Endless Summer of Cricket

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
John Who said:
.. if Warner/Smith can return and have changed their mannerisms
Click to expand...
Good response, except the above.
It's not about "mannerisms", eg Smith's restless batting tics at the crease, not even Warner's over-the-top celebrations when he was involved in a wicket.
It goes much, much deeper than mannerisms, which are behavioural/external. Warner has anger management issues. He's a bully, a thug, and a coward.
Smith failed as leader by not stopping the sandpaper plot before it happened. He had the opportunity to, and failed.
It's about character/integrity rounded out with humility and respect for opponents, eg that displayed by Federer or Pat Rafter and most recently by de Minaur and Barty.
Barty has fought her way into the quarter-finals and who's getting the press/attention? Tomic/Kyrgios and Hewitt.
I admired Hewitt's never-give-up attitude, his tenacity and his skills, but that's about it. Tomic is a basket case and Kyrgios needs to grow up.
 
Last edited:
CrowBloke said:
Good response, except the above.
It's not about "mannerisms", eg Smith's restless batting tics at the crease, not even Warner's over-the-top celebrations when he was involved in a wicket.
It goes much, much deeper than mannerisms, which are behavioural/external. Warner has anger management issues. He's a bully, a thug, and a coward.
Smith failed as leader by not stopping the sandpaper plot before it happened. He had the opportunity to, and failed.
It's about character/integrity rounded out with humility and respect for opponents, eg that displayed by Federer or Pat Rafter and most recently by de Minaur and Barty.
Barty has fought her way into the quarter-finals and who'd getting the press/attention? Tomic/Kyrgios and Hewitt.
I admired Hewitt's never-give-up attitude, his tenacity and his skills, but that's about it. Tomic is a basket case and Kyrgios needs to grow up.
Click to expand...
I think you’re focusing too much on the word “integrity of the sport/cricket”. Bearing in mind most fans agree that cheating should be frowned upon, but most would allow redemption for a ball-tampering fiasco or aggro behaviours. Fans are watching a particular sport mainly to watch the best athletes in their chosen field. We are not switched onto the cricket to watch altar boys batting against altar boys!

Furthermore, in today’s age of cameras, stump mics, stump cams etc., I’d argue that a player(s) who are contemplating the act of an onfield scam, is more a moron than a cheater! Hardly worth lifebans for their acts of indecency. The key point I would like to emphasise is that they need to show remorse and changes to their behaviours upon their return to international level (and maintaining this change in behaviour).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

hey shorty said:
Patterson a late call up to the test squad.
Click to expand...
I'm pleased for him and like him as a player but...

The decision reeks of reaction.

Like the captain who moves a fielder to where the ball just went. No plan. No long term vision. Not judging on underlying quality - just seeing who did well last week.

Selection panel seems lost at the moment.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
I'm pleased for him and like him as a player but...

The decision reeks of reaction.

Like the captain who moves a fielder to where the ball just went. No plan. No long term vision. Not judging on underlying quality - just seeing who did well last week.

Selection panel seems lost at the moment.
Click to expand...

When does rewarding form not reek of being reactionary?
 
SydCrow said:
when it rewards form that goes back further than one game!
Click to expand...
A bit difficult, given that most players haven't seen a red ball in 2 months.

Patterson's form actually goes back 2 matches, if you count his grade cricket performances. Given that nobody has played a Shield game in 2 months, that's as good a form line as it's possible for any player to have achieved.
 
hey shorty said:
They've basically bowed to public pressure here. The squad was named too early, then they have a guy who makes 2 100s against the team we are playing and..... "oh **** we better put him in"
Click to expand...
It's not as if anyone has actually scored any Shield runs in the last 2 months, to demand selection in his place! He comprehensively outperformed 3 players who had been selected, one of whom has barely scored a run in the last 12 months.

Yes, it's a knee jerk reaction - but it's not as if there is another player (literally any other player) who can say that he's scored more runs against the red (or pink) ball in the last 2 months.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
I'm pleased for him and like him as a player but...

The decision reeks of reaction.

Like the captain who moves a fielder to where the ball just went. No plan. No long term vision. Not judging on underlying quality - just seeing who did well last week.

Selection panel seems lost at the moment.
Click to expand...

"seems" and "at the moment" are redundant.
 
SydCrow said:
when it rewards form that goes back further than one game!
Click to expand...

And Patterson has been one of our better bats in the Shield.

Form selections are reactionary by nature, that said, it isn't a bad thing. You must reward them, when possible, to give legitimacy to your pathways. I agree the real problem was CA selecting their squad prior to this match.
 
Well it was either plan B: picking guys who have shown competency (read: scoring regular centuries)....
Or....
Plan A: pick guys who can score a century every 1-2 years aka Marsh bros.

