Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 08-04-2019, 03:55 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Provided it’s Rod, I’m fine with that.
Iron Gloves- hell no!
  #252  
Old 08-04-2019, 06:24 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Quick query- should Smith get to score a century would he be the first Australian right handed batsman after Steve Waugh?
  #253  
Old 08-04-2019, 06:25 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,102
Lead now 100.

England seems to be pinning it’s hopes on a ball change.
Broad only has one more spell in him today. Not sure why Woakes has not had more of the ball.
Denny looks a reasonable part-timer and seems much more potent than Moeen.
  #254  
Old 08-04-2019, 06:38 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Quick query- should Smith get to score a century would he be the first Australian right handed batsman after Steve Waugh?
??? What?
Steve Waugh scored his last century in 2003.
Centuries by RH batsmen since then include
Love,
Ponting
Martyn
Hodge
Gillespie
Clarke
Symonds
Haddin
Watson
Smith
Voges
Burns
Handscombe
Maxwell
  #255  
Old 08-04-2019, 06:44 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,102
And if you are talking century in both innings then Ponting has three since Waugh
  #256  
Old 08-04-2019, 08:56 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,102
Lead now 200

Target now to bat out the day, that’s a further 45 overs.
Can’t see any option to make a declaration today.
  #257  
Old 08-04-2019, 09:47 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
HE'S OUT!

Honestly, this whole series is going to be about the different ways in which England fail to get Smith out.
  #258  
Old 08-05-2019, 05:49 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
??? What?
Steve Waugh scored his last century in 2003.
Centuries by RH batsmen since then include
Love,
Ponting
Martyn
Hodge
Gillespie
Clarke
Symonds
Haddin
Watson
Smith
Voges
Burns
Handscombe
Maxwell
I was talking of centuries in both innings in an Ashes series. I had forgotten Hadyn (left hander of course). Thank you for your input.

Last edited by Cicero; 08-05-2019 at 05:52 PM.
  #259  
Old 08-05-2019, 06:18 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Three quick points- the media seems to be making a lot of Denly wasting a review. In the end it made no difference at all so I have no idea why it is being hammered- apart from having something to report.

Siddle was unlucky not to have a wicket he bowled very well (I wouldn't have had him in the side which undoubtedly helped his performance).

Finally, re Jimmy Anderson I see runners aren't allowed any longer. Can anyone assist in why this change was made and the reasoning? I hadn't heard of it.
  #260  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:39 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Three quick points- the media seems to be making a lot of Denly wasting a review. In the end it made no difference at all so I have no idea why it is being hammered- apart from having something to report.
Contrast what he did with Pattinson's LBW in the first innings. Patto got fired with a delivery which would barely have hit a 3rd leg stump, but he wore it and walked because Smith potentially needed a review more. The fact it turned out that the Poms couldn't hit Smith on the pads in the next 40 overs and 150 runs is immaterial.

Witness the number of LBW reviews Root made successfully because he know he'd edged it onto his pads. Denly new full well he'd hit it, and that the catch was taken cleanly. He was hoping for a "no ball call". That's Watto level of self absorption.

Quote:
Siddle was unlucky not to have a wicket he bowled very well (I wouldn't have had him in the side which undoubtedly helped his performance).
You gotta love the guys who put in 100%.

Quote:
Finally, re Jimmy Anderson I see runners aren't allowed any longer. Can anyone assist in why this change was made and the reasoning? I hadn't heard of it.
Disallowed in 2011 based on umpires referees determining if an injury had occurred, and even what constitutes and injury.
The convention was the injury had to to be suffered on the field, during the match. If the injury was preexisting then no runner was allowed when batting.
Players had been claiming a runner when suffering cramp or other instances of unfitness rather than physical injury. Arjuna Ranatunga whom the Aussies vehemently hated would call for a runner anytime he batted for more that 30 minutes. Hence the Healy sledge: “You don’t get a runner for being overweight, unfit fat c**t!”
  #261  
Old 08-05-2019, 09:51 PM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,280
Same old Aussies - always winning.

