Your post makes a lot of sense. 

Lyon just bowled a ball that went straight on and bounced high. 

Is this a finger spinner’s top spinner or slider? 

If it had been a wrist spinner I would have called it a top spinner, which I can bowl. 

Is it because it is perceived as not the top level? 

Test cricket being the highest form of red ball cricket. 

DC Burns four tons are over four years. Two are first innings two second innings. His last one was 180.. part of a massive score.. from memory three made tons. His 90 was also scored on a batting belter.
Good strike rotation is important but occupying the crease is paramount. Joe simply does not do that as often as we need him to. When Renshaw sorts out his game he will be back. Then there are rookies Bryce Street and Henry Hunt..both of which are very correct and love spending time in the middle. I want to see one of these two chosen in the Aust A v England Lions game this month.

With GOAT’s 7 wicket haul for the game, he is 6th highest Test wicket taker of all time behind Harbajan, Herath, Kumble, Warne and Murali. 

Warne thinks he will end up overtaking him! 

Disappointing by the Black Caps. They sure gifted Lyon a good swag of his wickets with poorly executed slogs.


Cant see him overtaking Warne. He is good. Not that good. Will eclipse Harbi and Herath..

Marnus Labuschagne is both Man of the Match and Man of the Series. 

Shield cricket is the stepping stone to Test cricket DC. All Test players have been state cricketers as you are well aware..

I'm guilty of watching less shield cricket. Part of it is time commitment and part of it is timezones/access

its easier to face 3 balls in a row against world class bowling with bad technique than it is to face 6 with good technique.

Not too sure the bloke with the poor technique wud agree with that statement.

Lyon is criminally underrated, having a spinner who has had success in literally all conditions is incredibly uncommon. Most are usually only good on their home deck and free runs away from home.

It's too hard and time consuming to go to shield games. It just isn't feasible for most people to spend time to watch with work.

Every batsman in the world have problem areas, so what is a technical weakness, depends on the batsman. Smith walks across his stumps leaving him prone to LBW to a faster delivery as SA and India showed, He also cannot play short pitched deliveries, even from 135 km delivery, what is he going to be like against 150km.

We haven't seen much yet from Labuchagne, but as a tall batsman from Qld, I'll bet swinging yorker will undo him. Short pitch deliveries against a tall Qld batter, bread and butter stuff there, he's brought up on that rubbish bowling, pull and hook shots are part of his arsenal.

These "technical" problems identified by armchair experts who most likely have never even played cricket at even club level have no idea the minimal adjustment time a batsman has. Take Burns the delivery from Boult, he played for the swing only for to hit the seam and cut back at his stumps, how long do you think he had to adjust, 0.01 seconds, doesn't matter if there was a gap between bat and pad, he was out anyway LBW. It was the delivery of the series, you rarely see a delivery like that. I think Paddles called it a 1 in 1000 delivery and he's right.

In comparison Jeet Ravel played a horrible shot against a full length delivery on the stumps that should have been played straight bat back past the bowler for 4, instead he was almost playing a horizontal shot against a full length delivery, no wonder he was dropped. Watching T20 DC? a similar delivery saw Rashid Kahn deposit it over the fence for 6  a couple of nights ago, amazing how he does it, not exactly technical just strong wrists.

A lot of people call Mark Waugh a classical technical batsman who played 128 tests for Australia yet only averaged 41, not very good for a "technically correct" player is it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGz_hjXFv-8

Donald bowled him through the gap between bat and pad. Matthew Elliot another technical correct batsman playing away from his body. Greg Blewett also Technically correct bowled through the gap etc etc. It happens. Still don't believe me, here's some more

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQlpeSLWC0g

Ricky Ponting playing away from his body, Mark Waugh again bowled through the gap for a golden duck, and he played 128 tests but only scored 20 100s, not good for a technically correct batsman. Steve Waugh almost giving Aktar his hat trick playing away from his body, then LBW, playing a poor shot. Damien Martyn also another technically correct batsman also bowled through the gap. 

