U may not care about 20 20 and give higher priority to england. But that is an ideology. Nothing wrong with an ideology, but ca and the australian cricketing public are unlikely to share that

2nd innings scores are harder than first innings scores. He also has an 80 in a first innings

In general it doesnt matter when a team gets there runs 1st innings are just when most runs are scored because it tends to be easier (although the last test is the exception to this rule. This has been true for the rest of this series). There is a lot of randomness in test cricket and if he played this series 100 times his scores would be randomly distributed accross the two innings with a bias to the first innings.

It used to be that if u score 600 accross the two innings you would get a positive result from most tests. Since short forms of the game came about lower orders and bowlers have been a lot better so these days its changed to if the top 7 get 600 runs in a test match they will win most tests. Based on this warner has done his job. The fact u single him out and also single out ozzie players with solid averages as players to emulate shows you have a philosophy rather than an objective way of improving australia. Nothing wrong with a philosophy. But keep in mind it is subjective and there is nothing wrong with australias philosophy that has been succesful over sustained periods at home and away.



Edited by Grazorblade: 21/8/2015 04:48:41 PM

Ps fair point about non overlap of sheild and county cricket seasons

It seems to be a recurring theme.

Many Aussies laud their sabbaticals in English county cricket.

England are the traditonal owners of the game and traditional technique (really style) is the traditonal english style as thry have a monopoly on what is orthodox and traditional.

The thing is they have not been as succesful away from home as australia or dominated over long periods

root is not an aggressive player. His strike rate is about the same as michael husseys at 3 runds per over
Hussey would flash at the ball hard by the way he was just exteremely picky about which balls to hit. He used soft hands mostly for quick singles
our best batsman don bradman had a strike rate of 65
other golden generation includes gilchrist hayden symonds ponting and leighman.
All would flash hard at the ball

You should.

Australia has done well - so far.

I'm enjoying the technical knowledge of other posters about cricket, Draups.=d>

Hope you are, mate.:)

Sceptical? Kidding me? Can't you see the faintest line between Australia doing well in the Ashes in England and players like Allan Border, Steve Waugh and God knows how many others doing at least a season or two of county cricket?

Compare and contrast our batsmen (save Rogers) with Kane Williamson from New Zealand. On a green wicket at Lords, with the ball hooping all over the place, Kane Williamson played the ball nice and late and scored a great century against Broad, Anderson, etc. Look at our batsmen. Until now, if there has been a hint of movement, they have been back in the dressing rooms quick smart.

What does Kane Williamson do in his winter? Oh, he plays for Yorkshire.

And curiously, it's only now (after four tests) that Australia's batsmen are finally starting to adjust to the conditions.

Think it through logically. The ball moves a lot more in England than in Australia. If players (especially batsmen) aren't used to lateral movement in Australia, they'll struggle against it in England. If they play a couple of seasons of county cricket, they'll have some idea of how to deal with it.

Please tell me you see the sense in our players (especially batsmen) playing County cricket.

As for Warner's scores. I'm not saying he has done terribly. But I think you're missing a trick to say he has done well.

If you're an opening batsman and you're a walking wicket in the first innings there's a big problem. Scores of 17, 38, 2 and 0 in the first four tests tell us there's a problem. You can't rely on runs in the second innings. Warner hasn't been good enough. England realise this and have cashed in. Warner realises this and is trying to fix it. Listen to Warner's own words. He said in the innings last Test where he scored a half-century, he never felt like he was in. He felt like every delivery was a real struggle for him. He just felt at sea against the movement. He was doing his best to play late, but he's not used to have to do that. Don't you see how that points to a problem?

First innings runs are all-important, they give you a chance to win and they are likely to at least stop you losing. Second innings runs can't compensate for that.



South African conditions are a lot less alien to our players than English conditions. India? Good point. That's why we're doing Australia A tours there. But at the end of the day, people care more about the Ashes than they do about beating India in India.

Also, in terms of pace bowling, English conditions are the most testing for Australian batsmen. If they can thrive in English conditions (lots more lateral movement) and can thrive in Australian conditions (bouncier, quicker), they can thrive in South Africa and the West Indies. English conditions test proper batting technique more than Australian conditions. They make batsmen play with a straight bat, through the line, with soft hands under their noses. This is proper technique and this is what's missing.

Please tell me how it weakens the Shield to have players doing stints in County cricket? The seasons are at different times of the year. For years, Rogers would play just about every Shield game and every county game.

And who gives a shit about T20 cricket. I wish it had never been invented. It's here to stay and I realise it has to stay if Test cricket is to have any chance of surviving.

But do we seriously give a shit about how we go in T20 compared to how we go in the Ashes? The only thing in sport that compares with the Ashes for me is the FIFA World Cup. Getting thrashed in the Ashes is a bit like failing to qualify for the World Cup, for me. Who cares about weakening our T20 team.

Seriously Warner and a bunch of others need to be playing in county cricket.

It's possible to be a heavy hitter and to have great technique/soft hands. Joe Root is such an example. Granted, you'll play with softer hands when you block than when you drive through cover. But still there's a difference between hitting it firmly and trying to hit it like there's no tomorrow (which is what too many of our players try to do).

Your point about heavy hitters is correlation not causation. It's not because Rogers, Mark Waugh and Damien Martyn weren't heavy hitters that they weren't our best players. Rogers is unusual because he, effectively, started playing Test cricket at 35. Mark Waugh just wasn't mentally tough enough. He just lost his nerve. That's why he never racked up really big scores. Mark Waugh was, purely in terms of technique and talent, one of the best batsmen in history. If he was as mentally tough as Steve, he probably would have been the best Australian batsman since Bradman. Damien Martyn, I'm not sure about. Maybe he wasn't mentally tough enough.

