The Cricket Thread

[Langford4FBOTC]

It took twelve tests for Steve Smith to score his first century. He now has 9 in the past 17 test matches. Since that time he has score 1849 runs at 77.04. Once he has made 50 runs in an innings he has only gotten out for less than 100 4 times in that period. That is a rate of 2.25 centuries per half century. Incredible!

I get the feeling that when he draws stumps on his career in a decade or so, we'll be debating his position in the list of all time greats. If he keeps up anything close to his current form, it'll be a given. The thing I admire about him the most is how he's worked to harness his talent to the rigours of Test cricket. When he first started out, I couldn't picture the batsman I see today. Juxtapose that against your analysis of Watson's career.

 

[Bedi]

Now bring on the Ashes. I got tix to Day 1 at Lords, so am pumped for that. Might also try to go to a few tour matches with a bit of luck.
Selection of fast bowlers is going to be a dilemma. Commentators were suggesting Mitchell Johnson might miss out. I know he's record in England isn't great, but surely not.. After Hazlweeod and Starc's form, not sure if Harris deserves to walk straight back into the side after missing so much cricket.
It's a long way off, but my only change would be to bring Rogers in for S Marsh. Though it would be great to see M Marsh come in for Watson!

 

[grizzlym]

And Steve Smith now tops the battings rankings for test cricket. Well done, son!

 

[grizzlym]

Now bring on the Ashes. I got tix to Day 1 at Lords, so am pumped for that. Might also try to go to a few tour matches with a bit of luck.
Selection of fast bowlers is going to be a dilemma. Commentators were suggesting Mitchell Johnson might miss out. I know he's record in England isn't great, but surely not.. After Hazlweeod and Starc's form, not sure if Harris deserves to walk straight back into the side after missing so much cricket.
It's a long way off, but my only change would be to bring Rogers in for S Marsh. Though it would be great to see M Marsh come in for Watson!

I don;t reckon M Marsh is far off assuming that position. Watson looks looser and looser to me with every innings.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

I don;t reckon M Marsh is far off assuming that position. Watson looks looser and looser to me with every innings.

How Watson continues to hold a mortgage on his spot is astonishing. M Marsh or Voges should be in before Watson, no doubt at all.

Really, with Rodgers to come back in, watson simply can't stay in

 

[moginie]

Now bring on the Ashes. I got tix to Day 1 at Lords, so am pumped for that. Might also try to go to a few tour matches with a bit of luck.
Selection of fast bowlers is going to be a dilemma. Commentators were suggesting Mitchell Johnson might miss out. I know he's record in England isn't great, but surely not.. After Hazlweeod and Starc's form, not sure if Harris deserves to walk straight back into the side after missing so much cricket.
It's a long way off, but my only change would be to bring Rogers in for S Marsh. Though it would be great to see M Marsh come in for Watson!

Harris should be a lock. His form in England is very good. Three tight bowlers & Lyon. Works for me.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Bowling certainly looks our strength. Harris, Johnson, hazel wood Starc, Lyon, with Ahmed, Watson marsh as back ups. Interesting to see if Pattinson or cummins goes as well. Would think Pattinson the better option right now.

Batting is still flakey. Need big tours from Warner, Rodgers, Clarke and smith.

 

[moginie]

Bowling certainly looks our strength. Harris, Johnson, hazel wood Starc, Lyon, with Ahmed, Watson marsh as back ups. Interesting to see if Pattinson or cummins goes as well. Would think Pattinson the better option right now.

Batting is still flakey. Need big tours from Warner, Rodgers, Clarke and smith.

Voges was in some pretty reasonable form for Middlesex before going to the Caribbean. Scored 98 & 132 v Somerset just a month or so ago.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Voges was in some pretty reasonable form for Middlesex before going to the Caribbean. Scored 98 & 132 v Somerset just a month or so ago.

He's certainly looking comfortable at test level, not sure he'll play in first test though.

 

[moginie]

He's certainly looking comfortable at test level, not sure he'll play in first test though.

I'd prefer him to Shaun Marsh. Marsh is still very dodgy outside off stump.

 

[TBoyleSuperstar]

I'd prefer him to Shaun Marsh. Marsh is still very dodgy outside off stump.

So would I, but the selector love SMarsh

 

[crazywildhorse]

How Watson continues to hold a mortgage on his spot is astonishing. M Marsh or Voges should be in before Watson, no doubt at all.

Really, with Rodgers to come back in, watson simply can't stay in

I've said it on here before, but if I has as many chances as Watson has had, I think I would have established myself as a test player by now.

I'd like to know what Shaun Marsh and Watson do to the selectors.

