Roads or Minefields?

[PhatBoy]

Maybe because we were all bought up with openers from Lawry, then through to the likes of Taylor, Marsh, Boon, Langer, etc, we have a tendency to dismiss players as just being mindless thrashers when they start to score freely at the top of the order and make judgements about their ticker etc.

The reality is these sorts of players can be a liability, we know that. Warner, Sehwag - they have been made look stupid many times because of their approach. But gee they can be valuable too and there is a lot to admire about players who can manage to take on the toughest role in Test cricket and make it so uncomplicated.

 

[PhatBoy]

Except the Indians are going to drop him after one test. Bit reactive for me.

Me too. It's a panic move. You need to take risks to win overseas. He could fail in 7 innings but he's one player who, in the 8th, could win his team a Test. He's a kid. Saha has had a decade to improve his batting and it hasn't happened. He failed in both innings, why does he get a free pass when there's a guy waiting in the wings who hit a century in his last Test in Australia?

 

[Perth bloke]

I mean hearing AB's comments sounded really harsh last week when they first came out. But when I thought about it I completely agreed with them. Crickets hard, don't make it harder for ourselves by giving the opposition a leg up. Drop the verbal abuse for sure but show intent. And I'm sure AB would have been proud at how Paine and Cummins and Starc in particular showed positive intent. Whereas you just knew after Rahabe ran out kohli the Indians lost their intent

 

[PhatBoy]

I mean hearing AB's comments sounded really harsh last week when they first came out. But when I thought about it I completely agreed with them. Crickets hard, don't make it harder for ourselves by giving the opposition a leg up. Drop the verbal abuse for sure but show intent. And I'm sure AB would have been proud at how Paine and Cummins and Starc in particular showed positive intent. Whereas you just knew after Rahabe ran out kohli the Indians lost their intent

Rahane was really rattled by it. He's a guy who, as I alluded to earlier, has the mental strength to stand up when overseas and I actually thought of all the batsmen in either first innings, he looked the most comfortable. Was cruising, runs out his captain, then just looked like a total lapse in concentration when Starc pinned him in front. It was a good ball but a top 6 batsman on 44 should be dropping the bat on that comfortably and keeping it out. He missed it by miles and was late on it. He was definitely thinking about what had just happened.

 

[Perth bloke]

IIRC, Shaw came through the private school system in India. Castes and all that.

On one hand, bit rough to judge a young bloke based on cultural settings not his own (and in a language not his own, no less). On the other, the caste system and those like it in England, America and India sucks balls, and produces entitled quasi-noble brats en masse. Looks like he might be one.

Ah well. Cricket's got a way of finding that type out a bit. Won't have the stones for the top form game if his attitude's off.

That's what I love about us. Sure we're a class society. But not so bad that McGrath who lived in a caravan for quite some time iirc after coming down to Sydney to train couldn't be offered a gig and then take the world by storm. Or Warner who iirc grew up seriously poor. India should try and focus on getting the best players in not the wealthiest or lightest skinned. But that's probably a thread derailment so I'll stop digressing

 

[Gethelred]

Me too. It's a panic move. You need to take risks to win overseas. He could fail in 7 innings but he's one player who, in the 8th, could win his team a Test. He's a kid. Saha has had a decade to improve his batting and it hasn't happened. He failed in both innings, why does he get a free pass when there's a guy waiting in the wings who hit a century in his last Test in Australia?

I don't understand it. If he's going to be a long term player for them - or even if he isn't - they lose nothing by working with him to get him to succeed for 5 tests, maybe get him a few runs if they can. If he can become productive for them on this type of surface - and we know that that style of batting can work here - that's such a huge boon for them, with Pujara later on and Kohli to come. If he goes out cheap, they've got The Wall mk2 in behind him; if he gets off to a flyer and Kohli walks out to play at 2/250, that's a paddling acomin'.

 

[Topkent]

The majority of tests don't go for the full 5 day duration anyway, because most tests are won/lost at some point in the first 2 days.

Did you watch the last Ashes series? The 3rd and 5th tests went for 4 days, but all of the rest went for the full 5, due to a combination of weather and the inability to separate the two sides via skill or home advantage. That was an absolutely gripping series, and a full advertisement for what 5 day tests offer.

