You've raised some good points again, Mike,  substantiated by cricket experts to back up your views, but Baggers has also acknowledged that Warner is unorthodox with incredible hand eye - and - should be selected in home Tests.

We also have an issue with Warner in that he has had a long career.  He has outstanding success at home with an average of circa 60,  but  he has an overseas average of circa 33 ( the same as wicket keeper Paine's overall average). This is almost a failure overseas as a  specialist opener.

Talking about cricket experts, Ian, a former Tas Vice Captain and Tas selector, argues that Smith's unorthodox technique  could fail as soon as he loses a fraction of his hand eye, whilst other more orthodox technicians can  succeed In Tests for longer. If Smith continues with his current batting average of 26, after the Archer short ball incident, I think he should be dropped. 

I think the proposition that Burns, Head and Wade are struggling with their current width between bat and pad, given their varied results, is fair. They may be the best we have, but they may not be good enough to survive test cricket proposition teams analysts and coaches scrutinising their weaknesses.

Also, Baggers, Fly Slip and I have all waxed lyrical about Renshaw's technique of  a few years ago being sorely needed. Eventually  I see him as an opener for 10 years for Aus. 

FS and Baggers know a lot more  about cricket than me, but since you've been here last, Mike we have  former elite rep players, a current grade  cricketer, and a former coach, who post here. Also, through TCA contacts, I discuss cricket with people who know a lot about  the sport  and listen carefully to their analyses.

It is a good we've won  two successive  series. However, but I feel like we are only marginally  more likely  to succeed on the Subcontinent against Bangla in June. Our Aus pitches, apart from Sydney this summer, didn't encourage spinners bowling spin, or batters  batting against quality spin. Warner is unlikely to ameliorate  than  his previous performances in his career.

Our pace  attack is used to bounce, although Cummins, Josh H and possibly Starc, could succeed on Subcontinental pitches.

We have have no quality back up spin, who've played a lot of FC red ball cricket.  

Paddles will like this, but I'm telling people off line that the Kiwi team, we've just beaten at home, has performed better in Asia than us in recent times.

LOL Baggers Wagner 46 tests 200 wickets 

Starc 50 tests 200 wickets, but credit to Starc he will probably get to 250 wickets either 58 or 59 tests around the same as Ambrose

Rabada will probably get to 200 wickets in his next test at 43 tests.....like WOW

But that is probably be an indication of how bad the world's batsmen are presently, that's probably why the number of tests are lower. Cummins will probably take 150 wickets in the next 2 tests.....150 in 32 tests, amazing, he will also probably take 200 wickets around Rabada's rate of 43 tests

Baggers How's Josh going? 52 tests still not at 200.....amazing and he can't even be relied on to do his stretching, 1 over breaks down.....didn't stretch!

Mike your obsession with Josh H is a joke, mate.

In recent  times, in England he played 3 - 4 Tests, and took over 20 wickets.

Against Pakistan he was brilliant.

Josh H may not have got to 200 wickets yet, with a lean Test year in 2018, but Geoff Boycott argues he and Cummins are one of the  best opening attacks he has seen on English soil from the 2019 Ashes.

I can't get over how fixated you have become on  denigrating  Josh H.

He may not be as successful with the old ball as some of his teammates, but in the last 6 months I don't think I've heard any  former  Test player pundit describe his bowling as less than brilliant.

Wagner is in the top three as most successful bower in Tests in the last year in the world. Cummins is first,  with  Wagner or Lyon second. I would have thought  Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is.

It's not an obsession DC, what I have a problem with are the ridiculous arguments put forward to claim Hazlewood is a superior bowler to everyone else. Total Rubbish.

1 This site criticised Wagner's line so much so calling it cheating and boring. Really? A line that forces a batsman to play a shot is boring? Isn't that what the game is about a battle between bat and ball. What is boring is a line so far outside off stump that the batsman doesn't have to play with no threat  to his wicket, they can let them go all day. That is exactly what Hazlewood does and it becomes boring and is negative bowling. Thus why Hazlewood's strike rate is so high, a lot of rubbish. That is why against SA and India he had a 40 and a 36 average, they can play test cricket. Against sides that will throw the bat they chase his wide deliveries and he is successful to a point. Against England the team that was built to win a World Cup by their own admission, a team that told us they will throw the bat from start to finish with disregard to the end result, the 4 tests Hazlewood played England won 2 Australia 1 and 1 draw which was a defeat for Australia looming. One of those defeats saw England need 50 runs only 1 wicket left, they took Pattinson off when Stokes was having trouble getting him away bought on Cummins and Hazlewood and they scored the runs in just over 4 overs, it was pathetic by both bowlers.

2 Hazlewood is better than Starc because Starc takes tailenders and Starc should be the one dropped? Starc takes 31% of his wickets are tailenders, Hazlewood is 26% same as Cummins, but Pattinson is only 15%. 5% difference equates to 5 wickets per 100 and makes no significant difference to SR, average etc It is a difference when comparing to Pattinson who only takes top order wickets at a vastly superior SR because his strike rate is against top order only very little padding using Tail enders wickets.

3 Australia needs Hazlewood as the economical line and length bowler and he's our best. Complete and absolute BS. Cummins is!!!! Don't believe me. Starc 40% + are bowled and LBW. James Pattinson 40% are bowled and LBW. Those two are the attacking bowlers that all sides need, they attack the stumps and do it well and have the SR to prove they do it quickly. Josh Hazlewood 28% are bowled or LBW Cummins is 20% Cummins line is the line that gets batsmen playing and of the 80% caught half are caught behind, unlike Hazlewood who has 35% of catches caught behind. Economy rates for both are equal 2.76 for Cummins, 2.78 for Hazlewoood. So Cummins is the economical line and length bowler with an amazing SR bowling the right line. Hazlewood bowls too wide of off and is purely a negative bowler

And with batsmen world wide severely under performing due to the call of performing in T20 where the money is. I believed I proved by this as the milestones of current bowlers is falling for the majority of bowlers, low averages, extremely low SR all except Hazlewood that is. And with test cricket popularity declining because it has been boring to watch especially, sides that come to Australia, just to do their duty, including England, do we really need to play a boring negative line bowler to try and keep test cricket alive. If you want to that's fine, but watch the crowds turn away. Watching a bowler run in throw the ball wide of off and the batsmen lets it go through to the keeper, is not exciting. They're getting more spectators to the Big Bash than what went to the test cricket. Sydney are getting 40,000 to a Sixers or Thunder game but only 30000 to a day at the test. The Gabba got 30,000 to one big bash game, that is more than what went to the test in total. But keep players like Josh in the side by all means, and may test cricket rest in peace.

There was no conclusive consensus on the short pitched bowling issue on this forum.

 I didn't see it as negative, actually enjoying Wagner's short pitched bowling, but I am really concerned about player safety. Player safer is paramount  for mine. 

I enjoyed seeing Smith struggle. Unlike many, I  haven't liked a  former captain, who complied with sandpaper cheating, being adulated by the public through weight of runs, and,  constant calls for this disgraced cricketer  to be captain again. 

  Moreover,  I don't  perceive  issues of always having to rate bowlers in any particular order. Why  does  one always have to be rated as superior or inferior to another?

As for  contending  Josh H  bowls a negative line, with a tenuous  extrapolation that he  is  responsible for  the decline of Test cricket excitement, it is more of a question of efficacy. He has taken a lot of recent  Test wickets in winning team.

I love the research and arguments you put up Mike, but Cummins 80% of his catches are caught behind? But given 56% of Cummins' wickets are from short balls and he went 2 years without an lbw, I thought there was something wrong about your 80% claim. And there is.

http://www.howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerDismissBowlGraph.asp?PlayerID=3909

43% of his catches are caught behind or 35% total wickets. And some of those are still short balls through to the keeper.

