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.

Be interested in peoples thoughts on how high a value due you put on the current performance in India in selecting your squad for England?

Do we just accept (like me) that we were never a chance in hell in beating India in their own backyard and shrug your shoulders and move on.

Or

Do we cut and cut hard which inturn could hurt our chances in England (assuming we are a chance ofcourse).
 
It's a good point as really, guys like Hughes were probably destined to fail as he cant play with a straight bat to save himself, whereas when in England, he is going to be more accustomed to facing quicks etc. It's more what else do we have as opposed to who do we drop. The squad they took was terrible. There was a good article in the paper, I think just before the first test, about players that get starts but don;t go on, are more likely to be dropped than guys who fail outright. I think this is where guys like Cowan and Watson are actually in trouble compared to Hughes as they have again showed they lack the ability to go on with it at this level, whereas Warner, Hughes have.

In terms of the bowlers, Lyon has probably been done a favour not playing the last test, whilst the quicks are really let off as the wickets aren;t suited to them at all. Patto's cred has gone up in leaps and bounds though.

Anyone else Reckon Bird's back injury started when he saw the first test wicket??
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

We're not a chance in hell of beating England in England

If you lined the two teams up, side by side, which of our players could you/would you pick over their English counterparts?

Clarke? Yes. Anyone else on exposed form? Probably make a case for Patterson. Maybe Wade, but not if Swan was in the side.

I dunno the answer. The cupboard appears bare to me. Priority has to be to identify, introduce and nurture some young batting talent.

But maybe they might go and get an old head or two for just this series i.e. Hussey or Rogers. Personally, I think that's a backwards step. But when you're already so far on the backfoot, I'm not sure if it is or not. Maybe it could provide the stability that's needed. For the record, I'm not convinced D Hussey has the game for Test level.

Dunno. What I do know is the selectors, whatever way they go, have to get their shit together. They need to think clearly, have a simple strategy in place, and back their players. Oh yeah, making some tough decisions on guys like Watson would be a good start too. So would jettisoning the apparent prerequisite to play a flippin' all-rounder at 6.

And I wouldn't be dropping Hughes either. He'll bounce back.
 
We should be focussing on Ashes in 4 years time because that is how long it will take Australian Cricket to repair the damage that has been done to the system, and to the players. We need to arrange a program that allows players at least 5 Sheffield Shield matches in a season. We need some reality when it comes to the truncated forms of the game. I mean, who really gives a damn if we win a T20 series or not? Who in the hell cares or remembers?

Place the emphasis on less track work and more time in the middle ... and less sports "scientists", they are useless. Selection for the Test team MUST come from performaces in Sheffield Shield, not a series of silly T20 games. People wonder what's the problem with our top order batting. Simple, none of them are developing techniques to deal with the longer form of the game. They are compelled to hit boundaries, and hit the ball in the air. That approach may work for some eye players but it won't do for Test cricket.

Forget bloody red zones, just play your best team. Dennis Lillee would have been in a red zone for his entire career but he just accepted that bowling with discomfort is part of the deal for quicks, and something you have to overcome if you wish to be a great bowler. A bit of a niggle or a bit of soreness does NOT mean the bowler is about to break down.

I could go on, but people get the idea. Stop treating our players like sooks and harden up. Tough players succeed at Test level, not sooks. More time in the middle, less track time, and you'll see a far better prepared Test team in future generations. Back to basics.
 
Agree AH. Young bowlers need to bowl. You need to develop the strength in your muscles to bowl 30 overs a day each and every day if needed.

Our bats, well they need to learn to make ugly runs. Guys like Rogers have made a career of it, Hussey could accelerate, but was a great grafter of runs as well. We need guys who are prepared to bat for long periods of time and earn runs.

Wickets need to be dulled down to make our quicks earn their wickets, and to break up later to benefit a spinner. Get the batsman learning to play in tough conditions more often

Need to bring back the distinguishing features of each ground:
WACA - Hard and Fast
Gabba - Green top, Seamer friendly early, great batting wicket as the game progress
Adelaide - Batsmans paradise early, good for spinners late
sydney - Spinners wicket. Good for batting
Hobart - Leave as a green top
MCG - Fast, good for quicks, low and variable late.
 
I see today that Mickey A has said that Special K and Steve Smith are in line for selection.

As much as Smith doesn't seem to have any fans around these parts, Im happy for him to get a go rather than rolling with Hughes and Watson in India. You cannot continue on accepting mediocrity performances. Is Smith upto it.. most likely not but it sets the tone that everyone is on notice. If you dont put in and perform, they there is another ready to take your place.

I'd go with..

Warner
Cowan
Special K
Clarke
Smith
Wade
Moises
Maxwell
MJ
Doherty
Lyon

Worst Aus side of all time.. maybe but I don't care. Time to flick out the non performers. Watson is the VC FFS and shows zero leadership

Sids and Patto have a rest
 
TBoyleSuperstar said:
We need guys who are prepared to bat for long periods of time and earn runs.
Click to expand...

