The Cricket Thread

[TBoyleSuperstar]

Classy from the Lankans, a nice touch for the Huss. Respect.

Hope these two can put on a few, though love to see Wadey make some runs. Hawk blood running through his veins and all.

 

[grizzlym]

I guess, in theory, with the extra bowler and the reduction in bowling load, they should be nice and fresh for batting. Feel for Wade but.

 

[Henry Jr]

That all rounder really paid off (cue Mess celebrating)

 

[grizzlym]

D'oh! Huges gone too . . . that batting line up is looking a little short atm . . .

Playing 5 batsmen and your keeper at 6 is stupidity. Just insane.

Selection is very poor. I seriously hope we don't go into future games with just the 5 specialist batsmen.

 

[moginie]

Playing 5 batsmen and your keeper at 6 is stupidity. Just insane.

Selection is very poor. I seriously hope we don't go into future games with just the 5 specialist batsmen.

I can't remember one team that has ever won consistantly with that type of line up.

I seem to remember the Poms frequently being beaten when they tried that.

 

[grizzlym]

I can't remember one team that has ever won consistantly with that type of line up.

I seem to remember the Poms frequently being beaten when they tried that.

Yep. Unless you have a world class allrounder, and they are a rare breed indeed, it's a fraught exercise. History shows that.

Even worse, is stacking your batting line-up with half-arsed all-rounder, which does nothing but weaken both the batting and the bowling.

I still don't get the need to play 4 pacemen, especially at the SCG.

Interestingly, I was away at the beach (friends house) for a couple of days after the premature end of the Melbourne test and a rather decent cricketing journo was down for lunch. He's a mate of this friend. Anyway, he had some quite funny things to say. His best was along the lines of, "after Steven Smith's axing the powers that be have been after a player that can weaken both the batting and bowling line-up simultaneously... Johnson suddenly being spruiked as a genuine all-rounder is merely the stop-gap until they insert Maxwell into the test side." Twas quite a funny anecdote he told.

 

[Messenger]

That all rounder really paid off (cue Mess celebrating)

One innings proves nothing either way but Johnson has no pedigree whatsoever to suggest he could flourish with the expectations of batting seven. And Wade is certainly too high at six. They are a batsman short.

Five bowlers really only works if you have two spinners. Otherwise you'll never get enough overs into the fifth guy to justify the loss of batting depth.

The question mark for me is Shane Watson. May not bowl in Tests going forward yet averages 37 with the bat and converts one in every ten half centuries into a three figure score. Can he justify a spot as a specialist batsman?

 

[Messenger]

Anyway, he had some quite funny things to say. His best was along the lines of, "after Steven Smith's axing the powers that be have been after a player that can weaken both the batting and bowling line-up simultaneously... Johnson suddenly being spruiked as a genuine all-rounder is merely the stop-gap until they insert Maxwell into the test side." Twas quite a funny anecdote he told.

The infernal search for an all rounder borders on lunacy. There is potentially a very rich vein of fast bowling available

Pattinson
Starc
Cummins
Bird

plus Siddle, Johnson and Hilfenhaus.

Lyon is no Graeme Swann but he is capable and as Richie Benaud has pointed out, unfairly maligned. If he could just slow down a fraction he'd likely do better.

 

[grizzlym]

One innings proves nothing either way but Johnson has no pedigree whatsoever to suggest he could flourish with the expectations of batting seven. And Wade is certainly too high at six. They are a batsman short.

They are, especially when you take into account the relative inexperience of the top order. Cowan is brittle. Hughes is on his way back. Warner is learning the 'test game'. In any case, even if you have an Kallis or Keith Miller, 5 batsmen is not enough or the ideal balance. Well, the 1948 Invincibles went in with 5 bowlers but they had Keith Miller bowling and Don Bradman batting...

Mitch, if he's bowling well, is a great number 8 to have in the shed 6 or 7 is far too high. As is 6 for Wade.

Five bowlers really only works if you have two spinners. Otherwise you'll never get enough overs into the fifth guy to justify the loss of batting depth.

I'd say the only situation where it works is with a world class all-rounder. Imagine us playing 2 spinners... Lyon and Maxwell against the Indians?

The question mark for me is Shane Watson. May not bowl in Tests going forward yet averages 37 with the bat and converts one in every ten half centuries into a three figure score. Can he justify a spot as a specialist batsman?

Can he justify a spot in the top four at test level? I don't think he can and there are, according to this journo, plenty at the top level who share the same view. He simply hasn't made the returns as a top four batsman. He doesn't convert starts into centuries. And he's frail. With all that being said, he's a very important cricketer in the shorter forms of the game, and one of our marquee players. But, the question has to be, at test level is the attempt at making him fit hold back others and gloss over deficiencies? For example: pick a batting line up of 6 batsmen, let them settle (or not).