 

[Brishawk]

I have taken a look at the stats and am convinced there is absolutely no need to play Watson.

First point across the last three Ashes series in England England have never won batting second. In matches Australia has won England have averaged 462 against our 564. That can be split into an average of 526 where they bat first against 335 where they bat second. So clearly a bit of luck with the toss we can account for them based on average performance alone!

Our batting is not a hell of a lot of difference between winning and losing - 564 total runs when we win v 536 when we lose but if you look deeper we typically have an innings where we barely make 200. When England win they average 643 v 426 when losing. At first glance it would appear that we should ensure bowling depth in the team however I reject this idea because only 5 times have England managed to top 400 in 30 innings in England against Australia. None of these scores came in the last series. What happens is they score roughly the same in each innings and then bundle Australia out for a low score in one of the innings and thus we lose. I think a bowling line up of three quicks plus Lyon supported by part time spin from Smith and Warner if we get desperate should be good enough to get them out for a low enough score.

I think this is the best attack we have had in a long time and I think it will be suited to English conditions. If Starc masters the swinging ball on tour we win. What need to guard against is batting collapses. Voges has to play. His form in general plus his experience in English conditions is going to be essential. Watson is not needed. We simply don't make enough runs to carry a medium pacer who can't regularly make a contribution with the bat and won't bowl many overs as England will probably only bat for about a day per innings. Almost all Watson's runs in the last tour came in one innings in which he made 187.

If we can boost our average to 600 by adding in a specialist batsman ahead of Watson and our quicks can do some damage (lacked penetration last time around) then we can win this series. England are on the ropes and I see Watson as a defensive option at best and this is the wrong tactic in English conditions.

 

[crazywildhorse]

Calling Shane Watson an all-rounder is so 2005. He bowls 3 or 4 overs an innings, something that Clarke or Smith can do to some effect also. In fact if Watson is still considered an all rounder, why not call Johnson one also (36 runs v. 25 in the WI). Which brings me to my question, is going out of the way to pick an all-rounder even necessary in tests anymore? Bowlers and wicket keepers bat much better these days. What benefit is there in bringing M. Marsh or Watson into the side over Voges for example?

 

[Brishawk]

Calling Shane Watson an all-rounder is so 2005. He bowls 3 or 4 overs an innings, something that Clarke or Smith can do to some effect also. In fact if Watson is still considered an all rounder, why not call Johnson one also (36 runs v. 25 in the WI). Which brings me to my question, is going out of the way to pick an all-rounder even necessary in tests anymore? Bowlers and wicket keepers bat much better these days. What benefit is there in bringing M. Marsh or Watson into the side over Voges for example?

I'm sure it is some performance management equation that says in a 100 over innings 4 key bowlers can bowl 2-3 overs less if a part time bowler can bowl 7.5 overs and that will result in x% improvement in performance of the bowlers overall.

Thing is Watson is too frail to bowl all the time. He averaged about 17 overs per game early on and now only averages 14. Doesn't sound like a lot however Watson's number of wickets taken per match is also on the decline and at a greater rate than his number of overs. Essentially he is bowling less and he is getting worse at bowling.

We are talking about a guy who is decline in all aspects of his game. The only questions is (from a selectors point of view) is, is he better than the next best in that role? Watson has bowled more than 20 overs in 3 of his past 5 matches representing something of a renaissance in his bowling output (was never going to bowl much against the windies with Starc and Hazelwood reaking havoc). If they want a player to bowl 10+overs per innings and average 30 then for mine that man is Faulkner. If they want a guy to make some runs and bowl part-time then it is Voges plus Smith/Warner/Clarke. In any case, Watson is not the answer.

 

[crazywildhorse]

I'm sure it is some performance management equation that says in a 100 over innings 4 key bowlers can bowl 2-3 overs less if a part time bowler can bowl 7.5 overs and that will result in x% improvement in performance of the bowlers overall.

Thing is Watson is too frail to bowl all the time. He averaged about 17 overs per game early on and now only averages 14. Doesn't sound like a lot however Watson's number of wickets taken per match is also on the decline and at a greater rate than his number of overs. Essentially he is bowling less and he is getting worse at bowling.

We are talking about a guy who is decline in all aspects of his game. The only questions is (from a selectors point of view) is, is he better than the next best in that role? Watson has bowled more than 20 overs in 3 of his past 5 matches representing something of a renaissance in his bowling output (was never going to bowl much against the windies with Starc and Hazelwood reaking havoc). If they want a player to bowl 10+overs per innings and average 30 then for mine that man is Faulkner. If they want a guy to make some runs and bowl part-time then it is Voges plus Smith/Warner/Clarke. In any case, Watson is not the answer.

