Anyone for cricket?

[WonnaJurah 5]

looks like Stuart Clarks test career is over,back injury out for a month n will miss the NZ Tour

[45HG 1,559]

And after all those missed milestones that TU alluded to, two players in consecutive matches carry their bat.

Take another bow Dan Vettori!

His team in immense trouble, puts on 176 from 206 with McCullum (IMO a batsman who too frequently underperforms) and makes a century himself after promoting himself to 6.

Edited December 12, 2009 by 45HG16

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,825]

Hey Hotgod! What did you think of Cameron White's decision to bowl first against S.A. on Thurs. ?

I rolled up at 5 past 11, watched one over , and said...."I hope we didn't send them in on this batting paradise!" I later learned, to my dismay, we DID!!!!

The pitch is looking worn now. We've got a test leg-spinner, and they've got Aaron O'Brien, who has about 30 first class wickets to his name! We'll lose.

When you captain a side, it's SO tempting to send the opposition in after inspecting the wicket. It's a gutless option to bowl first. There ALWAYS seems to be a bit of moisture that you hope will make it hard for the openers against the quicks. But there's nothing like runs on the board. I think the following scenario encapsulates it.....

Batting first, in a one-day game, you EXPECT at least 10 from the last over , and usually get it. Batting second....10 to win from the last over?? Sometimes, but not often.

[Sir Why You Little 37,457]

Hey Hotgod! What did you think of Cameron White's decision to bowl first against S.A. on Thurs. ?

I rolled up at 5 past 11, watched one over , and said...."I hope we didn't send them in on this batting paradise!" I later learned, to my dismay, we DID!!!!

The pitch is looking worn now. We've got a test leg-spinner, and they've got Aaron O'Brien, who has about 30 first class wickets to his name! We'll lose.

When you captain a side, it's SO tempting to send the opposition in after inspecting the wicket. It's a gutless option to bowl first. There ALWAYS seems to be a bit of moisture that you hope will make it hard for the openers against the quicks. But there's nothing like runs on the board. I think the following scenario encapsulates it.....

Batting first, in a one-day game, you EXPECT at least 10 from the last over , and usually get it. Batting second....10 to win from the last over?? Sometimes, but not often.

Couldn't believe it when i heard White had put SA into bat first, with the unsettled weather forecast.

We will get THRASHED bar a miracle, seriously.... :angry:

[titan_uranus 25,255]

I take it he must be injured or something ? If so, what type of injury.

Members of the team didn't want him as captain any more, and he got [censored] off and left the team when they went to NZ. Then he didn't play domestic cricket, so the PCB didn't consider him for their tour here. Really disappointing. He averages 50.09 in Tests and secures the no. 3 spot.

And after all those missed milestones that TU alluded to, two players in consecutive matches carry their bat.

Quite unbelievable, really. Carrying the bat isn't exactly something easy or common.

The amount of 90s scored of late, and that stat, make this one of the most interesting cricket seasons of late (even if some of the matches haven't been as interesting as others).

Take another bow Dan Vettori!

His team in immense trouble, puts on 176 from 206 with McCullum (IMO a batsman who too frequently underperforms) and makes a century himself after promoting himself to 6.

Absolutely brilliant cricketer, is Vettori. There's basically nothing he can't do. Mind you, he was dropped on 97. Almost lengthened the list.

Couldn't believe it when i heard White had put SA into bat first, with the unsettled weather forecast.

We will get THRASHED bar a miracle, seriously.... :angry:

Incidentally, Victoria requires 79 runs off 36 overs with 7 wickets in hand to beat SA today.

Would be a remarkable result if it happened. And it would co-incide with Tasmania beating WA in similar fashion (declaring behind on 1st innings, only to chase down the target on the 4th day).

[45HG 1,559]

Hey Hotgod! What did you think of Cameron White's decision to bowl first against S.A. on Thurs. ?