Even if it’s reactionary, it’s just about the only good thing CA has done in last 12 months!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
1) The decision reeks of reaction.
2) Like the captain who moves a fielder to where the ball just went. 3) No plan. No long term vision. Not judging on underlying quality - just seeing who did well last week.
Selection panel seems lost at the moment.
Click to expand...
1) most selection decisions are reactions to how players have performed, aren't they? I like Patterson's inclusion. He was overlooked, but weight of runs forced a re-think. New information = new selection. Wouldn't you prefer that to their sticking with the squad as selected? Pucovski will probably get a gig, but not Burns/Renshaw.
2) I disagree. Patterson's selection is like the Captain who moves a fielder to a certain spot and BINGO gets/takes a catch. Well, we hope! In one game I played years ago, two opposition batsmen were swinging the bat hard and slicing top edges at chest level through deep backward point between point and third man, for fours. When I came onto bowl, I talked to the Captain and asked him to move our best slips fielder 10 metres deeper of point and 10 metres towards third man (I don't know why he hadn't done that yet). Both batsmen holed out there in the next 2 overs, one via a one-handed absolute screamer high to our bloke's left. The ball fizzed in a wild spinning arc like a wild golf slice away from our bloke --- one of the best catches I've seen when playing. I got credit for the wicket, undeservedly, because I'd bowled a rank, wide long-hop that deserved to get belted.
Patterson's selection is before the event, not after.
3) I'd say their long-term vision is based on hope that Patterson will rise to the occasion (think: David Hookes when he was first selected --- jeez, I loved watching him bat) and become a long-term Test-run machine. It wasn't just last week. Patterson got a good ton in Perth (I think) in the last Shield game before the break.
 
WaynesWorld19 said:
WOW unbelievable ......and this guy wants to play Test Cricket

But what scares me, is that I don't think he's alone in his thinking ......these players that believe T20 & Big Bash are the pathway to Test Cricket are freakin fooling themselves !

Click to expand...


I think it depends on the location of the cricketer. In Asia its well known that T20 cricket is a pathway to Test Cricket given the lack of opportunities that they have. Less so though here in Australia.

As an example, Bumrah was selected for India via T20 and only started playing Test Cricket last year.
 
GROTTO said:
I think it depends on the location of the cricketer. In Asia its well known that T20 cricket is a pathway to Test Cricket given the lack of opportunities that they have. Less so though here in Australia.

As an example, Bumrah was selected for India via T20 and only started playing Test Cricket last year.
Click to expand...
Warner played T20 for Australia before he'd even debuted at Shield level.
 
WaynesWorld19 said:
WOW unbelievable ......and this guy wants to play Test Cricket

But what scares me, is that I don't think he's alone in his thinking ......these players that believe T20 & Big Bash are the pathway to Test Cricket are freakin fooling themselves !

Click to expand...

I think Handscomb was more referring his unique batting stance. He does it in a similar way to Smith where he stands more to the off stump region, and the wickets are exposed on the leg side.
This technique had allowed him to score decent runs when he first began in the Test arena but I think his form and the presence of Smith had helped him then. Seems to have less the confidence now.
 
Golumless said:
When does rewarding form not reek of being reactionary?
Click to expand...
How long is form?

An innings? Two? A string of matches? A season? How long will it last?

Which is why you should never reward form.

Form is temporary, class is permanent. Take a step back and look at the player as a whole.

People get too caught up in week to week fluctuations.
 
hey shorty said:
They've basically bowed to public pressure here. The squad was named too early, then they have a guy who makes 2 100s against the team we are playing and..... "oh **** we better put him in"
Click to expand...
Yep exactly.

Our selection has been governed by one game!

If the CAXI game was washed out Patterson wouldn't have been picked. He'd be the exact same player and hitting the ball just as well but no call up.

If they weren't sold on the squad they picked initially, were splitting hairs between a few options and wanted to wait to see who did well then fine.

Do that!

Delay announcing the squad.
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
How long is form?

An innings? Two? A string of matches? A season? How long will it last?

Which is why you should never reward form.

Form is temporary, class is permanent. Take a step back and look at the player as a whole.

People get too caught up in week to week fluctuations.
Click to expand...

Handscomb was dumped from the test team, had a good T20 innings and was then re-selected.
 
John Who said:
I think Handscomb was more referring his unique batting stance. He does it in a similar way to Smith where he stands more to the off stump region, and the wickets are exposed on the leg side.
This technique had allowed him to score decent runs when he first began in the Test arena but I think his form and the presence of Smith had helped him then. Seems to have less the confidence now.
Click to expand...
Hanscomb has only played 16 Tests .....he's been worked out by Internationals now

No, I think he was talking Technique in general terms
 
Drugs Are Bad Mackay? said:
How long is form?

An innings? Two? A string of matches? A season? How long will it last?

Which is why you should never reward form.

Form is temporary, class is permanent. Take a step back and look at the player as a whole.

People get too caught up in week to week fluctuations.
Click to expand...

:thumbsu::thumbsu::thumbsu: great supporting argument

1548057232362.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Competitions Crouch's Lock of the Week Game
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
5K
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top