In any event, I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that our best players have been heavy hitters in the sense of Dave Warner, Matthew Hayden.

Looking purely at Australian players, I gather Bradman and Ponsford were sweet timers of the ball. Greg Chappell, Allan Border and Steve Waugh (although they could hit it hard) also timed the ball. Think of how many runs Steve Waugh scored behind square. I'm told Allan Border did similar.

All batters average over 40 at FC
All all rounders have shown something with the bat and ball
All bowlers look fierce

We should have a makings of a top 2 test team but sadly are short of dominance for now

my squad for the next series

warner smith vogues lynne , burns, Maxwell, Khawaja, Cowan

all rounders
Marsh, Agar

wks Neville, wade

bowlers pattinson, bird, cummins, starc, Johnson, hazelwood, lyon, Ahmed

of the Australian players the averages are

44, 42 and 46

all decent players for us but our best players have been pretty heavy hitters

Why learn to play well in one set of conditions? Why not send players to play first class in south Africa? Or India? It weakens our first class and players who play well in the shield can play anywhere anyway. Also why weaken one form of the game (oz's 20/20 side) to arguably strengthen another. I'm skeptical this would be achieved anyway

Warners scores this season:

80
0 64
2 77
38 83
17 52
for an average of about 46 often batting under pressure in difficult and unfamiliar conditions. Its been a class performance from him

Some of our players have had poor innings management and a few of our selections over the last couple of years have been poor

I reckon you can have soft (as opposed to dead) hands and be decisive. Same with your footwork. You need decisive footwork which should really create the positivity in the stroke play (even if it's a block). And then your hands give you control. But only soft hands will give true control.

I don't think it pays to be indecisive. Bit different to what you're talking about but did you see some of Warner's shots that got him out in the previous Tests? He wanted to play a pull shot, then got edgy about it (in case he couldn't control it) and he sort played something halfway between a pull shot and a flick off the pads. It was abysmal and it dismissed him a couple of times.

But I'm not so much talking about deadening your hands, I'm talking about softening them. When you try to catch the ball, you don't do so with dead hands but you don't have hard hands. You have soft hands. It's all about control.

A week ago you mentioned (correctly) that because it was early in the innings, Australia's batsmen were wanting in technique. This is true. But I still think when all the batsmen are flashing at the ball with no footwork and hard hands, that signals greater technical problems.

In terms of batting, just playing the ball under the eyeline without gripping the bat too firmly. Let the ball come onto the bat. This is what Rogers, Root, Cook, Mark Waugh, Damien Martyn all did beautifully.

It's all in the mindset (particularly the T20 mindset) that you need to flash hard at the ball. You can just wait for it, time it with soft hands. If you have soft, supple hands and you play the ball out of the middle of the bat, that's perfectly decisive.

I reckon Warner wouldn't find it too tough to get a County contract (hopefully Div 1). Might be harder for

He seems to be trying much harder to adapt his game to English conditions.

He seems fairly contrite about this Ashes debacle. He hasn't played terribly, and he has tried to adapt his game, but he hasn't scored enough runs in the first innings and he has struggled against swing and seam a lot.

If he is legit about wanting to win in England, I hope he doesn't bother with the IPL next year. When he's not on tour with Australia, he should just play County cricket.

He'll benefit immeasurably from it.

One thing that has interested me is the practice of deadening your hands when you are beaten so that nicks go to ground

I recall this being discouraged in Australia as it was called "a getting out shot". In Australia (as well as WI and SA) this is more difficult to do and the ball is likely to carry sometimes even with dead hands. Im not the biggest fan of playing a shot just for one type of conditions in case you get a bad habit

In Australia it is better to be decisive. Leave it or go hard and hope that it goes over the slips if you nick (our conditions help that)

On ya Aussies!

Bit of tennis ball bounce and the ball has swung and seemed the entire 80 overs so oz have done well

in the first test only 8 balls were hitting the stumps! Also we had a higher percentage of control iirc (this match we have controlled about 80 percent of deliveries)

We also have a healthy run rate in this innings and should accelerate. 3.6ish despite going at 1 an over for the first hour

shows the power of innings management

in truth the coach should impart this information si perhaps questions should be asked of leighman

having said that all the problems i addressed earlier have been addressed so credit to leighman

I can't bring myself to watch the last test. Just an embarrassment. I am angry.

Pitch is green again so batting will get easier. There was still swing and seam but not as much as the last test.

This time we just saw off the new ball well by batting very conservatively for the first hour.

At one stage I think we were 0-15 of about 12 overs and Rogers was still only on 1. Very patient batting. After the new ball was seen off Warner in particular opened up.

I missed the play yesterday but caught the highlights. What is the pitch like? lots of swing or not as much as the last test?

Finally some patient batting has set the tone for the innings.

Warner has had a good series in tough conditions

Also, good to have the right hand/ left hand combination batting in Smith and Warner.



Edited by Decentric: 21/8/2015 12:02:54 AM

its true but tactics helped englands good bowling into great bowling
Even when the got 14 off 9 overs i dont recall too many back to back maidens
If u can get a back to back maiden a wicket isnt far away

We did a good job interupting their rhythm

A bit of luck went our way too.

LoLots of rotation of strike during tough periods and after hitting a four
Good leaving too
Would have won the series if we played all games like this

drinks break is always dangerous. There is a spike in the number of wickets straight after a drinks break

starting to rotate the strike nicely. Its been slow going but the bowling quality should decline soon

good thing is that I think if we can get the third session with wickets in hand I think Englands attack might wilt

good start
Warner needs to accelerate to take the pressure off Rogers

nothing silly though

I thought I saw comments from Clarke that he thought it would a 3 day test, so good luck with that.