|
Lastbroadcast
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Thoughts on the test so far-
Pujara’s innings was excellent. Calm, considered, slow at first but spent the time to assess the pitch and then accelerated once he hit 80 runs. Good, classic test batting.
Australia’s bowlers have kept us in this game. Lyon is bowling so beautifully and has been unlucky not to get a bag.
Our batting is clearly brittle, but India’s bowling was excellent. They were disciplined, they bowled a very good line and a mostly good length. Bumrah in particular has added a lot to their attack - accurate 145k bowling makes a big difference in Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xnobody has comented on mitchel starks bowling in this test ? i think he has been horrible your thoughts Mitch Starc is the jekyll and hyde of our attack. He has played just 45 Tests since 2011. We usually play 10 tests annually. Do the maths. He rarely played a full test season up until 2016.. was it? He still averages almost @29. It was @30 up until recently. When Mitch is on song and the ball is swinging and he can execute his yorker there are few more lethal bowlers in the game. This is his dr jekyll side. When there is no swing Starc reverts to moderate at best. He sprays balls all over the shop. enter mr hyde. I call him a licorice all sorts bowler. He is far more suited to limited overs as his impressive ODI and T20 records display. To answer you comment. He has been mr hyde this test so far. For Australia's sake we need to see his dr jekyll for the remainder of the test.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI expect to see 3 roads from here on in. It was foolish by CA to put India on a grass track. I said it repeatedly before the series began. Clearly CA did not follow India in England and SA where they outplayed Australia in equivalent. Aus needs roads - India has overtaken Aus on grass. Make a road - take the Indian bowlers out of the game... ...and invite the Indians to a feast on these roads. Oz has a security blanket against that happening.. our quality attack. . and CA must back them to the hilt. I would stack them up against India's any day of the week on a grassy deck. Remove that blanket by preparing roads and with our brittle, and mostly green batting line up Kohlis boys will eat us alive. Yes - invite them to feast on roads if your quality attack isn't good enough to stop them feasting. But take their bowlers out of the equation. Take losing out of the equation and look to win if the quality attack is quality... Because your "quality" attack is much better for roads than India's is. See Safrica this year... Indians bowl well on grass... See England this year, India bowl well in swing... As for stacking the Aus bowlers on a deck against India's - India already has a first innings lead... and they batted on the first day! On a grassy nippy track. Without their best opener and Kohli making 3. So there's no need for a Steve Smith or David Warner excuse. The Aus bowlers are not all that on grass. They're not the South African attack... They're not the England attack... Pakistan and NZ are doing better in England that Aus bowlers of late. India in both England SA. The Aussie boys are road warriors. So give them roads. They are fast and tall. So give them a road to outshine the opposition like happens when Aus plays Ind, Pak, NZ or Eng on a road. On a road - Kohli's boys will not get wickets... (Bar Bumrah)... Remember Sharma on roads in the past of Aus? See him on the grass? That's the difference. We can disagree. But I called it before the series. I stand by it now. O'Keefe has the same p.o.v - we'll see what happens later in the series. Green pitches for India? You may as well give them dustbowls to play on. The Oz ace in the pack is our attack.. take that away and we are inviting India to win the series. Look how much more effective our best seamer Josh Hazlewood is on a grassy deck rather than the roads he usually gets to toil on.. I do see your point. This is somewhat of a Catch 22 situation. All due to the poor and inexperienced batting lineup CA has left us with due to its recalcitrant stance against Smith and Warner. When we have to rely on a dud like Shaun Marsh to be a leading lite in our batting order.. Aussie cricket is in a dire situation. Unless Marsh can assist us to a victory in this match he has to be canned for good. I would prefer either Cameron White or George Bailey to play the hard head role in our middle order. Both command tremendous respect and bring vital mentorship to the table. Is this pie in the sky thinking? Comments. Yes, the Aus pack is the Ace on roads. The Aus pack will get wickets on roads and India's bowlers (bar possibly Bumrah) will not get them anywhere near as frequently. India's bowlers are dire on roads, and long have been. In NZ and Australia especially - they gave McCullum a double and tripple ton in one 2 test match series. I mean Steve Smith has taken down most teams at home, but McCullum outside smashing spin attacks? More rare. Green pitches invites India to win the series, and lets their bowlers in the game. I think roads would nullify then Indian bowlers and leave Aussie in control of the bowling odds (just like they are when NZ and Eng tour Aus).