Can someone who followed more of the last two days than I did explain how the Aussie bowlers were suddenly able to get so much more from the pitch than England? Apart from Lyon of course, clearly we don't have a spinner in his class. If Ali isn't dropped for the next Test the selectors should be fired. Likewise Bairstow, sorry to say it seems I was wrong about him (no surprises there, of course).
  #262  
Old 08-06-2019, 12:38 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post


Disallowed in 2011 based on umpires referees determining if an injury had occurred, and even what constitutes and injury.
The convention was the injury had to to be suffered on the field, during the match. If the injury was preexisting then no runner was allowed when batting.
Players had been claiming a runner when suffering cramp or other instances of unfitness rather than physical injury. Arjuna Ranatunga whom the Aussies vehemently hated would call for a runner anytime he batted for more that 30 minutes. Hence the Healy sledge: “You don’t get a runner for being overweight, unfit fat c**t!”
Healy also suggested putting a Mars bar on the pitch to get him to move. Only 8 years= I'm really on top of it.
  #263  
Old 08-06-2019, 05:08 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Four years ago the ECB decided they'd focus relentlessly on winning the World Cup, even if it meant putting Tests on the backburner. It worked, and England tied won in dramatic fashion. Hooray!

Now, we can see the price. We don't know who the best team is, players are struggling to revive Test match skills that haven't been practised, we put so much reliance on Anderson that we broke him, we don't have a plan B other than to take an excellent white-ball cricketer and discover in real time what happens when he bowls 20 overs on Thursday and 20 more on Saturday.

This seems like poor management, but it's not really. It's just the cost of doing business.
  #264  
Old 08-06-2019, 05:16 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
... explain how the Aussie bowlers were suddenly able to get so much more from the pitch than England?
The pitch became progressively more two paced.
Burns copped a brute of a ball. Lyon bowled several shooters but got wickets with extra bounce.

You also need to factor in fatigue. The loss of Anderson and Ali being ineffective then the guy most likely to get bounce (Broad) was over bowled. Root seems to have an issue with Woakes and Stokes was hot and cold.

Much easier to bend your back and extract whatever assistance there is from the pitch when you are chasing a win rather than trying to bowl a team out for under 500.
  #265  
Old 08-06-2019, 05:44 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
... we put so much reliance on Anderson that we broke him, we don't have a plan B other than to take an excellent white-ball cricketer and discover in real time what happens when he bowls 20 overs on Thursday and 20 more on Saturday.
But ENG had AUS 8-122 with Anderson only able to bowl four overs.
Plan B couldn’t have been expected to work much better, surely?
  #266  
Old 08-06-2019, 05:48 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,280
Excellent analysis as usual, thanks. It's just frustrating to see (as far as the scorecard tells it) only one or two batsmen showing belief that they can play the sort of substantial innings required. To not even get close to making it is hard to forgive, looks like a complete lack of mental toughness.

I heard Michael Vaughan (who I find to be a consistently good contributor, knowledgeable and forthright) say on day 3 or 4 that 150 would be a tricky chase and he was absolutely right.

I also need to give you credit for this comment:

Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
If Aust consistently post first innings 300 totals, which I rank as the benchmark, it will be because the lesser knowns Bancroft, Head, Wade who make the runs.
Let's move on - would anyone care to disagree with this selection for Lord's, or comment on the likelihood of it actually happening?

Burns
Roy
Root
Denly
Stokes
Buttler
Foakes
Woakes
Leach
Archer
Broad

I want to find a place for Curran but I think the only way to do that is to leave out Foakes (with Buttler keeping) and I don't think that's a net benefit overall.

ETA: I am of course assuming Archer is fit and Anderson is not, both of which may not in fact be the case. If neither is fit I think I'd have Curran over Wood. If both are, Anderson over Archer. And I'd want the physio to be at least 90% confident about Anderson being able to bowl throughout.

Last edited by Dead Cat; 08-06-2019 at 05:50 AM.
  #267  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:27 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,753
Ali is worth his place in the side for his bowling. His batting has been poor, and i'd probably like to see Woakes coming in ahead of him, but he's still our best spinner.

Bairstow is still not showing why he's being picked ahead of Foakes.
  #268  
Old 08-06-2019, 06:58 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
But ENG had AUS 8-122 with Anderson only able to bowl four overs.
Plan B couldn’t have been expected to work much better, surely?
Regression to the mean is a terrible thing, and 122/8 is the point where it kicked in. None of these guys is inept. Broad and Woakes are Test bowlers and they took Test wickets. But a 2-seamer attack isn't going to get to 122/8 very often. And in the second innings, when wickets weren't falling for Woakes and Broad, Stokes and Ali couldn't provide reliable back up. 122/8 is as good as it could get, and the decline from that to 284 and 487/7 was the mean restablishing itself over the variance.
  #269  
Old 08-06-2019, 07:12 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
Let's move on - would anyone care to disagree with this selection for Lord's, or comment on the likelihood of it actually happening?

Burns
Roy
Root
Denly
Stokes
Buttler
Foakes
Woakes
Leach
Archer
Broad

I want to find a place for Curran but I think the only way to do that is to leave out Foakes (with Buttler keeping) and I don't think that's a net benefit overall.

ETA: I am of course assuming Archer is fit and Anderson is not, both of which may not in fact be the case. If neither is fit I think I'd have Curran over Wood. If both are, Anderson over Archer. And I'd want the physio to be at least 90% confident about Anderson being able to bowl throughout.
Anderson is out, probably for the series. If we're lucky, he can come back and perform heroics in a dead rubber.

I'd probably have much the same team. I'd consider Malan for Denly - he's been scoring first-class runs this summer, he's got Test experience at No. 4, and Denly was there to be No 3 so the rationale for keeping him at 4 is slim.

I'd quite like to put Stone in as well (Wood's out for the season), in what is admittedly a dice roll - I'd just like to see what two ends of pace from him and Archer could do. But I can't quite see who I'd drop for him - we need all the batters we can muster.

Teuton - I agree that Ali on paper is good enough to be in for his bowling, but he's very much a confidence player and you have to think that his confidence will be pretty low right now.
  #270  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:07 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,280
Exactly, I stood corrected on Ali's bowling but I think his batting woes are affecting his bowling confidence. His biggest threat to the batsmen this Test seems to have been beamers at the head, I haven't checked but I suspect he averaged one poor (i.e. boundary) ball an over without looking like getting many wickets. Leach should be given his chance. It's not pressing the panic button, it's making changes before it's too late to affect the series result.

I wouldn't be unhappy to see Malan come in for Denly but I think the former deserves a bit more of a crack.
  #271  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:08 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,430
I've got to say, that was a fairly satisfying win, especially after the first two days of play, when England were looking pretty decent. The Aussie bowling attack, especially Lyon, was outstanding on the last day, but that was also a pretty bad capitulation by England.

What the hell was Roy doing? They need to bat out the day on a turning pitch, and he plays a shot straight out of the last overs of a one-day game. He got nowhere near the ball.

I thought Siddle bowled better than his figures suggested on the last day. He was unlucky not to get at least a couple of wickets. He had an edge beat the keeper early in the day, and near the end Steve Smith dropped one that he would normally catch at second slip.

Speaking of Smith, he was incredible. As an Aussie, I was really fucking pissed about the cheating in South Africa, and if they had banned Smith and the others for even longer, I would have been fine with that. But he really is fantastic to watch, and all cricket fans are, in some senses, better off when he's playing. I completely understand why the Pommy crowds boo him, though; I'd be doing the same thing if I were them.

My best friend, an Aussie, was in England on vacation last week, and he attended the first two days at Edgbaston. He was about the only Aussie in his section of the crowd, and he spent most of those two days copping a friendly earful from the English supporters, first as the Aussie wickets fell, and then as England passed the Australian first innings total. He wrote on Facebook that he wished he had been able to stay for the whole test match and throw it back in their faces on the fifth day.
  #272  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:30 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Roy was "playing his natural game". The idea is that you can take a destructive ODI/T20 player and turn them into destructive Test players with minimal modification. It's an idea that has some merit - skill at hitting a ball with the bat should translate from one format to the other - but falls down badly on the shifting risk/reward ratios in the different games. I get what Roy was trying to do - if he could have hit Lyon out of the attack with a few overs of destructive T20-influenced batting, it might have shifted the tactical advantage in England's favour. But given the lead, Lyon could afford to lose any number of runs, as long as Roy missed one in the end. As it happened, he missed the first one, but even if he'd missed the 20th, it would have worked out fine for Australia.

It was great(ish) to see Smith bat like that. I felt much the same about Amir, having seen him at Lords against Australia*. Such an exciting talent that, however you feel about the punishment, it's good to see him action.



