to the Don for another 30 or 40 years, greater than Pollock, Headley, Sutcliffe where it might have taken them 8 years of test cricket to rack up 40 test innings. Voges wont play again for Australia.


http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282910.html

upload_2016-12-30_17-26-0.png
 
Last edited:
3rd test squad.

Smith (c), Agar, Bird, Cartwright, Handscomb, Hazlewood, Khawaja, Lyon, O'Keefe, Renshaw, Starc, Wade, Warner

at least one of Agar, Cartwright, SOK will be playing.
Head not good enough apparently :rolleyes:

for what it's worth

1. Warner
2. Renshaw
3. Khawaja
4. Smith
5. Handscomb
6. Cartwright
7. Wade
8. O'Keefe
9. Starc
10. Hazlewood
11. Lyon.

12th Man - Bird
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Holden Hillbilly
Is it 2032 or 1932? Temporary seats, one grandstand as Brisbane Olympic stadium revealed
Replies
2
Views
428
Portology
Portology

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom