The Cricket Thread

From cricket to motor sports to wrestling and anything in between

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Northern Raider »

bonehead wrote: August 20, 2019, 8:10 am I've been frustrated by the hate Smith has copped over sand paper gate, he was the captain who didn't stop them not his idea and not the perpetrator - he's been unfairly punished imo. Maybe one day we'll find out more.
Agree. It's way over the top and quite frankly he doesn't deserve it. He was only guilty of inanction and a failure in leadership. He copped a very hefty punishment and has served his time. If the Poms want to continually bag Warner and Bancroft for deliberate cheating then so be it. For Smith to be their primary target is straight out wrong.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
Azza
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10526
Joined: February 16, 2005, 10:12 am

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Azza »

He's only their primary target because he's so damn good.

Regarding Steve Waugh, there weren't too many players who were consistently as good as him under pressure. None I can recall actually.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

Pressure made Steve Waugh a better batsmen. He thrived on it. He also thrived in difficult conditions. A very sporting cliche, but if you were to pick a batsmen, at the height of his powers, to bat for your life in the trenches, he would be very hard to pass up.

As for Smith in sandpaper gate. There has to be more to it than he was the captain in charge who did nothing to stop it.
User avatar
yeh raiders
Laurie Daley
Posts: 17112
Joined: June 21, 2008, 3:04 pm
Favourite Player: Jack Wighton
Location: Sydney

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by yeh raiders »

Steve Smith ruled out of the third test - Lord help us.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

https://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/th ... 899b30d130

As per the above.
We are screeeeeeeewed
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Northern Raider »

So we're basically starting each innings 100 runs behind. :(
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
-TW-
Mal Meninga
Posts: 35369
Joined: July 2, 2007, 11:41 am

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by -TW- »

Probably saves Bancroft too

Good move though concussions aren't to be messed with, especially if he's not 100% and gets lidded again

Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk

julian87
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13939
Joined: October 20, 2005, 3:35 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by julian87 »

Well Harris should be in for Bancroft. Smith being out probably makes that more important.
well, I guess you could say that I'm buy curious.
User avatar
Azza
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10526
Joined: February 16, 2005, 10:12 am

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Azza »

****, there goes the Leeds test match
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by RedRaider »

I'm glad Steve Waugh is with the side and he can offer his advice about watching the ball when batting. Both Smith and Labu took their eyes off the ball and then got hit. Steve Waugh rarely if ever played a hook, but he rarely got hit, because he watched the ball and could sway away from the line or inside the line or duck the ball. He played against some very good fast bowlers, some of whom he really upset - Curtley Ambrose, but they rarely hit him with the ball.

To bat for my life I would go Allan Border. The sheer quality of bowlers he faced to maintain such a high average was remarkable.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Northern Raider »

RedRaider wrote: August 20, 2019, 9:08 pm I'm glad Steve Waugh is with the side and he can offer his advice about watching the ball when batting. Both Smith and Labu took their eyes off the ball and then got hit. Steve Waugh rarely if ever played a hook, but he rarely got hit, because he watched the ball and could sway away from the line or inside the line or duck the ball. He played against some very good fast bowlers, some of whom he really upset - Curtley Ambrose, but they rarely hit him with the ball.

To bat for my life I would go Allan Border. The sheer quality of bowlers he faced to maintain such a high average was remarkable.
Waugh put the hook shot away very early in his career and benefited greatly from it. After that he would often look uncomfortable against the bouncer and it gave bowlers false hope. While he could look uncomfortable it never affected him. In the end bouncers were wasted on him.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
raiderskater
Jason Croker
Posts: 4908
Joined: July 26, 2015, 8:24 pm
Favourite Player: Croker, Cotric, Sezer
Location: The Land of Lime Green

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by raiderskater »

I think this will be a good test of the side's character. Now everyone else will definitely have to step up because there's no Smudge to save them now. Though if Labu could keep repeating his grittiness from Lord's that would be well done.

I also suspect this may work in our favour. Can you imagine how cocky and arrogant the Poms are going to get now?
And to all the people who doubted me, hello to them as well. - Mark Webber, Raiders Ballboy and Unluckiest F1 Driver Ever

I'm attacking in the right way, instead of just...attacking in the general direction. - Max Aaron (also eerily apropos for the Green Machine)
julian87
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13939
Joined: October 20, 2005, 3:35 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by julian87 »

Mark Waugh is up there with any batsman I have ever seen for the batting for your life scenario. His average isn’t as good simply because he didn’t have the killer instinct to want to embarrass poor attacks or kick on for double tons when it didn’t matter. Reminds me a bit of everything I’ve ever read about my favorite cricketer I never saw with the bat; Keith Miller.

If you went back and read over all of those scorecards against the hardest oppositions in the early and mid 90s in those pressure situations junior invariably played important innings. I’d take him over everyone bar his brother and AB in such a situation over the past 30 years.

Allan Border is a good call though. Played in some horrific sides and was an absolute rock.
well, I guess you could say that I'm buy curious.
julian87
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13939
Joined: October 20, 2005, 3:35 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by julian87 »

I’m not pretending I’m some great cricketer but in the premier league team I’ve played in on and off for a long time now I’d take 2 or 3 batsmen over a plethora of others who averaged way higher over that time because when they scored it was under pressure.

Cricket is a stats based game but stats don’t always tell the character of a man under pressure.
well, I guess you could say that I'm buy curious.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

Northern Raider wrote: August 20, 2019, 9:18 pm
RedRaider wrote: August 20, 2019, 9:08 pm I'm glad Steve Waugh is with the side and he can offer his advice about watching the ball when batting. Both Smith and Labu took their eyes off the ball and then got hit. Steve Waugh rarely if ever played a hook, but he rarely got hit, because he watched the ball and could sway away from the line or inside the line or duck the ball. He played against some very good fast bowlers, some of whom he really upset - Curtley Ambrose, but they rarely hit him with the ball.

To bat for my life I would go Allan Border. The sheer quality of bowlers he faced to maintain such a high average was remarkable.
Waugh put the hook shot away very early in his career and benefited greatly from it. After that he would often look uncomfortable against the bouncer and it gave bowlers false hope. While he could look uncomfortable it never affected him. In the end bouncers were wasted on him.
Ummm... RR, you should probably read a couple of his books. Waugh got hit. Just not in the helmet. He talks fondly of a game in the WIs where he was batted an bruised.
RedRaider
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11265
Joined: March 3, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by RedRaider »

Hi Matt, I have read his book 'Out of my comfort zone' some years ago. I didn't say he never got hit, I wrote 'he rarely got hit'. I think he has the expertise and gravity to advise the younger players on watching the ball. A hit on the body will rarely put a player out of the game, whereas a hit to the head can. The point though, is that if the batsman is watching the ball then they can generally get the noggin out of the way. Both Smith and Labuschange took their eves off the ball, turned away and got hit in the head/neck. Steve Waugh was in more danger of a head injury by playing WITH Jason Gillespie than against the likes of Ambrose.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

RedRaider wrote: August 21, 2019, 6:54 am Hi Matt, I have read his book 'Out of my comfort zone' some years ago. I didn't say he never got hit, I wrote 'he rarely got hit'. I think he has the expertise and gravity to advise the younger players on watching the ball. A hit on the body will rarely put a player out of the game, whereas a hit to the head can. The point though, is that if the batsman is watching the ball then they can generally get the noggin out of the way. Both Smith and Labuschange took their eves off the ball, turned away and got hit in the head/neck. Steve Waugh was in more danger of a head injury by playing WITH Jason Gillespie than against the likes of Ambrose.
:lol:

Ive read a couple of his Ashes diary's and out of my comfort zone.
That was his take too, on he body is safer than the head, so watch the ball.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

Test selection...
The more I think about it, with Smith out, I think taking the 20 wickets outweighs trying to make up for Smith runs. I think the Aussies should go 'balls to the wall' and pick 5 bowlers.

James Pattinson avgs 29 in Tests.
Cummins avgs 20 in Tests.
Starc avgs 21 in Tests.

Paine avgs 32, and its falling. So if Pattinson is at 7, we are losing 2 runs on avg.
OR
Paine vs Starc is 11 runs.

However, there is no let up with the bowling attack. The bowlers can bowl short and fast spells. If someone breaks down, is doesn't matter, so still have 4 genuine bowlers.

Not for 1 second do I think Paine will actually miss out, nor do I think they pick this team, BUT, its something that would make things interesting.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Northern Raider »

Reasonable idea there Matt, playing 5 bowlers considering the batting ability of Starc, Pattinson, Cummings....even Siddle. The flaw in your logic is comparing averages at no7 to Paine. If you included 5 bowlers then Paine would be batting at 6. Of course Wade could take the gloves but what's the point of an extra bowler if your risking chances and runs behind the stumps. Paine is lightyears ahead of Wade as a gloveman. Your next option is Bancroft but he's even worse with the bat than Paine.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

Northern Raider wrote: August 21, 2019, 10:22 am Reasonable idea there Matt, playing 5 bowlers considering the batting ability of Starc, Pattinson, Cummings....even Siddle. The flaw in your logic is comparing averages at no7 to Paine. If you included 5 bowlers then Paine would be batting at 6. Of course Wade could take the gloves but what's the point of an extra bowler if your risking chances and runs behind the stumps. Paine is lightyears ahead of Wade as a gloveman. Your next option is Bancroft but he's even worse with the bat than Paine.
Ill start by saying our keeper issue is an issue no matter what we do. Paine has 23 Tests to Wades 24. They are nearly 35 and nearly 32 respectively. We need Carey or some other young keeper to step up ASAP. Neither are the solution, but its all we have.

Wade avgs 28.68. Take Paine over Wade, gain 2-3 runs with the bat, and maybe save a few with the gloves too.

However, and I know this works against my idea of the 5 bowlers too, BUT, Wade and Paine have played the same amount of Test cricket. Wade has 3 Test hundreds, one of which was only 1 game ago, and 4 Test 50s. As a keeper he has 63 catches and 11 stumpings. Paine no Test 100s, 5x 50s, plus 96 catches (should have at least 2 more) and 5 stumpings.

In 135 1st class games Wade has 16 1st class hundreds and 42 1st class 50s. In 121 1st class games, Paine has 1x 100 and 29x 50.

TBH, I dont think it makes much difference either way, so happy either way.

I would also have a captaincy issue, but I reckon Head would do a good job.
julian87
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13939
Joined: October 20, 2005, 3:35 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by julian87 »

Fwiw both Pattinson and Cummins are paying 101/1 to top score first innings for Australia. Given the frailty of the batting order and Leeds being eternally bowler friendly that’s overs imo.
well, I guess you could say that I'm buy curious.
julian87
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13939
Joined: October 20, 2005, 3:35 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by julian87 »

Paine can’t bat top 6 he’s only ever scored one first class century. If you pick 5 bowlers you drop the captain.
well, I guess you could say that I'm buy curious.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Northern Raider »

Matt wrote: August 21, 2019, 10:49 am
Northern Raider wrote: August 21, 2019, 10:22 am Reasonable idea there Matt, playing 5 bowlers considering the batting ability of Starc, Pattinson, Cummings....even Siddle. The flaw in your logic is comparing averages at no7 to Paine. If you included 5 bowlers then Paine would be batting at 6. Of course Wade could take the gloves but what's the point of an extra bowler if your risking chances and runs behind the stumps. Paine is lightyears ahead of Wade as a gloveman. Your next option is Bancroft but he's even worse with the bat than Paine.
Ill start by saying our keeper issue is an issue no matter what we do. Paine has 23 Tests to Wades 24. They are nearly 35 and nearly 32 respectively. We need Carey or some other young keeper to step up ASAP. Neither are the solution, but its all we have.

Wade avgs 28.68. Take Paine over Wade, gain 2-3 runs with the bat, and maybe save a few with the gloves too.

However, and I know this works against my idea of the 5 bowlers too, BUT, Wade and Paine have played the same amount of Test cricket. Wade has 3 Test hundreds, one of which was only 1 game ago, and 4 Test 50s. As a keeper he has 63 catches and 11 stumpings. Paine no Test 100s, 5x 50s, plus 96 catches (should have at least 2 more) and 5 stumpings.

In 135 1st class games Wade has 16 1st class hundreds and 42 1st class 50s. In 121 1st class games, Paine has 1x 100 and 29x 50.

TBH, I dont think it makes much difference either way, so happy either way.

I would also have a captaincy issue, but I reckon Head would do a good job.
Career stats are not a reflection on current form. Right now Wade is well ahead of Paine as a batsman and vice versa as a gloveman.

If you're banking on the "take 20 wickets and win" theory then you can't afford a substandard gloveman behind the stumps. By that score Paine takes the prize.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
julian87
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13939
Joined: October 20, 2005, 3:35 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by julian87 »

Wade’s keeping hasn’t been an issue for a while now imo.
well, I guess you could say that I'm buy curious.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

@julian87,
@Northern Raider,

If you were in Langer's shoes, is this a tactic you would consider? Pick which ever keeper you want.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Northern Raider »

On current batting form I wouldn't consider it. Too much unreliability in our batting line up. No point in having an extra bowler if you're getting rolled for 150.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

Northern Raider wrote: August 21, 2019, 1:42 pm On current batting form I wouldn't consider it. Too much unreliability in our batting line up. No point in having an extra bowler if you're getting rolled for 150.
You dont think with the 5th bowler you have a chance of the same? Or defending that?
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Northern Raider »

Matt wrote: August 21, 2019, 1:58 pm
Northern Raider wrote: August 21, 2019, 1:42 pm On current batting form I wouldn't consider it. Too much unreliability in our batting line up. No point in having an extra bowler if you're getting rolled for 150.
You dont think with the 5th bowler you have a chance of the same? Or defending that?
Defending 150 you would be lucky to use 5 bowlers before they passed your score. If you were going to roll them under that you only need 4 bowlers. 5 bowlers are useful if an innings is extended.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

User avatar
Azza
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10526
Joined: February 16, 2005, 10:12 am

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Azza »

If we draw this test it will be a miracle with our shoddy batting line up.
julian87
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13939
Joined: October 20, 2005, 3:35 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by julian87 »

Pattinson in for Siddle apparently.

I’ll be dismayed if Harris misses out again this game. Our 2 openers have scored 70 runs between them over 8 innings between them. And that’s without mentioning how bad Bancroft looks technically.
well, I guess you could say that I'm buy curious.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Northern Raider »

Losing Smith may have save Bancroft. With one forced changed the selectors will avoid making others to the batting line up. This is unfortunate as Harris is a far superior option to Bancroft. Statistically not much between them but technique wise its no contest. Harris has the makings of a good test opener. Just needs to improve his concentration and shot selection once he's worked himself in. Gets a bit loose as he gets comfortable at the crease.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
julian87
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13939
Joined: October 20, 2005, 3:35 pm

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by julian87 »

As I said earlier I think without Smith it is more important to make the change.
well, I guess you could say that I'm buy curious.
User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 32522
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Northern Raider »

julian87 wrote: August 22, 2019, 8:31 am As I said earlier I think without Smith it is more important to make the change.
I totally agree. Unfortanately what I believe and what the team heirarchy think are 2 totally different things.
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.
User avatar
Matt
Don Furner
Posts: 38868
Joined: May 18, 2010, 4:17 pm
Favourite Player: Time for the new breed Savage, Mooney, Timoko
Location: Canberra

Re: The Cricket Thread

Post by Matt »

Northern Raider wrote: August 22, 2019, 8:38 am
julian87 wrote: August 22, 2019, 8:31 am As I said earlier I think without Smith it is more important to make the change.
I totally agree. Unfortanately what I believe and what the team heirarchy think are 2 totally different things.
I agree boys
Post Reply