Remove this Banner Ad

The Cricket Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter eldorado
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Henry Jr said:
Does India play 4 spinners at Perth?

I have no problems with Moises playing on the basis that he is the third quick.

I laughed today in the HUN where Clarke said that he and Warner will fill in the spinners spot. This from two guys coming back from injury.. I love it.
Click to expand...

No, they certainly didn't last year. They went with 3 quicks and a spinner. They also lost by an innings.
 
MinerBoy said:
No, they certainly didn't last year. They went with 3 quicks and a spinner. They also lost by an innings.
Click to expand...

Edit - in fact 4 quicks and Sehwag as the spinner.
 
MinerBoy said:
No, they certainly didn't last year. They went with 3 quicks and a spinner. They also lost by an innings.
Click to expand...

Lets look at the most recent test series in India...

India vs England.

1st Test

Spinners.. 25 wickets
Quicks.. 4 wickets

2nd Test

Spinners.. 28 wickets
Quicks.. 1 wickets

3rd Test


Spinners.. 18 wickets
Quicks.. 8 wickets

4th Test

Spinners.. 15 wickets
Quicks.. 7 wickets

In Summary.. the Spinners took 86 of the 106 wickets or for those playing at home.. 81% of all wickets were taken by the spinners so lets select four quicks!
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Henry Jr said:
Lets look at the most recent test series in India...

India vs England.
Click to expand...

And that's all great but ignores the fact both of those teams had multiple quality spinners playing. We can say we have an honest, servicable No.1 spinner - at best. Our No.2 is being complimented when I call him a Shield plodder. India may well take 95% of their wickets with spin because theirs are good and our batsmen struggle to play it. That doesn't mean we will do the same.

The greatest spinner of all time barely had an impact in India when we toured there. It seems ludicrous to think the likes of Lyon and Doherty are going to outperform Warne. We have to play a spinner - that's obvious - but there's no need to play a second specialist when the guy is barely a decent domestic bowler. They may well both outperform the quicks due to the conditions being so heavily weighted to spin bowling, but I doubt either is going to perform well enough to bowl us to any victories regardless. They will still cost plenty for any wickets they get and multiple wickets would only be through bowling enough overs that eventually someone has to take the wickets.

Our fast bowlers may crash and burn in these conditions - no doubt about it - but they are also more likely to have the big spells that tears a batting order up and gives us a chance at a win.

Interestingly, South Africa is probably the best performed touring side to visit India on a consistent basis and it's their strength (Steyn, Ntini, Morkel) that do the job for them with Harris as the only specialist spinner and merely providing overs - rather than impact.

Our pacemen are are strongest part of the team at the moment - we have to play 3 and a spinner. If they want another option then they need to pick Maxwell or Smith as the othert spin option and leave Moises out.
 
MinerBoy said:
And that's all great but ignores the fact both of those teams had multiple quality spinners playing. We can say we have an honest, servicable No.1 spinner - at best. Our No.2 is being complimented when I call him a Shield plodder. India may well take 95% of their wickets with spin because theirs are good and our batsmen struggle to play it. That doesn't mean we will do the same.

The greatest spinner of all time barely had an impact in India when we toured there. It seems ludicrous to think the likes of Lyon and Doherty are going to outperform Warne. We have to play a spinner - that's obvious - but there's no need to play a second specialist when the guy is barely a decent domestic bowler. They may well both outperform the quicks due to the conditions being so heavily weighted to spin bowling, but I doubt either is going to perform well enough to bowl us to any victories regardless. They will still cost plenty for any wickets they get and multiple wickets would only be through bowling enough overs that eventually someone has to take the wickets.

Our fast bowlers may crash and burn in these conditions - no doubt about it - but they are also more likely to have the big spells that tears a batting order up and gives us a chance at a win.

Interestingly, South Africa is probably the best performed touring side to visit India on a consistent basis and it's their strength (Steyn, Ntini, Morkel) that do the job for them with Harris as the only specialist spinner and merely providing overs - rather than impact.

Our pacemen are are strongest part of the team at the moment - we have to play 3 and a spinner. If they want another option then they need to pick Maxwell or Smith as the othert spin option and leave Moises out.
Click to expand...
I agree that 4 pace bowlers is too many. If you look at Australian Spinners to take wickets in India you have MacGill, Kreja and maybe even Collin Miller. All big tuners of the ball. Of the bowlers we took over, none of them turn the ball much off the straight. Given Warner and Clarke are going to have to bowl too, Moises just isn't going to get much of a bowl. If he isn't the next best batsman I'd rather he didn't play. Whoever is the 6th best batsman needs to bat at 6 whether he can bat or bowl. For me that is special K. That still leaves you with the four specialist bowlers plus Warner and Clarke to help out. That is enough bowling so long as it doesn't have too much impact on Clarke's batting . . . and maybe that is the issue.
 