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xnobody has comented on mitchel starks bowling in this test ? i think he has been horrible your thoughts Mitch Starc is the jekyll and hyde of our attack. He has played just 45 Tests since 2011. We usually play 10 tests annually. So Mitch was unable to cement a permanent spot in our attack for several years. He still averages almost @29. It was @30 up until recently. When Mitch is on song and the ball is swinging and he can execute his yorker there are few more lethal bowlers in the game. This is his dr jekyll side. When there is no swing Starc reverts to moderate at best. He sprays balls all over the shop. enter mr hyde. I call him a licorice all sorts bowler. He is far more suited to limited overs as his impressive ODI and T20 records display. To answer you comment. He has been mr hyde this test so far. For Australia's sake we need to see his dr jekyll for the remainder of the test. His yorker is deadly at the death in ODI. It is not a ball to get test quality batsmen out with anywhere near as often with no scoring pressure. He only seems to get swing off the very full and yorker length, and even then - it is in swing to rhb from a ball deliver by a left arm quick over the wicket taking it down leg. I do not recall Starc ever bowling a spell of swing bowling from a length. Starc however keeps intensity all day with his pace being up there. That is his most impressive attribute. But I feel Aus may be better off with so many rhb in the Indian team, to go with three right arm quicks... preferably one with an outswinger. 7 of the 8 are right handers. And Pant, the only leftie is a slogger...
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xThoughts on the test so far-Pujara’s innings was excellent. Calm, considered, slow at first but spent the time to assess the pitch and then accelerated once he hit 80 runs. Good, classic test batting.Australia’s bowlers have kept us in this game. Lyon is bowling so beautifully and has been unlucky not to get a bag. Our batting is clearly brittle, but India’s bowling was excellent. They were disciplined, they bowled a very good line and a mostly good length. Bumrah in particular has added a lot to their attack - accurate 145k bowling makes a big difference in Australia. Agree on Pujara. A classic knock. Used all his experience by summing up the situation. Do we have someone of that ilk in our lineup. Perhaps Khawaja. Bumrah has been good. Hazey tho the pick of all the quicks.. When you can concede just a single run from 7 consecutive overs against one of the best batting lineups on the planet you have excelled. I have always maintained that our premier seamer needs grass to bring out his best (all seamers for that matter). All too often Hazlewood has had to operate on lifeless roads. Is it any wonder his strike power is reduced. I can see Mike ripping this post to shreds. Do your best. I will always stand up for the seamer CA prefers in our attack. Has to be a valid reason for that Mike.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xI expect to see 3 roads from here on in. It was foolish by CA to put India on a grass track. I said it repeatedly before the series began. Clearly CA did not follow India in England and SA where they outplayed Australia in equivalent. Aus needs roads - India has overtaken Aus on grass. Make a road - take the Indian bowlers out of the game... ...and invite the Indians to a feast on these roads. Oz has a security blanket against that happening.. our quality attack. . and CA must back them to the hilt. I would stack them up against India's any day of the week on a grassy deck. Remove that blanket by preparing roads and with our brittle, and mostly green batting line up Kohlis boys will eat us alive. Yes - invite them to feast on roads if your quality attack isn't good enough to stop them feasting. But take their bowlers out of the equation. Take losing out of the equation and look to win if the quality attack is quality... Because your "quality" attack is much better for roads than India's is. See Safrica this year... Indians bowl well on grass... See England this year, India bowl well in swing... As for stacking the Aus bowlers on a deck against India's - India already has a first innings lead... and they batted on the first day! On a grassy nippy track. Without their best opener and Kohli making 3. So there's no need for a Steve Smith or David Warner excuse. The Aus bowlers are not all that on grass. They're not the South African attack... They're not the England attack... Pakistan and NZ are doing better in England that Aus bowlers of late. India in both England SA. The Aussie boys are road warriors. So give them roads. They are fast and tall. So give them a road to outshine the opposition like happens when Aus plays Ind, Pak, NZ or Eng on a road. On a road - Kohli's boys will not get wickets... (Bar Bumrah)... Remember Sharma on roads in the past of Aus? See him on the grass? That's the difference. We can disagree. But I called it before the series. I stand by it now. O'Keefe has the same p.o.v - we'll see what happens later in the series. Green pitches for India? You may as well give them dustbowls to play on. The Oz ace in the pack is our attack.. take that away and we are inviting India to win the series. Look how much more effective our best seamer Josh Hazlewood is on a grassy deck rather than the roads he usually gets to toil on.. I do see your point. This is somewhat of a Catch 22 situation. All due to the poor and inexperienced batting lineup CA has left us with due to its recalcitrant stance against Smith and Warner. When we have to rely on a dud like Shaun Marsh to be a leading lite in our batting order.. Aussie cricket is in a dire situation. Unless Marsh can assist us to a victory in this match he has to be canned for good. I would prefer either Cameron White or George Bailey to play the hard head role in our middle order. Both command tremendous respect and bring vital mentorship to the table. Is this pie in the sky thinking? Comments. Yes, the Aus pack is the Ace on roads. The Aus pack will get wickets on roads and India's bowlers (bar possibly Bumrah) will not get them anywhere near as frequently. India's bowlers are dire on roads, and long have been. In NZ and Australia especially - they gave McCullum a double and tripple ton in one 2 test match series. I mean Steve Smith has taken down most teams at home, but McCullum outside smashing spin attacks? More rare. Green pitches invites India to win the series, and lets their bowlers in the game. I think roads would nullify then Indian bowlers and leave Aussie in control of the bowling odds (just like they are when NZ and Eng tour Aus). We will have to agree to disagree then mate.