|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHazelwood for Labu might balance the team. 2 spinners and 3 pace men with 3 all rounders Starc would make way if I had a say. Consistency over inconsistency. Langer has been getting a few players hot under the collar this week with his comment that those on the fringe of Test selection only average in the mid @30s. Check your eyesite Alfie. Kurtis Patterson (@41), Joe Burns (@40.5, Dan Hughes (@39.7), Matt Wade (@39.6), Jake Lehmann (@39.6). Then there are Tom Cooper averaging @ 45.5, Nick Larkin @49.4. this season. Even Jordan Silk @38, Alex Doolan @38 are averaging more than most of the incumbents. Surely all of these batsmen have strong claims to play in the SCG game but should definitely be in consideration for the Sri Lankan series. I thought Wade was top of the Shield aggregate and averages this season ? Those are FC averages. Wade has 571 at @63 this season. His best season by a country mile. Tremain, Jhye Richardson and Bird are next cabs off the rank to replace undersiege quicks Starc and Hazlewood. One quick that seems to be forgotten in dispatches is beanpole Blues r/armer Trent Copeland. His record is as good as any of his peers. This year he has played the least games of the more fancied men, has the lowest average @16 and the third best strike rate. Copes has an outstanding First Class record of 320 poles at @25.6. At 32 still he is far from past it. He would be a fine addition to our Ashes squad as he not only seams the ball but can swing it both ways. Something not too many of our leading quicks have the ability to do. I think the view would be Copeland bowls too slow, which is probably nonsense but I cannot see him being selected even if their was a massive number of injuries. He was not successful when he was given the chance as well. 3 matches 6 wkts @37 is not brilliant but sufficient to warrant more chances. Was still pretty much a novice back in 2011. Plus it was on slow Asian wickets. I get so testy when I hear selectors say we would have picked him but "he is too slow". Slow but accurate.. builds pressure.. swings both way and seams when there is grass. McGrath was never quick look at his incredible career.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHazelwood for Labu might balance the team. 2 spinners and 3 pace men with 3 all rounders Starc would make way if I had a say. Consistency over inconsistency. Langer has been getting a few players hot under the collar this week with his comment that those on the fringe of Test selection only average in the mid @30s. Check your eyesite Alfie. Kurtis Patterson (@41), Joe Burns (@40.5, Dan Hughes (@39.7), Matt Wade (@39.6), Jake Lehmann (@39.6). Then there are Tom Cooper averaging @ 45.5, Nick Larkin @49.4. this season. Even Jordan Silk @38, Alex Doolan @38 are averaging more than most of the incumbents. Surely all of these batsmen have strong claims to play in the SCG game but should definitely be in consideration for the Sri Lankan series. I re-read your post Baggers, still no mention of Wade and those I have highlighted are this season only, question stands why not mention Wade, if you mention those highlighted. Wade still averages nearly 40 at FC level and the leading run scorer this year. Better still Patterson this hasn't scored as many runs as S Marsh has from 6 matches compared to Marsh's 3. Doesn't suggest to me as though he would be a worthy replacement for Marsh, you're looking to improve the batting SOS Marsh keeps getting picked for two reasons. he is CA pet and he has experience. He has also had a decent shield season. The other constant in his career is he is unreliable. Patterson has to come into consideration as he has a @40 average and blokes who average @5 less have already been chosen and failed. Just get him in there and let him show what he can do. Forget where he scores his runs in domestic cricket. He has a solid technique, can bat time and is better than average against spin. Give him a shot. If he does not take it.. I along with you will be calling for his head.. In short, Kurtis Patterson deserves his chance. I'm all for giving a chance to someone that has proven themselves over a period of time, such as Patterson, but that is across the board especially when losing it is the perfect opportunity as no expectations we're losing anyway. May I suggest we look at the last time we were No 1 ranked was this test match http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8418/scorecard/914239/new-zealand-vs-australia-2nd-test-australia-tour-of-new-zealand-2015-16Look who were the players who performed that we got the No 1 ranking Burns, Smith, Voges, Bird and Pattinson. And look who didn't. Warner, Khawaja, M Marsh, Neville and Hazlewood, Lyons performance was OK not great but Ok The ones that did perform, were the first dropped, or out injured in Pattinson's case. Smith the exception The ones that didn't perform are the ones you could say rode the coat tails of the others to get that No 1 ranking and now make up the nucleus of the team. Might be something in that. We talking about the same tour?.. if so you are Hazlewood bashing for no reason. In your own words.. "wickets are the most important thing" Lyon also had a better than ok tour. Most wickets| Player | Mat | Inns | Overs | Mdns | Runs | Wkts | BBI | BBM | Ave | Econ | SR | 5 | 10 |
|---|
| NM Lyon (AUS) | 2 | 4 | 64.0 | 13 | 226 | 10 | 4/91 | 7/123 | 22.60 | 3.53 | 38.4 | 0 | 0 | | JR Hazlewood (AUS) | 2 | 4 | 95.0 | 25 | 307 | 9 | 4/42 | 6/117 | 34.11 | 3.23 | 63.3 | 0 | 0 | | JM Bird (AUS) | 2 | 4 | 60.5 | 14 | 228 | 8 | 5/59 | 7/125 | 28.50 | 3.74 | 45.6 | 1 | 0 | | N Wagner (NZ) | 1 | 2 | 50.1 | 10 | 166 | 7 | 6/106 | 7/166 | 23.71 | 3.30 | 43.0 | 1 | 0 | | JL Pattinson (AUS) | 1 | 2 | 41.0 | 10 | 158 | 6 | 4/77 | 6/158 | 26.33 | 3.85 | 41.0 | 0 | 0 | | TA Boult (NZ) | 2 | 3 | 81.0 | 12 | 269 | 5 | 2/101 | 3/168 | 53.80 | 3.32 | 97.2 | 0 | 0 | The particular test when we retained the No 1 position was based on purely winning that test, if draw or loss we lost No 1 position. So you could say when the pressure is on who stood up and took up the responsibility. Hazlewood took 3/190 when Pattinson took 6/158 and Bird 7/119. As I said Pattinson becomes injured, but Bird became the bowling option when players were injured. It was Birds 5th test and up to that point he had 21 wickets @ 25. But no that is not my point.My real point lies in the fact that Burns scores 235 runs is named player of the match, a match Australia had to win, he stood up and amassed the runs, we won it and retained the No 1 ranking. This was something Warner, M Marsh, Khawaja couldn't do. 2 matches later Burns is dropped. No chance given to him to prove himself. So at that point a line is drawn IMO if selectors can drop a player, a match winning player, after just 2 poor tests, is it too much to expect similar results for other players. Over the last few weeks we have all been looking at 2018 performances not just 2 tests, I think that time period is relevant, Australia played 10 tests in that time. I think 2 games is an unfair assessment but 1 year is too much. When was the last time M Marsh, S Marsh have dominated a test, maybe S Marsh did against SA in Australia but it has been a bit long between drinks. Starc did dominate SA in Durbin this year that a lot of people have glossed over, 9/109, but since then 19 wickets from 7 games, he is a match winner but it is not looking good at all for Starc, too many games between performances. So yes I would drop Starc, but Hazlewood in his last 15 tests has taken 5 or more wickets in a test twice. 5 wickets in a test is expected when you play 4 bowlers, not all the time, but more regularly than 2 out 15, so yes I would drop Hazlewood as well. Just quietly Baggers just have a look at the averages, but that is not the point I'm trying to make. As I've kept saying when is enough enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Here's the Cold Hard truth... http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;groupby=team;orderby=bowling_average;spanmin1=1+Jan+2018;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingThe Aussie bowlers have had a shocking year... This is while Cummins goes along at sub 20's... and Lyon just made the cricbuzz team of the year (which I think is a bs big 3 decision completely undeserved but regardless of what I think - he made the team nevertheless).
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
That is appalling and people say "bowlings not the problem", it's a big problem. Even with the great record we see from SA they still lost tests this year, so when their bowlers are so good and their batsmen obvious have struggled on occasion resulting in a loss, what chance do the Australian batsmen have when the bowlers are giving away so many runs and we are talking 10 runs per wicket 200 runs per match. We even shorten our batting line up to assist our bowlers. Look how many overs Australia bowled, so much for Economy rates producing results, it's just not happening At least we're still ahead of the 2 new comers to the test environment in Ireland and Afghanistan, but Ireland is ahead in Strike Rate. Remember when they were thinking about a 2 tier system for test cricket Tier 1 Australia, England, South Africa, India, Pakistan and New Zealand Tier 2 the rest with the worst performer from Tier 1 being replace by best performer Tier 2. If it was based on the bowling attacks we'd be struggling in the tier 2 side. I've said before you have to feel for S Smith how hard it must be for him with so many hanging onto his coat tails.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
New Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. This problem is not Starc alone, it is not Hazlewood alone, it is solely the opening combination of Starc and Hazlewood. I wonder if they open with Cummins in Sydney. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNew Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there. They're many different ways to try and win. Safrican batting is so very weak now post ABdV - so they rely on their quicks - and they have a stack of them, Olivier, Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Nigidi... and try to get runs out of de Kock... Indian batting is near all time low with so many SENA games this year... but Bumrah has given their attack serious credibility outside Asia... England of course bat deep to scrape together every single run that they can score with a team stacked with allrounders in the tail providing upto 6 bowling options at times... this is due to lacking top order batsmen... though Bairstow may now have to play gloveless as one.... England is slightly in the negative for bat and bowling wickets, and still beat India 4-1 and SL 3-0. I don't think too many fans really pay attention to what is happening outside their own team's interest, or their own "regional" interest (SENA and Asia included)... The thing is - there is more than one way to skin a cat, but India and Safrica have gone all in on their seam attacks, and the seamers have responded. Australia's havn't. Pakistan have a few things going on, and most of them are good signs for the future... even with Imam-Ul-Haq in the team... Even without Abbas last test, they pushed Safrica to the limit and ran into Amla finally making a matchwinning score...
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xNew Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there. They're many different ways to try and win. Safrican batting is so very weak now post ABdV - so they rely on their quicks - and they have a stack of them, Olivier, Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Nigidi... and try to get runs out of de Kock... Indian batting is near all time low with so many SENA games this year... but Bumrah has given their attack serious credibility outside Asia... England of course bat deep to scrape together every single run that they can score with a team stacked with allrounders in the tail providing upto 6 bowling options at times... this is due to lacking top order batsmen... though Bairstow may now have to play gloveless as one.... I don't think too many fans really pay attention to what is happening outside their own team's interest, or their own "regional" interest (SENA and Asia included)... The things is - there is more than one way to skin a cat, but India and Safrica have gone all in on their seam attacks, and the seamers have responded. Australia's havn't. Pakistan have a few things going on, and most of them are good signs for the future... even with Imam-Ul-Haq in the team... Even without Abbas last tear, they pushed Safrica to the limit and ran into Amla finally making a matchwinning score... Historically great sides have always had great bowling attacks. I will be honest England have stayed up there based on the depth of batsmen, so much so I read that England have really looked at why they don't produce quality quicks, probably because Jimmy "better than Glen McGrath, now" Anderson is going to retire and Broad is getting old. Meanwhile Australia examine their batsmen, and keep their heads in the sand about the bowlers, they have dropped the ball. Thinking about India and SA and their "poor" batting averages this year, this is playing against Australia, how bad would they be going otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xNew Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there. They're many different ways to try and win. Safrican batting is so very weak now post ABdV - so they rely on their quicks - and they have a stack of them, Olivier, Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Nigidi... and try to get runs out of de Kock... Indian batting is near all time low with so many SENA games this year... but Bumrah has given their attack serious credibility outside Asia... England of course bat deep to scrape together every single run that they can score with a team stacked with allrounders in the tail providing upto 6 bowling options at times... this is due to lacking top order batsmen... though Bairstow may now have to play gloveless as one.... I don't think too many fans really pay attention to what is happening outside their own team's interest, or their own "regional" interest (SENA and Asia included)... The things is - there is more than one way to skin a cat, but India and Safrica have gone all in on their seam attacks, and the seamers have responded. Australia's havn't. Pakistan have a few things going on, and most of them are good signs for the future... even with Imam-Ul-Haq in the team... Even without Abbas last tear, they pushed Safrica to the limit and ran into Amla finally making a matchwinning score... Historically great sides have always had great bowling attacks. I will be honest England have stayed up there based on the depth of batsmen, so much so I read that England have really looked at why they don't produce quality quicks, probably because Jimmy "better than Glen McGrath, now" Anderson is going to retire and Broad is getting old. Meanwhile Australia examine their batsmen, and keep their heads in the sand about the bowlers, they have dropped the ball. Thinking about India and SA and their "poor" batting averages this year, this is playing against Australia, how bad would they be going otherwise. England is a curious one. Right now it appears they're short on seamers, short on batsmen, and yet they find a way to build a team out of spare parts, and for it to continually perform very well at home, and even produce the odd surprise like in Safrica a while ago. I give their selectors a lot of the credit. Between Rashid, Ali, Stokes, Woakes, Curran... they get runs that offsets their bowling limitations, they think outside the box, Foakes, Buttler and Bairstow - all in the same team, as they search for runs. England tries new things. That is where they keep their heads above water. Now with Leach and if TRJ is fit next year, it will be interesting what the selectors do. But Sam Curran is a match winner with ordinary stats. It is that simple. Whenever the match is in the balance - or getting away from them, he has a midas touch - and its no fluke. Once England is in trouble, bat or ball, he attacks - he stops playing conservative cricket, and pitches the ball up, or slogs it over long on for 6. It is basically him saying to Root - do I have a licence yet? Re Safrica - i think they have real problems moving forwards with regards batting. But their bowlers keep them in it. Re India - they'll be fine back in Asia, but their batting cost them England and SA series results. Their batting just isn't upto scratch on SENA pitches.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xNew Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there. They're many different ways to try and win. Safrican batting is so very weak now post ABdV - so they rely on their quicks - and they have a stack of them, Olivier, Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Nigidi... and try to get runs out of de Kock... Indian batting is near all time low with so many SENA games this year... but Bumrah has given their attack serious credibility outside Asia... England of course bat deep to scrape together every single run that they can score with a team stacked with allrounders in the tail providing upto 6 bowling options at times... this is due to lacking top order batsmen... though Bairstow may now have to play gloveless as one.... I don't think too many fans really pay attention to what is happening outside their own team's interest, or their own "regional" interest (SENA and Asia included)... The things is - there is more than one way to skin a cat, but India and Safrica have gone all in on their seam attacks, and the seamers have responded. Australia's havn't. Pakistan have a few things going on, and most of them are good signs for the future... even with Imam-Ul-Haq in the team... Even without Abbas last tear, they pushed Safrica to the limit and ran into Amla finally making a matchwinning score... Historically great sides have always had great bowling attacks. I will be honest England have stayed up there based on the depth of batsmen, so much so I read that England have really looked at why they don't produce quality quicks, probably because Jimmy "better than Glen McGrath, now" Anderson is going to retire and Broad is getting old. Meanwhile Australia examine their batsmen, and keep their heads in the sand about the bowlers, they have dropped the ball. Thinking about India and SA and their "poor" batting averages this year, this is playing against Australia, how bad would they be going otherwise. England is a curious one. Right now it appears they're short on seamers, short on batsmen, and yet they find a way to build a team out of spare parts, and for it to continually perform very well at home, and even produce the odd surprise like in Safrica a while ago. I give their selectors a lot of the credit. Between Rashid, Ali, Stokes, Woakes, Curran... they get runs that offsets their bowling limitations, they think outside the box, Foakes, Buttler and Bairstow - all in the same team, as they search for runs. England tries new things. That is where they keep their heads above water. Mate I was just looking at previous years, I am so shocked by this last year 2017 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax1=31+dec+2017;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 3rd last 2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax2=31+dec+2016;spanmin2=01+jan+2016;spanval2=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 4th last Congratulations to the Starc/ Hazlewood era, it's been 3 years now. It's time for a change.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xNew Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there. They're many different ways to try and win. Safrican batting is so very weak now post ABdV - so they rely on their quicks - and they have a stack of them, Olivier, Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Nigidi... and try to get runs out of de Kock... Indian batting is near all time low with so many SENA games this year... but Bumrah has given their attack serious credibility outside Asia... England of course bat deep to scrape together every single run that they can score with a team stacked with allrounders in the tail providing upto 6 bowling options at times... this is due to lacking top order batsmen... though Bairstow may now have to play gloveless as one.... I don't think too many fans really pay attention to what is happening outside their own team's interest, or their own "regional" interest (SENA and Asia included)... The things is - there is more than one way to skin a cat, but India and Safrica have gone all in on their seam attacks, and the seamers have responded. Australia's havn't. Pakistan have a few things going on, and most of them are good signs for the future... even with Imam-Ul-Haq in the team... Even without Abbas last tear, they pushed Safrica to the limit and ran into Amla finally making a matchwinning score... Historically great sides have always had great bowling attacks. I will be honest England have stayed up there based on the depth of batsmen, so much so I read that England have really looked at why they don't produce quality quicks, probably because Jimmy "better than Glen McGrath, now" Anderson is going to retire and Broad is getting old. Meanwhile Australia examine their batsmen, and keep their heads in the sand about the bowlers, they have dropped the ball. Thinking about India and SA and their "poor" batting averages this year, this is playing against Australia, how bad would they be going otherwise. England is a curious one. Right now it appears they're short on seamers, short on batsmen, and yet they find a way to build a team out of spare parts, and for it to continually perform very well at home, and even produce the odd surprise like in Safrica a while ago. I give their selectors a lot of the credit. Between Rashid, Ali, Stokes, Woakes, Curran... they get runs that offsets their bowling limitations, they think outside the box, Foakes, Buttler and Bairstow - all in the same team, as they search for runs. England tries new things. That is where they keep their heads above water. Mate I was just looking at previous years, I am so shocked by this last year 2017 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax1=31+dec+2017;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 3rd last 2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax2=31+dec+2016;spanmin2=01+jan+2016;spanval2=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 4th last Congratulations to the Starc/ Hazlewood era, it's been 3 years now. It's time for a change. You did that wrong... that's the batting stats... And you have the wicket keeper variable on
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xNew Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. This problem is not Starc alone, it is not Hazlewood alone, it is solely the opening combination of Starc and Hazlewood. I wonder if they open with Cummins in Sydney. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there. You could post it on his twitter. And yes it is a big problem with cricket fans relying on what the media feeds them. SA was definitely the bowlers to blame for the loss. The SA bowlers are light years ahead. Australians were more than reminded of this already again this summer in Australia. With Pakistan (once Abbas back) and then India as their closest rivals right now. I think Australians having played all 3 teams this year are starting to appreciate this fact. And the Aus bowlers aren't getting Pujara out cheaply enough in Aus is a huge problem for Aus. Kohli is always going to make runs at some point. He's just too good.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xNew Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there. They're many different ways to try and win. Safrican batting is so very weak now post ABdV - so they rely on their quicks - and they have a stack of them, Olivier, Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Nigidi... and try to get runs out of de Kock... Indian batting is near all time low with so many SENA games this year... but Bumrah has given their attack serious credibility outside Asia... England of course bat deep to scrape together every single run that they can score with a team stacked with allrounders in the tail providing upto 6 bowling options at times... this is due to lacking top order batsmen... though Bairstow may now have to play gloveless as one.... I don't think too many fans really pay attention to what is happening outside their own team's interest, or their own "regional" interest (SENA and Asia included)... The things is - there is more than one way to skin a cat, but India and Safrica have gone all in on their seam attacks, and the seamers have responded. Australia's havn't. Pakistan have a few things going on, and most of them are good signs for the future... even with Imam-Ul-Haq in the team... Even without Abbas last tear, they pushed Safrica to the limit and ran into Amla finally making a matchwinning score... Historically great sides have always had great bowling attacks. I will be honest England have stayed up there based on the depth of batsmen, so much so I read that England have really looked at why they don't produce quality quicks, probably because Jimmy "better than Glen McGrath, now" Anderson is going to retire and Broad is getting old. Meanwhile Australia examine their batsmen, and keep their heads in the sand about the bowlers, they have dropped the ball. Thinking about India and SA and their "poor" batting averages this year, this is playing against Australia, how bad would they be going otherwise. England is a curious one. Right now it appears they're short on seamers, short on batsmen, and yet they find a way to build a team out of spare parts, and for it to continually perform very well at home, and even produce the odd surprise like in Safrica a while ago. I give their selectors a lot of the credit. Between Rashid, Ali, Stokes, Woakes, Curran... they get runs that offsets their bowling limitations, they think outside the box, Foakes, Buttler and Bairstow - all in the same team, as they search for runs. England tries new things. That is where they keep their heads above water. Mate I was just looking at previous years, I am so shocked by this last year 2017 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax1=31+dec+2017;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 3rd last 2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax2=31+dec+2016;spanmin2=01+jan+2016;spanval2=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 4th last Congratulations to the Starc/ Hazlewood era, it's been 3 years now. It's time for a change. You did that wrong... that's the batting stats... And you have the wicket keeper variable on you're right don't use this much it's all new to me practice makes perfect now I have it right 2017 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax1=31+dec+2017;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=teamNot too bad by Australia but still behind 27 average 3rd overall (Ashes series in Australia helped) 2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;spanmax2=31+dec+2016;spanmin2=01+jan+2016;spanval2=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=teamPretty bad by australia over 31 average 5th overall and that is where the rot set in NZ away (Hazlewood 3/190 in 2nd test) Sri Lanka, South Africa So one good year by Starc/ Hazlewood era, two poor ones, still pretty bad. But the good news is bad/good/bad/? so prospects are good this year they need to keep selectors off their backs, to keep their millions
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xNew Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there. They're many different ways to try and win. Safrican batting is so very weak now post ABdV - so they rely on their quicks - and they have a stack of them, Olivier, Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Nigidi... and try to get runs out of de Kock... Indian batting is near all time low with so many SENA games this year... but Bumrah has given their attack serious credibility outside Asia... England of course bat deep to scrape together every single run that they can score with a team stacked with allrounders in the tail providing upto 6 bowling options at times... this is due to lacking top order batsmen... though Bairstow may now have to play gloveless as one.... I don't think too many fans really pay attention to what is happening outside their own team's interest, or their own "regional" interest (SENA and Asia included)... The things is - there is more than one way to skin a cat, but India and Safrica have gone all in on their seam attacks, and the seamers have responded. Australia's havn't. Pakistan have a few things going on, and most of them are good signs for the future... even with Imam-Ul-Haq in the team... Even without Abbas last tear, they pushed Safrica to the limit and ran into Amla finally making a matchwinning score... Historically great sides have always had great bowling attacks. I will be honest England have stayed up there based on the depth of batsmen, so much so I read that England have really looked at why they don't produce quality quicks, probably because Jimmy "better than Glen McGrath, now" Anderson is going to retire and Broad is getting old. Meanwhile Australia examine their batsmen, and keep their heads in the sand about the bowlers, they have dropped the ball. Thinking about India and SA and their "poor" batting averages this year, this is playing against Australia, how bad would they be going otherwise. England is a curious one. Right now it appears they're short on seamers, short on batsmen, and yet they find a way to build a team out of spare parts, and for it to continually perform very well at home, and even produce the odd surprise like in Safrica a while ago. I give their selectors a lot of the credit. Between Rashid, Ali, Stokes, Woakes, Curran... they get runs that offsets their bowling limitations, they think outside the box, Foakes, Buttler and Bairstow - all in the same team, as they search for runs. England tries new things. That is where they keep their heads above water. Mate I was just looking at previous years, I am so shocked by this last year 2017 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax1=31+dec+2017;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 3rd last 2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax2=31+dec+2016;spanmin2=01+jan+2016;spanval2=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 4th last Congratulations to the Starc/ Hazlewood era, it's been 3 years now. It's time for a change. You did that wrong... that's the batting stats... And you have the wicket keeper variable on you're right don't use this much it's all new to me practice makes perfect now I have it right 2017 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax1=31+dec+2017;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=teamNot too bad by Australia but still behind 27 average 3rd overall 2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;spanmax2=31+dec+2016;spanmin2=01+jan+2016;spanval2=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=teamPretty bad by australia over 31 average 5th overall So one good year by Starc/ Hazlewood era, two poor ones, still pretty bad. But the good news is bad/good/bad/? so prospects are good this year they need to keep selectors off their backs, to keep their millions The real pattern is the dominance of the South African bowlers. Abbot, MMorkel, Philander, Steyn, Rabada, Oliver, Ngidi, just cut a wake that opposing batsmen crumble to. I would be stripping back to basics at the academy and working with bowlers on wrist position. It is the clear and obvious defect with most of the current Aussie crop. There's too much emphasis on pace only. Get an outswinger going. Bowl the ball in a manner that 9/10 it will hit the seam. It is not rocket science.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xNew Zealand is doing well Paddles So the Australian batsmen is only 1.5 runs worse than India per wicket (30 runs per test) 0.15 runs worse than South Africa per wicket. (3 runs per test) I'm not a genius but I would say the bowling against SA is 98.5% the reason and against India 85% the reason. Thanks Paddles, when you see those figures you have to look at Starc and Hazlewood being dropped seriously. The problem is the majority of the public don't know about these stats, they rely on the media and not these forums. Do you have Warne's e-mail address he would go ballistic over this. This is with Cummins record this year, Lyon doing Ok and to make matters worse Marnus Labuschagne took 7/157 av 22 and he really cannot bowl, it was probably just they hadn't seen him before. Paddles do you have any stats on how much the bowling line ups are paid? I bet you we're on top there. They're many different ways to try and win. Safrican batting is so very weak now post ABdV - so they rely on their quicks - and they have a stack of them, Olivier, Steyn, Philander, Rabada, Nigidi... and try to get runs out of de Kock... Indian batting is near all time low with so many SENA games this year... but Bumrah has given their attack serious credibility outside Asia... England of course bat deep to scrape together every single run that they can score with a team stacked with allrounders in the tail providing upto 6 bowling options at times... this is due to lacking top order batsmen... though Bairstow may now have to play gloveless as one.... I don't think too many fans really pay attention to what is happening outside their own team's interest, or their own "regional" interest (SENA and Asia included)... The things is - there is more than one way to skin a cat, but India and Safrica have gone all in on their seam attacks, and the seamers have responded. Australia's havn't. Pakistan have a few things going on, and most of them are good signs for the future... even with Imam-Ul-Haq in the team... Even without Abbas last tear, they pushed Safrica to the limit and ran into Amla finally making a matchwinning score... Historically great sides have always had great bowling attacks. I will be honest England have stayed up there based on the depth of batsmen, so much so I read that England have really looked at why they don't produce quality quicks, probably because Jimmy "better than Glen McGrath, now" Anderson is going to retire and Broad is getting old. Meanwhile Australia examine their batsmen, and keep their heads in the sand about the bowlers, they have dropped the ball. Thinking about India and SA and their "poor" batting averages this year, this is playing against Australia, how bad would they be going otherwise. England is a curious one. Right now it appears they're short on seamers, short on batsmen, and yet they find a way to build a team out of spare parts, and for it to continually perform very well at home, and even produce the odd surprise like in Safrica a while ago. I give their selectors a lot of the credit. Between Rashid, Ali, Stokes, Woakes, Curran... they get runs that offsets their bowling limitations, they think outside the box, Foakes, Buttler and Bairstow - all in the same team, as they search for runs. England tries new things. That is where they keep their heads above water. Mate I was just looking at previous years, I am so shocked by this last year 2017 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax1=31+dec+2017;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 3rd last 2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax2=31+dec+2016;spanmin2=01+jan+2016;spanval2=span;template=results;type=teamAustralia 4th last Congratulations to the Starc/ Hazlewood era, it's been 3 years now. It's time for a change. You did that wrong... that's the batting stats... And you have the wicket keeper variable on you're right don't use this much it's all new to me practice makes perfect now I have it right 2017 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;orderbyad=reverse;spanmax1=31+dec+2017;spanmin1=01+jan+2017;spanval1=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=teamNot too bad by Australia but still behind 27 average 3rd overall 2016 http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=team_average;spanmax2=31+dec+2016;spanmin2=01+jan+2016;spanval2=span;team_view=bowl;template=results;type=teamPretty bad by australia over 31 average 5th overall So one good year by Starc/ Hazlewood era, two poor ones, still pretty bad. But the good news is bad/good/bad/? so prospects are good this year they need to keep selectors off their backs, to keep their millions The real pattern is the dominance of the South African bowlers. Abbot, MMorkel, Philander, Steyn, Rabada, Oliver, Ngidi, just cut a wake that opposing batsmen crumble to. I would be stripping back to basics at the academy and working with bowlers on wrist position. It is the clear and obvious defect with most of the current Aussie crop. There's too much emphasis on pace only. Get an outswinger going. Bowl the ball in a manner that 9/10 it will hit the seam. It is not rocket science. Agree, with Hazlewood and Starc they need the seam for movement, they have been relying too much on cracks. Thus the excuse of pitch condition.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHazelwood for Labu might balance the team. 2 spinners and 3 pace men with 3 all rounders Starc would make way if I had a say. Consistency over inconsistency. Langer has been getting a few players hot under the collar this week with his comment that those on the fringe of Test selection only average in the mid @30s. Check your eyesite Alfie. Kurtis Patterson (@41), Joe Burns (@40.5, Dan Hughes (@39.7), Matt Wade (@39.6), Jake Lehmann (@39.6). Then there are Tom Cooper averaging @ 45.5, Nick Larkin @49.4. this season. Even Jordan Silk @38, Alex Doolan @38 are averaging more than most of the incumbents. Surely all of these batsmen have strong claims to play in the SCG game but should definitely be in consideration for the Sri Lankan series. I thought Wade was top of the Shield aggregate and averages this season ? Those are FC averages. Wade has 571 at @63 this season. His best season by a country mile. Tremain, Jhye Richardson and Bird are next cabs off the rank to replace undersiege quicks Starc and Hazlewood. One quick that seems to be forgotten in dispatches is beanpole Blues r/armer Trent Copeland. His record is as good as any of his peers. This year he has played the least games of the more fancied men, has the lowest average @16 and the third best strike rate. Copes has an outstanding First Class record of 320 poles at @25.6. At 32 still he is far from past it. He would be a fine addition to our Ashes squad as he not only seams the ball but can swing it both ways. Something not too many of our leading quicks have the ability to do. I think the view would be Copeland bowls too slow, which is probably nonsense but I cannot see him being selected even if their was a massive number of injuries. He was not successful when he was given the chance as well. 3 matches 6 wkts @37 is not brilliant but sufficient to warrant more chances. Was still pretty much a novice back in 2011. Plus it was on slow Asian wickets. I get so testy when I hear selectors say we would have picked him but "he is too slow". Slow but accurate.. builds pressure.. swings both way and seams when there is grass. McGrath was never quick look at his incredible career. You don't have to convince me, I am just putting forward the reasoning I suspect is behind his non selection. Mennie was dismissed as soon as he started bowling in his only test match because he was not bowling very quick. Darren Lehmann I think had an excellent cricket brain but him saying Australia quicks had to bowl over 140 was about as a bad a comment as possible. That kind of thinking still is quite prevalent. If you can be extremely accurate and move the ball a bit each way then you do not have to bowl fast, you get wickets through executing the skills of bowling correctly. We have a pace trio who are decent and while they bowl much faster do not use the skills very well. The Indians are much more skilled and not really any slower, that is why they are better.