The infernal search for an all rounder borders on lunacy. There is potentially a very rich vein of fast bowling available

Pattinson
Starc
Cummins
Bird

plus Siddle, Johnson and Hilfenhaus.

There is indeed. If Cummins ever gets back on the park and stays on the park, he has the most potential out of the lot of them. Could be seriously anything.

Lyon is no Graeme Swann but he is capable and as Richie Benaud has pointed out, unfairly maligned. If he could just slow down a fraction he'd likely do better.

This journo was saying that Lyon early in his career got wickets with unexpected bounce. And that's been lacking of late. Not sure why. Anyway, was interesting to watch him bowl in the first innings and he seemed to surprise the batsmen with some unexpected bounce. There was that one that the guy edged and Wade dropped. Not sure if it had to do with the pitch or what.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I quite like Lyon as an Australian style spinner, plenty of over-spin, and when he slows down, some nice loop and drop. He's not a sub-continental spinner (low, flat, side-spin, *ahem* "15", etc), and I doubt he will see much success there. He bowls his best on faster, bouncy pitches - conversely the same pitches he rarely bowls on if the quicks do their job.

So why is it, that Australia doesn't produce good spinners? There's a couple of reasons.

1. Short-form (club) cricket: The only successful spinners are ones with control, who bowl flat and fast. Most club captains have little idea on how to set fields for a spinner, nor does a young kid have the ability to come out and say "I want....". No close catches, defensive fields, the dud fieldsmen on the boundary, trying to stop the batsman slogging.

2. Bat technology: A spinner's weapon is his guile, his ability to conceal variations, to surprise batsmen off the pitch. A mishit now goes for six, or (at lower levels) very, very high in the air - making catching more difficult.

3. Fielding: A fast bowler gets 80% of their wickets between themselves and the keeper/slips - ie specialist positions. For a spinner that number might be <50%. That means outfield catching, and especially catching in close is extremely important. Most junior competitions don't allow close catchers, and outfield catching is pretty average right through into the senior comps. I've never seen any junior/reserve teams with a specialist bat-pad.

Combine the 3, and a "test potential" spinner either has to completely reinvent himself as he progresses through the levels; be such a freak he succeeds regardless; or be lucky to have great captains/coaches throughout his junior progression.

 

[Messenger]

They are, especially when you take into account the relative inexperience of the top order. Cowan is brittle. Hughes is on his way back. Warner is learning the 'test game'. In any case, even if you have an Kallis or Keith Miller, 5 batsmen is not enough or the ideal balance. Well, the 1948 Invincibles went in with 5 bowlers but they had Keith Miller bowling and Don Bradman batting...

Mitch, if he's bowling well, is a great number 8 to have in the shed 6 or 7 is far too high. As is 6 for Wade.

Agreed. My faith in Cowan is fast evaporating too.

I'd say the only situation where it works is with a world class all-rounder. Imagine us playing 2 spinners... Lyon and Maxwell against the Indians?

Well, you can count the number of truly world class all rounders on one hand since Miller. Botham, Dev, Kallis. Flintoff, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Hadlee probably all didn't really make enough runs frequently enough.

Can he justify a spot in the top four at test level? I don't think he can and there are, according to this journo, plenty at the top level who share the same view. He simply hasn't made the returns as a top four batsman. He doesn't convert starts into centuries. And he's frail. With all that being said, he's a very important cricketer in the shorter forms of the game, and one of our marquee players. But, the question has to be, at test level is the attempt at making him fit hold back others and gloss over deficiencies? For example: pick a batting line up of 6 batsmen, let them settle (or not).

I'd question if he is can be justified at six long term. Right now you'd pick him, but long term...

This journo was saying that Lyon early in his career got wickets with unexpected bounce. And that's been lacking of late. Not sure why. Anyway, was interesting to watch him bowl in the first innings and he seemed to surprise the batsmen with some unexpected bounce. There was that one that the guy edged and Wade dropped. Not sure if it had to do with the pitch or what.

Indeed. He needs to slow down and throw it up.

I quite like Lyon as an Australian style spinner, plenty of over-spin, and when he slows down, some nice loop and drop. He's not a sub-continental spinner (low, flat, side-spin, *ahem* "15", etc), and I doubt he will see much success there. He bowls his best on faster, bouncy pitches - conversely the same pitches he rarely bowls on if the quicks do their job.

I agree on Lyon. I think he's fine.

So why is it, that Australia doesn't produce good spinners? There's a couple of reasons.

1. Short-form (club) cricket: The only successful spinners are ones with control, who bowl flat and fast. Most club captains have little idea on how to set fields for a spinner, nor does a young kid have the ability to come out and say "I want....". No close catches, defensive fields, the dud fieldsmen on the boundary, trying to stop the batsman slogging.