I rolled up at 5 past 11, watched one over , and said...."I hope we didn't send them in on this batting paradise!" I later learned, to my dismay, we DID!!!!

The pitch is looking worn now. We've got a test leg-spinner, and they've got Aaron O'Brien, who has about 30 first class wickets to his name! We'll lose.

When you captain a side, it's SO tempting to send the opposition in after inspecting the wicket. It's a gutless option to bowl first. There ALWAYS seems to be a bit of moisture that you hope will make it hard for the openers against the quicks. But there's nothing like runs on the board. I think the following scenario encapsulates it.....

Batting first, in a one-day game, you EXPECT at least 10 from the last over , and usually get it. Batting second....10 to win from the last over?? Sometimes, but not often.

Couldn't believe it when i heard White had put SA into bat first, with the unsettled weather forecast.

We will get THRASHED bar a miracle, seriously.... :angry:

Whoops.

That my friends is why you don't play I told you so games before a match is completed. Generally, it is very difficult to predict the outcome of a cricket match even halfway through it, so I can't understand how one can make a claim that it would be almost a foregone conclusion because of chosing to bowl.

I provided a pretty detailed analysis of the possible benefits of bowling first to which you've only responded now in relation to a match that the Vics have now won.

[titan_uranus 25,255]

Yes, whoops to WYL and JJC. Victoria has just won by 6 wickets. Brilliant stuff.

If White can get some continued success for Victoria he might get another chance at Test level, but as a middle order batsman rather than a spinner. He is only 26 and has leadership abilities that far outweigh Michael Clarke.

[Sir Why You Little 37,457]

Yes, whoops to WYL and JJC. Victoria has just won by 6 wickets. Brilliant stuff.

If White can get some continued success for Victoria he might get another chance at Test level, but as a middle order batsman rather than a spinner. He is only 26 and has leadership abilities that far outweigh Michael Clarke.

REALLY!!! They scored 381 only 4 down.

Ok i will happily concede i was COMPLETELY wrong. But as the rain tumbled down on friday i thought it was a shocking decision.

I am happy to be wrong this time, and to the Vics and Cameron White i humbly apologize....

[Sir Why You Little 37,457]

Whoops.

That my friends is why you don't play I told you so games before a match is completed. Generally, it is very difficult to predict the outcome of a cricket match even halfway through it, so I can't understand how one can make a claim that it would be almost a foregone conclusion because of chosing to bowl.

I provided a pretty detailed analysis of the possible benefits of bowling first to which you've only responded now in relation to a match that the Vics have now won.

Fair enough....The Miracle Happened and good luck to them, White took a huge gamble and it paid off. The cold Beers are fully deserved in the change room tonight.

[45HG 1,559]

REALLY!!! They scored 381 only 4 down.

Ok i will happily concede i was COMPLETELY wrong. But as the rain tumbled down on friday i thought it was a shocking decision.

I am happy to be wrong this time, and to the Vics and Cameron White i humbly apologize....

Good man.

Go vics

[Sir Why You Little 37,457]

Good man.

Go vics

Bloody oath Go Vics that has to be one of the highest 2nd innings chases of all time, particularly in a 4 day rain affected game.

Truly incredible, i have been at work so heard nothing till now.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,825]

Well done Vics.!!!

But next time don't waste 2 points by giving up the advantage of winning the toss.

It doesn't often happen that you have 6/500 scored against you in the first inns. and still win! I wouldn't hope for such a miracle to be repeated!

HG you are the only one playing "I told you so"! Surely it's more meaningful to give an opinion while the match is on , rather than waiting for the final result to "prove" you're wrong or right.

I re-iterate my opinion that it is always wise to bat first if you have the chance in cricket matches(of any duration).

[Sir Why You Little 37,457]

does anyone have a score card for the fourth innings?

The Bowling must have been ordinary to concede such a score with only 4 down on a final day wicket!

[45HG 1,559]

Well done Vics.!!!

But next time don't waste 2 points by giving up the advantage of winning the toss.

It doesn't often happen that you have 6/500 scored against you in the first inns. and still win! I wouldn't hope for such a miracle to be repeated!

HG you are the only one playing "I told you so"! Surely it's more meaningful to give an opinion while the match is on , rather than waiting for the final result to "prove" you're wrong or right.

I re-iterate my opinion that it is always wise to bat first if you have the chance in cricket matches(of any duration).

I disagree. You tried to make a generalization using one match as evidence, which within 24 hours was proved wrong. I fail to see how you popping up and singling me out when claiming we made a mistake is a more meaningful than my statistical analysis of a much larger sample range that highlighted the possible benefits of bowling first at the appropriate times - I didn't notice any reply of yours to that post, only the one on this page calling me out for my opinion on why you thought we'd lose.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Yes, whoops to WYL and JJC. Victoria has just won by 6 wickets. Brilliant stuff.

You could see it coming. 45hg16 had them summed up. Another instance of foot in mouth.

If White can get some continued success for Victoria he might get another chance at Test level, but as a middle order batsman rather than a spinner. He is only 26 and has leadership abilities that far outweigh Michael Clarke.

Agree about the Test prospects.

I disagree. You tried to make a generalization using one match as evidence, which within 24 hours was proved wrong. I fail to see how you popping up and singling me out when claiming we made a mistake is a more meaningful than my statistical analysis of a much larger sample range that highlighted the possible benefits of bowling first at the appropriate times - I didn't notice any reply of yours to that post, only the one on this page calling me out for my opinion on why you thought we'd lose.

Spot on.

Well done Vics.!!!

But next time don't waste 2 points by giving up the advantage of winning the toss.

It doesn't often happen that you have 6/500 scored against you in the first inns. and still win! I wouldn't hope for such a miracle to be repeated!

Its not a miracle but a contrived result to push for a win. Check the scorecard. Both Captains played for the win.

HG you are the only one playing "I told you so"! Surely it's more meaningful to give an opinion while the match is on , rather than waiting for the final result to "prove" you're wrong or right.

Wrong. Your earlier email was a flagship to some of the ignorance about calling the toss when you win. Its already been proven that while in most situations you bat first it will depend on the conditions. And it isn't "gutless" to send a team its actually brave call particular when know nothings spout such rubbish that "you always bat first". I would not be pushing any thing "meaningful" with that earlier opinion.

I re-iterate my opinion that it is always wise to bat first if you have the chance in cricket matches(of any duration).

Proof that some people never learn.

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,825]

So you DIDN'T think we'd lose, HG. You have phenomenal prescience.

Your statistics on choosing to bowl then winning matches would be heavily weighted by pitches which have been affected adversely one way or another in preparation, making it obviously preferable to bowl first.

On a normal pitch(as was the MCG's for the Vic/SA match), you must bat when you win the toss. SA's 6/517 shows that this premise was correct on this occasion. I contend it's always wise to bat first in cricket matches if possible.

The fact that we won does not in any way prove what you say is correct.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I contend it's always wise to bat first in cricket matches if possible.

Its going to depend on the conditions. While on most occassions you will bat first, it is not golden rule. So the word "always" is simply wrong and history proves it. And using one game to back your argument is wooden thinking at best.

[Sir Why You Little 37,457]

You could see it coming. 45hg16 had them summed up. Another instance of foot in mouth.

As i said above RR i am happy to admit i was wrong, but to say you could see that run chase coming on a fourth day pitch is a bit rich!!

But it does prove that cricket should always be primarily a Long Game so that all the nuances of it can be applied.

Go The Big V

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

As i said above RR i am happy to admit i was wrong, but to say you could see that run chase coming on a fourth day pitch is a bit rich!!

But it does prove that cricket should always be primarily a Long Game so that all the nuances of it can be applied.

Go The Big V

No issue there WYL. I noted your admission.

A typical scenario in a Shield match is a fourth day run chase isnt it?

And as SA prove it was a good track to start with and it got better. The drop in wickets at the MCG are producing flat lifeless wickets that bat well to the finish of a match.

When White declared well short of the SA target it was going to be a case of SA setting up a run chase to push for full points.

It was a fair ask at the start of the day and the powerful Victorian batting line up were equal to the task.

I think these days WYL, the traditionalist would take that view, but the realists know that the preferred form of cricket around the world varies.

[Sir Why You Little 37,457]

No issue there WYL. I noted your admission.

A typical scenario in a Shield match is a fourth day run chase isnt it?

And as SA prove it was a good track to start with and it got better. The drop in wickets at the MCG are producing flat lifeless wickets that bat well to the finish of a match.

When White declared well short of the SA target it was going to be a case of SA setting up a run chase to push for full points.

It was a fair ask at the start of the day and the powerful Victorian batting line up were equal to the task.

I think these days WYL, the traditionalist would take that view, but the realists know that the preferred form of cricket around the world varies.

I agree but it was only the 5th time in History that the First up batting side made 500+ and lost.

So yes all power to the Big V. Just shows how much belief is in that side right now.

How Bad would the Crow Eaters be It's just Golden Moments i say!!

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,825]

"Its going to depend on the conditions. While on most occassions you will bat first, it is not golden rule. So the word "always" is simply wrong and history proves it. And using one game to back your argument is wooden thinking at best."

Note that I said " when possible", so I'm not saying absolutely always. Sure, there will be times when the pitch preparation has been impaired, or perhaps a side has venomous quicks, but no spinner, and a pitch(like Perth) may help the quicks. There it would be good to get the runs on the board, but it may not be appropriate.

In no way was that the case in this match.

As for "wooden thinking", I agree . HG is saying that SA's victory proves he's correct.

I contend that the fact SA got 6/517 suggests that it wasn't wise to send them in. Surely not an unreasonable suggestion.

[H_T 3,049]

Vics are on 20 points after 4 games and well clear on the standings, 4 points more than same time last year. Go Vics.

[H_T 3,049]

2009/10 Sheffield Shield ------------- Position Name Played Won Drawn Lost Points Net Run Rate

1 Victorian Bushrangers----------------------------------- 4 -------------------------- 20

2 Queensland Bulls -----------------------------------------5 ---------------------------14

3 South Australia -------------------------------------------5 ---------------------------10

4 Tasmanian Tigers ----------------------------------------5 ----------------------------10

5 New South Wales Blues ----------------------------------4 -------------------------- 6

6 Western Australia -----------------------------------------5 --------------------------- 6

2009/10 Ford Ranger Cup Position Name - Played - Won - Drawn - Lost - Points - Net Run Rate

1 Queensland Bulls -------------------------------7 ------ 5------ 0 -------2 ------21 ------0.3944

2 Tasmanian Tigers -------------------------------7 ------ 4 ------ 0 -------3 -----16 ------0.1913

3 Victorian Bushrangers ------------------------- 5 ------ 3 ------ 0 -------2 -----13 ------0.4549

4 Western Australia -------------------------------7 ------ 3 ------ 0 -------4 -----13 ------0.1101

5 New South Wales Blues ------------------------5 ------- 2 -------0 ------3 -----10 -------0.3955

6 South Australia ----------------------------------5 ------- 1 ------0 ------4 ------ 4 -------0.8586

* Ford Ranger, the Vics have 2 games before Christmas, one today v SA; one on 23rd against NSW away. Then there is a big break until Feb.

Edited December 14, 2009 by High Tower

[45HG 1,559]

"Two toes" Martin Guptill takes 3-37 and the Kiwis will chase 208 in the last session and a half.

Chasing 443 for victory, the Central Stags openers put on 428 for the first wicket!

Edited December 15, 2009 by 45HG16

[WonnaJurah 5]

South Australia 4/198 38 overs

Pattison 3/34 , lets hope the Vics can end the losing streak

n well done to Mckay for making his Aust debut tommorow