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHazelwood for Labu might balance the team. 2 spinners and 3 pace men with 3 all rounders Starc would make way if I had a say. Consistency over inconsistency. Langer has been getting a few players hot under the collar this week with his comment that those on the fringe of Test selection only average in the mid @30s. Check your eyesite Alfie. Kurtis Patterson (@41), Joe Burns (@40.5, Dan Hughes (@39.7), Matt Wade (@39.6), Jake Lehmann (@39.6). Then there are Tom Cooper averaging @ 45.5, Nick Larkin @49.4. this season. Even Jordan Silk @38, Alex Doolan @38 are averaging more than most of the incumbents. Surely all of these batsmen have strong claims to play in the SCG game but should definitely be in consideration for the Sri Lankan series. I thought Wade was top of the Shield aggregate and averages this season ? Those are FC averages. Wade has 571 at @63 this season. His best season by a country mile. Tremain, Jhye Richardson and Bird are next cabs off the rank to replace undersiege quicks Starc and Hazlewood. One quick that seems to be forgotten in dispatches is beanpole Blues r/armer Trent Copeland. His record is as good as any of his peers. This year he has played the least games of the more fancied men, has the lowest average @16 and the third best strike rate. Copes has an outstanding First Class record of 320 poles at @25.6. At 32 still he is far from past it. He would be a fine addition to our Ashes squad as he not only seams the ball but can swing it both ways. Something not too many of our leading quicks have the ability to do. I think the view would be Copeland bowls too slow, which is probably nonsense but I cannot see him being selected even if their was a massive number of injuries. He was not successful when he was given the chance as well. 3 matches 6 wkts @37 is not brilliant but sufficient to warrant more chances. Was still pretty much a novice back in 2011. Plus it was on slow Asian wickets. I get so testy when I hear selectors say we would have picked him but "he is too slow". Slow but accurate.. builds pressure.. swings both way and seams when there is grass. McGrath was never quick look at his incredible career. You don't have to convince me, I am just putting forward the reasoning I suspect is behind his non selection. Mennie was dismissed as soon as he started bowling in his only test match because he was not bowling very quick. Darren Lehmann I think had an excellent cricket brain but him saying Australia quicks had to bowl over 140 was about as a bad a comment as possible. That kind of thinking still is quite prevalent. If you can be extremely accurate and move the ball a bit each way then you do not have to bowl fast, you get wickets through executing the skills of bowling correctly. We have a pace trio who are decent and while they bowl much faster do not use the skills very well. The Indians are much more skilled and not really any slower, that is why they are better. You're getting it... Ishant is a lot slower, though. This thinking started with the dropping of Doug Bollinger, Mark Waugh was a firm advocate of it too. There's truth to it on roads, but movement and speed is always better than just speed.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHazelwood for Labu might balance the team. 2 spinners and 3 pace men with 3 all rounders Starc would make way if I had a say. Consistency over inconsistency. Langer has been getting a few players hot under the collar this week with his comment that those on the fringe of Test selection only average in the mid @30s. Check your eyesite Alfie. Kurtis Patterson (@41), Joe Burns (@40.5, Dan Hughes (@39.7), Matt Wade (@39.6), Jake Lehmann (@39.6). Then there are Tom Cooper averaging @ 45.5, Nick Larkin @49.4. this season. Even Jordan Silk @38, Alex Doolan @38 are averaging more than most of the incumbents. Surely all of these batsmen have strong claims to play in the SCG game but should definitely be in consideration for the Sri Lankan series. I thought Wade was top of the Shield aggregate and averages this season ? Those are FC averages. Wade has 571 at @63 this season. His best season by a country mile. Tremain, Jhye Richardson and Bird are next cabs off the rank to replace undersiege quicks Starc and Hazlewood. One quick that seems to be forgotten in dispatches is beanpole Blues r/armer Trent Copeland. His record is as good as any of his peers. This year he has played the least games of the more fancied men, has the lowest average @16 and the third best strike rate. Copes has an outstanding First Class record of 320 poles at @25.6. At 32 still he is far from past it. He would be a fine addition to our Ashes squad as he not only seams the ball but can swing it both ways. Something not too many of our leading quicks have the ability to do. I think the view would be Copeland bowls too slow, which is probably nonsense but I cannot see him being selected even if their was a massive number of injuries. He was not successful when he was given the chance as well. 3 matches 6 wkts @37 is not brilliant but sufficient to warrant more chances. Was still pretty much a novice back in 2011. Plus it was on slow Asian wickets. I get so testy when I hear selectors say we would have picked him but "he is too slow". Slow but accurate.. builds pressure.. swings both way and seams when there is grass. McGrath was never quick look at his incredible career. You don't have to convince me, I am just putting forward the reasoning I suspect is behind his non selection. Mennie was dismissed as soon as he started bowling in his only test match because he was not bowling very quick. Darren Lehmann I think had an excellent cricket brain but him saying Australia quicks had to bowl over 140 was about as a bad a comment as possible. That kind of thinking still is quite prevalent. If you can be extremely accurate and move the ball a bit each way then you do not have to bowl fast, you get wickets through executing the skills of bowling correctly. We have a pace trio who are decent and while they bowl much faster do not use the skills very well. The Indians are much more skilled and not really any slower, that is why they are better. You're getting it... Ishant is a lot slower, though. This thinking started with the dropping of Doug Bollinger, Mark Waugh was a firm advocate of it too. There's truth to it on roads, but movement and speed is always better than just speed. On Ishant I was hearing he had slowed down and become a much better bowler. However I heard one commentator raving about how his bowling had improved because he was bowling quicker, could not believe my ears. No comment on his skills as a bowler, just he gained a bit of pace so he is doing a lot better. And Ishant is not playing the 4th, India seem to be going in with 2 spinners. I also wonder whether with this push for pace and more pace whether our bowlers are trying too hard for pace and losing their skills. They don't swing the ball, they don't keep the seam straight, the don't have control, there is no consistency. Surely the correct pace is not as quickly as possible but the pace where there is plenty of control and skills can be used. I wonder how Starc would go if he tried to swing and seam the ball at 130-5, instead of striving to reach 145+ all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Looking at the stats above and fiddling with them Australia has used 8 openers this year but still has the 3rd best opening record this year. Some of this is because the opener with the second best average this year is Usman Khawaja, he is only behind Shaw. Warner averaged 39 exactly when he played.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Cricinfo has suggest the teams with be,
Australia
Harris, Khawaja, S.Marsh, Handscomb/Finch, Head, Labuschagne, Paine, Cummins, Starc, Lyon, Hazlewood
India
Agarwal, Rahul, Pujara, Kohli, Rahane, Vihari, Pant, Jadeja, Shami, Umesh Yadav, Bumrah
So at last Finch might get a chance in the middle order unless Handscomb comes back in for a reason totally unapparent to me.
