Ongoing Test match XI speculation thread.

[LukeParkerno1]

No way he is sh*t. He was terrible in all forms this summer I know he is from NSW and the media pump him up but he is pasted it

Test cricket I agree not the other forms. Better contract than Agar or Kane Richardson at least

 

[Seedsfan]

Test cricket I agree not the other forms. Better contract than Agar or Kane Richardson at least

Worst of the lot if he wasn’t a part of the NSW elite he would have been gone ages ago

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Worst of the lot if he wasn’t a part of the NSW elite he would have been gone ages ago

Agar is much worse

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I love Patto but Neser is far ahead of him, infact should be 3rd picked behind Cummins and Hazelwood.

Head , Burns and Wade should never play for Australia again. Great calls on cutting the contracts.

A fit Jhye is in front of both Pattinson and Neser. Heck, he makes the team along with Cummins and Hazlewood for me.

 

[cricketnut14]

Smith, Warner, Labuschagne, Finch
Green, Maxwell
Agar
Paine, Carey
Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc, Pattinson, J.Richardson, K.Richardson
Lyon, Zampa

I still think Puckovski (if fit) and Head will play the next test match. Maybe they are seen as red ball players only.

 

[Scratchy05]

I love Patto but Neser is far ahead of him, infact should be 3rd picked behind Cummins and Hazelwood.

Head , Burns and Wade should never play for Australia again. Great calls on cutting the contracts.

Head should most definitely play again

 

[Pippen94]

No way he is sh*t. He was terrible in all forms this summer I know he is from NSW and the media pump him up but he is pasted it

Love how triggered you are about Starc

 

[Burtonsgottago]

A fit Jhye is in front of both Pattinson and Neser. Heck, he makes the team along with Cummins and Hazlewood for me.

Oh look, you’re from WA

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Head should most definitely play again

Only if he gets consistent Shield runs. I've been teased before with Travis. Show us this "form" isn't just a flash in the pan.

 

[Seedsfan]

Only if he gets consistent Shield runs. I've been teased before with Travis. Show us this "form" isn't just a flash in the pan.

What like this year?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

What like this year?

Lets see him back it up. No point doing it for a few games then reverting back to the usual Head being a tease.

 

[Scratchy05]

Only if he gets consistent Shield runs. I've been teased before with Travis. Show us this "form" isn't just a flash in the pan.

Which he did to finish last year. If he does the same thing again, I see no reason to not pick him, especially as we have no one else outside of Henriques seriously pushing for selection in that position

 

[to1994]

Nothing wrong with being a bit more generous with fast bowlers and contracts. They already get the shortest careers for the most part of all cricketers and you don't want to deter youngsters further from taking it up.

Pattinson won't have the career of Cummins but he's a proven performer and with any luck he'll have a Ryan Harris like last few years.

 

[Docker82]

Lets see him back it up. No point doing it for a few games then reverting back to the usual Head being a tease.

As opposed to picking guys that do actually the same but aren’t good enough to be tease?

I’m sorry but the cupboard’s just bare imo.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/crick...w/news-story/ba1676639d410bca7e5011d9c6f5662c

If CA have the bottle to look into this again, there could be repercussions.

 

[Gough]

https://www.news.com.au/sport/crick...w/news-story/ba1676639d410bca7e5011d9c6f5662c

If CA have the bottle to look into this again, there could be repercussions.

If you look at that XI, it's only Shaun Marsh and Ussie that have any sort of plausible deniability.

 

[JackOutback]

Said at the time the whole team was up to their necks in it. Not necessarily the use of sandpaper specifically but ball tampering. Should have been an acknowledgement that the practice was widespread, that they took it too far, maybe a couple of games for the main three, but a collective responsibility. Instead, they tried to shield others and it will end up looking like a cover-up.

That said, Bancroft should not be doing interviews to explain the situation if he’s not willing to be 100 per cent honest. Be up front or shut up. It doesn’t rebuild his reputation to still be covering for others or hedging his bets with some statements.

 

[The Passenger]

It's done. The guys ****ed up. They copped a whack and then we took a much tougher stance than other countries have taken. A stance I - to an extent - agreed with. I did think we took it too far. As it so often does in cricket it comes down to the ICC's incompetence and inability to handle things appropriately, and they have feather touched ball tampering for decades.

But it's done. It's over. This shite doesn't achieve anything.

 

[Westend]

View attachment 1130570

It's done. The guys f’ed up. They copped a whack and then we took a much tougher stance than other countries have taken. A stance I - to an extent - agreed with. I did think we took it too far. As it so often does in cricket it comes down to the ICC's incompetence and inability to handle things appropriately, and they have feather touched ball tampering for decades.

But it's done. It's over. This sh*te doesn't achieve anything.

I tend to agree...it will always be there like underarm just the way it is

 

[Ok Boomer]

It is stupid that we are talking about SA 2018 again.

Of course Bancroft was the fall guy in many respects, however he was the one stupid enough to put himself in that situation.

 

[The Passenger]

I tend to agree...it will always be there like underarm just the way it is

Quite possibly, hopefully not.

The underarm delivery deserves the attention it gets, albeit the Kiwi's do ham it up a to a degree. But it's status in world cricketing incidents is very unique, and now not repeatable due to law changes.

Ball tampering... Looks the guys copped their whack. It's done. But there are plenty of other defendants in the dock on ball tampering.

Like I said earlier, this has largely came around because the ICC have given ball tampering the feather touch for so long.

 

[The Passenger]

The underarm delivery deserves the attention it gets, albeit the Kiwi's do ham it up a to a degree. But it's status in world cricketing incidents is very unique, and now not repeatable due to law changes.

Tangent question to the masses...

It's a no ball if the ball bounces twice (or maybe three times?)...

So can you still bowl underarm as long is it doesn't bounce twice/thrice?

 

[corbies]

Tangent question to the masses...

It's a no ball if the ball bounces twice (or maybe three times?)...

So can you still bowl underarm as long is it doesn't bounce twice/thrice?

Law 21.1.2 Underarm bowling shall not be permitted except by special agreement before the match.

No ball Law | MCC

Official No ball Law. Read the statement of the No ball Law. Understand the rules of No ball Law with e-learning & animations.

www.lords.org

 

[The Passenger]

Law 21.1.2 Underarm bowling shall not be permitted except by special agreement before the match.

No ball Law | MCC

Official No ball Law. Read the statement of the No ball Law. Understand the rules of No ball Law with e-learning & animations.

www.lords.org

Poor rule IMO.

The double/triple bounce rule should cover it.

If you want to bowl underarm, go for it. As long as it doesn't bounce twice/thrice.

 

[corbies]

Poor rule IMO.

The double/triple bounce rule should cover it.

If you want to bowl underarm, go for it. As long as it doesn't bounce twice/thrice.

Just to answer the twice/thrice part, it's not allowed to bounce twice before the popping crease but that's only been the case since 2017. It was allowed to bounce twice before then.

This ball from Andre Adams for example was a fair delivery at the time but would be a no ball now.