Brew
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 272,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI have just seen the news, why is Mitch Marsh in the squad? There is literally no reason for it, he isn't even the best all rounder we have in the shield... Can someone please explain to me why Warner keeps getting chances when others don’t? Good question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI have just seen the news, why is Mitch Marsh in the squad? There is literally no reason for it, he isn't even the best all rounder we have in the shield... Comes off a good tour game.. batted plenty of runs on a tricky deck and swung the Dukes. Paddles you did say Curran hooped it big. These decks have not swung. So why was he picked. Is he replacing Roy?
|
|
|
|
|
Keyboard Warrior
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xIt is the bowlers who failed to live up to expectations as they do on a world wide scale
More rubbish Mike. If it was not for Cummins and Hazlewood we will not be bringing the urn home (figuratively speaking). It certainly is not due to our batsmen (Smith excluded). Had we had half decent bats against the moving ball we'd win this 5-0. You bring up an absurd situation to make your point.. that being loosing the unloseable when Stokes tonked us out of the game. The operative word being tonked.. He was in white ball mode for much of the last hour. Good pitched balls from both Haze and Cummins that were troubling batsmen only hours before were being stepped away from and clubbed white ball style by a powerful man with a decent eye. Incorrect Baggers. Unless England win the final test Hazlewood has nothing to do with the return of the Urn. At this current point of time a 1-1 draw retained the Ashes and that win was due to Bancroft, Warner, Khawaja, Smith, Head, Wade, Paine, Pattinson, Cummins, Siddle and Lyon. That was the team that "retained" the Ashes at this current point of time. Now if England win the final test then yes Hazlewood Starc and Harris Labuchagne may be included. But currently Hazlewood, Starc et al are just band wagon hoppers trying to get their names in lights. The reason we almost lost the Lord's test saved by the rain, and lost the 3rd test was that the selectors messed around with the winning formula from the 1st test, so one could argue that the inclusion of Hazlewood got us in the mess in the first place. It is all supposition maybe the inclusion of Pattinson in the second test gives a better return of 3/100. Maybe the presence of the work horse Siddle in the 3rd test keeps the bowlers fresh so they don't get smashed for 19 off one over and lose the test. In your opinion they were "good deliveries" I personally call them rubbish afterall a full toss on middle stump from Hazlewood deserves to be put in the stands and that's exactly what happened. Rubbish is always sent to the sidewalk. Rubbish bowling put in the stands and England achieve a RECORD WINNING RUN CHASE. Bowlers fault, every time a record winning run chase is achieved. The batsmen set a record winning score, no other bowling attack has ever allowed those runs to be scored that's what makes them a record. The reason we retained the Ashes is simply England are that bad, and yes I can support that statement but there is so much. But I'll give you an example of how a player with any ability is still showing us how regardless of his poor team mates we are still struggling and it is not the batsmen. Stokes prior to the Ashes series was ranked No 82 for 2 years (the world's bowlers managed to keep him under control for 2 years) http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;page=2;spanmax2=31+jul+2019;spanmin2=12+sep+2017;spanval2=span;template=results;type=battingAfter the first test Stokes moved to No 81, that means nothing you expect little positional changes Cummins Pattinson Siddle and Lyon were continuing what the world was doing. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;page=2;spanmax2=8+aug+2019;spanmin2=12+sep+2017;spanval2=span;template=results;type=battingAfter the 2nd test Stokes jumped to No 63. That's massive and Paddles will agree this is the sort of movement that people who analyse stats look for. Why did it occur? Hazlewood came into the side or is it an anomaly? http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;page=2;spanmax2=21+aug+2019;spanmin2=12+sep+2017;spanval2=span;template=results;type=battingAfter 3rd test Stokes moved to No 47 (he's now on the first page), once again massive jump (after 2 tests a positional change of 35 that's big and rarely occurs so quickly especially with the number of tests played by Stokes, one or 2 test will see massive jumps, but 17 it should be fairly stable) Still why, what has changed? http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;spanmax2=29+aug+2019;spanmin2=12+sep+2017;spanval2=span;template=results;type=battingAfter 4th test Stokes stabilises at No 55. So why the massive positional change? Why did it occur when the only significant change is the inclusion of Hazlewood?, Is the theory Hazlewood's inclusion is a problem valid? So we go back and look. Prior to the India series in Australia India had 7 batsmen in the top 30, after the India series in Australia they had 10 in the top 30 (Shaw, Kohli, Agarwal, Nair, Pujara, Sharma, Pant, Yadav, Dahwan, Jadeja). Bowling attack was Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins and Lyon. Same thing happened against South Africa they went from 5 in the top 50 to 6 in the top 50. Once again Starc Hazlewood Cummins and Lyon. Starc's involvement in the Ashes has been minimal but the one test he played resulted in an Australian win, now that is interesting. The last 3 tests played by Starc has resulted in wins, the only current bowler that can claim that particular point. Are Cummins and Lyon 1 test wonders? No I would hypothesise that Hazlewood involvement in the test side is detrimental to the performances of those around him as others are "demoted" from their ideal positional play, meanwhile contributing minimal in his own performance, just enough to keep selectors off his back and maintaining his million dollar per annum contract.. I think I've give enough proof to support the formation of that theory. It's a theory, now prove me wrong? The thing I detest having to do is questioning such a talented bowlers such as Cummins and to a lesser extent Lyon but we do have to look at everything, amazing how one player can cause questions over others. Now as a proud Australian supporter I certainly hope you aren't going for England in the final test just so you can include the name of Josh Hazlewood as part of the reason Australia retained the Ashes in your Hazlewood scrapbook. So C'Mon Baggers what are you? Uncle...... 2nd cousin twice removed.....next door neighbour?????? Also remember with the current ICC championship every test matters and when there are 5 tests in a series the points available are the least amount possible so every win matters. I am not wanting an England win as Australia would only come out with points amounting to 1 win in a 2 test series, I think they have played better than that. Mike give the Hazlewood bashing a rest. You must be having a laugh, need an eye test or you know nothing about cricket. From what I’ve seen, and most blokes who know a thing or two about cricket, Hazlewood has kicked the Pom’s botties !
|
|
|
|
|
Keyboard Warrior
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885,
Visits: 0
|
Can’t believe Starc has been dropped for Siddle.
|
|
|
|
|
Keyboard Warrior
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xIt is the bowlers who failed to live up to expectations as they do on a world wide scale
More rubbish Mike. If it was not for Cummins and Hazlewood we will not be bringing the urn home (figuratively speaking). It certainly is not due to our batsmen (Smith excluded). Had we had half decent bats against the moving ball we'd win this 5-0. You bring up an absurd situation to make your point.. that being loosing the unloseable when Stokes tonked us out of the game. The operative word being tonked.. He was in white ball mode for much of the last hour. Good pitched balls from both Haze and Cummins that were troubling batsmen only hours before were being stepped away from and clubbed white ball style by a powerful man with a decent eye.
Now as a proud Australian supporter I certainly hope you aren't going for England in the final test just so you can include the name of Josh Hazlewood as part of the reason Australia retained the Ashes in your Hazlewood scrapbook. So C'Mon Baggers what are you? Uncle...... 2nd cousin twice removed.....next door neighbour?????? Also remember with the current ICC championship every test matters and when there are 5 tests in a series the points available are the least amount possible so every win matters. I am not wanting an England win as Australia would only come out with points amounting to 1 win in a 2 test series, I think they have played better than that.
LOL! Too funny! Reckon Mike's lost it. Why is that funny DC? Some people do understand Baggers some of what I write is done tongue in cheek, and to get different points of view out there. If you want to read promotional BS regarding certain players with no supportive factual basis, read the articles in the media. I myself personally learnt long ago that the media have no obligation to factually support any claims but report to get discussions going regardless of the damage they ultimately do to society. But that is the beauty of Forums you do do get a variety of opinions from different walks of life and not necessarily even from the same country, makes you think. Some good points are made and I respect quality input even if it disagrees with my point of view. Mate, I’ve always thought you were a quality poster. But in all seriousness when you kick the guts out of Hazlewood, you must be smoking banana bender whoopee weed! The bloke has been a star of the Ashes retention. Give it a rest, son. Does Mike realise that to win a test match, a team needs to take wickets? Hazlewood has been pretty good at this caper. The Poms haven’t enjoyed his bowling too much.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xI have just seen the news, why is Mitch Marsh in the squad? There is literally no reason for it, he isn't even the best all rounder we have in the shield... Comes off a good tour game.. batted plenty of runs on a tricky deck and swung the Dukes. He flat out does not deserve a spot, i've never seen a guy be able to be so poor for a team yet somehow find his way back into the squad. He is statistically pretty much our worse ever player in history.
|
|
|
|
|
Keyboard Warrior
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885,
Visits: 0
|
Good accurate, penetrative over from Hazlewood.
|
|
|
|
|
Keyboard Warrior
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885,
Visits: 0
|
Looks like a fast outfield at The Oval.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Just looking at a shot in the crowd of Usman, Head and Starc, all three have been a little unlucky to have been dropped.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Hazlewood gets Burns out LBW, but DRS shows it is too high.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
We will need Marsh as fourth pacer as this track looks slow and low.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
England 0-10.
If they exceed 13, it is a bigger opening stand than any Aussie opening stand in this Ashes series!
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xIt is the bowlers who failed to live up to expectations as they do on a world wide scale
More rubbish Mike. If it was not for Cummins and Hazlewood we will not be bringing the urn home (figuratively speaking). It certainly is not due to our batsmen (Smith excluded). Had we had half decent bats against the moving ball we'd win this 5-0. You bring up an absurd situation to make your point.. that being loosing the unloseable when Stokes tonked us out of the game. The operative word being tonked.. He was in white ball mode for much of the last hour. Good pitched balls from both Haze and Cummins that were troubling batsmen only hours before were being stepped away from and clubbed white ball style by a powerful man with a decent eye.
Now as a proud Australian supporter I certainly hope you aren't going for England in the final test just so you can include the name of Josh Hazlewood as part of the reason Australia retained the Ashes in your Hazlewood scrapbook. So C'Mon Baggers what are you? Uncle...... 2nd cousin twice removed.....next door neighbour?????? Also remember with the current ICC championship every test matters and when there are 5 tests in a series the points available are the least amount possible so every win matters. I am not wanting an England win as Australia would only come out with points amounting to 1 win in a 2 test series, I think they have played better than that.
LOL! Too funny! Reckon Mike's lost it. Why is that funny DC? Some people do understand Baggers some of what I write is done tongue in cheek, and to get different points of view out there. If you want to read promotional BS regarding certain players with no supportive factual basis, read the articles in the media. I myself personally learnt long ago that the media have no obligation to factually support any claims but report to get discussions going regardless of the damage they ultimately do to society. But that is the beauty of Forums you do do get a variety of opinions from different walks of life and not necessarily even from the same country, makes you think. Some good points are made and I respect quality input even if it disagrees with my point of view. Mate, I’ve always thought you were a quality poster. But in all seriousness when you kick the guts out of Hazlewood, you must be smoking banana bender whoopee weed! The bloke has been a star of the Ashes retention. Give it a rest, son. Does Mike realise that to win a test match, a team needs to take wickets? Hazlewood has been pretty good at this caper. The Poms haven’t enjoyed his bowling too much. Better than pretty good KW. He may struggle on this flattie tho.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWe will need Marsh as fourth pacer as this track looks slow and low. I think Marsh is closer to Siddle. We need Starc’s variation. That was a good over from Cummins. A few accurate balls exceeded 140kph.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWe will need Marsh as fourth pacer as this track looks slow and low. But we picked the workhorse in Siddle. I'd much rather use Head and Labu as the part timers because quite frankly they'll do more than Marsh regardless and Head can bat.
|
|
|
|
|
dead|ine
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8,
Visits: 0
|
denly gone
cummins is the goat
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWe will need Marsh as fourth pacer as this track looks slow and low. I think Marsh is closer to Siddle. We need Starc’s variation. That was a good over from Cummins. A few accurate balls exceeded 140kph. Marsh swung the ball in the tour game. He is a much improved bowler.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xWe will need Marsh as fourth pacer as this track looks slow and low. I think Marsh is closer to Siddle. We need Starc’s variation. That was a good over from Cummins. A few accurate balls exceeded 140kph. Marsh swung the ball in the tour game. He is a much improved bowler. Did Tim err by bowling first as he had no confidence in his misfiring openers on this green tinged deck.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
You guys can keep telling Mike - he is mad. And I don't have a position on this. Which makes me a sit-on-fence weakling as some might say. But in Mikes defence - i want to point out this fact. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;orderby=bowling_average;spanmin1=01+sep+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingHazelwood is 54'th on averages in the last 2 years. 54th.... Yeah, better than Broad, Starc, and Stokes. But is 54th good? Cos I don't rate Broad and Stokes as bowlers. Do you? Because I don't. I don't even really rate Starc in tests neither to be clear (I rate his yorkers in pyajama cricket death bowling very very highly). He is higher than Mark Wood, but lets be honest, he was utter rubbish his entire career bar his recent Windies tour...
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xWe will need Marsh as fourth pacer as this track looks slow and low. I think Marsh is closer to Siddle. We need Starc’s variation. That was a good over from Cummins. A few accurate balls exceeded 140kph. Marsh swung the ball in the tour game. He is a much improved bowler. | MR Marsh (AUS) | 2017-2019 | 11 | 16 | 131.0 | 19 | 452 | 6 | 2/26 | 2/26 | 75.33 | 3.45 | 131.0 | 0 | 0 |  |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
That's a relief, cos worse would be comical to be honest :P
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xYou guys can keep telling Mike - he is mad. And I don't have a position on this. Which makes me a sit-on-fence weakling as some might say. But in Mikes defence - i want to point out this fact. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;orderby=bowling_average;spanmin1=01+sep+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingHazelwood is 54'th on averages in the last 2 years. 54th.... Yeah, better than Broad, Starc, and Stokes. But is 54th good? Cos I don't rate Broad and Stokes as bowlers. Do you? Because I don't. I don't even really rate Starc in tests neither to be clear (I rate his yorkers in pyajama cricket death bowling very very highly). He is higher than Mark Wood, but lets be honest, he was utter rubbish his entire career bar his recent Windies tour... I am first to admit his form dropped over the past 12 or so months. Or his wicket taking did. Has struggled on these types of flat decks. This has been his least profitable opening spell of the series.. his most expensive too.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
IMO - Paine has mid on and mid off up far too flat to the pitch. That inswinger that Burns just hit for 4, should have been cut off for 1 at the most, 0 if straight for the fielder.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xYou guys can keep telling Mike - he is mad. And I don't have a position on this. Which makes me a sit-on-fence weakling as some might say. But in Mikes defence - i want to point out this fact. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;orderby=bowling_average;spanmin1=01+sep+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingHazelwood is 54'th on averages in the last 2 years. 54th.... Yeah, better than Broad, Starc, and Stokes. But is 54th good? Cos I don't rate Broad and Stokes as bowlers. Do you? Because I don't. I don't even really rate Starc in tests neither to be clear (I rate his yorkers in pyajama cricket death bowling very very highly). He is higher than Mark Wood, but lets be honest, he was utter rubbish his entire career bar his recent Windies tour... I am first to admit his form dropped over the past 12 or so months. Or his wicket taking did. Has struggled on these types of flat decks. Its difficult for me. I used to rate Haze. And he fell away massively after I had a conclusion. He has caught me out already once. I don't wanna take a strong point of view on him without being sure. I think a lot of Mike says has merit. But I also remember Haze and Patto hammering NZ here in 2016. And being a class above the rest of the world. I'm a lil bit split. But I am not impressed by Haze this tour, in Mike's defence. Unlike Mike, I'm not going to totally write Haze off neither. I'm on the fence right now. But Mike really really could be right. Really could be. Haze was better imo at the slower pace valuing accuracy. But he has always, ALWAYS been favouring that new ball. Always. Even when I rated him. And that's okay if done well. Philander is shit without a new ball or a Dukes. But a new new ball or a Dukes, Philander asks questions more than a jealous wife.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWe will need Marsh as fourth pacer as this track looks slow and low. Warne was just saying it is a mistake having Siddle and Marsh in the same team, as they are similar. He advocates Patto or Starc instead of Siddle.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
1-63 is a good start for England after having been sent in, Aus being without Starc or Pattinson.
|
|
|
|
|
Keyboard Warrior
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885,
Visits: 0
|
Has Paine made a mistake sending the Poms in?
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHas Paine made a mistake sending the Poms in? It looks like it.
|
|
|
|
|
Keyboard Warrior
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 885,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xYou guys can keep telling Mike - he is mad. And I don't have a position on this. Which makes me a sit-on-fence weakling as some might say. But in Mikes defence - i want to point out this fact. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;orderby=bowling_average;spanmin1=01+sep+2017;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowlingHazelwood is 54'th on averages in the last 2 years. 54th.... Yeah, better than Broad, Starc, and Stokes. But is 54th good? Cos I don't rate Broad and Stokes as bowlers. Do you? Because I don't. I don't even really rate Starc in tests neither to be clear (I rate his yorkers in pyajama cricket death bowling very very highly). He is higher than Mark Wood, but lets be honest, he was utter rubbish his entire career bar his recent Windies tour... I am first to admit his form dropped over the past 12 or so months. Or his wicket taking did. Has struggled on these types of flat decks. I'm a lil bit split. But I am not impressed by Haze this tour, in Mike's defence. Unlike Mike, I'm not going to totally write Haze off neither. I'm on the fence right now. But Mike really really could be right. Really could be. Haze was better imo at the slower pace valuing accuracy. But he has always, ALWAYS been favouring that new ball. Always. Even when I rated him. And that's okay if done well. Philander is shit without a new ball or a Dukes. But a new new ball or a Dukes, Philander asks questions more than a jealous wife. You’re having a laugh! That is what his job is - using the new ball.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
Siddle puts down an regulation catch in the deep after a pull from Burns off Cummins.
At 1 - 72 it could be costly.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWe will need Marsh as fourth pacer as this track looks slow and low. Wanre was just saying it is a mistake having Siddle and Marsh in the same team, as they are similar. He advocates Patto or Starc instead of Siddle. He also actually advocated Patto over Marsh, which is stupid. But his grammar is not his strength. His actual complaint as I give him credit, is two medium pacers, which has merit - his real point being, if you play a trundler like Siddle, you shouldn't need a 5th bowler like Marsh when you have a donkey work seamer like Sidder to go with a spinner in Lyon. He didn't say that exactly, but that is his real and extrapolated meaning. I also would have played Patto over Siddle and not dropped Head. Not that I really care for Warne's opinion on anything other than spin bowling outside of India tbh. :P
|
|
|
|