Given the amount of bowlers that can/will be used, I'd say that Clarke will be using the fast men in lots of short sharp bursts of no more than 5/6 overs at a time.

We won in 2004 because we did exactly this & the bowlers stuck to a plan without deviation. Admittedly there is quite a lot of difference between McGrath, Gillespie & Kasprowicz & our current bowling attack.

But one can only hope.
 
Henry Jr said:
Lets look at the most recent test series in India...

India vs England.

1st Test

Spinners.. 25 wickets
Quicks.. 4 wickets

2nd Test

Spinners.. 28 wickets
Quicks.. 1 wickets

3rd Test


Spinners.. 18 wickets
Quicks.. 8 wickets

4th Test

Spinners.. 15 wickets
Quicks.. 7 wickets

In Summary.. the Spinners took 86 of the 106 wickets or for those playing at home.. 81% of all wickets were taken by the spinners so lets select four quicks!
Click to expand...

As Miner Boy has said, those figures are distorted by the fact England have good spinners, Panesar would be a walk up start in Australia, yet is a 'handy' spinner at best for England, and barely played prior to the series in India for England. To me, you play to your strengths, our strengths are our quicks. Variabe bounce and reverse swing is our best chance.

But hey, if we are wrong, at least we have 3 tests to get it right
 
TBoyleSuperstar said:
As Miner Boy has said, those figures are distorted by the fact England have good spinners, Panesar would be a walk up start in Australia, yet is a 'handy' spinner at best for England, and barely played prior to the series in India for England. To me, you play to your strengths, our strengths are our quicks. Variabe bounce and reverse swing is our best chance.

But hey, if we are wrong, at least we have 3 tests to get it right
Click to expand...
I also agree with this, not point playing spinners if they are no good!

Decent start to the first test with the bat - Watson and Warner now both need to convert starts into tons. Although I am already going to assume Watson will make between 40-70.

EDIT - Or he could go out in the first over after lunch.

Need Clarke and Warner to make a lot of runs, or we are in big trouble
 
Warner is out now. All 4 wickets to Ashwin

We are f*cked unless clarke makes 150
 
Apart from Wade just now, every other bat has just played a poor shot and failed to capitalise on solid starts.

Wasted a chance here. Need one big partnership now or at least keep eeking out 30-40 run partnerships through the rest of the innings and push up towards, and hopefully beyond, 300.
 
Not so much poor shots... More just poor indecisive footwork.

Clarke is a class and a half above. Liking Henriques approach. Seems to have a clear mind reflected in how he's playing. Using his bat and either well forward in defense or back and attacking the short ball.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Indecisive footwork or poor shot selection? Bit of both perhaps. Playing back to full, fast balls for 2 LBWs is bad footwork but definitely poor shot selection. Cowan taking a swipe and Hughes playing a half hearted sort of shot. Each of those wickets could have been avoided with better shot selection and as you say, better footwork.

Agree about Clarke. Taken his game to new heights. Henriques looks composed.
 
Yeah, you're right, splitting hairs really. Just bad cricket. Looked like deer in the headlights.
 
Clarke survives a bad decision. No DRS. No sympathy India.

Mind you, with the amount of LBWs they are going to get, no DRS mightn't be a bad thing from their perspective.
 
Yep. The Indian fans will be crying over that one but as MB said above, its their choice not to have DRS so they can't complain really.

The Watson one hit him outside the line and thought the Wade one was going over.
 
Watson's might have been marginally outside the line, but it was one of those LBW's that should be given anyway. Caught on the crease and absolutely done like a dinner.
 
5/215 at tea. Not a bad result considering where we were when Wade went out. Certainly got out of jail a bit there, but still plenty of work to do. Funny that I look at the score and think, man, that is a really dominant performance, but relaly with the spinners bowling, they are getting through a lot more overs.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Agree with Watson. Hit outside off IMO (but can understand why it was given). I couldn't tell with Wade. Do they not show the hawkeye's full journey due to not using the DRS?
 
Langford4FBOTC said:
Watson's might have been marginally outside the line, but it was one of those LBW's that should be given anyway. Caught on the crease and absolutely done like a dinner.
Click to expand...

Agree. Be interesting to see the final tally come the end of the series.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom