Endless Summer of Cricket

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Where have all the Wade-haters gone with their he-failed-before-he's-only a-T20-bully scorn? His timely 110 was just what the team needed and more than justified his selection. It was not an easy wicket to bat on. Woakes of all people was their top-scorer in the second dig. CAN bowl (got Smith with a beauty), CAN bat.
If they drop Bancroft, they'll have to drop Warner as well. Doubt it, but if Bancroft fails at Lord's, he'll go.
Honestly, Bancroft looked out of touch and miserable in Edgbaston.
Without the keeping workload he's looked a lot more assured as a batsman. First innings was a shocker though, terrible way to be dismissed in that situation that early on. Redeemed himself in second dig though, backed his eye in and didn't make many mistakes.
 
Where have all the Wade-haters gone with their he-failed-before-he's-only a-T20-bully scorn? His timely 110 was just what the team needed and more than justified his selection. It was not an easy wicket to bat on. Woakes of all people was their top-scorer in the second dig. CAN bowl (got Smith with a beauty), CAN bat.
If they drop Bancroft, they'll have to drop Warner as well. Doubt it, but if Bancroft fails at Lord's, he'll go.
Honestly, Bancroft looked out of touch and miserable in Edgbaston.
Don't hate him just thought it an odd selection
Has to be consistent now
Remember Burns made 180 and Patterson 100 on debut and are not in the side atm

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk
 

Log in to remove this ad.

3) Don't hate him just thought it an odd selection
2) Has to be consistent now
1) Remember Burns made 180 and Patterson 100 on debut and are not in the side atm
1) Yes, they did not play at Edgbaston. I noticed that. :rolleyes:
Both made their tons against Sri Lanka, on a batting road. Remember performance context.
Having said that, Burns was unlucky; has good Test record. I'd have picked Burns over Bancroft.
2) For sure, they all do.
3) Yeah, "haters" is probably the wrong word, my bad. Just a common and frequent colloquialism nowadays.
Wade made BIG runs against all kinds of opposition and on varying wickets/conditions, in Shield and for Australia A. His selection was a necessity, based on form.
When he failed in the first dig, the anti-Wade brigade howled --- "all ready failed at Test level, only good at T20 " etc etc. SILENT, after Day 4.

Some posters predicted doom and gloom after our first-dig 90-run deficit.
Sensible Ashes Test cricket criticism requires wait-and-see balance.
 
Probably Starck in for Siddle next test

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk
Nope I was bemused by Sids selection but he bowled bloody well and was damn unlucky. His batting in the first innings crucial to the win as well
 
Nope I was bemused by Sids selection but he bowled bloody well and was damn unlucky. His batting in the first innings crucial to the win as well
Starc can bat as well if not better, but Siddle has the mindset to really dig in if we need it.
 
A couple of interesting stats...

Nobody has taken more test wickets since Lyons' debut in 2011, and he now sits 4th on the list of Australian wicket takers. Lyon will probably move into 3rd place on that list during the Lord's test, requiring only 4 more wickets to overtake Lillee. That will leave him behind only Warne & McGrath.

Cummins is the 2nd fastest Australian paceman to 100 wickets, achieving the feat in 21 tests. The fastest was Charlie Turner, who set the benchmark (17 tests) 124 years ago. Cummins is the quickest Australian to reach the milestone in 100+ years.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A couple of interesting stats...

Nobody has taken more test wickets since Lyons' debut in 2011, and he now sits 4th on the list of Australian wicket takers. Lyon will probably move into 3rd place on that list during the Lord's test, requiring only 4 more wickets to overtake Lillee. That will leave him behind only Warne & McGrath.

Cummins is the 2nd fastest Australian paceman to 100 wickets, achieving the feat in 21 tests. The fastest was Charlie Turner, who set the benchmark (17 tests) 124 years ago. Cummins is the quickest Australian to reach the milestone in 100+ years.
Imagine a bowling line up of Lillee, McGrath, Warne and Lyon...
Express, fear-of-God bowler
Immaculate line and length bowler
Leg spin freak
Off spin freak.

Good luck with that!
 
Imagine a bowling line up of Lillee, McGrath, Warne and Lyon...
Express, fear-of-God bowler
Immaculate line and length bowler
Leg spin freak
Off spin freak.

Good luck with that!
Lillee was pretty much a combo of the first 2, he was just that good.
 