2. Bat technology: A spinner's weapon is his guile, his ability to conceal variations, to surprise batsmen off the pitch. A mishit now goes for six, or (at lower levels) very, very high in the air - making catching more difficult.

3. Fielding: A fast bowler gets 80% of their wickets between themselves and the keeper/slips - ie specialist positions. For a spinner that number might be <50%. That means outfield catching, and especially catching in close is extremely important. Most junior competitions don't allow close catchers, and outfield catching is pretty average right through into the senior comps. I've never seen any junior/reserve teams with a specialist bat-pad.

Combine the 3, and a "test potential" spinner either has to completely reinvent himself as he progresses through the levels; be such a freak he succeeds regardless; or be lucky to have great captains/coaches throughout his junior progression.

I'd add to your list Simon:

4. Synthetic pitches at junior level. Abound here in Melbourne. Produce great bounce that is very true but little side spin. Terry Jenner always talked about spinners having to learn to defend themselves; these pitches just don't permit that. The two best spinners I saw on those surfaces was former shield player Craig Howard and a young offie I played with who bowled very slow with an enormous amount of flight and drift.

5. Captaincy. Warne set the bar incredibly high for spinners and it seems captains at all levels suffer amnesia as to what spinners were like before him. We've burned a number of decent spinners (Krejza prime amongst them, Dan Cullen perhaps) because they leaked runs like our idealised SK Warne never would. We've played some ordinary guys too (Doherty, Beer, McGain). The great shame is that Beau Casson broke down when he did. He could bowl.

 

[grizzlym]

Well, you can count the number of truly world class all rounders on one hand since Miller. Botham, Dev, Kallis. Flintoff, Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Hadlee probably all didn't really make enough runs frequently enough.

Exactly. You'd argue they are all bowling all-rounders, earning their stripes as specialist bowlers but able to contribute more than handy runs. Imran obviously shifted his focus to batting as his career progressed. Kallis is one of the very rare breed who is a genuine top order batsman and a very, very handy bowler too, but primarily a batsman. This kind of explains, in my opinion, why the selectors have been so patient with Watson - he is/was potentially this type of world-beating and incredibly rare cricketers. Whether he ever really reached those heights, or will in the future, is open for debate.

The upshot is, in my opinion, that sacrificing a specialised btasman for an all-rounder is utter folly. We didn't go down that path when Gilchrist was in the team and the rest of our batting was very strong, why on earth do it now? We haven't had problems dismissing teams - barring injuries to key pacemen - in recent times either. And now with Watson's fitness patchy at best, and his short-term bowling future in doubt, suddenly he is now going to be assessed as a top order batsman without the 'all rounder veil of protection' shielding him.

 

[grizzlym]

Gee, they print any old drivel on Sportal.

Cop this:

"Second drop has been shared by Michael Clarke and the now injured Shane Watson, who have both struck half-centuries against the tourists in this series, two in the case of the in-form skipper, who also registered a ton in Melbourne.

But if even Clarke, who has proven adept at bagging not just centuries but multiple centuries in the last 12 months, has struggled to convert in this series, questions must be asked."

http://www.sportal.com.au/cricket-news-display/australian-top-order-problems-216273

Apart from not making any sense, the point he is attempting to make in the last sentence is just laughable.

 

[Langford4FBOTC]

Just on Wade, agree that 6 isn't the long term spot for him, but he's got some serious batting talent. Was talking to a mate at the Boxing Day test who's well connected in cricketing circles. He's a big wrap for the guy... Can play aggressively and also knuckle down when needed. Told the story that as a 15 year old he scored a double ton in a grade final down in Tassie.... Got a lot of people interested from then.

 

[Henry Jr]

Who are the all-rounders at state level?

Maxwell... couldn't get your grandma out
Steve Smith... cough
Mitchell Marsh... injured
McDonald... injured
Faulkner... batting below par this year
Hastings.. a handy state cricketer but not sure he is really good enough at either discipline at test level imo

All it leaves is James Hopes! Enough said really....

 

[grizzlym]

Just on Wade, agree that 6 isn't the long term spot for him, but he's got some serious batting talent. Was talking to a mate at the Boxing Day test who's well connected in cricketing circles. He's a big wrap for the guy... Can play aggressively and also knuckle down when needed. Told the story that as a 15 year old he scored a double ton in a grade final down in Tassie.... Got a lot of people interested from then.

Yep, no doubt he has that talent batting wise, could well turn into that quality number 7/keeper aka Gilchrist. That's just the sort of player which can make a side that much harder to beat. The knocks though, over the years, have been on his keeping.

Tell me Langers, how do you see the batting line-up settling, especially with Hussey departing us shortly?

 

[Messenger]

Hopes would be the best of them for mine in India but I don't think he's a Test #6 either.