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xnobody has comented on mitchel starks bowling in this test ? i think he has been horrible your thoughts Mitch Starc is the jekyll and hyde of our attack. He has played just 45 Tests since 2011. We usually play 10 tests annually. So Mitch was unable to cement a permanent spot in our attack for several years. He still averages almost @29. It was @30 up until recently. When Mitch is on song and the ball is swinging and he can execute his yorker there are few more lethal bowlers in the game. This is his dr jekyll side. When there is no swing Starc reverts to moderate at best. He sprays balls all over the shop. enter mr hyde. I call him a licorice all sorts bowler. He is far more suited to limited overs as his impressive ODI and T20 records display. To answer you comment. He has been mr hyde this test so far. For Australia's sake we need to see his dr jekyll for the remainder of the test. His yorker is deadly at the death in ODI. It is not a ball to get test quality batsmen out with anywhere near as often with no scoring pressure. He only seems to get swing off the very full and yorker length, and even then - it is in swing to rhb from a ball deliver by a left arm quick over the wicket taking it down leg. I do not recall Starc ever bowling a spell of swing bowling from a length. Starc however keeps intensity all day with his pace being up there. That is his most impressive attribute. But I feel Aus may be better off with so many rhb in the Indian team, to go with three right arm quicks... preferably one with an outswinger. 7 of the 8 are right handers. And Pant, the only leftie is a slogger... Agree. So who does CA go with if it is ready to dispense with Starc? Tremain is a seamer. Worrall or Sayers are swing exponents. Nick Winter snared 25 wickets in three matches, 34 in five last season. But he had an English Duke ball in his hand. Australia simply does not produce many swing bowlers as the conditions are not conducive.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xnobody has comented on mitchel starks bowling in this test ? i think he has been horrible your thoughts Mitch Starc is the jekyll and hyde of our attack. He has played just 45 Tests since 2011. We usually play 10 tests annually. So Mitch was unable to cement a permanent spot in our attack for several years. He still averages almost @29. It was @30 up until recently. When Mitch is on song and the ball is swinging and he can execute his yorker there are few more lethal bowlers in the game. This is his dr jekyll side. When there is no swing Starc reverts to moderate at best. He sprays balls all over the shop. enter mr hyde. I call him a licorice all sorts bowler. He is far more suited to limited overs as his impressive ODI and T20 records display. To answer you comment. He has been mr hyde this test so far. For Australia's sake we need to see his dr jekyll for the remainder of the test. His yorker is deadly at the death in ODI. It is not a ball to get test quality batsmen out with anywhere near as often with no scoring pressure. He only seems to get swing off the very full and yorker length, and even then - it is in swing to rhb from a ball deliver by a left arm quick over the wicket taking it down leg. I do not recall Starc ever bowling a spell of swing bowling from a length. Starc however keeps intensity all day with his pace being up there. That is his most impressive attribute. But I feel Aus may be better off with so many rhb in the Indian team, to go with three right arm quicks... preferably one with an outswinger. 7 of the 8 are right handers. And Pant, the only leftie is a slogger... Agree. So who do we bring in if CA is ready to dispense with Starc? Tremain is a seamer. Worrall or Sayers are swing exponents. Nick Winter snared 25 wickets in three matches last season. But he had an English Duke ball in his hand. Australia simply does not produce many swing bowlers as the conditions are not conducive. Pattinson, if he returns to his best, would be the only bowler I would look at who could force his way into the test side ahead of this trio of bowlers.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Ok boys how do we see the day playing out?
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xnobody has comented on mitchel starks bowling in this test ? i think he has been horrible your thoughts Mitch Starc is the jekyll and hyde of our attack. He has played just 45 Tests since 2011. We usually play 10 tests annually. So Mitch was unable to cement a permanent spot in our attack for several years. He still averages almost @29. It was @30 up until recently. When Mitch is on song and the ball is swinging and he can execute his yorker there are few more lethal bowlers in the game. This is his dr jekyll side. When there is no swing Starc reverts to moderate at best. He sprays balls all over the shop. enter mr hyde. I call him a licorice all sorts bowler. He is far more suited to limited overs as his impressive ODI and T20 records display. To answer you comment. He has been mr hyde this test so far. For Australia's sake we need to see his dr jekyll for the remainder of the test. His yorker is deadly at the death in ODI. It is not a ball to get test quality batsmen out with anywhere near as often with no scoring pressure. He only seems to get swing off the very full and yorker length, and even then - it is in swing to rhb from a ball deliver by a left arm quick over the wicket taking it down leg. I do not recall Starc ever bowling a spell of swing bowling from a length. Starc however keeps intensity all day with his pace being up there. That is his most impressive attribute. But I feel Aus may be better off with so many rhb in the Indian team, to go with three right arm quicks... preferably one with an outswinger. 7 of the 8 are right handers. And Pant, the only leftie is a slogger... Agree. So who do we bring in if CA is ready to dispense with Starc? Tremain is a seamer. Worrall or Sayers are swing exponents. Nick Winter snared 25 wickets in three matches last season. But he had an English Duke ball in his hand. Australia simply does not produce many swing bowlers as the conditions are not conducive. Pattinson, if he returns to his best, would be the only bowler I would look at who could force his way into the test side ahead of this trio of bowlers. Patto for me too. If he can stay on the paddock. Has had a wretched time with injury. Does he swing it. Always remember him as a seamer.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
pattison has an average of 22 with the ball and 25 with the bat possibly the best in the world
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xpattison has an average of 22 with the ball and 25 with the bat possibly the best in the world At Test level or FC?