I think the Smith/Warner/Voges/Clarke combo sounds as capable as Faulkner or M. Marsh. Clarke has an uncanny wicket taking ability, and once upon a time, Smith was a specialist spinner remember.

 

[Bedi]

I'm off to Canterbury tmrw to see tour match against Kent. A lot of players competing for positions: Watson v M Marsh , Johnson v Harris, and even Shaun Marsh v Rogers - though think the latter will be a definite starter. Really glad to see Fawad Ahmed getting a game too. Will be intriguiging to see how he goes.

 

[crazywildhorse]

I'm off to Canterbury tmrw to see tour match against Kent. A lot of players competing for positions: Watson v M Marsh , Johnson v Harris, and even Shaun Marsh v Rogers - though think the latter will be a definite starter. Really glad to see Fawad Ahmed getting a game too. Will be intriguiging to see how he goes.

Voges wasn't named. I wonder what that means for him?

 

[Brishawk]

Voges wasn't named. I wonder what that means for him?

Probably another inexplicable selection. I think I have broken down the selection logic:
1. If the pitch conditions suit batting we need an all-rounder to make up some overs and make some runs therefore Watson.
2. If the pitch conditions suit neither batting or bowling we need an all-rounder to make up some overs and make some runs therefore Watson.
3. If the pitch conditions suit bowling we need an all-rounder to make up some overs and make some runs therefore Watson.
4. Watson has been a poor performer with the bat recently but he can also bowl therefore Watson.
5. Watson has been a poor performer with the ball recently but he can also bat therefore Watson.
6. Watson is injured so can't bowl therefore Watson.
7. Voges scored 131 more runs in the last series than Watson but Watson took 1 wicket against a floundering batting line up therefore Watson.

 

[MinerBoy]

I'm off to Canterbury tmrw to see tour match against Kent. A lot of players competing for positions: Watson v M Marsh , Johnson v Harris, and even Shaun Marsh v Rogers - though think the latter will be a definite starter. Really glad to see Fawad Ahmed getting a game too. Will be intriguiging to see how he goes.

What are your thoughts on the bowling line up? I wouldn't have thought that Johnson was competing with anyone. Still thinks he has enough credits to be first picked.

My opinion is Harris needs to force Starc from the team. Despite his terrific World Cup and excellent tour of the WI (against no opposition) I still feel he is more suited to white ball bowling and needs to do more to prove himself a Test match bowler at this stage.

 

[Brishawk]

What are your thoughts on the bowling line up? I wouldn't have thought that Johnson was competing with anyone. Still thinks he has enough credits to be first picked.

My opinion is Harris needs to force Starc from the team. Despite his terrific World Cup and excellent tour of the WI (against no opposition) I still feel he is more suited to white ball bowling and needs to do more to prove himself a Test match bowler at this stage.

You would take Halzelwood over Starc?

 

[MinerBoy]

You would take Halzelwood over Starc?

I would yes.

 

[crazywildhorse]

Probably another inexplicable selection. I think I have broken down the selection logic:
1. If the pitch conditions suit batting we need an all-rounder to make up some overs and make some runs therefore Watson.
2. If the pitch conditions suit neither batting or bowling we need an all-rounder to make up some overs and make some runs therefore Watson.
3. If the pitch conditions suit bowling we need an all-rounder to make up some overs and make some runs therefore Watson.
4. Watson has been a poor performer with the bat recently but he can also bowl therefore Watson.
5. Watson has been a poor performer with the ball recently but he can also bat therefore Watson.
6. Watson is injured so can't bowl therefore Watson.
7. Voges scored 131 more runs in the last series than Watson but Watson took 1 wicket against a floundering batting line up therefore Watson.

That makes perfect sense. I was thinking more along the lines of, we gave the most in-form player in the country a shot, so now we can go back and play Shane Watson and Shaun Marsh.

 

[Bedi]

Voges wasn't named. I wonder what that means for him?

I interpret it that he's a lock in for the 1st Test, along with Starc and Hazlewood who aren't playing.

 

[Bedi]

What are your thoughts on the bowling line up? I wouldn't have thought that Johnson was competing with anyone. Still thinks he has enough credits to be first picked.

My opinion is Harris needs to force Starc from the team. Despite his terrific World Cup and excellent tour of the WI (against no opposition) I still feel he is more suited to white ball bowling and needs to do more to prove himself a Test match bowler at this stage.

Johnson's record overseas is very ordinary, incl England. However given what he's done in the past 18 months I think he has to play, particularly as ge has the psychological edge. I think Harris is underdone, and will miss out. Though if he gets a bag, it'll be interesting. He thrives in English conditions. However I think quicks will be Hazlewood, Johnson, Starc.