Lillee was pretty much a combo of the first 2, he was just that good.
Lillee also took 67 wickets while playing World Series Cricket. Lyon would still have a fair way to catch him if these wickets were added to Lillee's official test match record.
 
Where have all the Wade-haters gone with their he-failed-before-he's-only a-T20-bully scorn? His timely 110 was just what the team needed and more than justified his selection. It was not an easy wicket to bat on. Woakes of all people was their top-scorer in the second dig. CAN bowl (got Smith with a beauty), CAN bat.
If they drop Bancroft, they'll have to drop Warner as well. Doubt it, but if Bancroft fails at Lord's, he'll go.
Honestly, Bancroft looked out of touch and miserable in Edgbaston.
Maybe the pairing of Bancroft with Warner was the issue? Not sure there's any love lost between those two.
 
Maybe the pairing of Bancroft with Warner was the issue? Not sure there's any love lost between those two.
Have you heard this, or speculating? I know plenty of players have not liked each other over the years but pairing a young cricketer with the man who led him into derailing his career seems asking for trouble. If there is ill feeling between them, they're making life pretty difficult for Bancroft.
 
Have you heard this, or speculating? I know plenty of players have not liked each other over the years but pairing a young cricketer with the man who led him into derailing his career seems asking for trouble. If there is ill feeling between them, they're making life pretty difficult for Bancroft.

Edwards and McLeod

Clarke and Kati....oh
 
Maybe the pairing of Bancroft with Warner was the issue? Not sure there's any love lost between those two.
Dunno, but makes sense that they might not be best mates now.
How it would affect or cause their methods of dismissal, I couldn't say. Bancroft looked unhappy, tense, and his feet weren't moving.
Warner's lbw should have been reviewed, but his nick out looked like impatience and good bowling.
 
Haven't been a hard core cricket follower for nearly a decade now but correct me if I'm wrong, when Smith came onto the scene wasn't he a leg spinner who could bat abit? Amazing talent.
 
Have you heard this, or speculating? I know plenty of players have not liked each other over the years but pairing a young cricketer with the man who led him into derailing his career seems asking for trouble. If there is ill feeling between them, they're making life pretty difficult for Bancroft.
Didn’t Bancroft do an interview and tip it on Warner, whereas Warner chose to stay silent.
 
...when Smith came onto the scene wasn't he a leg spinner who could bat abit? Amazing talent.
I remember his first couple of years, when he reminded me a bit of Disney's Dopey(not a criticism). He played his cricket with joy at being selected, with that happy, I-love-playing-cricket smile of his, without the intensity he shows now.
Smith-now is obsessed with batting, batting better, and making runs. His stance at the crease and his movement before the ball is delivered defy all the conventional rules of what constitutes good batting. Smith knows where his stumps are, defends good balls, leaves those he doesn't need to play and if a bowler gives up a bad ball you can bet it's going for four. Smith knows where the fielders are and twists his body, wrists and bat at weird angles to avoid them. 41% of his innings are 50+. 21% are tons.
One in FIVE!
His dismissals are more from Smith-errors than good bowling.
In 50+ years of avid cricket-watching, I have never seen a batsman play a deliberate 'French cut' with bat angled and legs wide to hit the ball between them fine down the leg side. Only Smith, freakishly.
Smith is unique, engrossingly watchable and an amazing talent indeed.
 
1) Yes, they did not play at Edgbaston. I noticed that. :rolleyes:
Both made their tons against Sri Lanka, on a batting road. Remember performance context.
Having said that, Burns was unlucky; has good Test record. I'd have picked Burns over Bancroft.
2) For sure, they all do.
3) Yeah, "haters" is probably the wrong word, my bad. Just a common and frequent colloquialism nowadays.
Wade made BIG runs against all kinds of opposition and on varying wickets/conditions, in Shield and for Australia A. His selection was a necessity, based on form.
When he failed in the first dig, the anti-Wade brigade howled --- "all ready failed at Test level, only good at T20 " etc etc. SILENT, after Day 4.

Some posters predicted doom and gloom after our first-dig 90-run deficit.
Sensible Ashes Test cricket criticism requires wait-and-see balance.
Regarding the last paragraph, here’s my take: watching the first innings is like watching a quarter of an AFL game. It gives you direction of the flow, but 1 quarter does not make an entire match.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top