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOk boys how do we see the day playing out? if we get pujara before the 2nd near ball we have a chance otherwise it could be a long day
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
Amazing the number of people straight onto Starc???WTF
Last 10 tests for Starc 41 wickets 1189 av 29. With the bat 182 runs at 11 (so yes he hasn't performed well as an all rounder) and that includes Pakistan series
Last 10 tests for Hazlewood 37 wickets 1092 av 29.51 With the bat 73 runs at 6
Last 10 tests for Cummins 47 wickets 1121 av 24 With the bat 265 runs at 18
So if there are questions on Starc there are bigger questions on Hazlewood, afterall Starc contributes more from an all round cricket aspect than what Hazlewood does.
Should both be dropped? But I for one wouldn't be dropping Starc before Hazlewood
Not good enough argument
Last 20 tests Starc 98 wickets 2605 av 26,5 scored 549 with the bat av 17
Last 20 tests Hazlewood 78 wickets 2106 av 27 scored 150 with the bat av 5
This clearly shows Starc is a wicket taker av 2.4 wickets per innings, Hazlewood averages 1.9 wickets per innings (you need 5 bowlers of this calibre to take 10 wickets per innings)
There is nothing that supports Hazlewood over Starc apart from opinions that vary from individual to individual. Please convince me with FACTS not opinions that supports Hazlewood over Starc. Remember a bowlers job is to take wickets and in 20 tests that is 400 wickets to take and Hazlewood can only take 78 of them (as I said that means 5 bowlers are required), at least Starc has done his fair share by taking 98 (only need 4 bowlers of that calibre)
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOk boys how do we see the day playing out? if we get pujara before the 2nd near ball we have a chance otherwise it could be a long day Agree. This deck has settled down and is very much now a batting track. Hope we dont regret not picking a second spinner. Say a wristie.
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
grazorblade
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 19K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAmazing the number of people straight onto Starc???WTF Last 10 tests for Starc 41 wickets 1189 av 29. With the bat 182 runs at 11 (so yes he hasn't performed well as an all rounder) and that includes Pakistan series Last 10 tests for Hazlewood 37 wickets 1092 av 29.51 With the bat 73 runs at 6 Last 10 tests for Cummins 47 wickets 1121 av 24 With the bat 265 runs at 18 So if there are questions on Starc there are bigger questions on Hazlewood, afterall Starc contributes more from an all round cricket aspect than what Hazlewood does. Should both be dropped? But I for one wouldn't be dropping Starc before Hazlewood Not good enough argument Last 20 tests Starc 98 wickets 2605 av 26,5 scored 549 with the bat av 17 Last 20 tests Hazlewood 78 wickets 2106 av 27 scored 150 with the bat av 5 This clearly shows Starc is a wicket taker av 2.4 wickets per innings, Hazlewood averages 1.9 wickets per innings (you need 5 bowlers of this calibre to take 10 wickets per innings) There is nothing that supports Hazlewood over Starc apart from opinions that vary from individual to individual. Please convince me with FACTS not opinions that supports Hazlewood over Starc. Remember a bowlers job is to take wickets and in 20 tests that is 400 wickets to take and Hazlewood can only take 78 of them (as I said that means 5 bowlers are required), at least Starc has done his fair share by taking 98 (only need 4 bowlers of that calibre) We actually have a bowling attack that is as good as our golden generation despite them always being under pressure due to subpar averages
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xnobody has comented on mitchel starks bowling in this test ? i think he has been horrible your thoughts Mitch Starc is the jekyll and hyde of our attack. He has played just 45 Tests since 2011. We usually play 10 tests annually. So Mitch was unable to cement a permanent spot in our attack for several years. He still averages almost @29. It was @30 up until recently. When Mitch is on song and the ball is swinging and he can execute his yorker there are few more lethal bowlers in the game. This is his dr jekyll side. When there is no swing Starc reverts to moderate at best. He sprays balls all over the shop. enter mr hyde. I call him a licorice all sorts bowler. He is far more suited to limited overs as his impressive ODI and T20 records display. To answer you comment. He has been mr hyde this test so far. For Australia's sake we need to see his dr jekyll for the remainder of the test. His yorker is deadly at the death in ODI. It is not a ball to get test quality batsmen out with anywhere near as often with no scoring pressure. He only seems to get swing off the very full and yorker length, and even then - it is in swing to rhb from a ball deliver by a left arm quick over the wicket taking it down leg. I do not recall Starc ever bowling a spell of swing bowling from a length. Starc however keeps intensity all day with his pace being up there. That is his most impressive attribute. But I feel Aus may be better off with so many rhb in the Indian team, to go with three right arm quicks... preferably one with an outswinger. 