It's not a great argument saying the best reason for a 5th day is in case of rain. Just call it a 4 day test and have a reserve day for rain then.

 

[Gethelred]

It's not a great argument saying the best reason for a 5th day is in case of rain. Just call it a 4 day test and have a reserve day for rain then.

Which would be a stunning rejoinder, if that's all I said.

 

[Perth bloke]

It's not a great argument saying the best reason for a 5th day is in case of rain. Just call it a 4 day test and have a reserve day for rain then.

God forbid England couldn't build a stadium with some sort of technology for keeping out the rain? Retractable roof in a Manchester stadium perhaps? Or just something to keep the players from getting wet and losing overs. Surely if we can keep race car drivers safe from crashing at 350 kilometres an hour we can devise a solution to keeping rain off some grass

 

[Topkent]

Which would be a stunning rejoinder, if that's all I said.

I'd say arguing that a good series every 4 years isn't a good enough reason to keep 5 day tests, the majority of test series are absolute stinkers that the away side has no chance in.
You can have an equally enthralling battle as that ashes series in a 4 day contest.

 

[Gethelred]

I'd say arguing that a good series every 4 years isn't a good enough reason to keep 5 day tests, the majority of test series are absolute stinkers that the away side has no chance in.

And I'm saying you're incorrect. Enough tests have both a) gone for the full duration, and b) been of sufficient quality that the duration shouldn't be touched. It's not due to tradition or conservativism either, although I could make arguments from both; you need to give a test match the time it takes to happen. Shortening the duration runs the risk of more players playing for the draw when losing ahead of the win.

So the question becomes: are you willing to risk returning to the '90's status quo, in which 5 test series were won with scores of 1-0?

 

[Perth bloke]

And I'm saying you're incorrect. Enough tests have both a) gone for the full duration, and b) been of sufficient quality that the duration shouldn't be touched. It's not due to tradition or conservativism either, although I could make arguments from both; you need to give a test match the time it takes to happen. Shortening the duration runs the risk of more players playing for the draw when losing ahead of the win.

So the question becomes: are you willing to risk returning to the '90's status quo, in which 5 test series were won with scores of 1-0?

Only if a draw allows for points. Take all the points away from a draw and you'd get exciting cricket

 

[Topkent]

And I'm saying you're incorrect. Enough tests have both a) gone for the full duration, and b) been of sufficient quality that the duration shouldn't be touched. It's not due to tradition or conservativism either, although I could make arguments from both; you need to give a test match the time it takes to happen. Shortening the duration runs the risk of more players playing for the draw when losing ahead of the win.

So the question becomes: are you willing to risk returning to the '90's status quo, in which 5 test series were won with scores of 1-0?

Did you miss the opening post? I'm saying shortening till 4 days would go hand in hand with idea of spicing up pitches. Make them worth 0 points in the test championship as Perth boy said. Could even make it only a point to the away side for a draw which makes it essential for home teams to not make flat wickets.

 

[Gethelred]

Did you miss the opening post? I'm saying shortening till 4 days would go hand in hand with idea of spicing up pitches. Make them worth 0 points in the test championship as Perth boy said. Could even make it only a point to the away side for a draw which makes it essential for home teams to not make flat wickets.

No-one is even sure if the test match championship is even a worthwhile thing. There's also the fact that England, South Africa and India all play their cricket conservatively, ie to avoid loss ahead of trying to win; they're not going to give a shit about the test match championship, they'll take the 1-0 series win every time. And I, as a fan, would kill for a 0-1 away series win against any of the above three nations.

I think you're trying to change the sport. I don't think the sport needs to change.

 

[Topkent]

No-one is even sure if the test match championship is even a worthwhile thing. There's also the fact that England, South Africa and India all play their cricket conservatively, ie to avoid loss ahead of trying to win; they're not going to give a sh*t about the test match championship, they'll take the 1-0 series win every time. And I, as a fan, would kill for a 0-1 away series win against any of the above three nations.

I think you're trying to change the sport. I don't think the sport needs to change.

