Anyone for cricket?

[WonnaJurah 5]

I have no idea what 'all time' team you're talking about ;o

It wasn't so long ago that people were rubbishing Prior for his keeping. Knott, really?

the ICC did an all time one day side for 40th anniversary of one day cricket

Opening batsmen: Sachin Tendulkar (India) and Virender Sehwag (India)

Middle order: Brian Lara (West Indies), Viv Richards (West Indies) and Ricky Ponting (Australia)

All-rounder: Kapil Dev (India)

Wicketkeeper: Adam Gilchrist (Australia)Spinner: Muttiah Muralidaran (Sri Lanka)

Fast bowlers: Wasim Akram (Pakistan), Glenn McGrath (Australia) and Allan Donald (South Africa)

12th man: Michael Bevan (Australia), the player who received the most number of votes without being enough to make the would-be starting 11

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

WYL is quite misguided actually comparing Prior in the same league as Knott for wicketkeeping.

You think so??

[45HG 1,539]

Take it as you want 45...

I took it as that because you had basically ignored all the analysis that I had provided to go with what I see as being a gut-feel informed essentially by the amount of catches taken and the desire to overstate how poor Australia were.

[45HG 1,539]

About time. Lucky to be in the team.

[H_T 3,043]

About time. Lucky to be in the team.

Common sense prevails.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

You think so??

Re read what you quoted.

I took it as that because you had basically ignored all the analysis that I had provided to go with what I see as being a gut-feel informed essentially by the amount of catches taken and the desire to overstate how poor Australia were.

No thats not correct at all

Common sense prevails.

Indeed. Hopefully the start of something....

[titan_uranus 25,013]

South Africa needed to end their innings a bit earlier, and preferably for a few less runs, to entice India to go for the win. 340 off 90 overs was never going to happen when Sehwag got out early, so it was tailor-made for Gambhir, Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman, who are tough enough to dismiss normally, to drop the anchor and bat the day. Which of course, they did, because they're capable batsmen. Imagine Australia trying to bat out a day.

OK.

I've trawled through the cricinfo commentary from all 5 tests (yay for holidays) and have discovered this.

Haddin has dropped two (one in Brisbane off Siddle and one in Adelaide in the first innings), he also had the one go between him and Watson... not sure if this is regarded as a drop though.

Prior has dropped one (second innings at Adelaide, Hussey).

I reckon you've made up your mind and there'll be no budging you, regardless of arguments.

Do you give credit to Prior for his 3 catches today? Surely his catches alone don't push him ahead of Haddin's performances this summer (who now is looking pretty good, fighting it out on 27).

I find it odd that two people who lament how rubbish our bowling is, while praising England's bowlers, also then give credit to their 'keeper for being the beneficiary of top bowling whilst ignoring Haddin's efforts. Oh well.

I totally agree that saying Haddin has less catches means Prior is better. Clearly the quality of the bowling and opposition batting translates into the number of catches.

In saying that, I look at the way each has batted when they have come to the crease.

To be fair to Haddin, he has certainly had a tougher time, being asked to rescue innings at 5/150 odd, whereas in most of Prior's innings he's come in with plenty on the board.

But I still look at Haddin and see a batsman who is more than capable of scoring centuries, and showed it, but whose innings ended prematurely due to poor shot selection. There were runs in every pitch we played on, maybe Perth aside, and in almost every Test Haddin got himself in before getting out to a flat-footed drive, a waft outside off, or an attempted slog.

It's a line-ball debate at any rate.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I totally agree that saying Haddin has less catches means Prior is better. Clearly the quality of the bowling and opposition batting translates into the number of catches.

I think we are all in agreement. I dont think anyone bar WYL is making the argument to the contrary. But the selection of the consolidated X1 has been based on what people have produced.

If the Australian batsmen had to face the Australian bowling in the last two tests then the batsmen may have well got amongst the runs facing that trash and Clarke wouldnt be nicking it all the time (well, maybe not). Do we discount the performance of Cook, Trott and co becasue they faced pie throwers for 4 tests? I dont think so.

There were runs in every pitch we played on, maybe Perth aside, and in almost every Test Haddin got himself in before getting out to a flat-footed drive, a waft outside off, or an attempted slog.

It's a line-ball debate at any rate.

Particularly in Melbourne and Perth your statements were true. On flat tracks like Adelaide and amazingly Brisbane this time, Haddin looks a gem of a batsman

And I agree its a line ball debate and people seem to have their choices.

[H_T 3,043]

How on earth 1st vs 2nd wasn't able to have the option of referrals is beyond me. The ICC should either have it for all Test Matches or not at all. Not here and there in my view. While I'm at it, if we're going to use technology get it right. Let the 3rd umpire have hotspot, hawkeye and the snicko technology at their disposal.

Paul Harris missed out on getting Dravid out which was plum (hitting middle stump). Hit the pad first before bat clearly on replay. They weren't able to refer, had the technology been available, Dravid would have been out and the Test may have taken a late turn (at the very least a different path).

[45HG 1,539]

They did have the option - the mighty Indian criket power said no

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

They did have the option - the mighty Indian criket power said no

Correct. And the arguments that the Indians put forward just does not make sense for not doing so.

FWIW, I think the use of the technology and referral system worked pretty well. I believe the accuracy will further improve as the technology (hot spot) is improved or enhanced.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

I think we are all in agreement. I dont think anyone bar WYL is making the argument to the contrary. But the selection of the consolidated X1 has been based on what people have produced.

Tto be fair, i did say Haddin has had a pretty fair series under the circumstances-There is not a lot between the 2 keepers.

Although i do think Prior made more of his opportunities. Particularly with the bat, he put his head down and a high price on his wicket. I don't think any of our batsmen did that. Even Hussey's big innings were streaky at times.

Preparation and fixturing before the series from australia was very poor, and it showed very quickly.

Application to the Fundamentals of 5 day cricket seemed to be forgotten by our entire team, that is a major worry.

The English did their Homework and once again swung the ball, regularly-We didn't.

How did Cricket Australia let David Saker slip away. he is a very good coach looking at this series.

Well done to the Poms. We got Done in every department of the game, which may be a blessing in the long run.

Edited January 7, 2011 by why you little

[H_T 3,043]

Correct. And the arguments that the Indians put forward just does not make sense for not doing so.

FWIW, I think the use of the technology and referral system worked pretty well. I believe the accuracy will further improve as the technology (hot spot) is improved or enhanced.

What were the arguments put forward RR ?

[H_T 3,043]

How did Cricket Australia let David Saker slip away. he is a very good coach looking at this series.

I wouldn't be surprised if David Saker was even on CA's radar. This successful tour by the English has now put his name up in neon lights. There would be plenty of other options available. Mind you - it's not all about David Saker, it's about those blokes named Tremlett, Bressnan, Anderson, Finn & Swann applying what they know to be the best plan. ie. Giving the Aussies no room, outside off and varying their balls waiting for mistakes by the Aussies.

Strategic planning is the first step and some of these processes may well already be in place, but will take time to bear fruit. Lawson's article that titan posted recently gives much insight IMO and the fundamentals that need to be addressed.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

I wouldn't be surprised if David Saker was even on CA's radar. This successful tour by the English has now put his name up in neon lights. There would be plenty of other options available. Mind you - it's not all about David Saker, it's about those blokes named Tremlett, Bressnan, Anderson, Finn & Swann applying what they know to be the best plan. ie. Giving the Aussies no room, outside off and varying their balls waiting for mistakes by the Aussies.

Strategic planning is the first step and some of these processes may well already be in place, but will take time to bear fruit. Lawson's article that titan posted recently gives much insight IMO and the fundamentals that need to be addressed.

Yes i read that Lawson article-spot on i thought. I know it isn't all Saker, but you could see plans with the English bowlers that obviously Saker & Flower had worked out, and the Bowlers followed through. The whole team was pulling in the one direction. The English have beaten us 3 out of 4 times now though with swing bowling high on their list, with either the english or australian ball.

The aussies to me looked like they were just hoping things would happen, sometimes they did-but we never looked in control throughout the series. Will the Australian Test side & Cricket Australia learn from all this, or do we still have to hit rock bottom?? It is a shame this stupid world cup is coming up now-we really need more test fixtures soon. 8 months doesn't help us a great deal.

