Endless Summer of Cricket

[mattymac]

If Australia won in Adelaide, then the final result would have been 2-1 our way - a thoroughly undeserved series win, by (arguably) the worst Australian Test team ever.

I don't think it's really arguable. Surely the only contenders would be the 1980s teams post-WSC/mass retirements and rebel tours.

Even then we still had Allan Border as captain and I don't recall us going an entire series without a single batsman making a century.

This lot of batsmen are pure garbage. The bowlers were woeful on the whole too. India out-bowled us on our own pitches.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I may watch zero cricket and simply follow it on social media ......but there's nothing here that i haven't been saying for a long time .....if i can see it, why can't others ......or did the $$$$$ muddy the waters of what needed to be done

It feels like yesterday the national Test team was the peak of sporting existence. Twice since 1999 they won 16 consecutive Tests and were lauded at times as the modern day invincibles.

But the golden generation has not been replaced and there is no active batsman in the country who has made 1000 first-class runs in a season.

Australia will improve again and will win series in the future, but the question must be asked whether the batting performances of the past 12 months are an anomaly or a pattern that’s been developing for a decade or more?

IT IS ALL T20 CRICKET’S FAULT

There is a clear correlation between the rise of T20 cricket and the fall of Australia’s batting depth. Coincidence or otherwise, the short form of the game has helped a generation of batsmen prosper who have more shots but less patience.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I may watch zero cricket and simply follow it on social media ......but there's nothing here that i haven't been saying for a long time .....if i can see it, why can't others ......or did the $$$$$ muddy the waters of what needed to be done





IT IS ALL T20 CRICKET’S FAULT

There is a clear correlation between the rise of T20 cricket and the fall of Australia’s batting depth. Coincidence or otherwise, the short form of the game has helped a generation of batsmen prosper who have more shots but less patience.

All our opponents also have T20 cricket. If it's stuffing our batting up it should be stuffing up theirs too.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

All our opponents also have T20 cricket. If it's stuffing our batting up it should be stuffing up theirs too.

You didn't read the article did you ? ......that was explained why India as an example structures there comps better than us

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

You didn't read the article did you ? ......that was explained why India as an example structures there comps better than us

They do, which is nothing to do with T20 cricket in itself

 

[John Who]

1) Equally, it may not. Australia might have been rolled for 80 etc etc etc but that didn't happen, either.
2) BUT Australia did not win in Adelaide. The final result was 2-1, their way, a thoroughly deserved result against the rabble we dished up to them.
I enjoy a lot of your posts, but I am bewildered why you persist with the if-things-were-different speculation .
Things weren't 'different'.

Nothing wrong with speculation if it’s based on agreeable observations.
Examples:
“If only we didn’t get injuries to half of our team, we could have won it instead of a draw”.
“If only the frees weren’t 50-10 against us, we could have won it instead of a 2-goal loss”.

Indians generally batted well, but it was based on 2-3 of their main batters that showed consistency. Whereas, we didn’t have any consistent batters. At the end of the day, the series result was as predictable as predictable can be.

 

[John Who]

You didn't read the article did you ? ......that was explained why India as an example structures there comps better than us

I have another theory, maybe our players aren’t as adaptable than other countries? Some countries have players who can switch well between T20 and Test matches, whilst countries such as ours aren’t coping with the differences in pacing between the T20 and the longer version.

The adaptability theory works both ways. For example, I remember 1-2 years ago Smith was getting a stack of centuries/double centuries on his way to becoming the highest-average current batsman. He then played in the ODI or maybe T20 series immediately after and didn’t appear to pace himself faster than the other batsmen. ie. he looked like he was still in Test mode!

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I have another theory, maybe our players aren’t as adaptable than other countries? Some countries have players who can switch well between T20 and Test matches, whilst countries such as ours aren’t coping with the differences in pacing between the T20 and the longer version.

The adaptability theory works both ways. For example, I remember 1-2 years ago Smith was getting a stack of centuries/double centuries on his way to becoming the highest-average current batsman. He then played in the ODI or maybe T20 series immediately after and didn’t appear to pace himself faster than the other batsmen. ie. he looked like he was still in Test mode!

IMO young kids are practicing for the shorter form of the game, rather than a technique of crease occupation and technique ......it's a cultural issue that goes back many years, and includes our test theories of scoring quickly to give ourselves the time to bowl opposition sides out

We traditionally had the balance right between "crease occupiers" and "attacking" players ........who are the crease occupiers now?

Saw one dismissal the other day, the Aussie batsman chopped on .....there was bat pad gap of nearly a foot .....clearly a one day technique, where the track is flat and the ball hardly deviates

 

[Mego Red]

So despite the fact sides are so terrible away we still needed to win the toss to win a test match?
In Melbourne we probably would have got rolled for 250 in the first dig and India could have quite easily made 400 on that pitch to again roll us in the 2nd innings.
Last test we incredibly lucky to get away with the draw.

Sent from my MI PAD 4 using Tapatalk

India was 8-100 in the Melbourne test.