McDonald is a Test #6 but his bowling is marginal.

 

[Langford4FBOTC]

Yep, no doubt he has that talent batting wise, could well turn into that quality number 7/keeper aka Gilchrist. That's just the sort of player which can make a side that much harder to beat. The knocks though, over the years, have been on his keeping.

Tell me Langers, how do you see the batting line-up settling, especially with Hussey departing us shortly?

It's a hard call, made even harder by this unbelievably crap scheduling of the t20 comp. No doubt they need 6 specialist bats. Need to give up on this all rounder bull. If they can get some overs and the odd cheap wicket out of Clarke and Warner then that's our lot until we get someone worthy of a position.
I'd stick with the current top four. Cowan is shaky, but no alternative ATM. That leaves 5&6 to fill. Special K was in form prior to the shield break and has the talent to make it at test level so he's in.
Who knows for the last spot? Funny watching how the Vic and NSW media have angled for D Hussey and Hadden respectively.

As a side note, Fox Sports are so heavily invested in the T20, their lead story the other night was the hit & giggle game, followed by day 1 of the Sydney test!

 

[Langford4FBOTC]

Who are the all-rounders at state level?

Maxwell... couldn't get your grandma out
Steve Smith... cough
Mitchell Marsh... injured
McDonald... injured
Faulkner... batting below par this year
Hastings.. a handy state cricketer but not sure he is really good enough at either discipline at test level imo

All it leaves is James Hopes! Enough said really....

You've missed Moses there Henry.

I think Marsh is the best long term option there as a bowling all rounder. I like Faulkner and see him as more than handy, but just needs to step his batting up a notch.

 

[Henry Jr]

You've missed Moses there Henry.

I think Marsh is the best long term option there as a bowling all rounder. I like Faulkner and see him as more than handy, but just needs to step his batting up a notch.

Moses' batting stacks up but his bowling like Hopes, isn't Test standard imo.

2011/2012

Batting 8 innings for 244 runs @ 40.67
Bowling 8 Poles @ 62.9

2012/2013

Batting 6 innings for 314 runs @78.50
Bowling 13 poles @ 38.3

 

[grizzlym]

As a side note, Fox Sports are so heavily invested in the T20, their lead story the other night was the hit & giggle game, followed by day 1 of the Sydney test!

They are. Been in on it since day one. The only way the clown game can make any money is via broadcast revenue. I'd be surprised if they can pull the numbers they need on pay tv. The prospectus for Warne's team was incredibly ambitious about the numbers...

One thing on Henriques: Hones used to really rate him (and he's not the only one presumably). Massive talent by all accounts. Just dominated at under-aged games. Very much a bowling all-rounder. Looks likes he's starting to put it together now though with a big century to start the year.

I agree with you re Marsh, if his body holds up, he looks like he has the wares and min-set to step-up.

 

[Langford4FBOTC]

One thing on Henriques: Hones used to really rate him (and he's not the only one presumably). Massive talent by all accounts. Just dominated at under-aged games. Very much a bowling all-rounder. Looks likes he's starting to put it together now though with a big century to start the year.

Has definitely been on the radar for some time. As Henry points out, his bowling hasn't really come on to warrant selection. He's been in good form with the bat this season, but he's not a good enough bat to bat top 6 for Australia, so really needs to justify a place in the team with his bowling, which he doesn't. ...Watson Jnr

 

[grizzlym]

Has definitely been on the radar for some time. As Henry points out, his bowling hasn't really come on to warrant selection. He's been in good form with the bat this season, but he's not a good enough bat to bat top 6 for Australia, so really needs to justify a place in the team with his bowling, which he doesn't. ...Watson Jnr

Out of interest, this journo bloke said he felt there was actually some decent batting talent around but the scheduling (and importance) put on the Clown Game has screwed any continuity and chance for them to build a case. He said Jo Burns is seriously talented. Chris Lynn too. Maddison from NSW could well develop into a good opener. And the other NSW bat - Kurtis Patterson? He said that's the really young talent going around. Nothing new there, really.

Just interesting the observation how the scheduling has really hampered development.

 

[Langford4FBOTC]

Great knock by Wade. Really valuable runs and I think we'll need every one of them.

 

[Langford4FBOTC]

Out of interest, this journo bloke said he felt there was actually some decent batting talent around but the scheduling (and importance) put on the Clown Game has screwed any continuity and chance for them to build a case. He said Jo Burns is seriously talented. Chris Lynn too. Maddison from NSW could well develop into a good opener. And the other NSW bat - Kurtis Patterson? He said that's the really young talent going around. Nothing new there, really.

Just interesting the observation how the scheduling has really hampered development.

Perhaps the selectors just need to roll the dice on one of them and slot them into 6. Lynn has been hitting them well in the clown outfit.