|
Zef
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAssies should have declared for 0 in 2nd innings.... That was a bizarre Test Match, the Aussies ground it out well with the bat in patches, Smith/Boland and Green/Carey. But the was also some ordinary shot selection, great bowling for Wood etc, the Poms steamed back into the match and seemed to have momentum. Then they got to 0-68 again the Poms had momentum and looked likely winners. Boland and Green shifted the momentum and both took many vital wickets. Boland, Green and Carey all very promising. The ball that bowled Root really sumed up his luck, in a bizzare match, that was the icing on the cake. All things considered I can't explain why the Pom collapse happened, their confidence must be shot. I think Green is going to be the most important cricketer in The Aus team over the next decade. I see him becoming as important and influential to Aus cricket as Flintoff and Kallis were to The Poms and SA respectively. Now before anyone bights my head off I’m not comparing his somewhat modest achievements so far to what Flintoff and Kallis did, the former turning a good cricket team into an Ashes winning team, the latter turning SA into one of the hardest teams in cricket - but I will say I can see Green having a similar effect on the Aus team going forward. Even with the run of outs and 1000 overs before he got his first wicket, I always thought the selectors would back him until and if he gave them absolutely no other choice, and I agreed with. Not claiming any better opinion or anything like that because the argument to drop him and give him a chance to find his feet in Shield was a good one, but I sorta thought the selectors (and me) were confident with what he was bringing to the Aust attack, as a whole, regardless of the wicket draught. This bloke bowls over 140k from a height that’s good enough, more than good enough, to have him opening the attack in a lot of Test teams - including ours if needs be. But what it means for the attack as a whole is with the big three or even the next couple in line (we got good pace depth) we got a relentless four pronged pace attack that gives no easy overs AND room for a spinner. That was and still is a mouth watering prospect that I reckon was behind the selectors giving Green more than the average chances, especially once he found his mojo with his bowling which he’s had for a while now, certainly this whole series. And so now his batting, which despite some recent good scores, still needs some work at Test level. BUT… what a prospect. When he’s in, the way he stands up and drives off the back foot through the off side are as good as you see and I doubt you’ll see anything hit more powerful - he jumps all over them. He’s old school in a lot of ways, he’ll hit a hundred fours before he’ll hit a six, just the way he pounds them into the ground. And what an imposing sight he is to any fast bowler when he’s on, you’re running in to bowl to this six and a half foot monster. I remember a quote from a cricketer, can’t remember which one but he played against Matty Hayden, and he related how just Matty’s physical presence defeated a lot of bowlers when he was on - just too big and strong and intimidating. I think Green could do that in the middle order. Anyway, last thing I’ll say is remember I said I wasn’t comparing Cam Green to Flintoff and Kallis, and I’m still not… sorta. But there was a reason their names stuck in my mind. After the previous Test where he got that 70 odd, I seen a tweet from a cricket writer who noted that after that inns, at the same stages of their careers (what was it? 6 or 7 Tests or so) Cam Green had a better bowling AND batting average than Andrew Flintoff and Jacques Kalliis. …. not that I’m comparing him. I think what you're saying is that you love the idea of an allrounder and would give the best prospect as many chances as he can get because your are infatuated with the team having one. Not really, in fact not at all. I’m not for having an all rounder in the team just for the sake of having one, I mean it’s nice but if they wouldn’t be selected on their batting or bowling alone I’d rather select a batsman or bowler as needed. But it is very rare to have an all rounder who’s a strike bowler, at least traditional Aus all rounders who are more batsman who can bowl. If you were just picking 4 paceman for a Test, Green would make one of them, wouldn’t matter if he was batting at 7.
This is why he’s a rare one. Like S Waugh and a few others, I think once he gets his first ton he’ll just peel them off. And then every chance to get 5 for too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Green's bowling looks dangerous, that is a combination of speed, bounce, accuracy and swing/seam.
Even if the ball isn't moving much, speed, bounce and accuracy can still be challenging.
His batting needs work, but he has racked up some big scores at shield level.
This kind of player is rare, able to win a game with bat or ball.
The next closest options in the team are Starc and Cummo, but no one expects them to play a long innings.
Then when we look at players like, Mitch Marsh, Stonis and Maxwell, we can make the case that their batting is better, but not at the same age. Even with more years of development their bowling is not as good.
The other comparison is Shane Watson, who got injured as a young bowler and was never the same.
The Waugh brothers better bats, but over the course of their careers not as potent with the ball.
Green's fielding is probably the best since M. Waugh.
Best of all Green is young, even young to be playing test cricket and he is improving fast.
It is only one series, against an England side that was struggling, but the improvement is odvious.
The sub-continent will be a good test of Green as a batter and bowler and valuable learning experience.
The wickets will not suit him, but if he gets bounce or batsmen find it hard to read the length then he might do better than we would expect. Coming from WA I expect he hasn't faced quality spin bowling on turning wickets.
I remember how the great West West Indian sides tried to win in India, get the quicks to bowl the opposition out.
3 good pace bowers and 2 specialist spinners is a great attack for those conditions, especially if the fast bowlers get some of the top order out early.
|
|
|
|
|
Zef
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Yeah did forget to mention his fielding - there’s that too. Probably the best gully we’ve had since…..
I don’t think Aus has ever had an all rounder who could be considered a strike bowler, can’t think of any off the top of my head. Those you pointed out Marsh, Stonis, Maxwell, Watson and you could name another dozen are all batsman who can come on and hold an end down, maybe get the breakthrough every now and then. But they scare nobody.
Worldwide it’s a struggle to think of too many, Freddy Flintoff and Kallis as I mentioned, Botham probably. The best I can think of in my lifetime anyway Imran Khan. I’m sure there’s more but not nearly as many as those who really are batsman who can trundle a few down.
They are rare and Green can be one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
Marki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xAssies should have declared for 0 in 2nd innings.... That was a bizarre Test Match, the Aussies ground it out well with the bat in patches, Smith/Boland and Green/Carey. But the was also some ordinary shot selection, great bowling for Wood etc, the Poms steamed back into the match and seemed to have momentum. Then they got to 0-68 again the Poms had momentum and looked likely winners. Boland and Green shifted the momentum and both took many vital wickets. Boland, Green and Carey all very promising. The ball that bowled Root really sumed up his luck, in a bizzare match, that was the icing on the cake. All things considered I can't explain why the Pom collapse happened, their confidence must be shot. I think Green is going to be the most important cricketer in The Aus team over the next decade. I see him becoming as important and influential to Aus cricket as Flintoff and Kallis were to The Poms and SA respectively. Now before anyone bights my head off I’m not comparing his somewhat modest achievements so far to what Flintoff and Kallis did, the former turning a good cricket team into an Ashes winning team, the latter turning SA into one of the hardest teams in cricket - but I will say I can see Green having a similar effect on the Aus team going forward. Even with the run of outs and 1000 overs before he got his first wicket, I always thought the selectors would back him until and if he gave them absolutely no other choice, and I agreed with. Not claiming any better opinion or anything like that because the argument to drop him and give him a chance to find his feet in Shield was a good one, but I sorta thought the selectors (and me) were confident with what he was bringing to the Aust attack, as a whole, regardless of the wicket draught. This bloke bowls over 140k from a height that’s good enough, more than good enough, to have him opening the attack in a lot of Test teams - including ours if needs be. But what it means for the attack as a whole is with the big three or even the next couple in line (we got good pace depth) we got a relentless four pronged pace attack that gives no easy overs AND room for a spinner. That was and still is a mouth watering prospect that I reckon was behind the selectors giving Green more than the average chances, especially once he found his mojo with his bowling which he’s had for a while now, certainly this whole series. And so now his batting, which despite some recent good scores, still needs some work at Test level. BUT… what a prospect. When he’s in, the way he stands up and drives off the back foot through the off side are as good as you see and I doubt you’ll see anything hit more powerful - he jumps all over them. He’s old school in a lot of ways, he’ll hit a hundred fours before he’ll hit a six, just the way he pounds them into the ground. And what an imposing sight he is to any fast bowler when he’s on, you’re running in to bowl to this six and a half foot monster. I remember a quote from a cricketer, can’t remember which one but he played against Matty Hayden, and he related how just Matty’s physical presence defeated a lot of bowlers when he was on - just too big and strong and intimidating. I think Green could do that in the middle order. Anyway, last thing I’ll say is remember I said I wasn’t comparing Cam Green to Flintoff and Kallis, and I’m still not… sorta. But there was a reason their names stuck in my mind. After the previous Test where he got that 70 odd, I seen a tweet from a cricket writer who noted that after that inns, at the same stages of their careers (what was it? 6 or 7 Tests or so) Cam Green had a better bowling AND batting average than Andrew Flintoff and Jacques Kalliis. …. not that I’m comparing him. I think what you're saying is that you love the idea of an allrounder and would give the best prospect as many chances as he can get because your are infatuated with the team having one. Not really, in fact not at all. I’m not for having an all rounder in the team just for the sake of having one, I mean it’s nice but if they wouldn’t be selected on their batting or bowling alone I’d rather select a batsman or bowler as needed. But it is very rare to have an all rounder who’s a strike bowler, at least traditional Aus all rounders who are more batsman who can bowl. If you were just picking 4 paceman for a Test, Green would make one of them, wouldn’t matter if he was batting at 7.
This is why he’s a rare one. Like S Waugh and a few others, I think once he gets his first ton he’ll just peel them off. And then every chance to get 5 for too. He has age on his side. Otherwise i have Boland ahead of him as the 4th seamer. Coz Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood are the top 3 selected.'' If Australia plays a spinner (Lyon), and Hazelwood is available, who do you drop ? Green or Boland? I think the answer lies with whether you want the extra runs or the quick wickets. If you want the runs, you go Green because he can ALSO bowl. But if you dont need the runs but need the quick wickets, surely you have to consider Boland ahead of him. The one factor that sways back to Green is his age and the look to the future. Who knows.....maybe you drop Hazlewood altogether?
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xAssies should have declared for 0 in 2nd innings.... That was a bizarre Test Match, the Aussies ground it out well with the bat in patches, Smith/Boland and Green/Carey. But the was also some ordinary shot selection, great bowling for Wood etc, the Poms steamed back into the match and seemed to have momentum. Then they got to 0-68 again the Poms had momentum and looked likely winners. Boland and Green shifted the momentum and both took many vital wickets. Boland, Green and Carey all very promising. The ball that bowled Root really sumed up his luck, in a bizzare match, that was the icing on the cake. All things considered I can't explain why the Pom collapse happened, their confidence must be shot. I think Green is going to be the most important cricketer in The Aus team over the next decade. I see him becoming as important and influential to Aus cricket as Flintoff and Kallis were to The Poms and SA respectively. Now before anyone bights my head off I’m not comparing his somewhat modest achievements so far to what Flintoff and Kallis did, the former turning a good cricket team into an Ashes winning team, the latter turning SA into one of the hardest teams in cricket - but I will say I can see Green having a similar effect on the Aus team going forward. Even with the run of outs and 1000 overs before he got his first wicket, I always thought the selectors would back him until and if he gave them absolutely no other choice, and I agreed with. Not claiming any better opinion or anything like that because the argument to drop him and give him a chance to find his feet in Shield was a good one, but I sorta thought the selectors (and me) were confident with what he was bringing to the Aust attack, as a whole, regardless of the wicket draught. This bloke bowls over 140k from a height that’s good enough, more than good enough, to have him opening the attack in a lot of Test teams - including ours if needs be. But what it means for the attack as a whole is with the big three or even the next couple in line (we got good pace depth) we got a relentless four pronged pace attack that gives no easy overs AND room for a spinner. That was and still is a mouth watering prospect that I reckon was behind the selectors giving Green more than the average chances, especially once he found his mojo with his bowling which he’s had for a while now, certainly this whole series. And so now his batting, which despite some recent good scores, still needs some work at Test level. BUT… what a prospect. When he’s in, the way he stands up and drives off the back foot through the off side are as good as you see and I doubt you’ll see anything hit more powerful - he jumps all over them. He’s old school in a lot of ways, he’ll hit a hundred fours before he’ll hit a six, just the way he pounds them into the ground. And what an imposing sight he is to any fast bowler when he’s on, you’re running in to bowl to this six and a half foot monster. I remember a quote from a cricketer, can’t remember which one but he played against Matty Hayden, and he related how just Matty’s physical presence defeated a lot of bowlers when he was on - just too big and strong and intimidating. I think Green could do that in the middle order. Anyway, last thing I’ll say is remember I said I wasn’t comparing Cam Green to Flintoff and Kallis, and I’m still not… sorta. But there was a reason their names stuck in my mind. After the previous Test where he got that 70 odd, I seen a tweet from a cricket writer who noted that after that inns, at the same stages of their careers (what was it? 6 or 7 Tests or so) Cam Green had a better bowling AND batting average than Andrew Flintoff and Jacques Kalliis. …. not that I’m comparing him. I think what you're saying is that you love the idea of an allrounder and would give the best prospect as many chances as he can get because your are infatuated with the team having one. Not really, in fact not at all. I’m not for having an all rounder in the team just for the sake of having one, I mean it’s nice but if they wouldn’t be selected on their batting or bowling alone I’d rather select a batsman or bowler as needed. But it is very rare to have an all rounder who’s a strike bowler, at least traditional Aus all rounders who are more batsman who can bowl. If you were just picking 4 paceman for a Test, Green would make one of them, wouldn’t matter if he was batting at 7.
This is why he’s a rare one. Like S Waugh and a few others, I think once he gets his first ton he’ll just peel them off. And then every chance to get 5 for too. He has age on his side. Otherwise i have Boland ahead of him as the 4th seamer. Coz Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood are the top 3 selected.'' If Australia plays a spinner (Lyon), and Hazelwood is available, who do you drop ? Green or Boland? I think the answer lies with whether you want the extra runs or the quick wickets. If you want the runs, you go Green because he can ALSO bowl. But if you dont need the runs but need the quick wickets, surely you have to consider Boland ahead of him. The one factor that sways back to Green is his age and the look to the future. Who knows.....maybe you drop Hazlewood altogether? Most tests sides have 6 specalist batsmen . If the pitch looks really flat I would pick Green and Boland and drop a batsman. But we would end up having too many bowlers. Otherwise Green would be picked ahead of Boland. We could have Green 3 specalist quicks and 2 spin bowlers, especially if the 2nd spinner was a bit of an all-rounder. Guys that are batting all-rounders who bowl decent leg spin are reasonably common. Richy Bernard being the prime example and probably our best known all-rounder. I never saw Richy or Alan Davidson play. I saw a bit of Gary Gilmore, Max Walker and a few other medium-pace all-rounders, all capable bowlers but not as dangerous as Green or as good at batting or fielding.
|
|
|
|
|
dman2018
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xAssies should have declared for 0 in 2nd innings.... That was a bizarre Test Match, the Aussies ground it out well with the bat in patches, Smith/Boland and Green/Carey. But the was also some ordinary shot selection, great bowling for Wood etc, the Poms steamed back into the match and seemed to have momentum. Then they got to 0-68 again the Poms had momentum and looked likely winners. Boland and Green shifted the momentum and both took many vital wickets. Boland, Green and Carey all very promising. The ball that bowled Root really sumed up his luck, in a bizzare match, that was the icing on the cake. All things considered I can't explain why the Pom collapse happened, their confidence must be shot. I think Green is going to be the most important cricketer in The Aus team over the next decade. I see him becoming as important and influential to Aus cricket as Flintoff and Kallis were to The Poms and SA respectively. Now before anyone bights my head off I’m not comparing his somewhat modest achievements so far to what Flintoff and Kallis did, the former turning a good cricket team into an Ashes winning team, the latter turning SA into one of the hardest teams in cricket - but I will say I can see Green having a similar effect on the Aus team going forward. Even with the run of outs and 1000 overs before he got his first wicket, I always thought the selectors would back him until and if he gave them absolutely no other choice, and I agreed with. Not claiming any better opinion or anything like that because the argument to drop him and give him a chance to find his feet in Shield was a good one, but I sorta thought the selectors (and me) were confident with what he was bringing to the Aust attack, as a whole, regardless of the wicket draught. This bloke bowls over 140k from a height that’s good enough, more than good enough, to have him opening the attack in a lot of Test teams - including ours if needs be. But what it means for the attack as a whole is with the big three or even the next couple in line (we got good pace depth) we got a relentless four pronged pace attack that gives no easy overs AND room for a spinner. That was and still is a mouth watering prospect that I reckon was behind the selectors giving Green more than the average chances, especially once he found his mojo with his bowling which he’s had for a while now, certainly this whole series. And so now his batting, which despite some recent good scores, still needs some work at Test level. BUT… what a prospect. When he’s in, the way he stands up and drives off the back foot through the off side are as good as you see and I doubt you’ll see anything hit more powerful - he jumps all over them. He’s old school in a lot of ways, he’ll hit a hundred fours before he’ll hit a six, just the way he pounds them into the ground. And what an imposing sight he is to any fast bowler when he’s on, you’re running in to bowl to this six and a half foot monster. I remember a quote from a cricketer, can’t remember which one but he played against Matty Hayden, and he related how just Matty’s physical presence defeated a lot of bowlers when he was on - just too big and strong and intimidating. I think Green could do that in the middle order. Anyway, last thing I’ll say is remember I said I wasn’t comparing Cam Green to Flintoff and Kallis, and I’m still not… sorta. But there was a reason their names stuck in my mind. After the previous Test where he got that 70 odd, I seen a tweet from a cricket writer who noted that after that inns, at the same stages of their careers (what was it? 6 or 7 Tests or so) Cam Green had a better bowling AND batting average than Andrew Flintoff and Jacques Kalliis. …. not that I’m comparing him. The funny thing about Greens wickets last night is that he bowled some good ones that werent rewarded and then picked up wickets with deliveries that were.. lets say.... not the best. Funny game cricket...
|
|
|
|
|
Mooloolabadog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xA problem we have is two 35yo openers in this match. This is not sustainable. We need to get some depth in this position. Someone that values his wicket even if he bores the sh*t out of you for a session would be nice. An expanded test squad to take account of this would have been good. Just taking their eyes off T20 and focussing on red ball cricket would help in this regard In general we need to work on strengthening the batting. But opener is particularly problematic. Normally Warner has one position nailed down. But his 2 ducks in Hobart reminded me that he can have a lean run against quality swing and seam bowling. Izzy will be fine on the subcontinentm unless India prepare green-top wickets. Against the new ball on a green wicket we need a traditional opener. Solid defence, good leave, good judge of a single, able to stay composed in trying conditions. Get through the new ball, Smithy, Labs, Head, Green, Carey, Stark and Cummo can all score fast. IMO Warner justs needs to tame a bit of his natural aggression until he has a good feel for the conditions. His new long term partner should be solid, a traditional opener in every respect, fast scoring not essential. That's what I was getting at. I'm not sure we can term Warner long term at his age making opener an urgent problem
|
|
|
|
|
Mooloolabadog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+xYeah did forget to mention his fielding - there’s that too. Probably the best gully we’ve had since….. I don’t think Aus has ever had an all rounder who could be considered a strike bowler, can’t think of any off the top of my head. Those you pointed out Marsh, Stonis, Maxwell, Watson and you could name another dozen are all batsman who can come on and hold an end down, maybe get the breakthrough every now and then. But they scare nobody. Worldwide it’s a struggle to think of too many, Freddy Flintoff and Kallis as I mentioned, Botham probably. The best I can think of in my lifetime anyway Imran Khan. I’m sure there’s more but not nearly as many as those who really are batsman who can trundle a few down. They are rare and Green can be one of them. Keith Miller
|
|
|
|
|
dman2018
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xYeah did forget to mention his fielding - there’s that too. Probably the best gully we’ve had since….. I don’t think Aus has ever had an all rounder who could be considered a strike bowler, can’t think of any off the top of my head. Those you pointed out Marsh, Stonis, Maxwell, Watson and you could name another dozen are all batsman who can come on and hold an end down, maybe get the breakthrough every now and then. But they scare nobody. Worldwide it’s a struggle to think of too many, Freddy Flintoff and Kallis as I mentioned, Botham probably. The best I can think of in my lifetime anyway Imran Khan. I’m sure there’s more but not nearly as many as those who really are batsman who can trundle a few down. They are rare and Green can be one of them. Keith Miller Kapil Dev
|
|
|
|
|
Steveswr33333
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAssies should have declared for 0 in 2nd innings.... That was a bizarre Test Match, the Aussies ground it out well with the bat in patches, Smith/Boland and Green/Carey. But the was also some ordinary shot selection, great bowling for Wood etc, the Poms steamed back into the match and seemed to have momentum. Then they got to 0-68 again the Poms had momentum and looked likely winners. Boland and Green shifted the momentum and both took many vital wickets. Boland, Green and Carey all very promising. The ball that bowled Root really sumed up his luck, in a bizzare match, that was the icing on the cake. All things considered I can't explain why the Pom collapse happened, their confidence must be shot. I think Green is going to be the most important cricketer in The Aus team over the next decade. I see him becoming as important and influential to Aus cricket as Flintoff and Kallis were to The Poms and SA respectively. Now before anyone bights my head off I’m not comparing his somewhat modest achievements so far to what Flintoff and Kallis did, the former turning a good cricket team into an Ashes winning team, the latter turning SA into one of the hardest teams in cricket - but I will say I can see Green having a similar effect on the Aus team going forward. Even with the run of outs and 1000 overs before he got his first wicket, I always thought the selectors would back him until and if he gave them absolutely no other choice, and I agreed with. Not claiming any better opinion or anything like that because the argument to drop him and give him a chance to find his feet in Shield was a good one, but I sorta thought the selectors (and me) were confident with what he was bringing to the Aust attack, as a whole, regardless of the wicket draught. This bloke bowls over 140k from a height that’s good enough, more than good enough, to have him opening the attack in a lot of Test teams - including ours if needs be. But what it means for the attack as a whole is with the big three or even the next couple in line (we got good pace depth) we got a relentless four pronged pace attack that gives no easy overs AND room for a spinner. That was and still is a mouth watering prospect that I reckon was behind the selectors giving Green more than the average chances, especially once he found his mojo with his bowling which he’s had for a while now, certainly this whole series. And so now his batting, which despite some recent good scores, still needs some work at Test level. BUT… what a prospect. When he’s in, the way he stands up and drives off the back foot through the off side are as good as you see and I doubt you’ll see anything hit more powerful - he jumps all over them. He’s old school in a lot of ways, he’ll hit a hundred fours before he’ll hit a six, just the way he pounds them into the ground. And what an imposing sight he is to any fast bowler when he’s on, you’re running in to bowl to this six and a half foot monster. I remember a quote from a cricketer, can’t remember which one but he played against Matty Hayden, and he related how just Matty’s physical presence defeated a lot of bowlers when he was on - just too big and strong and intimidating. I think Green could do that in the middle order. Anyway, last thing I’ll say is remember I said I wasn’t comparing Cam Green to Flintoff and Kallis, and I’m still not… sorta. But there was a reason their names stuck in my mind. After the previous Test where he got that 70 odd, I seen a tweet from a cricket writer who noted that after that inns, at the same stages of their careers (what was it? 6 or 7 Tests or so) Cam Green had a better bowling AND batting average than Andrew Flintoff and Jacques Kalliis. …. not that I’m comparing him. I think what you're saying is that you love the idea of an allrounder and would give the best prospect as many chances as he can get because your are infatuated with the team having one. Not really, in fact not at all. I’m not for having an all rounder in the team just for the sake of having one, I mean it’s nice but if they wouldn’t be selected on their batting or bowling alone I’d rather select a batsman or bowler as needed. But it is very rare to have an all rounder who’s a strike bowler, at least traditional Aus all rounders who are more batsman who can bowl. If you were just picking 4 paceman for a Test, Green would make one of them, wouldn’t matter if he was batting at 7.
This is why he’s a rare one. Like S Waugh and a few others, I think once he gets his first ton he’ll just peel them off. And then every chance to get 5 for too. He has age on his side. Otherwise i have Boland ahead of him as the 4th seamer. Coz Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood are the top 3 selected.'' If Australia plays a spinner (Lyon), and Hazelwood is available, who do you drop ? Green or Boland? I think the answer lies with whether you want the extra runs or the quick wickets. If you want the runs, you go Green because he can ALSO bowl. But if you dont need the runs but need the quick wickets, surely you have to consider Boland ahead of him. The one factor that sways back to Green is his age and the look to the future. Who knows.....maybe you drop Hazlewood altogether? Most tests sides have 6 specalist batsmen . If the pitch looks really flat I would pick Green and Boland and drop a batsman. But we would end up having too many bowlers. Otherwise Green would be picked ahead of Boland. We could have Green 3 specalist quicks and 2 spin bowlers, especially if the 2nd spinner was a bit of an all-rounder. Guys that are batting all-rounders who bowl decent leg spin are reasonably common. Richy Bernard being the prime example and probably our best known all-rounder. I never saw Richy or Alan Davidson play. I saw a bit of Gary Gilmore, Max Walker and a few other medium-pace all-rounders, all capable bowlers but not as dangerous as Green or as good at batting or fielding. Davo was a bowling allrounder but had more than some ability with the bat..Gilmore probably comparable with Davo but less a bowler by a long way. Davo was the first ever to get 100 runs and 10 wickets in a test and that was in possibly the most famous test of them all..the 1960 tied test. What Green has as a great advantage is his height....makes Starc and Cummins look short. And his last couple of innings shows he can step up as a batsman too. His first class batting average is over 50.
|
|
|
|
|
Zef
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
I think if Garry Gilmore was playing now, he wouldn’t play a single Test, maybe not even any Shield.
He’d be too busy becoming a gazillionaire playing non stop 20/20.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+xI think if Garry Gilmore was playing now, he wouldn’t play a single Test, maybe not even any Shield. He’d be too busy becoming a gazillionaire playing non stop 20/20. True.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
England is having similar problems to us.
The level below test cricket is diluted by ODI and 20/20.
Most of the money is in 20/20, as is the TV ratings and possible product endorsements.
A lot of the skills focus is on 20/20, it improves many bowlers who need good control.
But it also rewards funky bowlers who might not take many wickets at test level.
For batsmen 20/20 teaches a lot of bad habits.
The worst habit of all is giving up on shield/test cricket when the going gets tough and focusing more on 20/20.
Players deserve to make a living.
So how do we get shield cricket back to where it should be?
We need more day/night games and we need games on TV, make day time entry free for school kids, promote the game.
Make sure the shield final is televised. Shield players need to be paid more and scheduling needs to ensure that it doesn't clash with tests and 20/20.
So the 2nd half shield of the shield comp should start now, test players and fringe test players encouraged to play.
Big bash should take a break.
I am not saying it is easy, it is a crowded schedule, But how many primary school aged kids know about shield and want to play
India doesn't have this problem, they have a larger talent pool and more young kids dreaming of a test career.
|
|
|
|
|
Marki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xEngland is having similar problems to us. The level below test cricket is diluted by ODI and 20/20. Most of the money is in 20/20, as is the TV ratings and possible product endorsements. A lot of the skills focus is on 20/20, it improves many bowlers who need good control. But it also rewards funky bowlers who might not take many wickets at test level. For batsmen 20/20 teaches a lot of bad habits. The worst habit of all is giving up on shield/test cricket when the going gets tough and focusing more on 20/20. Players deserve to make a living. So how do we get shield cricket back to where it should be? We need more day/night games and we need games on TV, make day time entry free for school kids, promote the game. Make sure the shield final is televised. Shield players need to be paid more and scheduling needs to ensure that it doesn't clash with tests and 20/20. So the 2nd half shield of the shield comp should start now, test players and fringe test players encouraged to play. Big bash should take a break. I am not saying it is easy, it is a crowded schedule, But how many primary school aged kids know about shield and want to play India doesn't have this problem, they have a larger talent pool and more young kids dreaming of a test career. The answer lies in the recent "bowling wickets" being curated. Lets face it, a Test that doesnt have constant wickets falling is boring. We did have the Sydney Test go for 5 days (with help of rain) and you can handle one maybe 2 in a series.... But these days, you really need wi kets falling regularly to keep the game and interest going. Thats what will save cricket. Zef mentioned (last year i think) about 100 or so overs but only 4 days. Good suggestion but would be made better with "bowling wickets" Let the batsmen sweat it out and ride their luck and fortune to a tonne. It should be a minefield for the batsmen not a minefield for the bowlers.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xEngland is having similar problems to us. The level below test cricket is diluted by ODI and 20/20. Most of the money is in 20/20, as is the TV ratings and possible product endorsements. A lot of the skills focus is on 20/20, it improves many bowlers who need good control. But it also rewards funky bowlers who might not take many wickets at test level. For batsmen 20/20 teaches a lot of bad habits. The worst habit of all is giving up on shield/test cricket when the going gets tough and focusing more on 20/20. Players deserve to make a living. So how do we get shield cricket back to where it should be? We need more day/night games and we need games on TV, make day time entry free for school kids, promote the game. Make sure the shield final is televised. Shield players need to be paid more and scheduling needs to ensure that it doesn't clash with tests and 20/20. So the 2nd half shield of the shield comp should start now, test players and fringe test players encouraged to play. Big bash should take a break. I am not saying it is easy, it is a crowded schedule, But how many primary school aged kids know about shield and want to play India doesn't have this problem, they have a larger talent pool and more young kids dreaming of a test career. The answer lies in the recent "bowling wickets" being curated. Lets face it, a Test that doesnt have constant wickets falling is boring. We did have the Sydney Test go for 5 days (with help of rain) and you can handle one maybe 2 in a series.... But these days, you really need wi kets falling regularly to keep the game and interest going. Thats what will save cricket. Zef mentioned (last year i think) about 100 or so overs but only 4 days. Good suggestion but would be made better with "bowling wickets" Let the batsmen sweat it out and ride their luck and fortune to a tonne. It should be a minefield for the batsmen not a minefield for the bowlers. I agree for shield cricket, that is one reason why I suggested pink ball The other reason is TV coverage and more chance of a crowd. I agree on 100 overs per day, night helps as it will be a bit cooler. We need a mix of conditions some wickets that are good to bat on also helps. Another idea is that teams get a maximum 120 overs to bat each innings, so they need to get on with it. Umps also call wides where the batsman doesn't get a fair chance to score and try to keep the game moving. I don't know if 20/20 fans are future test cricket fans. I hate the fact that 20/20 has 2 teams in some cities and players come and go. I know state based would not be enough games, but the whole thing seems very fake and plastic to me. Perhaps I'm just an old foggy from a different era.
|
|
|
|
|
Mooloolabadog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xAssies should have declared for 0 in 2nd innings.... That was a bizarre Test Match, the Aussies ground it out well with the bat in patches, Smith/Boland and Green/Carey. But the was also some ordinary shot selection, great bowling for Wood etc, the Poms steamed back into the match and seemed to have momentum. Then they got to 0-68 again the Poms had momentum and looked likely winners. Boland and Green shifted the momentum and both took many vital wickets. Boland, Green and Carey all very promising. The ball that bowled Root really sumed up his luck, in a bizzare match, that was the icing on the cake. All things considered I can't explain why the Pom collapse happened, their confidence must be shot. I think Green is going to be the most important cricketer in The Aus team over the next decade. I see him becoming as important and influential to Aus cricket as Flintoff and Kallis were to The Poms and SA respectively. Now before anyone bights my head off I’m not comparing his somewhat modest achievements so far to what Flintoff and Kallis did, the former turning a good cricket team into an Ashes winning team, the latter turning SA into one of the hardest teams in cricket - but I will say I can see Green having a similar effect on the Aus team going forward. Even with the run of outs and 1000 overs before he got his first wicket, I always thought the selectors would back him until and if he gave them absolutely no other choice, and I agreed with. Not claiming any better opinion or anything like that because the argument to drop him and give him a chance to find his feet in Shield was a good one, but I sorta thought the selectors (and me) were confident with what he was bringing to the Aust attack, as a whole, regardless of the wicket draught. This bloke bowls over 140k from a height that’s good enough, more than good enough, to have him opening the attack in a lot of Test teams - including ours if needs be. But what it means for the attack as a whole is with the big three or even the next couple in line (we got good pace depth) we got a relentless four pronged pace attack that gives no easy overs AND room for a spinner. That was and still is a mouth watering prospect that I reckon was behind the selectors giving Green more than the average chances, especially once he found his mojo with his bowling which he’s had for a while now, certainly this whole series. And so now his batting, which despite some recent good scores, still needs some work at Test level. BUT… what a prospect. When he’s in, the way he stands up and drives off the back foot through the off side are as good as you see and I doubt you’ll see anything hit more powerful - he jumps all over them. He’s old school in a lot of ways, he’ll hit a hundred fours before he’ll hit a six, just the way he pounds them into the ground. And what an imposing sight he is to any fast bowler when he’s on, you’re running in to bowl to this six and a half foot monster. I remember a quote from a cricketer, can’t remember which one but he played against Matty Hayden, and he related how just Matty’s physical presence defeated a lot of bowlers when he was on - just too big and strong and intimidating. I think Green could do that in the middle order. Anyway, last thing I’ll say is remember I said I wasn’t comparing Cam Green to Flintoff and Kallis, and I’m still not… sorta. But there was a reason their names stuck in my mind. After the previous Test where he got that 70 odd, I seen a tweet from a cricket writer who noted that after that inns, at the same stages of their careers (what was it? 6 or 7 Tests or so) Cam Green had a better bowling AND batting average than Andrew Flintoff and Jacques Kalliis. …. not that I’m comparing him. I think what you're saying is that you love the idea of an allrounder and would give the best prospect as many chances as he can get because your are infatuated with the team having one. Not really, in fact not at all. I’m not for having an all rounder in the team just for the sake of having one, I mean it’s nice but if they wouldn’t be selected on their batting or bowling alone I’d rather select a batsman or bowler as needed. But it is very rare to have an all rounder who’s a strike bowler, at least traditional Aus all rounders who are more batsman who can bowl. If you were just picking 4 paceman for a Test, Green would make one of them, wouldn’t matter if he was batting at 7.
This is why he’s a rare one. Like S Waugh and a few others, I think once he gets his first ton he’ll just peel them off. And then every chance to get 5 for too. He has age on his side. Otherwise i have Boland ahead of him as the 4th seamer. Coz Cummins, Starc and Hazlewood are the top 3 selected.'' If Australia plays a spinner (Lyon), and Hazelwood is available, who do you drop ? Green or Boland? I think the answer lies with whether you want the extra runs or the quick wickets. If you want the runs, you go Green because he can ALSO bowl. But if you dont need the runs but need the quick wickets, surely you have to consider Boland ahead of him. The one factor that sways back to Green is his age and the look to the future. Who knows.....maybe you drop Hazlewood altogether? Most tests sides have 6 specalist batsmen . If the pitch looks really flat I would pick Green and Boland and drop a batsman. But we would end up having too many bowlers. Otherwise Green would be picked ahead of Boland. We could have Green 3 specalist quicks and 2 spin bowlers, especially if the 2nd spinner was a bit of an all-rounder. Guys that are batting all-rounders who bowl decent leg spin are reasonably common. Richy Bernard being the prime example and probably our best known all-rounder. I never saw Richy or Alan Davidson play. I saw a bit of Gary Gilmore, Max Walker and a few other medium-pace all-rounders, all capable bowlers but not as dangerous as Green or as good at batting or fielding. Davo was a bowling allrounder but had more than some ability with the bat..Gilmore probably comparable with Davo but less a bowler by a long way. Davo was the first ever to get 100 runs and 10 wickets in a test and that was in possibly the most famous test of them all..the 1960 tied test. What Green has as a great advantage is his height....makes Starc and Cummins look short. And his last couple of innings shows he can step up as a batsman too. His first class batting average is over 50. Gilmore had an average with the bat in the early twenties which was less than Davidson and was nowhere near Davidson's standard as a bowler.
|
|
|
|
|
BloodyNora
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mooloolabadog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xEngland is having similar problems to us. The level below test cricket is diluted by ODI and 20/20. Most of the money is in 20/20, as is the TV ratings and possible product endorsements. A lot of the skills focus is on 20/20, it improves many bowlers who need good control. But it also rewards funky bowlers who might not take many wickets at test level. For batsmen 20/20 teaches a lot of bad habits. The worst habit of all is giving up on shield/test cricket when the going gets tough and focusing more on 20/20. Players deserve to make a living. So how do we get shield cricket back to where it should be? We need more day/night games and we need games on TV, make day time entry free for school kids, promote the game. Make sure the shield final is televised. Shield players need to be paid more and scheduling needs to ensure that it doesn't clash with tests and 20/20. So the 2nd half shield of the shield comp should start now, test players and fringe test players encouraged to play. Big bash should take a break. I am not saying it is easy, it is a crowded schedule, But how many primary school aged kids know about shield and want to play India doesn't have this problem, they have a larger talent pool and more young kids dreaming of a test career. The answer lies in the recent "bowling wickets" being curated. Lets face it, a Test that doesnt have constant wickets falling is boring. We did have the Sydney Test go for 5 days (with help of rain) and you can handle one maybe 2 in a series.... But these days, you really need wi kets falling regularly to keep the game and interest going. Thats what will save cricket. Zef mentioned (last year i think) about 100 or so overs but only 4 days. Good suggestion but would be made better with "bowling wickets" Let the batsmen sweat it out and ride their luck and fortune to a tonne. It should be a minefield for the batsmen not a minefield for the bowlers. I agree for shield cricket, that is one reason why I suggested pink ball The other reason is TV coverage and more chance of a crowd. I agree on 100 overs per day, night helps as it will be a bit cooler. We need a mix of conditions some wickets that are good to bat on also helps. Another idea is that teams get a maximum 120 overs to bat each innings, so they need to get on with it. Umps also call wides where the batsman doesn't get a fair chance to score and try to keep the game moving. I don't know if 20/20 fans are future test cricket fans. I hate the fact that 20/20 has 2 teams in some cities and players come and go. NI know state based would not be enough games, but the whole thing seems very fake and plastic to me. Perhaps I'm just an old foggy from a different era. All valid suggestions. The problem I think is with the exception of tests, 2 months in the heart of the season is handed over to T20. Even earlier the Marsh Cup and shield fixtures are intermingled. Not a schedule that promotes the development of red ball cricket
|
|
|
|
|
Mick O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/bulldogs-coach-trent-barrett-reveals-his-plans-for-2022/news-story/dc03ee226f3d7d58d3bcb5e950b515ff
A good read. Trent answers a few things.
Sounds obvious JMK is hooker for this year. TPJ looks to be on an edge and Wakeham might partner Burto in the halves.
I’m already having doubts about Baz. More than happy to give him the next two years but he sounds amateurish. I hope we are looking at an experienced coach if Baz fails. Because I hate to say it but I’m expected poor results.
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Give it 10 rounds. We will not be changing coach early in the season. Wakeham is a good half, we would need to shift Averillo, fullback is one option. Gus is on board and advising Baz.
|
|
|
|
|
Marki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+xGive it 10 rounds. We will not be changing coach early in the season. Wakeham is a good half, we would need to shift Averillo, fullback is one option. Gus is on board and advising Baz. Yeah i dont think any coaching changes will be considered for the first half of season, but that doesnt mean TBaz is off the hook. I'd really like us to have a 50% win-loss ratio come round 8 irrespective of our draw. My concern has always been that this team doesnt have the brains in key and influential positions (spine). Our best players in '22 seem to be our younger players and it will be difficult for the older players to take instruction from the younger ones. To be a successful team in the modern game, you need brains and confidence in the spine and the leadership group. At the moment, the brainiest guys in the team are Burton (who is new, young and doesnt have the authority as yet) and JAC who is experienced but a larrikin and on the wing. Until we get Mahoney to fill a void in the middle, we wont be as successful or able to adjust our gameplans or tactics on the day and that will ultimately cost us games. We will be relying solely on a gameplan devised during the week and at training. If you cant adjust in the middle of a game, you are effectively entering the game with no plan B (which is a Des tactic). Hopefully, with a bit of confidence, Wakeham or Averillo can throw caution to the wind and just "go for it" on occasion to give us some much needed spark
|
|
|
|
|
dman2018
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.7K,
Visits: 0
|
How many days until the Terrorcrap run a story saying Baz and Gus are at odds because Gus is overlaying his hand at training???...
|
|
|
|
|
BloodyNora
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
hounddog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
That kid sounds like a prospect. This season Baz has enough talent on board to have a fair shot. Since about 2016 we haven't had the players, in particular, our squad was lacking quality and experience. I expect more now that we have had a chance to recruit talent. However, I can see the first 10 rounds is the big challenge for us. I will be happy with a 50% win/loss ratio, provided that we are not blown away in too many games. Particularly rounds 1-5 a team stumbling to a bad loss can happen. It will take more than 1 bad loss for me to call for a new coach. More than anything, we need to make this rebuild work and we might need some patience.
|
|
|
|
|
BloodyNora
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x[quote]
That kid sounds like a prospect.
He's already played test football at age 17. The frustrating thing for him is he made the 9's team for his country as well (Lebanon), but got removed from the comp after only 1 match because the NRL rule is they all have to be over 18 for the 9's. It's only 16 for test football. Well done to him though.
|
|
|
|
|
Zef
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xEngland is having similar problems to us. The level below test cricket is diluted by ODI and 20/20. Most of the money is in 20/20, as is the TV ratings and possible product endorsements. A lot of the skills focus is on 20/20, it improves many bowlers who need good control. But it also rewards funky bowlers who might not take many wickets at test level. For batsmen 20/20 teaches a lot of bad habits. The worst habit of all is giving up on shield/test cricket when the going gets tough and focusing more on 20/20. Players deserve to make a living. So how do we get shield cricket back to where it should be? We need more day/night games and we need games on TV, make day time entry free for school kids, promote the game. Make sure the shield final is televised. Shield players need to be paid more and scheduling needs to ensure that it doesn't clash with tests and 20/20. So the 2nd half shield of the shield comp should start now, test players and fringe test players encouraged to play. Big bash should take a break. I am not saying it is easy, it is a crowded schedule, But how many primary school aged kids know about shield and want to play India doesn't have this problem, they have a larger talent pool and more young kids dreaming of a test career. Test cricket and indeed 4 day 1st class cricket is gonna have to adapt, because no matter what anyone says or wants - 20/20 is here to stay and grow. For Test cricket it’s a matter of fitting into schedules so that cricketers can aspire to and play Test cricket AND 20/20. And the thing to do that is four day Tests. As I’ve said before you can add an hour a day and get 105 overs and so you only lose 30 overs. But to tell the truth, I don’t even think that matters that much if you ENSURE the bastards knock out 90 overs minimum per day - make them do the overtime and fine the shit out them to ensure it. Some of the best Tests we’ve seen are lower scoring ones, so I’d like to see a worldwide agreement that 20/20 pitches are prepared for the batsman, Test pitches are prepared for bowlers… on Day One. And the way it’ll help the schedule is you can have Tests Thurs-Sun and a 3 Test series is done in three weeks, four if you want to give a rest between 2nd and 3rd Test. Ashes series done in six at most. It gives room and certainty for scheduling. And to give Test Cricket something it deserves, every four years their should be a Test WC. Top six ranked nations at the time should meet in a host country (which effectively would mean Top Five + Host). The host has to have five venues that can host matches concurrently, everyone plays each other once and the top two via points meet in the final. Hell of a summer of cricket for the host nation, hell of a six week period of non-stop Tests for TV, hell of a thing for cricketers to aspire too. I’ve just secured the future of Test cricket.
|
|
|
|
|
Mick O
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGive it 10 rounds. We will not be changing coach early in the season. Wakeham is a good half, we would need to shift Averillo, fullback is one option. Gus is on board and advising Baz. Yeah i dont think any coaching changes will be considered for the first half of season, but that doesnt mean TBaz is off the hook. I'd really like us to have a 50% win-loss ratio come round 8 irrespective of our draw. My concern has always been that this team doesnt have the brains in key and influential positions (spine). Our best players in '22 seem to be our younger players and it will be difficult for the older players to take instruction from the younger ones. To be a successful team in the modern game, you need brains and confidence in the spine and the leadership group. At the moment, the brainiest guys in the team are Burton (who is new, young and doesnt have the authority as yet) and JAC who is experienced but a larrikin and on the wing. Until we get Mahoney to fill a void in the middle, we wont be as successful or able to adjust our gameplans or tactics on the day and that will ultimately cost us games. We will be relying solely on a gameplan devised during the week and at training. If you cant adjust in the middle of a game, you are effectively entering the game with no plan B (which is a Des tactic). Hopefully, with a bit of confidence, Wakeham or Averillo can throw caution to the wind and just "go for it" on occasion to give us some much needed spark Having a fullback with enough confidence to yell at the forwards in defence is going to be the key. Dufty might be perfect but might not have the respect for players to listen.
I think points will not be a huge issue. We certainly will find the try line often. But defence will be hard. JMK is a decent defensive hooker but we need him to really step up and lead the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
Mooloolabadog
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xEngland is having similar problems to us. The level below test cricket is diluted by ODI and 20/20. Most of the money is in 20/20, as is the TV ratings and possible product endorsements. A lot of the skills focus is on 20/20, it improves many bowlers who need good control. But it also rewards funky bowlers who might not take many wickets at test level. For batsmen 20/20 teaches a lot of bad habits. The worst habit of all is giving up on shield/test cricket when the going gets tough and focusing more on 20/20. Players deserve to make a living. So how do we get shield cricket back to where it should be? We need more day/night games and we need games on TV, make day time entry free for school kids, promote the game. Make sure the shield final is televised. Shield players need to be paid more and scheduling needs to ensure that it doesn't clash with tests and 20/20. So the 2nd half shield of the shield comp should start now, test players and fringe test players encouraged to play. Big bash should take a break. I am not saying it is easy, it is a crowded schedule, But how many primary school aged kids know about shield and want to play India doesn't have this problem, they have a larger talent pool and more young kids dreaming of a test career. Test cricket and indeed 4 day 1st class cricket is gonna have to adapt, because no matter what anyone says or wants - 20/20 is here to stay and grow. For Test cricket it’s a matter of fitting into schedules so that cricketers can aspire to and play Test cricket AND 20/20. And the thing to do that is four day Tests. As I’ve said before you can add an hour a day and get 105 overs and so you only lose 30 overs. But to tell the truth, I don’t even think that matters that much if you ENSURE the bastards knock out 90 overs minimum per day - make them do the overtime and fine the shit out them to ensure it. Some of the best Tests we’ve seen are lower scoring ones, so I’d like to see a worldwide agreement that 20/20 pitches are prepared for the batsman, Test pitches are prepared for bowlers… on Day One. And the way it’ll help the schedule is you can have Tests Thurs-Sun and a 3 Test series is done in three weeks, four if you want to give a rest between 2nd and 3rd Test. Ashes series done in six at most. It gives room and certainty for scheduling. And to give Test Cricket something it deserves, every four years their should be a Test WC. Top six ranked nations at the time should meet in a host country (which effectively would mean Top Five + Host). The host has to have five venues that can host matches concurrently, everyone plays each other once and the top two via points meet in the final. Hell of a summer of cricket for the host nation, hell of a six week period of non-stop Tests for TV, hell of a thing for cricketers to aspire too. I’ve just secured the future of Test cricket. Fines have proven to be a waste of time. Captain stand downs, scoreboard penalties or Fielding restrictions are the way to go
|
|
|
|
|
Marki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xGive it 10 rounds. We will not be changing coach early in the season. Wakeham is a good half, we would need to shift Averillo, fullback is one option. Gus is on board and advising Baz. Yeah i dont think any coaching changes will be considered for the first half of season, but that doesnt mean TBaz is off the hook. I'd really like us to have a 50% win-loss ratio come round 8 irrespective of our draw. My concern has always been that this team doesnt have the brains in key and influential positions (spine). Our best players in '22 seem to be our younger players and it will be difficult for the older players to take instruction from the younger ones. To be a successful team in the modern game, you need brains and confidence in the spine and the leadership group. At the moment, the brainiest guys in the team are Burton (who is new, young and doesnt have the authority as yet) and JAC who is experienced but a larrikin and on the wing. Until we get Mahoney to fill a void in the middle, we wont be as successful or able to adjust our gameplans or tactics on the day and that will ultimately cost us games. We will be relying solely on a gameplan devised during the week and at training. If you cant adjust in the middle of a game, you are effectively entering the game with no plan B (which is a Des tactic). Hopefully, with a bit of confidence, Wakeham or Averillo can throw caution to the wind and just "go for it" on occasion to give us some much needed spark Having a fullback with enough confidence to yell at the forwards in defence is going to be the key. Dufty might be perfect but might not have the respect for players to listen.
I think points will not be a huge issue. We certainly will find the try line often. But defence will be hard. JMK is a decent defensive hooker but we need him to really step up and lead the middle. After watching our attacking inabilities inside the opposition 20m for the last 7 or so years, i wouldn't bank on our attack being alright, but it will definitely be better as we should have more ability to convert a spilt ball or an intercept into a try. My concern is inside the 20m you need a hooker that can play whats in front of him and not be a robot like JMK and Lichaa before him. You also need players in motion to make the defence second guess. All i need is 2 games (including trials) and i will know if we have improved in this realm. Unfortunately, i suspect not. Or not enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Marki
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xEngland is having similar problems to us. The level below test cricket is diluted by ODI and 20/20. Most of the money is in 20/20, as is the TV ratings and possible product endorsements. A lot of the skills focus is on 20/20, it improves many bowlers who need good control. But it also rewards funky bowlers who might not take many wickets at test level. For batsmen 20/20 teaches a lot of bad habits. The worst habit of all is giving up on shield/test cricket when the going gets tough and focusing more on 20/20. Players deserve to make a living. So how do we get shield cricket back to where it should be? We need more day/night games and we need games on TV, make day time entry free for school kids, promote the game. Make sure the shield final is televised. Shield players need to be paid more and scheduling needs to ensure that it doesn't clash with tests and 20/20. So the 2nd half shield of the shield comp should start now, test players and fringe test players encouraged to play. Big bash should take a break. I am not saying it is easy, it is a crowded schedule, But how many primary school aged kids know about shield and want to play India doesn't have this problem, they have a larger talent pool and more young kids dreaming of a test career. Test cricket and indeed 4 day 1st class cricket is gonna have to adapt, because no matter what anyone says or wants - 20/20 is here to stay and grow. For Test cricket it’s a matter of fitting into schedules so that cricketers can aspire to and play Test cricket AND 20/20. And the thing to do that is four day Tests. As I’ve said before you can add an hour a day and get 105 overs and so you only lose 30 overs. But to tell the truth, I don’t even think that matters that much if you ENSURE the bastards knock out 90 overs minimum per day - make them do the overtime and fine the shit out them to ensure it. Some of the best Tests we’ve seen are lower scoring ones, so I’d like to see a worldwide agreement that 20/20 pitches are prepared for the batsman, Test pitches are prepared for bowlers… on Day One. And the way it’ll help the schedule is you can have Tests Thurs-Sun and a 3 Test series is done in three weeks, four if you want to give a rest between 2nd and 3rd Test. Ashes series done in six at most. It gives room and certainty for scheduling. And to give Test Cricket something it deserves, every four years their should be a Test WC. Top six ranked nations at the time should meet in a host country (which effectively would mean Top Five + Host). The host has to have five venues that can host matches concurrently, everyone plays each other once and the top two via points meet in the final. Hell of a summer of cricket for the host nation, hell of a six week period of non-stop Tests for TV, hell of a thing for cricketers to aspire too. I’ve just secured the future of Test cricket. No arguments from me. Except it can get pretty boring real quick if it is very lopsided.... except Ashes which is fun and interesting no matter what form the teams have. But i remember afew years ago when WI toured and without their top players (who were in IPL or other 20-20) the series was garbage and embarassing. May need to introduce an echelon system with top 4 group playing and next 4 playing themselves.
|
|
|
|