It was incredibly easy to bat on for two days and incredibly hard for three, once the pitch had dried out.

It was terrible groundskeeping, and a horrendous toss to lose.

Australia could have easily won Adelaide and Melbourne, with a different result at the toss.

And that doesn't change the fact we were embarrassingly bad.

 

[Mego Red]

I’ve worked out who you remind me of, Rowey. He too is quick to defend the sporting teams/sportspeople he supports whilst he’s negative against those he doesn’t.

You both do it by making statements that aren’t overly accurate.

Feel free to point out my inaccuracies. You don't do that very often - you just tumble into your crazy rants.

 

[Mego Red]

Who is Gideon Haigh?

Are you serious??

 

[Mego Red]

probably the most pre-eminent cricket journalist in the country.

At least in the top handful in the world.

 

[Mego Red]

Yeeeaaaah ... BUT they didn't. Plus, they won the series 2-1 in actual fact, and dominated every major statistic along the way wrt to batting and bowling (have a look:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ing_bowling_by_team.html?id=12384;type=series).
Who's to say that Australia would have won the Adelaide Test if they batted first? Why not speculate about another middle order collapse that gets them done by an Innings+runs? (well, because that didn't happen, either ).
Test results don't add the "But ifs" that you and Vader have speculated about. There's no mention of toin coss outcomes, weather, badly prepared wickets (eg batting roads where India made 6/622 and all we could manage was 300 all out), or wickets that turned sideways etc nor what might-have-happened if things were different.

India were very good in beating the team that we presented.
Australia was poor, by comparison.

Here, this might help --- if you research the AFL GF result for 2017 every site will tell you that Richmond won the Flag. There will be no qualification along the lines of "... but the Crows might have won IF they were at full strength and IF the team was more united (Jake Lever hubbub) and IF the Umpires weren't crap and IF ... and IF ... etc".

Did you just use a thousand words to say "but that's not what happened"?

No s**t. I think everyone pretty much knows what actually occurred. Not sure why the absolute obvious needed pointing out.

 

[Mego Red]

This!!!

WTF!! Did you just AGREE with a post that said the Indians got the best of the conditions?! That was because they won the toss!!

The difference between day one and day three in Melbourne was enormous - and they had that advantage because they won a coin flip.

That being said - terrible pitch preparations that offered us no advantage would be right up there with s**t selections for "things that lost us the series".

 

[Mego Red]

1) Equally, it may not. Australia might have been rolled for 80 etc etc etc but that didn't happen, either.
2) BUT Australia did not win in Adelaide. The final result was 2-1, their way, a thoroughly deserved result against the rabble we dished up to them.
I enjoy a lot of your posts, but I am bewildered why you persist with the if-things-were-different speculation .
Things weren't 'different'.

It really rules out a lot of discussion, if you only want people to recap the facts of what occurred.

 

[Mego Red]

I may watch zero cricket and simply follow it on social media ......but there's nothing here that i haven't been saying for a long time .....if i can see it, why can't others ......or did the $$$$$ muddy the waters of what needed to be done





IT IS ALL T20 CRICKET’S FAULT

There is a clear correlation between the rise of T20 cricket and the fall of Australia’s batting depth. Coincidence or otherwise, the short form of the game has helped a generation of batsmen prosper who have more shots but less patience.

I'm mostly skipping over your posts - but you KNOW India has the IPL, right?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

I'm mostly skipping over your posts - but you KNOW India has the IPL, right?

Again, you're commenting without having read the article

 

[jackster83]

The BBL feels too long this year. Feels like there's not as much importance in winning each game - even sides that have totally sucked so far have another half a dozen games to try and get back in finals contention.

The Ryobi/JLT cup (or whatever it's called at the moment) needs to be discarded and the shield season brought forward.

Also whoever had the idea of playing ODI's against SA prior to the test series should be sacked. Waste of time for a series that hardly anyone watched and it deprived players of red ball cricket ahead of a series against the best side in the world. Any ODI's should be after the test summer has concluded.

 

[Elite Crow]

Feel free to point out my inaccuracies. You don't do that very often - you just tumble into your crazy rants.

Oh such a witty reply. I’ve picked up your biased hypocritical garbage plenty, now it seems you’d like me to do it more.

India played disciplined good cricket. Their batters were patient and didn’t throw away their wickets. Their bowlers again were accurate and maintained the pressure. Their bowlers moved the ball when ours couldnt.

Our batsmen weren’t getting out to unplayable bowling they were getting out because of rash s**t shot making. Our bowlers were pedestrian.

Rain saved us from going down 3-1.

Talk India down as much as you want to protect our own, but that’s exactly what Rowey does, so if the shoe fits.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

So many people with so many different "Ashes" team ......the Australian Test Team should almost pick itself .....just shows how poor our depth & performances are, that so many experts can vary so much on their team

 

[CrowBloke]

Nothing wrong with speculation if it’s based on agreeable observations.