Anyone that talks about technical correctness in batting, is living in a make believe world, no such thing especially when up against world class bowlers, you don't have time to be "perfect". It's all about scoring runs which Smith can do even though he has major "technical" batting problems against certain types of bowling. Take the delivery that Southee bowled to Wade in the first test first innings, maybe Wade should have played a shot, but for Southee to sneak it past his pad (because if he hit the pad it would have been not out, hitting well outside off) to clip the off stump, great bowling nothing Wade could really do, it happens. Runs are all that matter, and when they dry up, time to drop the player for someone better, which I can assure you they tried with Burns, and they were all worse in scoring runs, Bancroft, Renshaw, Harris may be more technically correct but they couldn't score runs.

Great achievement! 

I would’ve thought Renshaw would have resurged more quickly. 

A lot of  well argued posts, Mike. 

Fair play to you. 

There must be a few counter arguments to them regarding technical correctness with close bat and pad with vertical shots from those with veritable cricket knowledge though. 

Mike, one player who has made you eat your words, is the form of Josh H in The Ashes and Pakistan series. 

Moreover, you have been previously underwhelmed with Labu. Many former Test players think he is one of the best batters in the world ATM. 

I am not sure we could have retained The Ashes and beaten Pak and NZ at home without him. 

Smith only averaged 26 at home according to Fox. 

True, particularly with stumps at 5.30 these days. 

Good to see you back, CS.

Regarding Labuchagne I personally can only see at the games what he has been doing at FC level which wasn't much, but according to mates around the Qld team, he has really been working hard lately and getting a lot of input but is most importantly listening. You can see him modelling a lot on Hayden, with a lot of his quirks, and now he is in the Australian side learning more from Smith, just hope he doesn't pick up his inability to play short deliveries, but personally I think Smith's problem is more a mental thing due to the Philip Hughes incident, but if he doesn't get help it could turn into a very dangerous proposition for him. They never helped Hughes play the short delivery after he was found out by South Africa, instead he moved to SA (the old batting track SA that is) and never learnt, and look what happened.

As for the rest take whatever glee you want from defeating Pakistan, the 8th ranked team in the world, who don't want to come to Australia to play, that have a side that is built around playing 70-80% of their games on low dust bowls, that bring in players that have just left school, one who just finished Year 10, Year 10? How seriously do you think Pakistan rate playing Australia in Australia. But they're not alone CA are begging teams to come now. India will, England do their duty, South Africa will only come under their terms. Who else is there that take playing Australia in Australia seriously. When do you think Australia will reciprocate to New Zealand and visit them during the Boxing day test and New Years test? It will be a cold day in hell the day that happens. All teams have adapted their teams to playing in the most common conditions ie dust bowls. Australia's pitches don't exist anywhere else.

Iftikhar Ahmed averaged 4 at test level coming into the series and batting at 6. he average 11 for the series. Obviously isn't up to international level

Yasir Shah averaged 8 coming into the series and scored a century having never scored a 50 in 56 innings. 

Mohammad Rizwan averaged 8 coming into the series but scored 37, 95 and 45 (not bad for a batsman who averaged 8).

Shan Masood averaged 25 coming into the series scored 156 at av 39

34 year old Asad Shafiq averaged 34 away from home scored 145 at 36 par from him

35 year old Azhar Ali who averages 16 against SA in SA, 28 against NZ and England in NZ and Eng, yet has only played in Australia against this current attack and averages 52 here, had a shocker series due to Starc and Cummins getting him early,

The only player up to world class standard was Babar Azam who averaged 41 coming into the series (averaged 34 away from home) scored 210 runs at 52.5.

Maybe it's just me but I don't really see much to be crowing about, when you really look at it you could be generous and call it an average bowling performance by Australia against a team that would struggle to make Shield level, thus why they are 8th in the world. But forcing them to play a day/night test when the idea has already been given away by the rest of the world as being too advantageous for the bowler and the result is based on the toss win. No other team wants to play them and don't prepare for them So forcing day/night tests on teams to me is like I don't know, maybe like using sandpaper on the ball to give these current bowlers an advantage. Totally unfair and just not cricket wouldn't you say. There are many ways to cheat, some are condoned by the hierarchy and you wonder why test cricket is dying. Australia is contributing in a big way to it's demise.

https://www.cricket.com.au/news/day-night-test-cricket-australia-pink-ball-sheffield-shield-adelaide-perth-nz-india-england-wtc/2019-08-15

Please dont mention Josh H is Mikes presence. No matter how well he w plays .. he'll rubbish him. There were some good balls in the Kiwi series.. but imo none better than the one by Hazlewood that did Raval like a dinner.. the over before Josh was forced from the field.

Make believe it is then lol.

Technique is important for "defence" which is especially important for an opener. Burns struggles with this like many Aussies because they learn on flat pitches in conditions that rarely swing and where they can be more attacking That's why his big scores have generally been on batting paradises. He might be far better down the order at 5-6 where it's less important.

As much as it was a good ball by Boult, it was an atrocious shot from Burns (who isn't a very good opener). That line with swing is stock for Boult in good bowling conditions and is something Burns would (should) have been expecting. A good opener would have picked the line (as Burns did) and knowing that Boult swings it would have tightened his technique to guard his stumps defensively while being prepared to let it pass if it didn't swing. That gives no guarantee of course and if beaten the bowler was too good, but at least there is a chance of keeping it out or at least getting something on it. Instead of playing down the line for the big drive in the first over of the innings lol...against a swing bowler...in swinging and seaming conditions...

The only player mentioned above who has a good technique to be an opener might be Renshaw. Bancroft might make it one day also, a fighter at least and very strong mentally.

That was rubbish from the kiwi's. They were bigging them up as "the best kiwi team to tour Aus" before the series. Turns out they were probably the most over rated, certainly the worst performing kiwi side to ever tour Aus?  Did hear it was the worst performance from any touring side in Aus ever, in a series of 3 or more matches lol.

Simply no answer to our attack, either pace or spin. A "pop gun" attack of their own despite having very good bowling conditions at times. An over rated batting line up also.

Never took 20 wickets in a match, never got to a 5th day, nor did they reach our first innings total for 20 wickets of their own in any match. Could have all been 3 day matches if Paine wished to enforce the follow on. Have the feeling their averages will go in the same direction as their team ranking, with teams like Aus and SA starting to get back into shape.

It wasn't because of the pitches either, which were a good mix and reasonable. A fast bouncy track to start, a slow seaming track at the MCG and a reasonably slow SCG that might have spun on day 5.

Santner and CDG aren't red ball cricketeers IMO. Not good enough to hold a possie in either discipline, probably best kept for ODI's. Opening the bowling with CDG indicates how bad they were. Relying on someone well into the innings to buy top order wickets with medium pace "long hops" further illustrates it.

If we could find a good stodgy opener and someone half reliable at 5 we would be more than ok. In some ways, that sandpaper might have been the best thing to happen to this team. Excellent series from Paine who continue to impress.

Anyone that talks about technical correctness in batting, is living in a make believe world, no such thing especially when up against world class bowlers, you don't have time to be "perfect".
Mike talking twaddle as usual. Those that dont have time to be perfect with technique dont deserve to be playing Test cricket. They are the inconsistent batsmen that proliferate among nations.. mostly nurtured on white ball cricket. Mike wants a Test player to be see ball hit ball. That may work in T20 but it wont in the five day game. 

Nah - Smithy should be out more lbw than he is, but he its the ball. In 115 innings, he has been lbw's 20 times, but only 10 times by seamers. 10 times. That's not a lot, esp for someone who bats past his stumps. Also of those 10 lbw's - several may have been from before he did the walk across shuffle from 2013/14 Sydney test vs England. Smithy takes the pace bowlers with him away from the stumps.

ABdV thinks technique is totally overrated, he barely moves his feet at times, but he is gifted with hand eye. The hand eye vs technique debate may rage forever. This is no doubt that Viv Richards slogged accross the line with hand eye,  let alone his backaway inside out or calypso cover drives and was one of the best batsmen ever. I mean he was basically a filthy slogger. Just he didn't miss a lot. ABdV - one of the best ever also. Smith is very unorthodox, one of the best ever. Graeme Smith was pretty good too. But technicians like KW, Kohli, Pujara, Sanga, Kallis, Dravid, Tedny score runs too.

Reckon our victorious Baggy Greens will cherish the extra day handed to them by knocking out the Kiwis a day early.. as they head off to India the day after tomorrow. Wow that is one tight schedule. Going all that distance at the Australian cricket paying public's expense for three needless ODIs. 

Strange scheduling but still looking forward to it. They're meaningless yes, but enjoyable if the pitches are ok. Some of the pitches in the WC unexpectedly gave the bowlers something and made for good games (and nearly caused the poms to miss the final lol). Hate it when it's just an extended version of t20 with huge scores though. 

What constitutes a good technique is overstated.

Ultimately there is only one thing that matters which is to make the technique suit your own personal batting style effectively. If it doesn't then it is a bad technique, but what Smith does works perfectly for him and really can't be stated as bad because i'd be very confident in saying if he had a textbook technique he wouldn't be as good.

No - ultimately the only thing that matters is runs.

So sayeth ABdV, SSmith and Viv.

Twaddle Baggers???

https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricket/story/if-steve-smith-was-indian-his-technique-would-be-accepted-coach-woodhill-1600447-2019-09-18

"Lamenting Australian cricket's "aversion" to embrace unconventional styles, Steve Smith's formative coach Trent Woodhill observed that his famous ward's uniqueness would be accepted in the Indian system, where it is "all about the output"."

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/steve-smith-technically-different-statistically-better-20190808-p52f8l.html

"Steve Smith: technically different, statistically better"

Don't get me wrong Technique is important, but I'm not going to be an armchair expert saying Burns, Wade and Head have "technical problems" and have no business being in the Australian side to do so is pretending to have superior knowledge to others, which I don't, everyone on here have some very good points but some comments just purely promote their favourites and make stupid comments under the gist of being of superior intelligence. To single out those 3 and not mention Warner and Smith who are both unconventional players is purely hypocrisy. What matters is runs scored and whilst the player is scoring runs they do have a right to be in the Australian side. When the runs dry up and it may be due to poor technique against certain deliveries then they should be dropped. But in saying that would you drop Smith if the world's bowlers start bouncing him and the runs dry up? Based on this summers performances with the bat if Burns, Wade and Head are problems then surely Smith has to be included as well.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=runs;spanmin1=01+nov+2019;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=batting

I noticed on this site when McGrath et al were mentioning Cummins and Starc's SR being the best going around and McGrath mentioned Hazlewood was like 12th they jumped on that and quoted as ultimate truth. It was not the full story. 
1. They said "of all the bowlers to take 150 or more wickets"....BS Cummins hasn't taken 150 wickets! can't even get that right
2. What they used was taking 100 wickets or more, why did they shorten that list? Here's the list of players that have taken 50 or more wickets

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_strike_rate;qualmin1=50;qualval1=wickets;team=2;template=results;type=bowling

Notice how they are no longer the best? Doug the rug pops his head in.... a player they dropped. They are comparing to bowlers that have finished their careers and have done the tail off period when wickets do dry up eg B Lee's final 20 wickets cost over 1000 runs and he bowled 1767 deliveries to take those wickets and blew everything out for him In his prime B Lee's SR was better than them. and there are many other examples. But here is the real reason why?

Look who is number 6 behind Starc. If you show the truth it makes people think. NZ failed miserably because they came up against the true No 1 bowling attack in the world i.e. Starc, Cummins and Pattinson. Don't believe me here is the best in the world for the last 10 years

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=bowling_strike_rate;qualmin1=80;qualval1=wickets;spanmin1=15+Mar+2010;spanval1=span;template=results;type=bowling

Cummins, Starc, Pattinson No's 3, 4, 5 (No2 Steyn has now retired)

But you can't let the public know otherwise it draw attention to Hazlewood's poor performance just beating out Southee, Holder and I Shama, a whole lot of spinners and all rounders. 

As I said some posters on this site do deserve to be rubbished on sites like Whirlpool. I believe someone referred to Neil Wagner as "Yes but he aint world class. Take away those he got with his leg side 'rib ticklers' and his record is mediocre."....WTF here's the list of fastest to 200 wickets

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/283534.html

He's around the likes of Michael Holding, Andy Roberts, Lance Gibbs, McGrath, Ambrose, Imran Kahn....."mediocre" my ass.

Yes Keyboard, Wagner is a very good bowler 

Keyboard Warrior - 3 Jan 2020 11:22 AM

As Wagner comes on to bowl I thought I saw something recently where Cummins 59 wickets, Lyon and Wagner next at 45 and 43 respectively, were the three most successful wicket takers in world cricket for 2019. 

Wagner has a world class record. 

But we are now 0-38 off 13 overs.