I don't think cricket is particularly different to football for batsmen and quicks, not just leg spinners. Try applying this principle.

I'm not saying stats aren't important. I think you're giving stats too much credence. They need to be looked at through the prism of context. Same as football. Technique is so important.

For example, there are some batsmen who average in the high forties at f/c level who will get destroyed at Test level. And there are so many examples. Look at Graeme Hick. He butchered County bowlers for years. But he was a mediocre Test batsman at best. Why? He had technical weaknesses which weren't exposed at Test level. He couldn't handle the short ball. He also wasn't temperamentally suited to Test cricket.

Daryl Cullinan (South Africa) is another. Michael Bevan is another. He couldn't handle the short ball. Ravi Bopara is another. I don't wish to speak ill of the dead but there was another young Aussie batsman who was immensely talented and one of the nicest blokes you'd ever meet (by all accounts) who dominated in the Shield but his technique got found out at Test level. Now, he went back to the Shield and worked on his technique so he may well have ended up a Test superstar. But based on when he played, he's an example of a batsman who did well at f/c level but got found out in Test cricket. But cricket doesn't matter in the scheme of things and what matters more is that he was the type of bloke who all who played with and against loved.

There are some batsmen who have a good eye, no footwork, try to destroy the opposition and can destroy the opposition. These batsman will prosper on flat tracks. But the problem is that they lack technique technique. When they go to a place like England or India they get annihilated by good bowling.

One of my English correspondents made a really good point to me. He reminded me that Michael Vaughan didn't have a great county record, there were players with better records, before he got picked for England. But the England set-up realised that Vaughan had brilliant technique, talent and temperament. He had the potential to be a world-beater. So England persevered with him. And it was a good decision. He was, for a short period of time, the best batsman in the world.

If I was a coach, I'd be looking at the technique, talent and temperament. If there's a batsman in the Shield who has these attributes but can't quite get the runs on the board. Then just really find a way of persevering with that kind of player. I'm not saying select him for the Test side straight away, but really have him in mind.

We don't need more dashers. We need guys who can occupy the crease.

Edited by quickflick: 23/8/2015 10:00:26 PM

the fact that the Ashes is the only tournament worth talking about, undermining a 'World Cup' is point that cricket is not a growing sport

It used to be that the Ashes were easy to win, that it looked Australia needed to outsource their players who play in the sheffield shield to other countries to make it look like there was a worthy opponent. Or the sheffield shield was better than watching any other opponents (still kinda applies if you watch the corresponding India v Sri Lanka series going on right now)

The West Indies refusing to embrace cricket, means only Australia, England, India and South Africa are the only teams capable of playing the highest level of the game.

Then again the British want to bring snooker to the Olympics (a game played by everyone in the world) so Great Britain can win another gold medal at the Olympics

True. I'll add that once you're in at the GABBA, probably the WACA, they offer something to the batsman. They offer reasonably true bounce. So a bit of something for everybody.

I'm not sure the pitches are quite like this anymore. I think drop-in pitches (thank you AFL) have fucked things up. They're more uniform and generally somewhat flatter.

grazorblade

I've cut off the other stuff you wrote purely for the sake of making this easier to read. Suffice it to say, I agree with basically everything you say about technique and style. I was also taught to play with soft hands and a straight bat, especially when defending. This means you're more likely to play the ball under your eyeline which offers more. Soft hands and playing it under the eyeline offer the most control. If you flash at a defensive stroke you sacrifice co-ordination and if you edge it, it will be more likely to carry. What's the benefit of blocking the ball really hard? It's about defense. Also for shots like the pull shot, the cut shot and flicks off the pads, it's better to wait for the ball to come onto the bat. This means playing with soft hands (obviously you'll be gripping the bat a bit firmer than when you block the ball).