We had that very player in SA, his name is Cameron Borgas. He would bat himself in by playing in the "V", and then as he got his eye in, the shots would come. He first played for SA when he was 17, made a couple of centuries batting at No.3 then had a down period.

In the interim, he played in a T20 game for the Redbacks and won a game making 31 runs in 9 balls. From that moment on he was stamped as a T20 player, and no matter how many big 100s he made at grade level, he could not push his way back into a struggling Redbacks team.

A classic example of how the truncated forms of the game can actually destroy careers. Had he been handled properly, he'd possibly be making 100s for the Redbacks and at 28 or 29 ready to play for Australia, a la Mike Hussey.
 
Sad story really, as he would probably be at the age wehere we would be looking at him as a potential player for the Test side, assuming he continued to develop. Nothing says a player can't be good at all forms, there just has to be a focus purely on runs, and the way runs are made, which I think sometimes is more important. It's easier to make a 50 of 50 balls, than it is to make a 100 off 230 balls and battle. But the guy who makes 100 off 230 is the guy who is more likely to last at test cricket.
 
spudmaster said:
You sounds like another potential 'all-rounder' that the selectors seem to love padding out the side with. :p
Click to expand...

Nah, I can bat. And I love facing spin. :D
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Henry Jr said:
I see today that Mickey A has said that Special K and Steve Smith are in line for selection.
Click to expand...
I read yesterday that Arthur was saying after initially brushing off his advice about it being the toughest cricket they would play, the players were now like sponges trying to soak up as much info and advice as possible..... I was gobsmacked reading that. If that's true, what a bunch of arrogant Fukushimas. Deserve the humiliation.

Got to say HJ, Smith is part of the problem with Australian cricket. Just another project player who isn't very good as a batsman (in the true sense) or a bowler. Should be on the next plane home along with Watson.

I'd also persist with Hughes. At least he has some genuine talent.
 
I'd go with..

Warner
Cowan
Clarke
Special K
Hughes
Watson
Wade
Stark
Pattinson
Siddle
Lyon

The wicket is meant to favor the fast bowlers so Stark comes back in. Watson bowls. If he breaks down, too bad, but it's the only way he gets a game. If there was another bat on tour I'd drop Watson altogether.
 
Langford4FBOTC said:
Got to say HJ, Smith is part of the problem with Australian cricket. Just another project player who isn't very good as a batsman (in the true sense) or a bowler. Should be on the next plane home along with Watson.
Click to expand...

That may be so, but at least he has an idea about how to play spin. While he was in India, he should have been playing at a No.6 batsman. Clarke is the only batsman in the aquad who plays spin better than Smith.
 
Revolutionary I know, but I think we should pick our best 6 batsman, a keeper, and our best 4 bowlers, whoever they may be, and play that as the team. Allrounders are wonderful if they are good, if they aren;t they just take up a spot from a better player.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Given the level of despondancy with our situation in India, should we be taking some confidence with the way New Zealand is coping with the English at the moment?
 
Henry Jr said:
Ive organized for the ACB to send some more players over...

save-your-legs4-420x0.jpg
Click to expand...
Well, I can drink more than Stephen Curry & smoke more than Brendan Cowell. Can I go too?
 
moginie said:
Given the level of despondancy with our situation in India, should we be taking some confidence with the way New Zealand is coping with the English at the moment?
Click to expand...

Well, it possibly gives a little hope against England, but we have long term problems that need to be fixed. I just wonder how much England was focussing on Australia and forgot they were playing New Zealand.

Ipso facto, how much are Australia's heads turned towards England, and not concentrating on playing India? I guess we'll have to wait for the Ashes to find out.
 
TBoyleSuperstar said:
Revolutionary I know, but I think we should pick our best 6 batsman, a keeper, and our best 4 bowlers, whoever they may be, and play that as the team. Allrounders are wonderful if they are good, if they aren;t they just take up a spot from a better player.
Click to expand...

It would be a good start. Simple and tried selection policy. I would instantly rule out the likes of Steve Smith, Maxwell, Henriques and whoever else is the flavour of the moment. HAs to be good enough to hold a place as a specialist or not hold their place.
 
grizzlym said:
It would be a good start. Simple and tried selection policy. I would instantly rule out the likes of Steve Smith, Maxwell, Henriques and whoever else is the flavour of the moment. HAs to be good enough to hold a place as a specialist or not hold their place.
Click to expand...
At least Henriques was averaging 77 with the bat in the shield this season before India, but I definately agree with the simple selection policy.

Ricky Ponting is currently the leading run scorer in the shield.....
 
StevieDewar said:
At least Henriques was averaging 77 with the bat in the shield this season before India, but I definately agree with the simple selection policy.

Ricky Ponting is currently the leading run scorer in the shield.....
Click to expand...

I heard Brett Geeves on the radio re Henriques and he had some interesting things to say.

Says he thinks his value is as a bowling all-rounder but he simply doesn;t do enough out of the hand to be dangerous at test level. Also said he didn't think he had it in him to hold down number 6.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom