Universal Love The Drugs Are Bad Mackay? approved Australian cricketers are cheats Discussion Thread

[hey shorty]

Head is in woeful form. Get him out of the side.

He can't play spin, that is well known.

Did make a good 50 in the BBL

 

[CrowBloke]

Selfish innings from Finch

Yeah, he hogged so much of the strike that he got another ton for himself (106 off 114 balls).
Two in a row, now, the selfish mongrel.

 

[John Who]

Yeah, he hogged so much of the strike that he got another ton for himself (106 off 114 balls).
Two in a row, now, the selfish mongrel.

It wasn't so much selfish, but more the part where he could have done some bigger hits between the 50-100 runs. Most of them came in singles or twos. Though it was probably more the other batters' fault for keep getting out! That last 15 overs was quite anti-climatic.

 

[hey shorty]

It wasn't so much selfish, but more the part where he could have done some bigger hits between the 50-100 runs. Most of them came in singles or twos. Though it was probably more the other batters' fault for keep getting out! That last 15 overs was quite anti-climatic.

Reckon Kez was set to launch before running out of luck.

 

[CrowBloke]

It wasn't so much selfish, but more the part where he could have done some bigger hits between the 50-100 runs.

Er, mate ... whatty what WHAT?
Do you mean more than the 9 x 4s and the six that he hit?
I repeat --- 106 off 114 balls --- which is a super-dig. As I type, no-one's come close in this game (Poms 4/201 and should win).

Don't you think that if " ... he could have done some bigger hits ..", he would have?
Can you see him going/thinking
"This is a nice and juicy half-volley, but I won't smack it for 4 or 6 , I'll just pat it away for a single to keep the strike" ...???
Finch's motivation is to get as many runs as possible, as quickly as possible. Did a good job too, I reckon.

 

[GreyCrow]

Any cricket news?

 

[John Who]

Er, mate ... whatty what WHAT?
Do you mean more than the 9 x 4s and the six that he hit?
I repeat --- 106 off 114 balls --- which is a super-dig. As I type, no-one's come close in this game (Poms 4/201 and should win).

Don't you think that if " ... he could have done some bigger hits ..", he would have?
Can you see him going/thinking
"This is a nice and juicy half-volley, but I won't smack it for 4 or 6 , I'll just pat it away for a single to keep the strike" ...???
Finch's motivation is to get as many runs as possible, as quickly as possible. Did a good job too, I reckon.

I don't know if you've caught on CB, but when you get a century in ODI nowadays, it's usually around the 100 or above strike rate that's required. England is killing us in the ODI thus far, because their batters know that that's the target strike rate individually, and playing with that sustained attitude of a run a ball. I'm not really the one bagging Finch, but just calling it as I see it. Finch also looked out of touch for some weird reason, it was nowhere near a fluid century and a lot of the balls down the leg side he had hit towards a fielder behind square leg.

 

[John Who]

Any cricket news?

Yeah..we lost the 2nd ODI..

There's a damn good chance the ODI might become a mirror image of the Test series... 4 to nil, and 1 draw...wouldn't that be weird?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

Interesting that Morgan said they would have bowled first. Seem they're happy to chase on any pitch that isn't going to get slow/stay low for the 2nd innings

 

[GreyCrow]

Yeah..we lost the 2nd ODI..

There's a damn good chance the ODI might become a mirror image of the Test series... 4 to nil, and 1 draw...wouldn't that be weird?

Yeah but who cares? Who counts these games?

All I know we have the Ashes.

 

[John Who]

Yeah but who cares? Who counts these games?

All I know we have the Ashes.

Of course the Ashes is much more important and worthy. However, I don't enjoy the thought of losing to the Poms 5 to nil. Want to see more conviction with the batters. The World Cup is just around the corner next year.

 

[mattymac]

Yeah, he hogged so much of the strike that he got another ton for himself (106 off 114 balls).
Two in a row, now, the selfish mongrel.

Nurdles it around for a ton at 5 an over on a veritable strip of tarmac then throws his wicket away immediately... yeah totally thinking team first

 

[CrowBloke]

I don't know if you've caught on CB, but when you get a century in ODI nowadays, it's usually around the 100 or above strike rate that's required. England is killing us in the ODI thus far, because their batters know that that's the target strike rate individually, and playing with that sustained attitude of a run a ball. I'm not really the one bagging Finch, but just calling it as I see it. Finch also looked out of touch for some weird reason, it was nowhere near a fluid century and a lot of the balls down the leg side he had hit towards a fielder behind square leg.

You've lost me John Who
1) for being patronising ("I don't know if you've caught on CB ..." ) and
2) for not making sense.
You said:
"when you get a century in ODI nowadays, it's usually around the 100 or above strike rate that's required".
Finch's 106 off 114 balls has a Strike Rate of 92.98 which is "around the 100" you're so keen on. Isn't it?

For you (and mattymac) ---
Break down Finch's dig in terms of the partnerships he had (hard to be exact because of byes in total):
68 off 11.4 overs with Warner (40 balls faced), so Finch made about 30 off 30 balls. SR approx 100.
42 off 7 overs with SS (25 balls faced), so Finch made about 17 off 17 balls, SR approx 100.
14 off 4.1 overs with Head (18 balls faced), so Finch made about 7 off 7 balls, SR approx 100.
85 off 15.3 overs with MM (43 balls faced), so Finch made about 46 off 50 balls, SR approx 92.
The blokes "nurdling it around" were Finch's batting partners, NONE of whom had a better strike rate.

Finch's knocks were the standout in the Oz innings, supported by commentators and SSmith himself. When Finch was dismissed at 5/213 he'd made nearly half of the team's total thus far. That's a really good dig.
(Btw, Root's 46 off 58 balls was widely praised as "steady" and "solid" @ a SR of 79.3 ! *yawn*)
Complaining about a bloke for making a ton @ 92.98 is just ridiculous.

 

[CrowBloke]

Looked like SSmith doesn't rate Marsh's bowling (I don't either), bringing him on for the 44th over after the game was gone.

The Poms are 2-0 having beaten a team weakened by injury or illness (or poor performances eg Head) with 3 debutantes. Good luck to them --- they can only beat the side that's dished up which includes Finch as our best batsman so far.
The sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[John Who]

You've lost me John Who
1) for being patronising ("I don't know if you've caught on CB ..." ) and
2) for not making sense.
You said:
"when you get a century in ODI nowadays, it's usually around the 100 or above strike rate that's required".
Finch's 106 off 114 balls has a Strike Rate of 92.98 which is "around the 100" you're so keen on. Isn't it?

For you (and mattymac) ---
Break down Finch's dig in terms of the partnerships he had (hard to be exact because of byes in total):
68 off 11.4 overs with Warner (40 balls faced), so Finch made about 30 off 30 balls. SR approx 100.
42 off 7 overs with SS (25 balls faced), so Finch made about 17 off 17 balls, SR approx 100.
14 off 4.1 overs with Head (18 balls faced), so Finch made about 7 off 7 balls, SR approx 100.
85 off 15.3 overs with MM (43 balls faced), so Finch made about 46 off 50 balls, SR approx 92.
The blokes "nurdling it around" were Finch's batting partners, NONE of whom had a better strike rate.

Finch's knocks were the standout in the Oz innings, supported by commentators and SSmith himself. When Finch was dismissed at 5/213 he'd made nearly half of the team's total thus far. That's a really good dig.
(Btw, Root's 46 off 58 balls was widely praised as "steady" and "solid" @ a SR of 79.3 ! *yawn*)
Complaining about a bloke for making a ton @ 92.98 is just ridiculous.

I think there's an over-reaction to my response. I'm not the one saying Finch is selfish, it was mattymac. However, I can see the point to his response, as in Finch was batting within himself, and not up-the-tempo when more scoring was needed during his 50-100 runs. I tried to support Finch by saying that it was also the other batters' fault for getting out, which would have put more pressure on Finch to do the scoring.

