David Warner

[placebo]

It's great that he's scoring runs at Shield level, as that is what he has to do, but I won't lie, I still have little to no faith in him at the top of the order against a quality attack.

We'll see though.

 

[frankrizzo]

That's consistent with the Poms' runs-per-over figures throughout the recent Ashes series. Even though the Poms won the series 3-0 their scoring rate looked more like that of a team that had lost 3-0. Unfortunately their unentertaining, unimaginative brand of cricket was still too much for our team in re-build phase after bottoming-out not long ago.

As england showed in the ashes the most important thing is using your available resources correctly and accepting your weaknesses rather than trying to blast your way out of a tight spot every single time.

Warne spent the whole ashes in the comm box ridiculing england and praising clarke and Australia for always attacking yet as england showed you need to have the ability to change gears and selectively ramp up the aggression.

The perfect example is the first day of the series, we had rolled england and just needed to survive till stumps and then we were in the box seat yet our top order were playing a shot a ball when conditions clearly called for a different approach.

I don't think this current aussie top 7 is confidently aggressive, i think many play that way in difficult circumstances because they don't back themselves to survive so it's hit out before you get out.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Whilst I agree with most of your post above, my main point was England are unentertaining and unimaginative, which they plainly are.

Unfortunately for us they are also better at winning cricket matches at the present time because they have a better balanced team and a greater depth of Test quality players.

 

[frankrizzo]

I guess it depends on which players we are discussing, kp and prior are very aggressive in their own ways and i quite like watching ian bell when he's on song.

Trott and cook can send you to sleep but both play vital roles in englands top order, they are just a team that know themselves inside out and plan and play accordingly, england understand you can't just tell your entire top 7 to play in a particular manner not unless you are lucky enough to have the sort of talent we had during our golden era.

I hope we thump their skulls in this summer but as of right now they deserve respect no matter how unadventurous people like warne think they play, they make the most of what they have and check their ego's at the door.

Our current lot could learn a lot from watching them go about their business.

 

[nineteen eighty]

Some excellent points made below and worth a re-quote!

I'd prefer 100 off 90.

The problem is that it's either 100 off 90 or 10 off 5. It needs to be 'x' off 90 more often, with 'x' dependent on the conditions, match status, bowling attack etc.

He doesn't need to change his game, he needs to add to it. Being an attacking batsmen is what gives him his strength. If he's constantly hitting the ball to the fence it forces the bowler to change his approach, forces the captain to change his field positioning etc. and is unsettling to the fielding side. The problem being that batsmen who are always attacking can be easy to get out. It's why so many mediocre test bowlers get wickets in ODI/T20 cricket, because the batsmen are constantly looking to score. Warner just needs to chill the **** out once in a while and leave a few wide ones etc.

 

[nineteen eighty]

That's consistent with the Poms' runs-per-over figures throughout the recent Ashes series. Even though the Poms won the series 3-0 their scoring rate looked more like that of a team that had lost 3-0. Unfortunately their unentertaining, unimaginative brand of cricket was still too much for our team in re-build phase after bottoming-out not long ago.

Have we bottomed out? Or are we on the way to bottoming out? This Ashes series will tell all. Our bowling I believe is on the improve. Not so sure about our batting.

 

[dan warna]

Have we bottomed out? Or are we on the way to bottoming out? This Ashes series will tell all. Our bowling I believe is on the improve. Not so sure about our batting.

yes but all of our exciting young talent seem to be borked

who didn't want to see Cummins and Pattinson knock a few of the MCC batsmen hit on the head or cartwheel a few middle stumps?

I aint no scientician but is hilditch's real legacy playing cummins injured or are our bowlers that fragile?

Harris, siddle, pattinson and cummin's might have spanky 4 pacemen, with pattinson batting bordering on all-rounder status.

 

[Dan Cooper]

Have we bottomed out? Or are we on the way to bottoming out? This Ashes series will tell all. Our bowling I believe is on the improve. Not so sure about our batting.

I think we've bottomed out, and I certainly hope that's the case.

The recent 3-0 result flattered the Poms. Yes they were better than us and thoroughly deserved their series win, and yes we played some poor cricket in the 2nd & 4th Tests. But we were better than the 3-0 score-line indicated.

There was nothing whatsoever between the teams in the 1st test. We played very well in the 3rd Test. Which rain stole our chances of winning, and we also played very good cricket for most part of the last Test.

 

[nineteen eighty]

I'm not so sure that we have bottomed out. I think we were flattered with just a couple of our batsmen making runs more than ably supported by the bowlers making runs.

If our bowlers did not bat so well we would have been in all sorts...as opposed to just going down 3-0.

Having said that, I do expect our batsmen on home soil to make more runs (not hard given the low base they are working to).

I still expect the Poms to give us a good whack...maybe 3-1 this time around.

edit: I just had a closer look at the run aggregates for the 2013 series in England and I must say I'm very surprised at what I saw. I didn't expect Aussie batsmen to fill 5 of the top 10 spots.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/the-a...ing/most_runs_career.html?id=7362;type=series

I hope we have bottomed out!

 

[Dan Cooper]

edit: I just had a closer look at the run aggregates for the 2013 series in England and I must say I'm very surprised at what I saw. I didn't expect Aussie batsmen to fill 5 of the top 10 spots.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/the-a...ing/most_runs_career.html?id=7362;type=series

I hope we have bottomed out!

A point many people have missed

(4 of the top 7 run aggregates were actually Aussies - Watson, Clarke, Rogers & Smith)

 

[Dan Cooper]

Where we did fall down in the previous Ashes series was in our batting depth, and by that I'm referring to the performances of our top 6.

Only four of our top 6 earned pass marks IMO >

Clarke 47.62
Watson 41.80
Rogers 40.77
Smith 38.33

...and Clarke's average for the series was obviously down on his own lofty standards.

Hard to win a series with only 4 batsmen.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

A point many people have missed

(4 of the top 7 run aggregates were actually Aussies - Watson, Clarke, Rogers & Smith)

The big difference, obviously, was Ian Bell. Australia had a few guys put in a one-off performance with the bat which raised aggregates and averages. What they did not produce was somebody who succeeded regularly, and when they weren't truly successful (say 75+ as an arbitrary "successful innings" figure) still made reasonable scores (call that 40 or near it) most of the time.

Take Smith, one of the success stories, seven of ten innings he was dismissed for under 20.
An 89 and 138* certainly mean that in the context of the current Australian team he retains his spot. But if a couple of those scores of 17 or 2 had been 30 or 40 it could have been a far more valuable contribution over the series as a whole.
Every batsman has low scores, the good ones have them rarely and still turn some of those starts into something big.

The top six is very much a batting version of Mitchell Johnson's bowling. Occasionally devastating to the oppoisition, often devastating to their own team.

 

[Dan Cooper]

The big difference, obviously, was Ian Bell. Australia had a few guys put in a one-off performance with the bat which raised aggregates and averages. What they did not produce was somebody who succeeded regularly, and when they weren't truly successful (say 75+ as an arbitrary "successful innings" figure) still made reasonable scores (call that 40 or near it) most of the time.

Take Smith, one of the success stories, seven of ten innings he was dismissed for under 20.
An 89 and 138* certainly mean that in the context of the current Australian team he retains his spot. But if a couple of those scores of 17 or 2 had been 30 or 40 it could have been a far more valuable contribution over the series as a whole.
Every batsman has low scores, the good ones have them rarely and still turn some of those starts into something big.

The top six is very much a batting version of Mitchell Johnson's bowling. Occasionally devastating to the oppoisition, often devastating to their own team.

There's no doubt Ian Bell was the difference between the teams.

As I stated above, we had 4 batsmen who achieved pass-marks. Bell was high distinction level.

 

[western royboy]

Have we bottomed out? Or are we on the way to bottoming out? This Ashes series will tell all. Our bowling I believe is on the improve. Not so sure about our batting.

Our batting is in terminal decline - England will belt us because they have a battery of Test class batsman - we have 1 and realistically some battlers and triers but nowhere near the finished articles.

Our best bet would be to maim or kidnap Anderson.

 

[UmpiringFooty]

What the Australian Selectors need to do is stop selecting ODI players in the test team and start looking at those who can hang around a bit in the middle. Warner has proven to us that he can do that. Rogers is another one who can stay for long periods of time in 4 day matches. Even Usman Kawaja is good at test level as is Phil Hughes even if he is still trying to find his feet at test level.

Our batting is in terminal decline - England will belt us because they have a battery of Test class batsman - we have 1 and realistically some battlers and triers but nowhere near the finished articles.

Our best bet would be to maim or kidnap Anderson.

Silly suggestion.
How about let our team rebuild and let the team grow in confidence.
So what if cricketers like to bowl us out. It's a test series. Relax.
Awesome bowlers like Dale Steyn get us out all the time. Get used to the fact that the rebuild our team is having at the moment could take a while.

 

[western royboy]

What the Australian Selectors need to do is stop selecting ODI players in the test team and start looking at those who can hang around a bit in the middle. Warner has proven to us that he can do that. Rogers is another one who can stay for long periods of time in 4 day matches. Even Usman Kawaja is good at test level as is Phil Hughes even if he is still trying to find his feet at test level.