But I agree with you that Cummins is very economical, and very accurate. Esp to RHB, he gives away nothing. 

I would have thought  Wagner isn't world class, but his figures indicate he is.
Figures can lie DC.  imo they do with this bloke. Ordinarily I admire the 200 milestone. Not with Wagner. He has worked out a formula that suits his short frame and pace.. and due to the absurd laws of the game allowing him to bowl most balls outside leg stump at the body (bodyline/leg theory).. he has been successful at it.. Remove wickets he has gotten with blokes mistiming shots at leg side balls to avoid being whacked in the ribs .. and I dont mind betting he wont have had half of that 200. Wagner is an imposter. Wonder what the pure bowler thinks of his unauthodox way of taking wickets.. I love going against popular opinion on this site. Always call it as I see it.

DC please dont mention Hazlewood in the presence of Mike.. please. 

I posted that Bradman,Smith and ABDV were the exception to the rule Mike. Will add Viv too. Kohli, Ganguly and Gavaskar had good techniques.. Seywag I am putting on the next hand/eye level.  Rohit played 32 matches in 6 years.. testament to his inconsistency. The fact is mere mortals aint gonna have a successful Test career with a sloppy technique.

How does you not liking the rules that permit Wagner's method then make the figures lie? The figures simply reveal how successful he has been with this strategy despite his short height... Before he started doing it, he was a bog ordinary test cricketer, who was in and out of the NZ team. Now he is the second best bowler in the world right now on the rankings. I fail to see how Wagner is an imposter, for taking wickets this way. And there is absolutely nothing unorthodox about it. Johnson, Cummins, Kumara, Wood, Olivier, Gabriel, all favour the short ball for taking wickets. The West Indies quartet took 100's and 100's - most like well over 1000 wickets from short balls. Marshall, Roberts, Croft, Clarke, Davis, Benjamen, Walsh, Ambrose, Holding, Bishop, Patrick Patterson, Garner  - I mean some of these guys thought a length was half way down the pitch... And its no secret Lloyd wanted his bowlers to copy Thommo and Lillee...

One day - someone will duck a Wagner ball, and it will bowl them... I am just waiting for it... I can just see it happening...

Unauthodox, unique whatever. None of those bowlers listed bowl the way he does. In fact I dont know anyone outside of the England team of 1932/33 that employ this tactic. It shud be banned.. then Wagner will revert to being the in/out bog ordinary trundler that he was.

DC word is CA is looking at hitting the Banglas with our full pace cartel.. perhaps one extra spinner in Swepson. Evidently last time we toured there  we took four tweakers.. and lost the series. I fear for Swepson's career as he is unlikely to get a permanent spot until Lyon finally falls out of his wheelchair.

Yes DC the fact is.. as you and I have said ad infinitum.. we do not have spinners the calibre of those on the sub cont. as we dont have spinning decks on which to practice day in day out.

You don't remember Johnson, Thommo, the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. 

The real difference with Wagner is twofold; 1 his stamina to keep it going for longer and repeatedly than Johnson et al could muster, but then he is a lot slot slower, so that will help his stamina levels and 2, his accuracy in keeping it below the head, not that the WI quartet or Thomo Lillee et al had to worry about that rule which was brought in to negate the WI tactics of the 1970's and 1980's in 1994.

What I find most amusing, is that batsman are allowed to walk outside leg or bat in front of their stumps,... The batsman seems to be allowed the entire crease, but the bowler not. Hardly seems fair.

You don't remember the entire WI quartet bowling short to catching leg side? Okily dokily then. 
No. I watched quite a deal of them so surely I'd have remembered any condemnation of Bodyline tactics.

Wagner is given the whole crease. The batsman is not trying to kill you with a hard leather ball. So totally fair.

Haha - you missed the the WI Bodyline tactics that lead to helmets and chest guards and bouncer rule changes. When they copied THommo. Gotcha.

Wagner has the whole crease. i agree.

I'm done on this thread.

Take care Baggers :)

Meet you in the new one.

Why are  we playing three needless ODIs?

On one site Mike posted, it had an a article with Justin Langer appraising facets of the Aussie team.

JL thinks Paine is  currently the best keeper in the world.

Sorry Paddles I wrote half of his catches are caught behind and half of 80% is 40%, "brain distraction", but you are right I should have been more accurate and said 43% gives more accuracy. 

The Australian coach thinks the Australian keeper is the best in the world. I would never have expected that. I wonder who Mark Boucher, the head coach of South Africa, and arguably the best wicket keeper to ever play the game would say? Quinton de Kock maybe. I think I'll go with de Kock on that one given he's only 27 and I won't even consider the 5 test centuries the 14 ODI centuries, just based on the wicket keeping alone. Here is what most say about him

"Quinton de Kock's fearless striking and handy glovework have earned him comparisons to greats of the game like Adam Gilchrist and Mark Boucher"

Here is what is written about Paine

"It had looked as though Paine would perhaps never play for Australia again, for at times, as his career progressed, he was not even the first-choice gloveman for Tasmania."

Not trolling DC just pointing out that just because an Australian says something about another Australian that there may be just a little shade of bias in what is said. Doesn't necessarily make it true it's just an opinion unless of course Langer did point out quantifiable factual comparisons that leads him to say that. Opinions mean nothing unless you can provide quantifiable facts to support those opinions, you're a teacher you should know that, unless you're a, I shudder to write it, a Humanities teacher

Why do teams bother playing in Australia? Really are we so superior that we don't need to support other teams around the world, by heaven forbid actually earning their money by actually playing cricket. They're not needless in the eyes of India are they.

Who apart from Australia have called Wagner's attack bodyline? There are rules against Bodyline that are enforced by the umpires and at no stage did any umpire including the off ground officials say there was a problem. Or are you saying Baggers that you are more intelligent and more knowledgeable about the rules of cricket even more so than those that are paid to enforce those rules? NZ were always within the rules.

In the 46 tests that Wagner has played and in any of the 200 wickets he has taken, has he ever been accused of Bodyline tactics up until Australia. Australia has a problem because Wagner showed up Smith and it is only Smith that had the problem. Even Wagner pointed out what is the point of pitching it up to Smith he can play those deliveries. Are you so upset that it was Smith and how dare anyone show that Smith has a weakness? Here's a thought learn to play a hook and pull shot.

I also don't recall anytime that the NZ captain said "Get ready for a broken arm". That sort of idiotic comment by a puerile individual proves intent of an action of causing bodily harm. Just because this childish behaviour has occurred in the past, doesn't automatically mean that it is the intention of all to do this, and still I don't believe it was Johnson's intention to ever deliberately harm a player, he's too nice a guy for that. No it was just the comment of one infantile individual that leads us to believe that is what the bowler is trying to do, but it is not the case.

Personally I think that those that call it Bodyline and cheating, are unjustly trying to divert the attention away from the fact that there are only one set of proven cheats in world cricket at the moment. 

Mike, we’ve generally  had a pretty respectful forum. 

Since you’ve  resurfaced with an adversarial tone towards Baggers in particular, a few polite posters have co-incidentally disappeared. We have also enjoyed female participation too. 

Fantastic that you are willing to research all those articles to substantiate your opinions, but one can let others decide how they interpret them. 

I would hate to see the friendly, polite folk of the forum disappear and the general convivial camaraderie also disappear. 

Nobody needs a PHD in cricket, but it is good to find like-minded people to have a friendly online chat. 

Good post. 

It could be the case JL is biased, but he selects him.

At 30 Tests Paine has taken 131 dismissals, which is the highest in history. Although not perfect, dismissals probably indicate some degree of success as a keeper.

Elsewhere there has been discussion on forums that Paine should be dropped. I'd contend he is one of the first selected.

The Tasmanian selectors got it wrong. The  Tas selection panel and coach were replaced and Tasmania has enjoyed more  success since, last year making the Shield Final.

I have no problem with Paine keeping personally and since Healy gave him some good advise he has improved, and that tells me a lot especially considering his age he is still prepared to listen, which I respect in any player. I do have a slight issue as captain especially his management of bowlers which a totally different discussion, but who else is there? The only experienced players in the side were all recently found wanting with sandpapergate either directly proven, or indirectly as sandpaper was used to enhance their performance, which can be looked at by some, not me personally, as being guilty by association. People who rate Paine based on DRS decisions are wrong in my opinion as most of the time it is the bowler who would have best view and they're the ones adamant it was out, but I can see their opinion of him being weak by not over-ruling the bowler.

PS I think you mean 2017/18 Sheffield Shield final not last year final, last year Tasmania finished 5th

Don't mind me DC afterall it's just twaddle from a biased anti-NSW poster who you mustn't mention JH too. Can't see too much wrong with what I write, and I just asked a question to Baggers regarding his intelligence towards the rules of the game, afterall how do I know that Baggers isn't Kumar Sangakkara the president of the MCC who maybe able to change the rules? A yes or No will suffice

Or is it that the opposing view from someone, that questions the validity of what Baggers writes, goes against the political correctness of this site. Considering I've known Baggers for about 7 years, quite a bit longer than I think everyone on this site, even Paddles and have read the same posts over and over and over again, most of which are pro NSW player propaganda that I no longer just accept "the word" as gospel. I do have a brain, I have played the game at a senior level (Not at the level that would be deemed supreme but as I said I do have a brain), I have been around the developing aspect of the game at junior levels etc etc. I am prepared to ask questions and work things out myself, and am prepared to argue against "the word". Come to think of it I don't think Baggers has ever won a discussion in the last 7 years. Paddles may remember. According to Baggers he thinks Paddles and myself just cram provable quantitative analysis down his throat, with total disregard for his lack of substantiated evidence opinions.

But as I said if that goes against the political correctness of this site, that's OK I'm out of here, just like Paddles, I'm not a robotic conformist. Enjoy your back-slapping Stepford site.

PS Enjoy talking to yourself Baggers during the shield games.

But the Windies were't openly condemned for it.Nor is Wagner being condemned. And to be honest, its just leg theory, not Body line, the fields are totally different - he wants the batsman playing shots, not just fending to leg slips and gully. For the WI quartet era,  whenever safety was raised, Viv would point out that he does not bat in a helmet. Nor did Richardson. In fact, when Marshall asked Boon whether he was going to get out or whether he had to go around the wicket and kill him, there were even chuckles in that era. Post Hughes, those comments would rightly be criticised and widely as horridly inappropriate. But the West Indies bouncer barrage was so common for 20 years, that the bouncer restriction rule was put in place in 1994. Minimum over rates were introduced as well, cos the WInides would bowl as few as 9 overs an hour.

If you need a refresher on how the Windies bowled - this might jog your memory. This is the test that Gatting nearly loses his face.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/13/scariest-test-england-ever-played-terror-west-indies-cricket-1986-patrick-patterson




"We didn’t mind the bouncers; that’s the way cricket was. They could bowl you four or five bouncers an over and it wasn’t a bother, you learned how to play them. The trouble was the uneven bounce. If somebody’s bowls two balls in the same spot at that pace, and one goes past your neck and one goes past your ankles, you’re knackered.”"

Peter Willey

Forgive me for being so bold, but I am not entirely convinced you remember WI cricket before 1994. EVen after the bouncer law, Steve Waugh made a name for himself in the WI in 1995 - wearing many shots all over his body because he put the pull and hook away. Ambrose, Walsh, et al still served him plenty of short stuff.

In fact - you may be the first keen cricket fan who professes ignorance on the WI bouncer barrages existing for 20 years!