ODI is not the same as Test cricket. The key difference being that you need to score runs quickly. You don't need centuries to be a big help but how fast you score it at is more important. For example, if an opener gets 45 runs at a strike rate of 100, is much more important than one who gets 50 runs and a strike rate of 80. Anyway, the point I was making is that Finch or Warner can score centuries all day long (which of course is always nice and should be applauded). But the reality we're facing right now, is that if the openers (Finch or Warner) are scoring less than strike rate of 100, we are likely to continue to lose the ODI matches against England. The game of ODI has moved on from where it once was a few years ago.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Australia's openers aren't the a problem... rather the middle order, which has been unsettled. It doesn't appear that the selectors have a clear strategy on our batting line-up.

Going in last night with a bowler short & having an unbalanced line-up was just too stupid. The selectors should give their salaries back.

 

[CrowBloke]

Australia's openers aren't the a problem... rather the middle order, which has been unsettled.

This!
Your point's supported by this --- Head, Marsh, Stoinis and White made 62 runs off 88 balls (SR 70.45). The brief innings of Head was the worst, soaking up 18 balls for 7 runs. They might have had an off-day, but pity it was altogether.
The Poms won with 5.4 overs in hand. Oz was short by about 40 runs, or more. Not the fault of the openers (68 off 70) and especially not Finch.

 

[Crowked]

Finch played a great innings as the rock. What we needed was other players playing more dynamic innings around him. Pretty much every batsman played the same way as Finch, just not for as long. No one had the balls to take on the bowling from start to finish.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Finch played a great innings as the rock. What we needed was other players playing more dynamic innings around him. Pretty much every batsman played the same way as Finch, just not for as long. No one had the balls to take on the bowling from start to finish.

Selectors really should have replaced Lynn with Maxwell.

White needs to bat further up the order if he plays.

The batting selection is a mess!

 

[John Who]

There are 2 separate issues which are the pattern of our losses:
1. Apart from Finch (both games) and Stoinis (in the first ODI), no other batsman has been dominating the English bowling attack. 2nd ODI we crumbled miserably.
2. Our overall run rate is not enough for what the English ODI team is serving up. England are openly claiming that they don't mind doing the run chase, and they are walking the talk with their chase looking like a cake walk.

300 is the barest of minimum to aim for any flat track wickets. What this means is that individually and collectively, we need to score at strike rate of 100 or more. So ultimately, we need 1 or 2 players getting a 100 or thereabouts, and doing it at a strike rate of a minimum of 100. If your form is good enough to get a 100 then you should be able to ramp up the strike rate above 100. I do believe Finch understands this, and he looked frustrated whenever he gave away dot balls.

So overall my observation isn't to pick on Finch. More so the need for us to have a player who can get a high score but also doing it in quick time, strike rate minimum 100.

 

[CrowBloke]

I'm not the one saying Finch is selfish, it was mattymac.

You're right, apologies. It was mattymac. You complained about Finch's run rate , amazingly.

Do you know what "patronising" means?
Here's an(other) example:

ODI is not the same as Test cricket. The key difference being that you need to score runs quickly. You don't need centuries to be a big help but how fast you score it at is more important. For example, if an opener gets 45 runs at a strike rate of 100, is much more important than one who gets 50 runs and a strike rate of 80.

JW, I was playing A-grade cricket when Packer revolutionised the One Day game and I twigged to the above well over 30 years ago. Please, stop stating the obvious? I get it.

The following is just plain wrong:

But the reality we're facing right now, is that if the openers (Finch or Warner) are scoring less than strike rate of 100, we are likely to continue to lose the ODI matches against England.

There might be another example, but I cannot remember a time when one of our openers has scored consecutive tons in ODIs (@ average SR of 90+) and we've lost both games (anybody?).
The first ODI was won by Roy's terrific 180.
The second was lost by our sleepy, ineffective middle order (Smith and Head lost their wickets to non-spinner, pie-chucker Root, ffs!).
Finch has joined elite company with 10 ODI tons for Oz (Ponting (29), M Waugh (18), Gilchrist (16), Warner (14) & Hayden (10), and got his 10 faster than any of them, in 83 innings).
It's not Finch's problem. It's not Finch's fault.