7 of the 8 are right handers. And Pant, the only leftie is a slogger... Agree. So who do we bring in if CA is ready to dispense with Starc? Tremain is a seamer. Worrall or Sayers are swing exponents. Nick Winter snared 25 wickets in three matches last season. But he had an English Duke ball in his hand. Australia simply does not produce many swing bowlers as the conditions are not conducive. Pattinson, if he returns to his best, would be the only bowler I would look at who could force his way into the test side ahead of this trio of bowlers. Patto for me too. If he can stay on the paddock. Has had a wretched time with injury. Does he swing it. Always remember him as a seamer. Patto has a huge and regular outswinger. He is like a Dale Steyn clone. Has an inseamer and a booming outswinger.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Nathan Lyon needs a bat pad on the off side and bowl to hit the top of off stump. Make them stretch out wide on the offside to protect their stumps against the big and variable spin out of the rough.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xAmazing the number of people straight onto Starc???WTF Last 10 tests for Starc 41 wickets 1189 av 29. With the bat 182 runs at 11 (so yes he hasn't performed well as an all rounder) and that includes Pakistan series Last 10 tests for Hazlewood 37 wickets 1092 av 29.51 With the bat 73 runs at 6 Last 10 tests for Cummins 47 wickets 1121 av 24 With the bat 265 runs at 18 So if there are questions on Starc there are bigger questions on Hazlewood, afterall Starc contributes more from an all round cricket aspect than what Hazlewood does. Should both be dropped? But I for one wouldn't be dropping Starc before Hazlewood Not good enough argument Last 20 tests Starc 98 wickets 2605 av 26,5 scored 549 with the bat av 17 Last 20 tests Hazlewood 78 wickets 2106 av 27 scored 150 with the bat av 5 This clearly shows Starc is a wicket taker av 2.4 wickets per innings, Hazlewood averages 1.9 wickets per innings (you need 5 bowlers of this calibre to take 10 wickets per innings) There is nothing that supports Hazlewood over Starc apart from opinions that vary from individual to individual. Please convince me with FACTS not opinions that supports Hazlewood over Starc. Remember a bowlers job is to take wickets and in 20 tests that is 400 wickets to take and Hazlewood can only take 78 of them (as I said that means 5 bowlers are required), at least Starc has done his fair share by taking 98 (only need 4 bowlers of that calibre) No attack averages 10w per innings. Not even the great West Indian attack. Its basically impossible over a larger sample due to run outs, retirements, rain outs, part timers taking wickets, declarations and losses. I get you don't like Haze, and you make some seemingly fair comparative points. But you're asking a bit much. And if I were you, I would look at the tail end vs top order percentages for Haze and Starc. Because I am quite sure Starcy does a lot of tail mopping, it is like comparing McGrath and Warne - where Warnie's tail end mopping is far more signifcant vs McGrath top order dismissals.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Pujara is playing another rock like innings. We need him soon. Definitely with the upcoming new ball.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAmazing the number of people straight onto Starc???WTF Last 10 tests for Starc 41 wickets 1189 av 29. With the bat 182 runs at 11 (so yes he hasn't performed well as an all rounder) and that includes Pakistan series Last 10 tests for Hazlewood 37 wickets 1092 av 29.51 With the bat 73 runs at 6 Last 10 tests for Cummins 47 wickets 1121 av 24 With the bat 265 runs at 18 So if there are questions on Starc there are bigger questions on Hazlewood, afterall Starc contributes more from an all round cricket aspect than what Hazlewood does. Should both be dropped? But I for one wouldn't be dropping Starc before Hazlewood Not good enough argument Last 20 tests Starc 98 wickets 2605 av 26,5 scored 549 with the bat av 17 Last 20 tests Hazlewood 78 wickets 2106 av 27 scored 150 with the bat av 5 This clearly shows Starc is a wicket taker av 2.4 wickets per innings, Hazlewood averages 1.9 wickets per innings (you need 5 bowlers of this calibre to take 10 wickets per innings) There is nothing that supports Hazlewood over Starc apart from opinions that vary from individual to individual. Please convince me with FACTS not opinions that supports Hazlewood over Starc. Remember a bowlers job is to take wickets and in 20 tests that is 400 wickets to take and Hazlewood can only take 78 of them (as I said that means 5 bowlers are required), at least Starc has done his fair share by taking 98 (only need 4 bowlers of that calibre) We actually have a bowling attack that is as good as our golden generation despite them always being under pressure due to subpar averages Golden generation? I can think of three great Aussie bowling generation attacks: Was that Benaud, Davo, Lindwall, Miller era or Warne, McGrath, Gillespie, Flem/Lee/Kaspro/Clarke era or Lillee,Thommo, Mallett, Tangles with Pascoe and Hogg era? You really think Haze, Lyon, Starc and Cummins are as good as any of these? Just how much is your media beating up the second worst performing attack to only Afghanistan of 2018? http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling_by_team.html?class=1;id=2018;type=year
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAmazing the number of people straight onto Starc???WTF Last 10 tests for Starc 41 wickets 1189 av 29. With the bat 182 runs at 11 (so yes he hasn't performed well as an all rounder) and that includes Pakistan series Last 10 tests for Hazlewood 37 wickets 1092 av 29.51 With the bat 73 runs at 6 Last 10 tests for Cummins 47 wickets 1121 av 24 With the bat 265 runs at 18 So if there are questions on Starc there are bigger questions on Hazlewood, afterall Starc contributes more from an all round cricket aspect than what Hazlewood does. Should both be dropped? But I for one wouldn't be dropping Starc before Hazlewood Not good enough argument Last 20 tests Starc 98 wickets 2605 av 26,5 scored 549 with the bat av 17 Last 20 tests Hazlewood 78 wickets 2106 av 27 scored 150 with the bat av 5 This clearly shows Starc is a wicket taker av 2.4 wickets per innings, Hazlewood averages 1.9 wickets per innings (you need 5 bowlers of this calibre to take 10 wickets per innings) There is nothing that supports Hazlewood over Starc apart from opinions that vary from individual to individual. Please convince me with FACTS not opinions that supports Hazlewood over Starc. Remember a bowlers job is to take wickets and in 20 tests that is 400 wickets to take and Hazlewood can only take 78 of them (as I said that means 5 bowlers are required), at least Starc has done his fair share by taking 98 (only need 4 bowlers of that calibre) No attack averages 10w per innings. Not even the great West Indian attack. Its basically impossible over a larger sample due to run outs, retirements, rain outs, part timers taking wickets, declarations and losses. I get you don't like Haze, and you make some seemingly fair comparative points. But you're asking a bit much. And if I were you, I would look at the tail end vs top order percentages for Haze and Starc. Because I am quite sure Starcy does a lot of tail mopping, it is like comparing McGrath and Warne - where Warnie's tail end mopping is far more signifcant vs McGrath top order dismissals. Also Paddles Haze struggles for impact on roads whereas Starc has the variety to take more wickets on those. I have always maintained a metronomic seamer should have grass to be most effective. How did McGrath perform on roads. Did we even have roads back then?
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAmazing the number of people straight onto Starc???WTF Last 10 tests for Starc 41 wickets 1189 av 29. With the bat 182 runs at 11 (so yes he hasn't performed well as an all rounder) and that includes Pakistan series Last 10 tests for Hazlewood 37 wickets 1092 av 29.51 With the bat 73 runs at 6 Last 10 tests for Cummins 47 wickets 1121 av 24 With the bat 265 runs at 18 So if there are questions on Starc there are bigger questions on Hazlewood, afterall Starc contributes more from an all round cricket aspect than what Hazlewood does. Should both be dropped? But I for one wouldn't be dropping Starc before Hazlewood Not good enough argument Last 20 tests Starc 98 wickets 2605 av 26,5 scored 549 with the bat av 17 Last 20 tests Hazlewood 78 wickets 2106 av 27 scored 150 with the bat av 5 This clearly shows Starc is a wicket taker av 2.4 wickets per innings, Hazlewood averages 1.9 wickets per innings (you need 5 bowlers of this calibre to take 10 wickets per innings) There is nothing that supports Hazlewood over Starc apart from opinions that vary from individual to individual. Please convince me with FACTS not opinions that supports Hazlewood over Starc. Remember a bowlers job is to take wickets and in 20 tests that is 400 wickets to take and Hazlewood can only take 78 of them (as I said that means 5 bowlers are required), at least Starc has done his fair share by taking 98 (only need 4 bowlers of that calibre) No attack averages 10w per innings. Not even the great West Indian attack. Its basically impossible over a larger sample due to run outs, retirements, rain outs, part timers taking wickets, declarations and losses. I get you don't like Haze, and you make some seemingly fair comparative points. But you're asking a bit much. And if I were you, I would look at the tail end vs top order percentages for Haze and Starc. Because I am quite sure Starcy does a lot of tail mopping, it is like comparing McGrath and Warne - where Warnie's tail end mopping is far more signifcant vs McGrath top order dismissals. Also Paddles Haze struggles for impact on roads whereas Starc has the variety to take more wickets on those. I have always maintained a metronomic seamer should have grass to be most effective. How did McGrath perform on roads. Did we even have roads back then? McGrath was magnificent on roads. And yes - you had tons of roads. McGrath didn't need grass. He was just so accurate and relentless.
|
|
|
|
|
Test_Fan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
I feel Hazlewood is the third bowler in the attack for a number of reasons. He probably needs conditions in his favour more than the other two bowlers and Starc is a left hander so brings that variety to the attack. However he is a proven test match quality bowler, not a huge star, he certainly is not a McGrath or even Gillespie but worth his spot in the team. He is better than Siddle who would be the experienced alternative available now. Going with a new bowler would be risky, no guarantee they will be better, huge chance they will be worse.
|
|
|
|
|
MikeR
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 478,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xAmazing the number of people straight onto Starc???WTF Last 10 tests for Starc 41 wickets 1189 av 29. With the bat 182 runs at 11 (so yes he hasn't performed well as an all rounder) and that includes Pakistan series Last 10 tests for Hazlewood 37 wickets 1092 av 29.51 With the bat 73 runs at 6 Last 10 tests for Cummins 47 wickets 1121 av 24 With the bat 265 runs at 18 So if there are questions on Starc there are bigger questions on Hazlewood, afterall Starc contributes more from an all round cricket aspect than what Hazlewood does. Should both be dropped? But I for one wouldn't be dropping Starc before Hazlewood Not good enough argument Last 20 tests Starc 98 wickets 2605 av 26,5 scored 549 with the bat av 17 Last 20 tests Hazlewood 78 wickets 2106 av 27 scored 150 with the bat av 5 This clearly shows Starc is a wicket taker av 2.4 wickets per innings, Hazlewood averages 1.9 wickets per innings (you need 5 bowlers of this calibre to take 10 wickets per innings) There is nothing that supports Hazlewood over Starc apart from opinions that vary from individual to individual. Please convince me with FACTS not opinions that supports Hazlewood over Starc. Remember a bowlers job is to take wickets and in 20 tests that is 400 wickets to take and Hazlewood can only take 78 of them (as I said that means 5 bowlers are required), at least Starc has done his fair share by taking 98 (only need 4 bowlers of that calibre) No attack averages 10w per innings. Not even the great West Indian attack. Its basically impossible over a larger sample due to run outs, retirements, rain outs, part timers taking wickets, declarations and losses. I get you don't like Haze, and you make some seemingly fair comparative points. But you're asking a bit much. And if I were you, I would look at the tail end vs top order percentages for Haze and Starc. Because I am quite sure Starcy does a lot of tail mopping, it is like comparing McGrath and Warne - where Warnie's tail end mopping is far more signifcant vs McGrath top order dismissals. Paddles I have those too Hazlewood top order 38% middle order 34% tail 28% Starc top order 36% middle order 33% tail 31% Sorry Paddles I don't see much difference and Starc has taken 30+ additional wickets But this is the one I like Starc has bowled or LBW 43.5% of his dismissals Hazlewood Bowled or LBW 31% of his dismissals, as I say to Baggers he doesn't attack the stumps enough and relies on poor shots from the batsmen, which let's be honest the 4 dismissals so far in this test were all poor shots.
|
|
|
|
|
Paddles
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xAmazing the number of people straight onto Starc???WTF Last 10 tests for Starc 41 wickets 1189 av 29. With the bat 182 runs at 11 (so yes he hasn't performed well as an all rounder) and that includes Pakistan series Last 10 tests for Hazlewood 37 wickets 1092 av 29.51 With the bat 73 runs at 6 Last 10 tests for Cummins 47 wickets 1121 av 24 With the bat 265 runs at 18 So if there are questions on Starc there are bigger questions on Hazlewood, afterall Starc contributes more from an all round cricket aspect than what Hazlewood does. Should both be dropped? But I for one wouldn't be dropping Starc before Hazlewood Not good enough argument Last 20 tests Starc 98 wickets 2605 av 26,5 scored 549 with the bat av 17 Last 20 tests Hazlewood 78 wickets 2106 av 27 scored 150 with the bat av 5 This clearly shows Starc is a wicket taker av 2.4 wickets per innings, Hazlewood averages 1.9 wickets per innings (you need 5 bowlers of this calibre to take 10 wickets per innings) There is nothing that supports Hazlewood over Starc apart from opinions that vary from individual to individual. Please convince me with FACTS not opinions that supports Hazlewood over Starc. Remember a bowlers job is to take wickets and in 20 tests that is 400 wickets to take and Hazlewood can only take 78 of them (as I said that means 5 bowlers are required), at least Starc has done his fair share by taking 98 (only need 4 bowlers of that calibre) No attack averages 10w per innings. Not even the great West Indian attack. Its basically impossible over a larger sample due to run outs, retirements, rain outs, part timers taking wickets, declarations and losses. I get you don't like Haze, and you make some seemingly fair comparative points. But you're asking a bit much. And if I were you, I would look at the tail end vs top order percentages for Haze and Starc. Because I am quite sure Starcy does a lot of tail mopping, it is like comparing McGrath and Warne - where Warnie's tail end mopping is far more signifcant vs McGrath top order dismissals. Paddles I have those too Hazlewood top order 38% middle order 34% tail 28% Starc top order 36% middle order 33% tail 31% Sorry Paddles I don't see much difference and Starc has taken 30+ additional wickets But this is the one I like Starc has bowled or LBW 43.5% of his dismissals Hazlewood Bowled or LBW 31% of his dismissals, as I say to Baggers he doesn't attack the stumps enough and relies on poor shots from the batsmen, which let's be honest the 4 dismissals so far in this test were all poor shots. Many would say the opposite, that Starc attacks the stumps too much... But it does not surprise me Haze is getting less of the tail, and this does influence on averages. 1 more tail end wicket per game, is a huge difference to averages and strike rates. I'm not defending Haze as against Starc. I think you're right to question the attack. You're the only Aussie around I've met who does not buy into the Aus attack is "world class" myth...
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Starc has always been overrated, he had a really good period around the world cup but he just isn't a consistent threat. Can't build up pressure and doesn't get the ball doing much, a poor mans Mitch Johnson.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
For all the hoo hah about Nathan Lyon... and he does have a fairly impressive record, specially last three years. He is not going to run thru a side even when conditions are in his favor.. such as here. To date Ashwin has outbowled him. He is a cleverer bowler with a wider repertoire.
Now make a liar out of me Nathan.
|
|
|
|
|
BaggyGreens
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAmazing the number of people straight onto Starc???WTF Last 10 tests for Starc 41 wickets 1189 av 29. With the bat 182 runs at 11 (so yes he hasn't performed well as an all rounder) and that includes Pakistan series Last 10 tests for Hazlewood 37 wickets 1092 av 29.51 With the bat 73 runs at 6 Last 10 tests for Cummins 47 wickets 1121 av 24 With the bat 265 runs at 18 So if there are questions on Starc there are bigger questions on Hazlewood, afterall Starc contributes more from an all round cricket aspect than what Hazlewood does. Should both be dropped? But I for one wouldn't be dropping Starc before Hazlewood Not good enough argument Last 20 tests Starc 98 wickets 2605 av 26,5 scored 549 with the bat av 17 Last 20 tests Hazlewood 78 wickets 2106 av 27 scored 150 with the bat av 5 This clearly shows Starc is a wicket taker av 2.4 wickets per innings, Hazlewood averages 1.9 wickets per innings (you need 5 bowlers of this calibre to take 10 wickets per innings) There is nothing that supports Hazlewood over Starc apart from opinions that vary from individual to individual. Please convince me with FACTS not opinions that supports Hazlewood over Starc. Remember a bowlers job is to take wickets and in 20 tests that is 400 wickets to take and Hazlewood can only take 78 of them (as I said that means 5 bowlers are required), at least Starc has done his fair share by taking 98 (only need 4 bowlers of that calibre) No attack averages 10w per innings. Not even the great West Indian attack. Its basically impossible over a larger sample due to run outs, retirements, rain outs, part timers taking wickets, declarations and losses. I get you don't like Haze, and you make some seemingly fair comparative points. But you're asking a bit much. And if I were you, I would look at the tail end vs top order percentages for Haze and Starc. Because I am quite sure Starcy does a lot of tail mopping, it is like comparing McGrath and Warne - where Warnie's tail end mopping is far more signifcant vs McGrath top order dismissals. Paddles I have those too Hazlewood top order 38% middle order 34% tail 28% Starc top order 36% middle order 33% tail 31% Sorry Paddles I don't see much difference and Starc has taken 30+ additional wickets But this is the one I like Starc has bowled or LBW 43.5% of his dismissals Hazlewood Bowled or LBW 31% of his dismissals, as I say to Baggers he doesn't attack the stumps enough and relies on poor shots from the batsmen, which let's be honest the 4 dismissals so far in this test were all poor shots. Many would say the opposite, that Starc attacks the stumps too much... But it does not surprise me Haze is getting less of the tail, and this does influence on averages. 1 more tail end wicket per game, is a huge difference to averages and strike rates. I'm not defending Haze as against Starc. I think you're right to question the attack. You're the only Aussie around I've met who does not buy into the Aus attack is "world class" myth... Yeh but he would if Feldman, George and Neser were the Oz attack. I am betting when McGrath, Dizzy and Lee were the Aussie attack that they were also not world class, overated and the rest...eh Mike. Rackermann, Kasper and Bickle would have been better. Not Rackers as he was earlier than those two. But you get my drift.
|
|
|
|