*Ponting in 2010 form facing this skinny 18 year old, and Pakistan have the cheek to put 6 men round the bat and it's totally justified because he has the ball going round corners and Ponting is basically guessing about where to put his bat. Genuinely amazing to watch.
  #273  
Old 08-06-2019, 08:55 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Roy was "playing his natural game". The idea is that you can take a destructive ODI/T20 player and turn them into destructive Test players with minimal modification. It's an idea that has some merit - skill at hitting a ball with the bat should translate from one format to the other - but falls down badly on the shifting risk/reward ratios in the different games.
Not only that, but it's very rare that a batsman in a one-day game is facing a spinner on a fifth-day pitch with cracks and bowlers' follow-through footmarks to deal with. You just have to change your batting technique under those circumstances.

Because I live in the US, and don't follow cricket anywhere near as closely as I used to do when I lived in Australia, I'm not as familiar with the England team as I would have been twenty years ago, when I knew every player and could offer a decent analysis of what changes they might need to make for the second test. Still, based on watching this test, I found this analysis interesting.

His central argument appears to be that this loss can't really be blamed on poor player selection, or on poor performances by the English players. Rather, he argues that English cricket has basically ignored the "red-ball game" in favor of "white-ball talents," and as a result they just don't have enough players who are good enough to really compete at the international test level. I'd be curious to hear what England fans, and other cricket fans who watch more cricket than I do, think about this argument.
  #274  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:00 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,280
I think a big factor in this particular loss was Anderson's injury, and I don't think anyone is really to blame for that, shit happens. Some players could have performed better and I'm not convinced about Root's captaincy (he got the job as the only realistic option and that's pretty much still the case, ideally someone else would be captain and this would allow Root to focus solely on his batting - it's been suggested before, but it's not totally wacko to bring in Morgan as captain). But overall I think that's a fair argument - see post #263 in this thread.
  #275  
Old 08-06-2019, 09:07 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
But overall I think that's a fair argument - see post #263 in this thread.
Oops! Somehow I missed that post.
  #276  
Old 08-07-2019, 06:20 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Oops! Somehow I missed that post.
In fairness, that post may have been triggered by seeing the article you linked! But it's been on the cards for a while - not just in the lacklustre performances but in the increasing difficulty of answering the question, "Yes, but if you drop X, who would replace him?". Development of Test players clearly hasn't been a priority for the ECB for a while, and now that chicken is coming home to get slaughtered.

I have some sympathy with the commercial arguments that, if you want to even half-fill a stadium in summer, a T20 or day/night ODI will sell a lot more tickets than the third day of a four-day FC match will. People like to see a match from beginning to end; especially non-afficionados, who do have to be brought in to the game. But the result of that plus the charge for the World Cup has been to push long-from cricket to the fringes. Add in the international financial incentives for players deciding what kind of cricketer they want to be and Test cricket is very much trying to ice-skate uphill. This is of course not a problem specific to English cricket, but it's definitely being thrown into sharp relief right now.
  #277  
Old 08-07-2019, 08:33 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
I'd quite like to put Stone in as well (Wood's out for the season), in what is admittedly a dice roll - I'd just like to see what two ends of pace from him and Archer could do.
Nope.

Quote:
Olly Stone will miss the second Ashes Test after being ruled out for at least a fortnight with a back injury. The England pace bowler, who was injured in training on Tuesday, joins fellow pacemen Jimmy Anderson and Mark Wood in being unavailable for next Wednesday’s Lord’s Test.
Don't be a fast bowler kids, it'll break you.
  #278  
Old 08-07-2019, 09:20 AM
GreedySmurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
Speaking of Smith, he was incredible. As an Aussie, I was really fucking pissed about the cheating in South Africa, and if they had banned Smith and the others for even longer, I would have been fine with that. But he really is fantastic to watch, and all cricket fans are, in some senses, better off when he's playing. I completely understand why the Pommy crowds boo him, though; I'd be doing the same thing if I were them.
Couldn’t disagree more. Smith, Warner and Bancroft got on the wrong side of an Australian, “won’t someone think of the children” witch hunt. They were set for ICC mandated 1 match ban until the ACB got their knickers in a knot. I find the English fans particularly hypocritical given the revelations of numerous English bowlers admitting to using foreign substances on the ball, and Broad and Anderson luckily escaping censure for roughing up the ball with their spikes. Even then, what really blew my top was at the conclusion of Smiths 1st innings knock, one of the finest displays of tenacious batting I’ve seen in recent years, and he was still booed by no small amount of ‘fans’.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
My best friend, an Aussie, was in England on vacation last week, and he attended the first two days at Edgbaston. He was about the only Aussie in his section of the crowd, and he spent most of those two days copping a friendly earful from the English supporters, first as the Aussie wickets fell, and then as England passed the Australian first innings total. He wrote on Facebook that he wished he had been able to stay for the whole test match and throw it back in their faces on the fifth day.
As an Aussie working in London, I was copping an absolute hammering on Thursday and Friday. Coming in to work on Monday, not a peep. I wasn’t even nasty about, I didn’t rub anyone’s noses in it (much)
  #279  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:24 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
As an Aussie working in London, I was copping an absolute hammering on Thursday and Friday. Coming in to work on Monday, not a peep. I wasn’t even nasty about, I didn’t rub anyone’s noses in it (much)
Schoolboy error by your colleagues there. Having worked with Australians, Saffers, Kiwis, Pakistanis and Indians in various different jobs, I have learned the hard way to keep my mouth shut until at least tea on Day 4*. Anything else is just a hostage to fortune.

*And even then I'm conscious of the enormous gamble I'm taking.
  #280  
Old 08-07-2019, 10:12 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreedySmurf View Post
They were set for ICC mandated 1 match ban until the ACB got their knickers in a knot.
And the one match ban was precisely where the ACB had their knickers aligned.

Until virtually every sponsor ACB sponsor told them that if the ACB didn’t come down like a tonne of bricks they would take their cash and walk. Several majors did.


Prime Minister Turnbull was on the blower to that singular grease ball (ACB Chairman) David Peever.
The Australian Sports Commission expressed outrage and threatened to withdraw funding support from the sport at junior and club levels.

It was quite simply an existential threat to the ACB.

Then magically CEO James Sutherland is on a plane to South Africa, the ACB having just the previous day sent “High Performance Manager” Pat Howard on instructions to hold an enquiry to hose the situation down.
The ACB’s tin ear thinking initially that the affair was a tempest in a tea cup because everybody else has been rumbled doing it, and not so ineptly.

Their action has cost 10s of millions in lost revenue in the current sponsorship cycle and likely more in future cycles.
Financial support of junior and club cricket has been cut, and will need to be cut more in future years if broadcasters decide to play hardball.
It costs more for kids to play the game. I’m remain intractably ropeable about it.

Last edited by penultima thule; 08-07-2019 at 10:16 PM.
  #281  
Old 08-08-2019, 07:51 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreedySmurf View Post
Couldn’t disagree more. Smith, Warner and Bancroft got on the wrong side of an Australian, “won’t someone think of the children” witch hunt. They were set for ICC mandated 1 match ban until the ACB got their knickers in a knot.
As I said back when this story first broke, this wasn't some frustrated bowler who made a bad but understandable snap decision to cheat after being hammered for a few boundaries. It was some of the senior members of the team getting together in the locker room and conspiring together about the best way to cheat without getting caught.

What you call a "think of the children" witch hunt, I call an appropriately stern response to a serious issue. I happened to make a visit home to Australia in June and July last year, a few months after the suspensions were handed down, and I don't think I encountered a single Aussie cricket fan who disagreed with the length of the bans. That includes the friend I spoke about in my previous post, who is a cricket fanatic who can name every Australian Ashes touring team, in batting order, going back to the 1930s. It includes my mother, who records and watched every ball of the Ashes tour. It includes friends and relatives, some of whom don't really care about cricket at all, and some of whom love it. And it includes strangers I spoke to in pubs and coffee shops.

If it took pressure from sponsors and the public and politicians to get the ACB to do the right thing, then I'm glad they applied that pressure. None of it was done lightly. Smith is one of the greatest batsmen of all time, and the fact that so many cricket-mad and victory-obsessed Aussies supported the ban says something about how seriously it was taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreedySmurf View Post
I find the English fans particularly hypocritical given the revelations of numerous English bowlers admitting to using foreign substances on the ball, and Broad and Anderson luckily escaping censure for roughing up the ball with their spikes.
You might be right, but how other teams and their fans behave is not really my concern here. I want MY national team to win fair and square, and I want anyone on my team who cheats to be appropriately punished.

As I said earlier, because I live in the US I don't follow cricket as closely as I used to. If you're right about the English bowlers, and about Broad and Anderson—and I have no reason to doubt you—then my main response is that they should receive similar punishment, not that the Aussies should have given our guys a slap on the wrist.
  #282  
Old 08-08-2019, 04:28 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,771
It was Kane Williamson's birthday yesterday.

So the crowd brought him a cake.
  #283  
Old 08-09-2019, 10:22 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
England's squad named:

Joe Root, Jofra Archer, Jonny Bairstow, Stuart Broad, Rory Burns, Jos Buttler, Sam Curran, Joe Denly, Jack Leach, Jason Roy, Ben Stokes, Chris Woakes.

No Foakes, no Malan, but Leach in for Ali and Archer for Anderson. I wonder who Sam Curran thinks he's got a shot at replacing?

Also, I believe that seven players with the same first initial is the record. If we've lost the series by the Oval I think the selectors should go for the clean sweep.

Last edited by Stanislaus; 08-09-2019 at 10:25 AM.
  #284  
Old 08-09-2019, 10:23 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisiate View Post
It was Kane Williamson's birthday yesterday.

So the crowd brought him a cake.
That's a lovely little moment.
  #285  
Old 08-09-2019, 11:32 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,280
Can someone tell me if there is much to choose between Bairstow and Buttler behind the stumps? Because if it's marginal, I'd bring in Curran for Bairstow, which strengthens the bowling (and, on recent form, the batting too).
  #286  
Old 08-09-2019, 06:51 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,102
In modern parlance , the question is is Bairstow’s keeping sufficient to justify what is considered superior batting?
I though his keeping in 1st Test was sub par. He’s adequate standing back but doesn’t have the hand speed or footwork over the stumps. He’s not of Test standard with the gloves in the hardest keeping task. There was one instance were he gave away 4 byes after being nutmegged. He missed two routine stumping.
Now I thought Paine was sub par with his glove work too, so that might indicate the variable bounce might have taken the Mickey out of any keeper.

#1 son is a keeper in the lower grades with his club.
I told him this standing back keeping to Test standard pace bowlers on Test standard pitches is a doodle compared to what he has to handle.
Sure the 130-140 pace is hot but they can stand back 30m, it comes through waist height with even bounce and consistent off/outside off line. Why wouldn’t you be expected to glove them clean?
He has to stand 5m back to 110-120 pace because the pitches are so dead and it won’t carry any further. Some overs have 3-4 shooters way down leg side and they bounce off the pot holes and ditches in the field. He comes in after 40 overs and he’s green all over from grass stains.
  #287  
Old 08-14-2019, 04:10 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreedySmurf View Post
Couldn’t disagree more. Smith, Warner and Bancroft got on the wrong side of an Australian, “won’t someone think of the children” witch hunt. They were set for ICC mandated 1 match ban until the ACB got their knickers in a knot. I find the English fans particularly hypocritical given the revelations of numerous English bowlers admitting to using foreign substances on the ball, and Broad and Anderson luckily escaping censure for roughing up the ball with their spikes. Even then, what really blew my top was at the conclusion of Smiths 1st innings knock, one of the finest displays of tenacious batting I’ve seen in recent years, and he was still booed by no small amount of ‘fans’.





As an Aussie working in London, I was copping an absolute hammering on Thursday and Friday. Coming in to work on Monday, not a peep. I wasn’t even nasty about, I didn’t rub anyone’s noses in it (much)
I am with you. Players biting cricket balls, rubbing lollies on them and then you get this from the Australian players- which I totally disagree with and abhor- produce sandpaper and rub the ball and get rubbed out for 12 months when others are called poohs or such and glossed over. The whole episode was hypocritical and now we get to hear now sponsors threatened to refuse provide funding- where were these sponsors from the other countries when the transgressions happened? Oh, only Australian sponsors have a moral compass? Horse shit. What about the sponsors when Mark Waugh and Warne were providing info to Indian bookies or Warne taking a banned substance? It was a total panic response and not consistent with other countries.
  #288  
Old 08-14-2019, 04:13 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Anyway, the Lords Test and it is likely it will be ruined by rain. I can't fathom how Australia can exclude Starc when his Test bowling average is around 28 and a strike rate of around 50. Plus I don'y like how Australian batting revolves around one player who can always have an off game.
  #289  
Old 08-14-2019, 04:23 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Anyway, the Lords Test and it is likely it will be ruined by rain.

Pet peeve time: seriously, if today's going to be a write-off, why not just tack a day on and make tomorrow Day One? Unless Lord's is already booked (haven't checked) what's to be lost here? Sure, it'll mess up broadcasters schedules but just because there might be difficulty broadcasting the game doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't play the game. A little bit of flexibility from all sides and we could achieve the sporting contest we all ostensibly want.

(Edit - have checked now, and in fact Monday is the MCC vs MCC match. So, in this instance, there's nothing to be done. But in general, I'm sticking with my point. Also, always check first.)

Last edited by Stanislaus; 08-14-2019 at 04:25 AM.
  #290  
Old 08-14-2019, 04:41 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Pet peeve time: seriously, if today's going to be a write-off, why not just tack a day on and make tomorrow Day One? Unless Lord's is already booked (haven't checked) what's to be lost here? Sure, it'll mess up broadcasters schedules but just because there might be difficulty broadcasting the game doesn't necessarily mean that you shouldn't play the game. A little bit of flexibility from all sides and we could achieve the sporting contest we all ostensibly want.

(Edit - have checked now, and in fact Monday is the MCC vs MCC match. So, in this instance, there's nothing to be done. But in general, I'm sticking with my point. Also, always check first.)
Also I believe rain is predicted for most days. Going back some years a friend applied for a first day ticket at Lords and it had to be in writing- as in a letter- not a fax so it would create logistical problems for those and probably tour groups as well.
  #291  
Old 08-14-2019, 06:10 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,753
New Zealand in a bit of trouble at Galle, although they have now also gone off for rain. They are 203/5, with Ross Taylor struggling to find someone to stay with him.
  #292  
Old 08-14-2019, 07:51 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Also I believe rain is predicted for most days. Going back some years a friend applied for a first day ticket at Lords and it had to be in writing- as in a letter- not a fax so it would create logistical problems for those and probably tour groups as well.
Well - no rain tomorrow, some on Fri, none on Sat and showers on Sun. But sure, if it's rained off, it's rained off.

As for tickets: you can now buy Lord's tickets online! But sure, it would be difficult or impossible to make tickets transferable. That's no loss compared to the current situation. The point is, we've planned a 5-day game so we should try to have a 5-day game. The idea of reserve days is perfectly feasible, more so if you plan for it in advance.

Let's say there was a reserve day on Monday, and the powers-that-be decided to use it. Everyone with tickets for Thurs, Fri and Sat would turn up as usual. Tickets for Sun (Day 5 originally) would now go on sale. Day One holders have first refusal to swap at no cost for Sunday's tickets or any other unsold ones. Monday would be a normal Day 5, tickets on the day. The broadcasters might have to scramble a bit (but again, knowing a reserve day was a possibility, they'd have contingency plans), but a full Test match would be played and we'd avoid a washout draw.

Last edited by Stanislaus; 08-14-2019 at 07:51 AM.
  #293  
Old 08-14-2019, 08:45 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,430
Completely agree. If they can put numbers on the players' backs, and institute video review of umpires' calls, they should also be be able to make contingency plans that allow the game to be played in the event of some inclement weather.
  #294  
Old 08-14-2019, 09:27 AM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,430
While you're waiting for the covers to come off, enjoy the highlights of Sachin Tendulkar's first test-match century, which happened 29 years ago today. He was 17 years old.

(I've started the link 28 seconds in, to avoid a crappy musical intro.)
  #295  
Old 08-15-2019, 04:41 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Well - no rain tomorrow, some on Fri, none on Sat and showers on Sun. But sure, if it's rained off, it's rained off.

As for tickets: you can now buy Lord's tickets online! But sure, it would be difficult or impossible to make tickets transferable. That's no loss compared to the current situation. The point is, we've planned a 5-day game so we should try to have a 5-day game. The idea of reserve days is perfectly feasible, more so if you plan for it in advance.

Let's say there was a reserve day on Monday, and the powers-that-be decided to use it. Everyone with tickets for Thurs, Fri and Sat would turn up as usual. Tickets for Sun (Day 5 originally) would now go on sale. Day One holders have first refusal to swap at no cost for Sunday's tickets or any other unsold ones. Monday would be a normal Day 5, tickets on the day. The broadcasters might have to scramble a bit (but again, knowing a reserve day was a possibility, they'd have contingency plans), but a full Test match would be played and we'd avoid a washout draw.
Oh I agree and it was quite a while ago I was talking about- Steve Waugh was still playing. I guess the guys selling pies may not be happy about how many sales they could make on the final day of a rain affected Test.

In Australia about 40 years ago there was a rained out Test and they simply played another Test. Guess the schedule is so busy now that isn't possible.
  #296  
Old 08-15-2019, 04:59 PM
Wallaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Melbourne, Far South
Posts: 876
The issue with rain and washouts in cricket, is that it they have always been a part of the culture of the game. Because cricket has the draw - because you run out of time to finish the game - there has always been the narrative of one team 'hurrying to beat the weather' and the other side 'hanging on grimly and praying for rain'. Entire 5-test series have been played where one side got lucky in one test and the other 4 get washed out. Sure, it's not fair, and extremely frustrating if your team is on the wrong end of it, but it's part of the game's fabric.

But, then I guess 'bad light' was also a similar factor, and now we are using floodlights regularly, so it's possible things may change.
  #297  
Old 08-15-2019, 05:03 PM
Wallaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Melbourne, Far South
Posts: 876
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
In Australia about 40 years ago there was a rained out Test and they simply played another Test. Guess the schedule is so busy now that isn't possible.
Interestingly, at the washed-out match (Melbourne 1970/71), the weather cleared up a bit by about Day 4, and so they hastily scheduled what is recognised as the first-ever One Day International.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...tralia-1970-71
  #298  
Old 08-15-2019, 06:51 PM
mhendo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallaby View Post
The issue with rain and washouts in cricket, is that it they have always been a part of the culture of the game. Because cricket has the draw - because you run out of time to finish the game - there has always been the narrative of one team 'hurrying to beat the weather' and the other side 'hanging on grimly and praying for rain'. Entire 5-test series have been played where one side got lucky in one test and the other 4 get washed out. Sure, it's not fair, and extremely frustrating if your team is on the wrong end of it, but it's part of the game's fabric.
I understand that it's part of the tradition of the game, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed, or that it wouldn't be in everyone's interests, especially the fans', to change it. As you've already pointed out, they've made adjustments for bad light. They've also gone with things like the third umpire, decision review, the snick meter, and numbers on the players' backs. Cricket is big business now. The players get paid a lot of money, and fans often spend not just hundreds of dollars on game tickets but, in the case of something like an Ashes tour, thousands of dollars in airfares and hotel rooms to make a once-in-a-lifetime trip.

I'm not arguing that they need to create domed stadiums, or make up for every single minute of play lost to rain. There would still be room for weather to affect the outcome of games. If you get a one-hour rainstorm, on the afternoon of Day 3, or if rain delays the start of Day five by two hours, then maybe that's just part of the game, just like it's always been. But when you know, especially in an English summer, that there's a decent possibility of losing one or more full day's play due to rain, you could at least schedule a couple of extra days to allow for that.

Anyway, I thought that today's play was interesting. The Aussies missed a couple of catches behind the wicket that they really should have taken - one at keeper, and one in the gully, I think. They also needed to have the slips closer to the bat; twice in three overs a solid edge failed to carry to Warner at first slip, and there were other edges that fell short.

England will, once again, be regretting some rather rash shots, but I don't think they'll be too upset with their first-innings total, particularly given that they were 6-138 at one stage. In fact, if they had managed to take another Aussie wicket before stumps, I think they would probably feel that they had the better of the day.

I think the Aussie bowlers spent too much time bowling short to the tail end. I'm not especially squeamish about short balls to tail-enders—they're all pretty well protected these days—but you need to mix it up more, and not send down bouncer after bouncer like they were doing at times.

Overall, I feel like the match is pretty well poised, and if there's not too much more rain over the next three days, I think there's still a decent chance of a result.
  #299  
Old 08-16-2019, 05:05 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,074
Yeah, it's fairly well poised. I'd say England's batters were a bit disappointing, but that would imply it was fair to expect anything different. They who are they are - largely a mix of ODI players and all-rounders - so looking for technically proficient 120-ball 40s is unfair. You just have to hope that someone comes off big every now and then.

I thought Archer looked pretty decent in his few overs. Beat the bat a couple of times and could have had a wicket if anyone had hear the faintest of faint edges that took. There'll be a lot of focus on him today, especially if/when he's bowling to Smith. Should be a good contest.
  #300  
Old 08-17-2019, 05:37 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,516
It is an intriguing Test. Most likely result a draw but I believe the weather is now a lot better. England have now taken a 5th wicket so it seems if they can clean Australia out by lunch time, knock up a quick hundred and declare they could win. And to be honest, they are only Smith's wicket away from that. However if Australia manage ro bat until tea or later they may be in the better position (seems rather unlikely at the moment).
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017