 

[John Who]

You're right, apologies. It was mattymac. You complained about Finch's run rate , amazingly.

Do you know what "patronising" means?
Here's an(other) example:

JW, I was playing A-grade cricket when Packer revolutionised the One Day game and I twigged to the above well over 30 years ago. Please, stop stating the obvious? I get it.

The following is just plain wrong:

There might be another example, but I cannot remember a time when one of our openers has scored consecutive tons in ODIs (@ average SR of 90+) and we've lost both games (anybody?).
The first ODI was won by Roy's terrific 180.
The second was lost by our sleepy, ineffective middle order (Smith and Head lost their wickets to non-spinner, pie-chucker Root, ffs!).
Finch has joined elite company with 10 ODI tons for Oz (Ponting (29), M Waugh (18), Gilchrist (16), Warner (14) & Hayden (10), and got his 10 faster than any of them, in 83 innings).
It's not Finch's problem. It's not Finch's fault.

I don't want to get involve in a long-winded debate about the merits of Finch's inning. Just want to point out that I've no intent on being patronizing towards you. You are picking on certain things I say to fit with your line of thought, but bottom line is that I'm not actually bagging Finch!
You yourself being a cricketer, doesn't make all your opinions right, and myself playing high school cricket doesn't necessarily make my opinions wrong. I am merely stating an observation that the game has clearly moved on from the past. The English team have clearly grasped the concept that nowadays a a strike rate of 100 is the bare minimum ie. 300 runs minimum. They are playing with that mindset the whole game, which is why their run chase looks so casual and no fuss on their part.

Finch is currently in hot form, and I'm happy he's our opener. But I'm talking about the overall team and how we can improve. I'm not focusing on congratulations on just 1 player.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It's like Statler & Waldorf have joined this thread...

 

[John Who]

It's like Statler & Waldorf have joined this thread...

mattymac was the more grumpy commenter, but I seem to be getting all the hits from CB lol.

 

[Mismatched]

Selectors really should have replaced Lynn with Maxwell.

White needs to bat further up the order if he plays.

The batting selection is a mess!

Thing is with the selection I don’t think it’s any different to their test selections, only they happened to get the test ones right for the most part, or at least we won the tests so it seemed okay. The Marsh brothers finally delivered, but apart from that Bancroft was a flop, Bird offered nothing and Paine was solid at best.

The difference now is their selections clearly aren’t paying off and the selectors are floundering. Cameron White didn’t look close to standard yesterday, for a guy who has played a fair amount of international cricket and plenty of domestic cricket and made a name as a big hitter, he couldn’t have looked more impotent.

We’ve then got Mitch Marsh who’s still batting the same way he did in test cricket, making a few runs, but soaking up too many balls to do so.

Travis Head, as much as I love seeing an SA boy there, is simply not an international level upper order batsmen, at best he’s your number 6, or 5 at a pinch. But let’s face it, he’s there more for his captaincy potential and the fact that he can hit the ball a long way. He’s never had any great consistency with the bat to warrant being a #4 for Australia.

If there’s no decent younger top order batsman in Australia, surely we’d be better off with a genuine top order batsman there like a Khawaja, Ferguson, Klinger or even a Shaun Marsh. If you want some big hitting up the order you might as well take a punt on a D’Arcy Short who’s actually in some decent form and is at another level in terms of big hitting.

Carey, for a first gamer actually looked like he knew what he was doing and could adapt his batting to the situation. He should keep his spot ahead of Paine in the ODI’s. Paine’s clearly more of an accumulator as a batter not really suited to batting in ODI’s.

I’d be looking at:
Finch
Warner
Khawaja
Smith
Marsh
Stoinis
Carey
Cummins
Starc
Hazelwood
Lyon (should be a no brainer at present)

Now if Stoinis isn’t capable of being a genuine, effective 7-10 over a game bowler then he’s not the right choice. They obviously don’t see Mitch Marsh as an all rounder anymore. Or maybe Smith needs to be prepared to bowl himself a little more.

Shame Pattinson and Faulkner can’t sort out their injuries. Both would be handy about now.