India being back Rahul is not great but at least it takes Vihari away from opening. Ashwin might play in the test, possibly in place of Umesh Yadav who has been named despite a poor Perth test ahead of Kumar again. Kuldeep Yadav has also been named in the 13 man squad.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHazelwood for Labu might balance the team. 2 spinners and 3 pace men with 3 all rounders Starc would make way if I had a say. Consistency over inconsistency. Langer has been getting a few players hot under the collar this week with his comment that those on the fringe of Test selection only average in the mid @30s. Check your eyesite Alfie. Kurtis Patterson (@41), Joe Burns (@40.5, Dan Hughes (@39.7), Matt Wade (@39.6), Jake Lehmann (@39.6). Then there are Tom Cooper averaging @ 45.5, Nick Larkin @49.4. this season. Even Jordan Silk @38, Alex Doolan @38 are averaging more than most of the incumbents. Surely all of these batsmen have strong claims to play in the SCG game but should definitely be in consideration for the Sri Lankan series. I thought Wade was top of the Shield aggregate and averages this season ? Those are FC averages. Wade has 571 at @63 this season. His best season by a country mile. Tremain, Jhye Richardson and Bird are next cabs off the rank to replace undersiege quicks Starc and Hazlewood. One quick that seems to be forgotten in dispatches is beanpole Blues r/armer Trent Copeland. His record is as good as any of his peers. This year he has played the least games of the more fancied men, has the lowest average @16 and the third best strike rate. Copes has an outstanding First Class record of 320 poles at @25.6. At 32 still he is far from past it. He would be a fine addition to our Ashes squad as he not only seams the ball but can swing it both ways. Something not too many of our leading quicks have the ability to do. I think the view would be Copeland bowls too slow, which is probably nonsense but I cannot see him being selected even if their was a massive number of injuries. He was not successful when he was given the chance as well. 3 matches 6 wkts @37 is not brilliant but sufficient to warrant more chances. Was still pretty much a novice back in 2011. Plus it was on slow Asian wickets. I get so testy when I hear selectors say we would have picked him but "he is too slow". Slow but accurate.. builds pressure.. swings both way and seams when there is grass. McGrath was never quick look at his incredible career. You don't have to convince me, I am just putting forward the reasoning I suspect is behind his non selection. Mennie was dismissed as soon as he started bowling in his only test match because he was not bowling very quick. Darren Lehmann I think had an excellent cricket brain but him saying Australia quicks had to bowl over 140 was about as a bad a comment as possible. That kind of thinking still is quite prevalent. If you can be extremely accurate and move the ball a bit each way then you do not have to bowl fast, you get wickets through executing the skills of bowling correctly. We have a pace trio who are decent and while they bowl much faster do not use the skills very well. The Indians are much more skilled and not really any slower, that is why they are better. You're getting it... Ishant is a lot slower, though. This thinking started with the dropping of Doug Bollinger, Mark Waugh was a firm advocate of it too. There's truth to it on roads, but movement and speed is always better than just speed. On Ishant I was hearing he had slowed down and become a much better bowler. However I heard one commentator raving about how his bowling had improved because he was bowling quicker, could not believe my ears. No comment on his skills as a bowler, just he gained a bit of pace so he is doing a lot better. And Ishant is not playing the 4th, India seem to be going in with 2 spinners. I also wonder whether with this push for pace and more pace whether our bowlers are trying too hard for pace and losing their skills. They don't swing the ball, they don't keep the seam straight, the don't have control, there is no consistency. Surely the correct pace is not as quickly as possible but the pace where there is plenty of control and skills can be used. I wonder how Starc would go if he tried to swing and seam the ball at 130-5, instead of striving to reach 145+ all the time. Ishant's much slower than he was. And he is far more controlled. Bowls to plans - uses his inswinger well. Tries to hit the seam often. I don't think Starc's wrist and delivery position is all that conducive to much lateral swing without overpitching or bowling yorker length. He has to go full... India is gambling if they have to bowl first. Even decision for Paine if India play two spinners. Make India bowl first. I don't see Yadav playing... I think if Ashwin isn't fit, Kuldeep may very well play.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLooking at the stats above and fiddling with them Australia has used 8 openers this year but still has the 3rd best opening record this year. Some of this is because the opener with the second best average this year is Usman Khawaja, he is only behind Shaw. Warner averaged 39 exactly when he played. Yeah - look at teh tables I posted... Aussie's bowlers are far more behind the mark last year than the batsmen... This is the reality that people were trying to sweep under the carpet. It happened in SA, in Pak, and in Aus vs SA (admittedly ODI - but it was clear and day for most viewers) and now India... And I think it will happen again in England next year. SL have just lost Mathews, their batting will be much weaker without him to the Aus boys to maybe dine on.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
Tom O'neil's twitter has the current mobs sheild averages verse the best
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Shane Warne has opened up about our spluttering opening bowling pair. He wants Starc gone but Hazlewood to stay. "I want Hazlewood because he is class" (I can see Mike squirming) he said in Tele. He did add a word of caution about Hazlewood stating his figures last year were poor. But he is openly scathing about Starc.. not for the first time. Like me he says Starc loses so much of his potency when he is not swinging the ball. "He is opening the bowling and is not swinging the ball. When he does not swing it he is not in form". Warne also wants Cummins to open the bowling from now on.. saying when he has the new ball swinging he is devastating. "Like when as a teen he destroyed the Saffers top order". Warne does not speak of who he wants as Starc's replacement. He like me is scathing of our batting and bowling coaches and wants our players to speak their minds.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Is this a case of changing one dud for another? Handscomb in for Finch. Finch 97 @16 Handscomb 68 @17. The only possible reason for this by those CA muppets is that Handscomb has the reputation as a decent player of spin and it appears the SCG deck is being prepared by the new curator to spin. Do we want a deck that plays smack bang into the hands of perhaps the finest bowlers on spinning tracks in world cricket? We most certainly do not. This imho is handing the Indians the series win on a platter. So out goes Finch and Marsh the junior variety.. why did Marsh senior not join him? Also hearing Khawaja will open with Harris.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