I disagree, I like test cricket but you've got your head In the sand if you can't see it's dying all over the world because of T20 and kids attention spans shortening. I'm not asking for a drastic change, but cricket should never ever want to see a team declaring 3-500 and then the opposition making 400 with 6 century makers between them. All I'm saying is reduce it by a day, encourage wickets that do more more often so that wickets always 'feel' like they could happen. I ****ing can't stand watching Australia bat when you know the only way wickets are falling is from false shots.

Hell you could even shorten it to 4 days, create far more extreme penalties for slow over rates and squeeze extra overs into the day.

 

[Perth bloke]

I disagree, I like test cricket but you've got your head In the sand if you can't see it's dying all over the world because of T20 and kids attention spans shortening. I'm not asking for a drastic change, but cricket should never ever want to see a team declaring 3-500 and then the opposition making 400 with 6 century makers between them. All I'm saying is reduce it by a day, encourage wickets that do more more often so that wickets always 'feel' like they could happen. I ******* can't stand watching Australia bat when you know the only way wickets are falling is from false shots.

Hell you could even shorten it to 4 days, create far more extreme penalties for slow over rates and squeeze extra overs into the day.

Can't remember who said it on air the other day , might have been warne, but the gist of it was if a bowling team fails to bowl 90 overs in the allotted time they get penalised 25 runs for every over they are in arrears by. That would solve the issue overnight

 

[Gethelred]

Hell you could even shorten it to 4 days, create far more extreme penalties for slow over rates and squeeze extra overs into the day.

Umps are already running in fear of players overturning their decisions; their authority is already compromised. Who's going to risk their career by suspending Virat Kohli or Joe Root by enforcing the 90 overs a day?

Won't happen.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I disagree, I like test cricket but you've got your head In the sand if you can't see it's dying all over the world because of T20 and kids attention spans shortening. I'm not asking for a drastic change, but cricket should never ever want to see a team declaring 3-500 and then the opposition making 400 with 6 century makers between them. All I'm saying is reduce it by a day, encourage wickets that do more more often so that wickets always 'feel' like they could happen. I ******* can't stand watching Australia bat when you know the only way wickets are falling is from false shots.

Hell you could even shorten it to 4 days, create far more extreme penalties for slow over rates and squeeze extra overs into the day.

Or you can leave it at 5 days and get curators to do their job and not produce boring pitches. England seem to do it easily so how about our curators actually do their job, and that's a nationwide statement, not aimed at any particular pitch.

 

[Gethelred]

Can't remember who said it on air the other day , might have been warne, but the gist of it was if a bowling team fails to bowl 90 overs in the allotted time they get penalised 25 runs for every over they are in arrears by. That would solve the issue overnight

It would, but so would making slow over rates be a capital offense punishable by the death penalty.

25 runs is a lot.

 

[Gethelred]

Or you can leave it at 5 days and get curators to do their job and not produce boring pitches. England seem to do it easily so how about our curators actually do their job, and that's a nationwide statement, not aimed at any particular pitch.

No-one makes me as uncomfortable to have agreeing with me as you do, LP.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Can't remember who said it on air the other day , might have been warne, but the gist of it was if a bowling team fails to bowl 90 overs in the allotted time they get penalised 25 runs for every over they are in arrears by. That would solve the issue overnight

Never listen to Warne, he's a clueless airhead. You really think that will be enforced...a million to 1.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No-one makes me as uncomfortable to have agreeing with me as you do, LP.

Miracles do happen sometimes lol

 

[Perth bloke]

It would, but so would making slow over rates be a capital offense punishable by the death penalty.

25 runs is a lot.

It is a lot. That's precisely why it would encourage change. Two runs wouldn't make a difference but 25 would eradicate all semblance of laziness on the field

 

[Perth bloke]

Never listen to Warne, he's a clueless airhead. You really think that will be enforced...a million to 1.

I said the other day he reminded me of rainman. You reckon he can count cards?

 

[Gethelred]

It is a lot. That's precisely why it would encourage change. Two runs wouldn't make a difference but 25 would eradicate all semblance of laziness on the field

... which is why I personally advocate putting captains who can't get their sides to bowl 90 overs in the day to death.

A public beheading gets everyone's juices flowing for day 2.