This forum, not just this thread, is filled with speculations before the event which can be interesting for sure, fun even:
--- who might get picked/dropped
--- who might play where
--- who might win/lose
--- winning margin etc.
However, your examples are "if-only" flights of fancy:
"“If only we didn’t get injuries to half of our team, we could have won it instead of a draw”.
“If only the frees weren’t 50-10 against us, we could have won it instead of a 2-goal loss”. "
which are utterly pointless. For example: "IF ONLY Paine had won the toss ..." --- there is no information to say that the Australians would/would not have been bowled out for 80, or 200, or 700. Don't you get it??

JW, Vader , Kristof ... do you ever buy a Lotto/Powerball ticket? It's human nature to wonder before the event what one might do, if the right numbers are picked,
BUT,
do you ever say to yourself after the event:
"IF ONLY my numbers had come up, because then I would have won it"? It makes as much sense as saying: "If I had won it, I'd have won it" .
IF Douglas had not taken out McGovern, or IF Gallucci had not run forward, or IF a legal tackle was made on Motlop, the Crows would have won that Showdown.
How about: IF Port had kicked (any number of goals) instead of points, they would have won, anyway? OR
IF the Crows were 7 points up at that time, they'd have won by a point, or a million other hypotheticals?

 

[WaynesWorld19]

This forum, not just this thread, is filled with speculations before the event which can be interesting for sure, fun even:
--- who might get picked/dropped
--- who might play where
--- who might win/lose
--- winning margin etc.
However, your examples are "if-only" flights of fancy:
"“If only we didn’t get injuries to half of our team, we could have won it instead of a draw”.
“If only the frees weren’t 50-10 against us, we could have won it instead of a 2-goal loss”. "
which are utterly pointless. For example: "IF ONLY Paine had won the toss ..." --- there is no information to say that the Australians would/would not have been bowled out for 80, or 200, or 700. Don't you get it??

JW, Vader , Kristof ... do you ever buy a Lotto/Powerball ticket? It's human nature to wonder before the event what one might do, if the right numbers are picked,
BUT,
do you ever say to yourself after the event:
"IF ONLY my numbers had come up, because then I would have won it"? It makes as much sense as saying: "If I had won it, I'd have won it" .
IF Douglas had not taken out McGovern, or IF Gallucci had not run forward, or IF a legal tackle was made on Motlop, the Crows would have won that Showdown.
How about: IF Port had kicked (any number of goals) instead of points, they would have won, anyway? OR
IF the Crows were 7 points up at that time, they'd have won by a point, or a mil
lion other hypotheticals?

Totally agree ....everyone's an expert in retrospect, yet the opinions can never be proven either way

 

[Vader]

Yeeeaaaah ... BUT they didn't. Plus, they won the series 2-1 in actual fact, and dominated every major statistic along the way wrt to batting and bowling (have a look:
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...ing_bowling_by_team.html?id=12384;type=series).
Who's to say that Australia would have won the Adelaide Test if they batted first? Why not speculate about another middle order collapse that gets them done by an Innings+runs? (well, because that didn't happen, either ).
Test results don't add the "But ifs" that you and Vader have speculated about. There's no mention of toin coss outcomes, weather, badly prepared wickets (eg batting roads where India made 6/622 and all we could manage was 300 all out), or wickets that turned sideways etc nor what might-have-happened if things were different.

India were very good in beating the team that we presented.
Australia was poor, by comparison.

Nobody is saying that Australia would have won the Adelaide test. However, if they did, then the series would have ended 2-1 in Australia's favour - which would have been an absolute travesty of justice considering how the Melbourne & Sydney tests panned out.

What we do know is that Paine has a perfect 100% correlation between winning/losing the toss, and winning/losing the subsequent test matches. We also know that India enjoyed the best of the batting conditions in Adelaide, having won the toss & decided to bat.

It is possible, and highly plausible, that Australia may have won that test if Paine had won the toss. The game was only decided by 31 runs, and it's quite plausible to believe that this result could have been reversed if the coin toss had gone the other way.

Yes, it's also possible that India still would have won the game, and the series. But that's not the point. The point is that the series ultimately came down to that Adelaide test, and it is quite possible that Australia could have won the series 2-1 if the toss had gone differently in Adelaide. Yes, that would have been an absolute travesty of justice, and a case of daylight robbery, given how superior India were in the last 2 tests.

 

[CrowBloke]

Did you just use a thousand words to say "but that's not what happened"?

Was it a thousand words? I didn't count. Who made you the word-length Police? It's not my fault or problem if posts longer than a sentence test your patience, concentration and comprehension.
To my knowledge, the Mods have set no word limit on posts. If they do (and please let me know), I'll make a point of posting within the rules which I am doing at present.
Your posts keep saying "If something different had happened, the result would have been different" .

But that's not what happened .

 

[CrowBloke]

1) Australia could have easily won Adelaide and Melbourne, with a different result at the toss.
2) And that doesn't change the fact we were embarrassingly bad.

1) But that's not what happened .
2) Now you're talking! Totally true, but if we had been better things would have been different, right?