[45HG 1,539]

Although i do think Prior made more of his opportunities. Particularly with the bat, he put his head down and a high price on his wicket. I don't think any of our batsmen did that. Even Hussey's big innings were streaky at times.

OK, I'll bite, but only for one last time on the matter because I vehemently disagree and because I have too much time on my hands.

In what way did Prior make more of his opportunities than Haddin?

Concensus has shown that the catches alone shouldn't be enough to put Prior ahead, due to the mugh higher standard of bowling etc.

Overall Haddin dropped 2, and had one that he didn't go for but should've.

Prior Dropped one and missed an easy stumping.

I can't say he's been a better keeper than Haddin, especially considerin the 100s of extra overs Haddin's been out there.

Coming in with scores under 200: Prior made 0, 12 and 10. Haddin made 136, 56, 53, 5, 55* (6 and 30 in a dead rubber). So when the bowling was at its best, it's toughest and when they really had to make their runs, Prior averaged 7.33 from 17.33 balls faced per innings. Haddin averaged 56.83 from 89.14 average deliveries. So with the bowling at its best and their team's in the most amount of trouble, Haddin averaged 49 more (scoring 319 more runs) and 72 extra deliviries. I'd call that putting a pretty high price on my wicket (in comparison to Prior anyway).

Prior's first 3 tests innings yielded 0, 27*, 12, 10.

Haddin's yielded 136, 55, 12, 53 and 7.

Again, that shows that Haddin has put the performance on the board.

In Melbourne, Haddin faced some of the most hostile bowling you're likely to see and fell for 5 - the first real time he'd let his team down this series, not that it'd haved mattered much. Prior then came into bat with his team already 188 runs ahead. He made a good 85 with the pressure well and truly off. In the second inning, with Australia looking down the barrell of losing the Ashes on home soil for the first time in 24 years and coming in with the score 5-134 - he batted a good 55 not out to be our top scorer in the innings, eventually running out of partners.

Obviously Sydney is where Prior shone, but to compare their hundreds tells the story of performance IMO. Prior came in at 6 (really 5) for 380. His team were already 100 ahead, the pressure, again, was well off - especially with the Ashes in the bag. Haddin's, on the other hand, came with his team in dire trouble on the second day of an Ashes series with his team's back well against the wall at 5-143, already 125 runs behind.

It's the last I'll say on it (thankfully, some may say!)

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

OK, I'll bite, but only for one last time on the matter because I vehemently disagree and because I have too much time on my hands.

In what way did Prior make more of his opportunities than Haddin?

Concensus has shown that the catches alone shouldn't be enough to put Prior ahead, due to the mugh higher standard of bowling etc.

Overall Haddin dropped 2, and had one that he didn't go for but should've.

Prior Dropped one and missed an easy stumping.

I can't say he's been a better keeper than Haddin, especially considerin the 100s of extra overs Haddin's been out there.

Coming in with scores under 200: Prior made 0, 12 and 10. Haddin made 136, 56, 53, 5, 55* (6 and 30 in a dead rubber). So when the bowling was at its best, it's toughest and when they really had to make their runs, Prior averaged 7.33 from 17.33 balls faced per innings. Haddin averaged 56.83 from 89.14 average deliveries. So with the bowling at its best and their team's in the most amount of trouble, Haddin averaged 49 more (scoring 319 more runs) and 72 extra deliviries. I'd call that putting a pretty high price on my wicket (in comparison to Prior anyway).

Prior's first 3 tests innings yielded 0, 27*, 12, 10.

Haddin's yielded 136, 55, 12, 53 and 7.

Again, that shows that Haddin has put the performance on the board.

In Melbourne, Haddin faced some of the most hostile bowling you're likely to see and fell for 5 - the first real time he'd let his team down this series, not that it'd haved mattered much. Prior then came into bat with his team already 188 runs ahead. He made a good 85 with the pressure well and truly off. In the second inning, with Australia looking down the barrell of losing the Ashes on home soil for the first time in 24 years and coming in with the score 5-134 - he batted a good 55 not out to be our top scorer in the innings, eventually running out of partners.

Obviously Sydney is where Prior shone, but to compare their hundreds tells the story of performance IMO. Prior came in at 6 (really 5) for 380. His team were already 100 ahead, the pressure, again, was well off - especially with the Ashes in the bag. Haddin's, on the other hand, came with his team in dire trouble on the second day of an Ashes series with his team's back well against the wall at 5-143, already 125 runs behind.

It's the last I'll say on it (thankfully, some may say!)

45 i am not going to question your stats- i believe them don't worry!! Haddin did well, but i think you are under selling Prior (maybe that is a better way of putting it)

It's like discounting a Gilchrist century in his prime, when earlier Batsmen had already laid a foundation. Does that lessen the effort from Gilchrist?? Not in my eyes-it just continued the strength of the win to me.

The English fielding in all 5 tests was outstanding & that includes Prior. Haddin & Siddle stood up pretty well for australia.

Maybe i am too harsh, but i believe those 2 half centuries Haddin made he should have converted to 3 figures, he had done the hard work. So often the Australians went out slogging or nicking. Shots that should not have ocured. (Maybe that is good bowling as well)

And i do concede with our 3 & 4 Batsmen sadly out of form Haddin was thrown to the wolves far too often. But Haddin lacked just a little patience, like Watson at times when the Baggy Green really needed a big score. That said he did far more than a few of the Top Order, and Brad Haddin did earn his pay.

[Axis of Bob 11,792]

i believe those 2 half centuries Haddin made he should have converted to 3 figures

I'm sorry WYL but you are just making stuff up now that seems like it could be right. It's not.

The first of those half centuries was in the first innings in Adelaide. The lower order collapsed around him after a partnership with Mike Hussey, and Haddin was out going for the slog as the last man out with Doug Bollinger at the other end. How was he supposed to convert that into 100? Dougie was going to hang around and make a gritty 30 odd to help Haddin to his century as part of an 80 run partnership for the 10th wicket, was he?

The other 50 he made was in the first innings in Perth, where he came in at 5 for 69. You might be able to argue that he could have gone on, but also bear in mind that Prior amassed scores of 10 and 12. Incidentally, 53 would have been top score for England across both innings of that test.

People are getting sucked in by the way the series has ended. Prior was poor until his last two innings (and he was given a reprieve early in Melbourne courtesy of a no ball referral), while Haddin had been exceptional. But people only remember what is most recent in their heads. Over the course of the series, Haddin was better.

I found that the biggest problem Australia had was simply moving the ball. The England quicks moved the ball, while we (for the most part) did not. There two occasions where we moved the ball noticeably: First innings in Perth and on the 3th day in Melbourne (reverse). No surprise that we bowled England out for under 100 in Perth and took about 5/60 in Melbourne. Johnson very rarely moves it, Siddle is generally up and down and Hilfenhaus was less than threatening this series. Why don't we move it? I don't know, and I doubt that us mug punters could know. But we need to find ways to take wickets on flat pitches.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

I'm sorry WYL but you are just making stuff up now that seems like it could be right. It's not.

The first of those half centuries was in the first innings in Adelaide. The lower order collapsed around him after a partnership with Mike Hussey, and Haddin was out going for the slog as the last man out with Doug Bollinger at the other end. How was he supposed to convert that into 100? Dougie was going to hang around and make a gritty 30 odd to help Haddin to his century as part of an 80 run partnership for the 10th wicket, was he?

The other 50 he made was in the first innings in Perth, where he came in at 5 for 69. You might be able to argue that he could have gone on, but also bear in mind that Prior amassed scores of 10 and 12. Incidentally, 53 would have been top score for England across both innings of that test.

People are getting sucked in by the way the series has ended. Prior was poor until his last two innings (and he was given a reprieve early in Melbourne courtesy of a no ball referral), while Haddin had been exceptional. But people only remember what is most recent in their heads. Over the course of the series, Haddin was better.