Silly suggestion.
How about let our team rebuild and let the team grow in confidence.
So what if cricketers like to bowl us out. It's a test series. Relax.
Awesome bowlers like Dale Steyn get us out all the time. Get used to the fact that the rebuild our team is having at the moment could take a while.

My position on the health of Australian Cricket and the reasoning for my conclusion is pretty well known, rather than gut feel I've actually put a fair bit of thought into it. CA would share your blind faith confidence, but I deal in reality and the way we have bastardised the game in this country at lower levels actually works against us producing the Test quality batsman that we did in era's past. I couldn't care if we get belted beacuse we are rebuilding, but I don't think we are at the bottom because we haven't made any changes to rectify what is wrong at grassroots - that's where the problems start and they are perpetuated right through every level.

In era's gone past we always had a gun coming through, Ponting, Clarke etc that were identified at 12 - tell me the next one?

It takes a long time to perfect the art of batting - babying and bastardising the game at lower levels just delays the process.

 

[Phone]

In era's gone past we always had a gun coming through, Ponting, Clarke etc that were identified at 12 - tell me the next one?

jake doran, jaron morgan and kelvin smith seem pretty obvious suggestions from the current U19 team

unless you want me to actually name 12yos

 

[western royboy]

jake doran, jaron morgan and kelvin smith seem pretty obvious suggestions from the current U19 team

unless you want me to actually name 12yos

If they are absolute guns then I am happy to defer to your opinion - I'm talking absolute standouts that can go into Shield cricket and do well immediately and then straight into the Test team. The lads mentioned are all good players but I don't think they are in the Ponting / Clarke class at the same age.

 

[Bradesmaen]

jake doran, jaron morgan and kelvin smith seem pretty obvious suggestions from the current U19 team

unless you want me to actually name 12yos

Travis Head too. Just about to turn 20.

 

[western royboy]

And I'll throw Phil Hughes back at you - an immensely talented kid who has been so badly managed that it's not funny and through dominating Mickey Mouse systems was allowed to progress without anyone fixing the basic fundamental flaws in his game that have stifled him at the top level.

The kid has been horribly done over by a broken system. In years past the flaws would have been fixed early and we'd all be sitting back watching him cane the Poms. Instead.....who knows what the future holds - I hope he gets another shot at it.

 

[Bucking Beads]

And I'll throw Phil Hughes back at you - an immensely talented kid who has been so badly managed that it's not funny and through dominating Mickey Mouse systems was allowed to progress without anyone fixing the basic fundamental flaws in his game that have stifled him at the top level.

The kid has been horribly done over by a broken system. In years past the flaws would have been fixed early and we'd all be sitting back watching him cane the Poms. Instead.....who knows what the future holds - I hope he gets another shot at it.

Do you think his technique is just too far gone at this stage or can he possibly fix it enough to deliver on his talents. He seems to have the desire and the ability to get the big runs but his technique often lets him down.

 

[The_Reaper]

Do you think his technique is just too far gone at this stage or can he possibly fix it enough to deliver on his talents. He seems to have the desire and the ability to get the big runs but his technique often lets him down.

Sometimes he bats like he has no confidence at all. He does bat like he fully expects to get dropped if he doesn't get over 50.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Sometimes he bats like he has no confidence at all. He does bat like he fully expects to get dropped if he doesn't get over 50.

He certainly does. Lacks confidence because he has to know his technique just doesn't hold up against quality bowling.

 

[western royboy]

Do you think his technique is just too far gone at this stage or can he possibly fix it enough to deliver on his talents. He seems to have the desire and the ability to get the big runs but his technique often lets him down.

He can fix it - it takes time to fix and most of us don't have the time to devote to it to make the changes - hence the Arsene Wenger thought that if you don't have it right at about 14 - you never will. Hughes does have the time and has made some significant improvements, against that;
Batting is and must be instinctive - under pressure you will do whatever comes naturally or what you have trained yourself to do.

Only time will tell, but Phil Hughes is one determined little critter so he's got more chance than most but he must have some pretty big mental scars having been tossed aside so many times in the past.

Under pressure what will he do? - Trust his new fashioned technique or lay the ears back and refer back to the way that has scored him so many runs at lower levels but has proven to be flawed at the elite level?

I have a mate who coached him in junior rep sides up the north coast of nsw - it's unfortunate the way things have transpired and he has received some horrible advice along the way. He's such a talent I hope he can get it right and make a squillion runs and turn his talent into consistent Test performance.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Surely Phil Hughes should be smart enough to realise his own technical flaws and work on them himself? He seems like an intelligent guy. Too smart to look like a helicopter when he bats and think he can get away with it at Test level for an extended period.