cricbuzz team need to book a psychiatrist appointment.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xHazelwood for Labu might balance the team. 2 spinners and 3 pace men with 3 all rounders Starc would make way if I had a say. Consistency over inconsistency. Langer has been getting a few players hot under the collar this week with his comment that those on the fringe of Test selection only average in the mid @30s. Check your eyesite Alfie. Kurtis Patterson (@41), Joe Burns (@40.5, Dan Hughes (@39.7), Matt Wade (@39.6), Jake Lehmann (@39.6). Then there are Tom Cooper averaging @ 45.5, Nick Larkin @49.4. this season. Even Jordan Silk @38, Alex Doolan @38 are averaging more than most of the incumbents. Surely all of these batsmen have strong claims to play in the SCG game but should definitely be in consideration for the Sri Lankan series. I re-read your post Baggers, still no mention of Wade and those I have highlighted are this season only, question stands why not mention Wade, if you mention those highlighted. Wade still averages nearly 40 at FC level and the leading run scorer this year. Better still Patterson this hasn't scored as many runs as S Marsh has from 6 matches compared to Marsh's 3. Doesn't suggest to me as though he would be a worthy replacement for Marsh, you're looking to improve the batting SOS Marsh keeps getting picked for two reasons. he is CA pet and he has experience. He has also had a decent shield season. The other constant in his career is he is unreliable. Patterson has to come into consideration as he has a @40 average and blokes who average @5 less have already been chosen and failed. Just get him in there and let him show what he can do. Forget where he scores his runs in domestic cricket. He has a solid technique, can bat time and is better than average against spin. Give him a shot. If he does not take it.. I along with you will be calling for his head.. In short, Kurtis Patterson deserves his chance. I'm all for giving a chance to someone that has proven themselves over a period of time, such as Patterson, but that is across the board especially when losing it is the perfect opportunity as no expectations we're losing anyway. May I suggest we look at the last time we were No 1 ranked was this test match http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8418/scorecard/914239/new-zealand-vs-australia-2nd-test-australia-tour-of-new-zealand-2015-16Look who were the players who performed that we got the No 1 ranking Burns, Smith, Voges, Bird and Pattinson. And look who didn't. Warner, Khawaja, M Marsh, Neville and Hazlewood, Lyons performance was OK not great but Ok The ones that did perform, were the first dropped, or out injured in Pattinson's case. Smith the exception The ones that didn't perform are the ones you could say rode the coat tails of the others to get that No 1 ranking and now make up the nucleus of the team. Might be something in that. We talking about the same tour?.. if so you are Hazlewood bashing for no reason. In your own words.. "wickets are the most important thing" Lyon also had a better than ok tour. Most wickets| Player | Mat | Inns | Overs | Mdns | Runs | Wkts | BBI | BBM | Ave | Econ | SR | 5 | 10 |
|---|
| NM Lyon (AUS) | 2 | 4 | 64.0 | 13 | 226 | 10 | 4/91 | 7/123 | 22.60 | 3.53 | 38.4 | 0 | 0 | | JR Hazlewood (AUS) | 2 | 4 | 95.0 | 25 | 307 | 9 | 4/42 | 6/117 | 34.11 | 3.23 | 63.3 | 0 | 0 | | JM Bird (AUS) | 2 | 4 | 60.5 | 14 | 228 | 8 | 5/59 | 7/125 | 28.50 | 3.74 | 45.6 | 1 | 0 | | N Wagner (NZ) | 1 | 2 | 50.1 | 10 | 166 | 7 | 6/106 | 7/166 | 23.71 | 3.30 | 43.0 | 1 | 0 | | JL Pattinson (AUS) | 1 | 2 | 41.0 | 10 | 158 | 6 | 4/77 | 6/158 | 26.33 | 3.85 | 41.0 | 0 | 0 | | TA Boult (NZ) | 2 | 3 | 81.0 | 12 | 269 | 5 | 2/101 | 3/168 | 53.80 | 3.32 | 97.2 | 0 | 0 | The particular test when we retained the No 1 position was based on purely winning that test, if draw or loss we lost No 1 position. So you could say when the pressure is on who stood up and took up the responsibility. Hazlewood took 3/190 when Pattinson took 6/158 and Bird 7/119. As I said Pattinson becomes injured, but Bird became the bowling option when players were injured. It was Birds 5th test and up to that point he had 21 wickets @ 25. But no that is not my point.My real point lies in the fact that Burns scores 235 runs is named player of the match, a match Australia had to win, he stood up and amassed the runs, we won it and retained the No 1 ranking. This was something Warner, M Marsh, Khawaja couldn't do. 2 matches later Burns is dropped. No chance given to him to prove himself. So at that point a line is drawn IMO if selectors can drop a player, a match winning player, after just 2 poor tests, is it too much to expect similar results for other players. Over the last few weeks we have all been looking at 2018 performances not just 2 tests, I think that time period is relevant, Australia played 10 tests in that time. I think 2 games is an unfair assessment but 1 year is too much. When was the last time M Marsh, S Marsh have dominated a test, maybe S Marsh did against SA in Australia but it has been a bit long between drinks. Starc did dominate SA in Durbin this year that a lot of people have glossed over, 9/109, but since then 19 wickets from 7 games, he is a match winner but it is not looking good at all for Starc, too many games between performances. So yes I would drop Starc, but Hazlewood in his last 15 tests has taken 5 or more wickets in a test twice. 5 wickets in a test is expected when you play 4 bowlers, not all the time, but more regularly than 2 out 15, so yes I would drop Hazlewood as well. Just quietly Baggers just have a look at the averages, but that is not the point I'm trying to make. As I've kept saying when is enough enough. Joe was unjustly dropped. Tho he never at any time bashed open the door Mike. The Marsh boys are mentally weak. Is is a shame as Mitch. specially has so much natural talent.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I would be stripping back to basics at the academy and working with bowlers on wrist position. It is the clear and obvious defect with most of the current Aussie crop. There's too much emphasis on pace only. Get an outswinger going. Bowl the ball in a manner that 9/10 it will hit the seam. It is not rocket science.Madness that this is not already being done. What is point of having all these bowling coaches? This is the FC record of our current bowling coach. No tests. Not exactly earth shattering. S/R 64.5.
|
|
|
|