I found that the biggest problem Australia had was simply moving the ball. The England quicks moved the ball, while we (for the most part) did not. There two occasions where we moved the ball noticeably: First innings in Perth and on the 3th day in Melbourne (reverse). No surprise that we bowled England out for under 100 in Perth and took about 5/60 in Melbourne. Johnson very rarely moves it, Siddle is generally up and down and Hilfenhaus was less than threatening this series. Why don't we move it? I don't know, and I doubt that us mug punters could know. But we need to find ways to take wickets on flat pitches.

Prior Kept Beautifully to a moving Ball, Yes i am glad somebody bought that up...And please not once have i bagged Haddin, but he did go out to some pretty ordinary shots, when we really needed someone to dig in, yes he did come in at some dire times i admit. But we needed more half centuries converted and it did not happen.

Thus our Bowlers regularly had bugger all to defend, making their jobs even more futile.

Bottom Line is 3-1 out of 5 flattered Australia. We were thrashed... and yes the Mystery of the swinging ball in both Hemisphere's we Aussies must sort out and quickly.

[old dee 23,787]

I think it is all fairly simple.

We do not have enough quality players to compete with the top 3 - 4 test teams.

If you look at the performances over the fives games

then IMO only 4 players would be in contention to get a game with England.

Watson at 5, Hussey at 4, Haddin and perhaps Siddle, would any of them actually replace an english player?

The only player I think that would replace an englishman would be Watson for Collingwood.

I have been around for a while and this is the worst team that we have fielded against England.

Even the team that took on england at the start of the "Packer" revolution did not get belted like this team.

At least we had a captain and Vice captain that justfied their spots in the team.

It is sad but we have a very long way to go to get back to the top.

IMO it is time to start at the top, how can you entertain a chairman of selectors who is part time!

We should replace the selection commitee, and coaching panel even if they have long contracts, the ACB is far from broke.

A bit of "Essendon Therapy" is required then start a fresh with the team, pick a side for August based on performances

over the next three months shield results.

A few players should be advised that their ACB contracts are under review

and a few others should be told that it is over, eg. Hughes, Ponting, Kadich, and all the bowlers except Siddle and Bolanger ( too early on Beer ).

I know that is a lot to replace but as the saying goes "to make an omelette you have to break a few eggs".

Edited January 7, 2011 by old dee

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article/-/8612175/australia-cricket-review/

Better Late than never i suppose, i only wish this had been done some time before the Ashes Series. Maybe then the team could have been in australia last november playing 4 day matches.....Enough said.

Maybe C.A. needs to sell membership packages to the Australian public, like the MFC does. Thus making itself that little more accessible and a little less aloof from the people who go to the games.

Just a thought....

[old dee 23,787]

http://au.sports.yahoo.com/news/article/-/8612175/australia-cricket-review/

Better Late than never i suppose, i only wish this had been done some time before the Ashes Series. Maybe then the team could have been in australia last november playing 4 day matches.....Enough said.

Maybe C.A. needs to sell membership packages to the Australian public, like the MFC does. Thus making itself that little more accessible and a little less aloof from the people who go to the games.

Just a thought....

I agree but after todays statements you won't get anything from this lot it is all about self preservation.

It reminds of the old one "we did not break down we just failed to proceed"

Is james Sutherland the "king with no clothes " of australian sport or what.

We just got beaten in the worst manner ever recorded vs the Poms.

Have some decency and resign alone with Hildich and Neilson.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

I agree but after todays statements you won't get anything from this lot it is all about self preservation.

It reminds of the old one "we did not break down we just failed to proceed"

Is james Sutherland the "king with no clothes " of australian sport or what.

We just got beaten in the worst manner ever recorded vs the Poms.

Have some decency and resign alone with Hildich and Neilson.

I don't think this is all over yet, how many people will go to the one day games??

C.A. will have to take notice if the people don't come to watch...Interesting times over the next Month or so...

[45HG 1,539]

I don't think this is all over yet, how many people will go to the one day games??

C.A. will have to take notice if the people don't come to watch...Interesting times over the next Month or so...

This reminds me of your pre-series comments that the public aren't happy and won't go to the tests.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

This reminds me of your pre-series comments that the public aren't happy and won't go to the tests.

Well i didn't go to the MCG test at all so i did my bit!!!

One Day Internationals have been on the nose for a while now...

Edited January 7, 2011 by why you little