On the subject of unorthodox technique which you raised. It's a good point. And I think a distinction needs to be made between the technically unorthodox and the technically flawed. You can prosper with unorthodox technique (providing you have good footwork and a good forward defensive stroke and you can deal with the short ball). There's a difference between unorthodox technique (Steve Smith, Graeme Smith, Chanderpaul, KP, Bradman) and just plain technically flawed. Too many of our players are technically flawed. No footwork, no straight bat, hard hands and played out well in front of the body.

As for the point about T20 cricket, I think you're sort of right but not entirely on the money. You say every country plays T20. True. But in England it's a mickey mouse competition. I don't know about South Africa but I'd guess the same. Those countries don't put it ahead of first class cricket. The difference is that here in Australia we put the Big Bash ahead of the Shield. Players are encouraged to play in the IPL. This is the main problem. And it confuses young batsmen. So you're right that Australia doesn't handle it as well as other countries.



I agree that style has been fucked up this series at least as much as technique. Smith driving the ball a metre outside of off-stump on the up to Stokes when he needed to knuckle down says it all.

But can't you see that there have been technical problems in the batting for Australia? Most of the experts (English and Australian think this), a handful of others on this thread think this. Granted, everybody struggles a bit, technically, early on in the innings. But just look at the side-on still images of the Australian dismissals at Cardiff, Edgbaston and Trent Bridge. More than half our batsmen didn't move their feet an inch, they flashed at the ball a good half a metre in front of their body with hard hands. I don't see how you can say there aren't technical problems there.


And I don't buy this business about there being English technique versus Australian technique. There's good technique and bad technique, regardless of where you're playing. Even though the ball doesn't move around as much in Australia, why shouldn't we teach our young batsmen to be able to deal with movement. It will make them better batsmen in all conditions. Do you think Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Kim Hughes, Allan Border, Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, Ricky Ponting, Damien Martyn, Justin Langer, etc. were taught Australian technique as opposed to English technique? Of course not. They were taught good cricket technique for Australian wickets and English wickets.

We need to get back to teaching young batsmen this.

Edited by quickflick: 23/8/2015 10:24:51 PM

Decentric

There are various takes on Graeme Swann's retirement. I've heard Bob Willis say that while the Titanic was sinking Graeme Swann dressed up as a lady and sneaked in a lifeboat with the women and children. On the other hand, Swann had real problems with his elbow (I think it was). Much like Clarke's back seems to have ended his career, Swann's elbow did for him. I've heard others say that Swann told the England management that it was going to be a real struggle before the series. And they didn't heed his warning. Who knows.

As for the wickets. I'm glad to hear you think we should have wickets which offer something to the bowler. People who think every wicket in Australia should be runway and a batting paradise need are philistines. They have no appreciation of the nuances of cricket which make it one of the most enjoyable games in the world. They just want to see as many sixes as possible. Ricky Ponting and the slightly more cerebral Australians want to see wickets which make it tough for the batsman. Punter was brought up on them and he had to learn how to stay at the crease and score runs. This is what we need our young batsmen to be learning. Even at the twilight of Ponting's career (when he couldn't buy a run in Test cricket for whatever reason) he was scoring big runs for Tasmania and for Surrey despite very difficult wickets to bat on in Australia. Only Ponting, Rogers and (to a lesser extent) Cowan were able to score runs on green, seaming wickets.

This shows there's big problems with Australian batting. The younger batsmen are so used to trying to hit ball into the stands that they get found out when they need to demonstrate patience and technique. I say tell them to go to hell. Make the wickets tough and force them to adapt.

It's a worry if you're in the minority. A real worry. That kind of thing will see us struggle in England for a long time.

Worse still, that kind of thinking may even lead to the end of Test cricket.

I don't think Australia can play Marsh and Faulkner in the same XI. Neither are good enough batsmen. We need to get back to basics. Proper batsmen are needed. Make the most of a bad situation. And then, try to craft some more proper batsmen out of the younger ones. Much like, in football, we need to (and hopefully are) crafting proper footballers from the Joeys and younger.

It's nice to hear that you attend Shield matches. When you attend them, please give us your thoughts on what you see. You're very observing, have good critical and anlytical skills and write well. It would be a pleasure to get your thoughts of what you see of the competition which should be feeding Australia's Test team.

It really annoys me that a handful of people watch the Shield, then for the Big Bash 15 000 turn up at Bellerive.:roll: ](*,)

Even working mates of mine who work F/T and are members barely watch any Shield cricket, but watch all the Big Bash stuff.


A few former Test cricketers on TV are disappointed that so much about cricket is money.

To the extent that Australia and England have ingratiated themselves with India, to the detriment of all the other playing nations. We play those nations all the time.

The TCA CEO told me that the only countries Australian Cricket Board makes money out of visiting Australia, are India and England. As TCA members we've asked for a minimum of one Test per year to be played in Hobart.

We also like the concept of playing countries like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe in our winter in Cairns and Darwin like we used to in mid winter. It was suggested that Test players are too tired. We responded they hardly play Test cricket and that the IPL seems to attract no end of players willing to play when they are supposedly tired.:lol:

Also, we made the point that players who play for Australia are often different in 20/20, One Day and Test teams.

I'm semi-retired and am a TCA member and live only 5 minutes walk from Bellerive cricket ground. It makes the experience of a game so different having access to the facilities, with licensed bar facilities and food available. Plus so many presentations are on from significant stakeholders in cricket.

Unlike the likes of you, Grazor, Lastbroadcast, 11.MVC.11, et al, I have not played cricket competition after 12 years old and really appreciate all the technical points you guys make about cricket. =d>

My cricket knowledge in performance is very different from football, but I have befriended a lot of former first grade cricketers, just one level below the Shield teams. Few former state and national players are TCA members though. I listen intently to their insights into the game.

One also meets a lot of people in the cricket members like visiting players' parents and Poms involved in English cricket coaching.

Edited by Decentric: 23/8/2015 11:21:32 PM

This explanation sounds plausible.

I thought he was an excellent bowler who caused us a lot of problems.

Decentric

For what it's worth, I don't think I played cricket after 15, 16 and it was only for a lower school team.

Nevertheless, please keep us posted on the Shield. You've hopefully learnt a fair bit about the technical and tactical sides of cricket from folk on this thread and from that Ricky Ponting masterclass I linked you.

Tassie have some of the best young players in the Shield; Doran, Silk, Faulkner, to name a few.

I'd like to hear what you think of them.

Silk - had a very good first season. This happens to many, but bowlers often work them out in the second season. This happened to Silk.

Hope this doesn't happen to Cameron Bancroft from WA. We need him for the Test team as an opener now.

Doran - I haven't seen yet.

Faulkner - I've said a bit about him already. Mates of mine are mates with his parents, who was also a Shield and Aussie One day player. Locals want him in the Test team. Sage former players constantly refer to his paucity of centuries in the Shield though, often on good wickets later in the game at Bellerive.

His attitude and tenacity are admirable. Like many of the Tassie cricketers, Doolan, Bailey, Pain, Doherty, Cowan (former) he is very articulate and intelligent, apart from drinking under the influence in England.

Under Bailey as captain, Tassie has fostered an incredible team camaraderie, second to none. The national selectors have noted this. Players who've moved here from other states say that the Tassie team are all mates, with no egos. There is a very strong team ethic.

In other scenarios they've had to deal with a lot more egos. Unfortunately, Bailey was away too much last year with the national limited overs teams. I know that the ACB was desperate to have him captain the national sides compared to the lack of desired leaders in the teams, once Ponting and Hussey retired.

His captaincy and leadership skills value added to the state team's performance. Unfortunately, he wasn't good enough as a Test batter.


I also have a mate who is a former Shield umpire. There are some very interesting stories there.:lol:





Edited by Decentric: 23/8/2015 11:54:33 PM

Changed title.

Andrew Fekete for Tasmania has been selected for the Test squad for Bangladesh tour.

Until this last season he was always a back up bowler to Hilfenhaus, Butterworth, Faulkner and Bird. He has performed this year though in the Shield.

Must say I feel sorry for Butterworth who was probably a better bowler a few years ago than Fekete is now. Plus he is a bowling all rounder who never received a Test call up.

Fekete appears to have less pace than most of the Aussie current tearaways, apart from Siddle. I've never seen Fekete recorded by the speed gun, but I think his fastest ball is 140kph.

Fekete will be a lot more accurate. He will make batters play all the time , like Siddle does.

Fekete was astonished. He had no idea he was in Test calculations.=d>

We don't know what players bring to the dressing room. Voges is an experienced captain and WA leader. It seems he is too old to be VC though.

Lyon is young and has a definite starting eleven place ATM, as incumbent spinner. So he is at a good stage of his career to be VC.

As for bowlers being vice captain, what about the experienced Siddle and Johnson as co vice-captains?

Whats the difference between this thread and the other cricket thread?

He got you :lol:

Brilliant title change.

Not limited overs cricket in this one. It is for the cricket purists - four and five day cricket.

It is not a summer of cricket thread, but year round.

You might have noticed there are some pretty knowledgeable and analytical posters in this thread.

Not me. I don't know much about cricket performance, but look forward to others posting who do.

You've convinced me.

Lyon for VC.

We have a cricket thread already, why do we need a second one?

Not limited overs cricket in this one. It is for the cricket purists - four and five day cricket.

It is not a summer of cricket thread, but year round.

There are some pretty knowledgeable and analytical posters in this thread. Not me. I don't know much about cricket performance, but look forward to others posting who do.

The other thread is more confined to Australian domestic cricket, with a lot of it being 20/20 and one day cricket.

The likes of Grazorblade, Quickflick and 11.MVC.11 have provided a fair bit of technical detail and analysis in this thread, which is probably more confined to Test cricket and First Class cricket than the other one which has a large component of limited overs cricket.

Hope this makes sense to those who don't follow cricket.

Is it possible to change the title of the other thread to Limited Overs Cricket?

Edited by Decentric: 16/9/2015 08:06:38 AM

So rename the effing thread.

"Purists" FMD.

-PB

I'm sorry I don't really see the point in separating one day cricket and test cricket into two threads. Especially when the cricket thread is quite active.

I can see your point, and some others no doubt agree with you .

As for the 23 pages that have occurred in discussion for this thread it appears to be a viable thread in itself.

I love having the analytical posts from the cricketers in this thread as points for further discussion down the track as this imminent Test series against Bangladesh starts in a few weeks following on from the Ashes.

This was started as a specific thread for the Ashes, which was ok at the time while they were happening. Now there is no need for it when there is already a cricket thread.

It's not as easy to go into technical detail on the other thread. This thread is worthwhile for that reason, alone.

I'll add that it would be a great shame if this thread was closed down because some of the contributors have provided really clear and valuable explanations and descriptions of the technical aspects of batting and bowling. The kind of stuff that's very difficult to find on the internet. Also, points made about keeping the scoreboard ticking over, left-hand/right-hand combinations are excellent value too.

We must save those comments because they're really important.

Quite simply, this thread should stay. The other cricket thread just looks at limited overs cricket and is a lot more superficial. That's fine. We need that too. But this thread ought to exist on its own.

Cricket's a complex game. Limited overs cricket is a different beast to four/five day cricket. That should be reflected by the threads.

You go on about how this thread is specially for Test cricket, well guess what most people only ever talked about in the old thread :lol: If this thread is the new cricket thread then it should be about all cricket, because there's no where near enough interest to warrant separate threads for different forms of the game, as demonstrated by the fact that the old cricket thread is now dead - has there been a single post about the one day series? Anyway, just my 2c, what this forum really needs is a merge function.