I would have thought losing a winning test to the 8th ranked Test team is appalling.

Good question. Given he doesn't miss many games, and they don't win many, I'm guessing it's a very, very long time.

Thank God he values his wicket. He is not making many runs and this technique is still dodgy but he values his wicket.

FMD. That is so gobsmacking wrong its laughable. He has shown himself in the toughest conditions to be a very good batsman with sound technique, wonderful concentration.

It is actually very dangerous to choose to bat in a 4th innings when it was obvious the match would never last 5 days. A dodgy opener and Ponting and Hussey both past it.

Now lets hope some serious selection changes are finally made.

We got rolled by a New Zealand side minus Vettori.

150 was a good score on day 1 on that Billiard table. It still had life in it today.

Win the Toss.....Bat particularly with an inexperienced and aged line up.

Good onya Kiwi's enjoy your winnings.

I swear that didn't say maybe when I saw it

It didn't until a wicket fell, and ninja took over before any additions

Mitchell Johnson would have been very handy today.

Edited December 12, 201113 yr by Axis of Bob

This match has shown, once again, our fragile batting line up. The bowlers did fine, we conceded 150 and 226 and didn't let any batsman get past 56. Can't fault any of them (although I've already heard one person say that we lost because we let Boult and Martin add 20-odd runs for the final wicket in their second innings...).

The fault lies with our batsmen. Hughes, Khawaja, Ponting, Hussey and Haddin are all out of form and giving us nothing. I'd tip the first two to be the ones to make way for Watson (who absolutely must replace Hughes), and Marsh (who must come in if fit, meaning a second player must go out). In a way that's the best thing for the team, but in a way it's not, in that we'd be removing the two young batsmen and keeping the older ones.

The only thing that has changed has been the level you unfairly discounted him by earlier and be shown up for it by the events. You havent seen him enough to make the blanket negative assessment of him like you have. Warner has previously shown this capability to bat well but not be subdued by opposition attacks atr Shield leve. This innings is a vintage Warner knock. Could be a valuable Test player with his good fielding, handy leg breaks and seemingly authoritative batting. He deserves his ton.

And FWIW, Khawaja does not look like a Test batsman with the right temperament if he continues not to make runs. Cant build on his starts.

I did not 'unfairly discount' anyone. When I said what I said, there was nothing to suggest he would score 123* and carry his bat like he did today. Don't say there was. Sure, he's now gone on to show me and the world that he has the skill to make it at Test level, and his innings today was amazing. But hindsight is a wonderful thing, and when I said what I said, this innings was not something many people would have foreseen.

Agree with Khawaja. He's not making runs at all. With Warner's form, he surely is in trouble for Boxing Day.

It is actually very dangerous to choose to bat in a 4th innings when it was obvious the match would never last 5 days. A dodgy opener and Ponting and Hussey both past it.

Now lets hope some serious selection changes are finally made.

We got rolled by a New Zealand side minus Vettori.

150 was a good score on day 1 on that Billiard table. It still had life in it today.

Win the Toss.....Bat particularly with an inexperienced and aged line up.

Good onya Kiwi's enjoy your winnings.

What's new, WYL not happy with bowling first.

But what's this, a contradictory post? This post is so true to form.

How can you say it was a dangerous idea to bowl first (and thus bat last), but then say that 150 was a good score in the first innings? If 150 was a good score first up, and the pitch was a 'billiard table', surely batting first would have been risky? Turns out we made the highest score of the match in the fourth innings. If Warner had had some support from someone else in the top 7, we would have won.

Well done Bracewell....6 wkts. How long since the Kiwis won a Test without Vettori?

Don't know the answer to that as yet but I do know the last time the kiwis won a Test Match on Australian soil was 1985.

Mitchell Johnson would have been very handy today.

Would he have been handy on the preceding days of the game?

Would he have been handy on the preceding days of the game?

Surely AoB was joking.

If Johnson had played we would have been chasing 341, not 241.

The point I'm making is that our tail is very fragile without Johnson. Siddle is an honest batsmen for a bowler, Pattinson and Starc may become that in time and Lyon is a number 11. When you have a 6 and 7 that are struggling then the tail looks exceptionally long. I worry about it for the future, when our bowling line up starts looking like: Pattinson, Cummins, Hazelwood, Lyon.

England had the '6 out = all out' problem in the 5-0 Ashes here, and it meant that they played Ashley Giles instead of Panesar.

We now have a very long tail. It's an issue without Johnson because he has done well at number 8 for us. He's bowling rubbish, but his absence has resulted in us losing lance in the lower half of our batting order. 15 runs from him today would have won us the match.

It is actually very dangerous to choose to bat in a 4th innings when it was obvious the match would never last 5 days. A dodgy opener and Ponting and Hussey both past it.

Now lets hope some serious selection changes are finally made.

We got rolled by a New Zealand side minus Vettori.

150 was a good score on day 1 on that Billiard table. It still had life in it today.

Win the Toss.....Bat particularly with an inexperienced and aged line up.

Good onya Kiwi's enjoy your winnings.

What alot of rot. TUs right. You're comments are full of contradictions that lynch your argument.

And its not an issue batting a 4th innings when the Kiwi's lynchpin spinner is out.

The issue was not the toss but two appalling batting performances. By batting second we actually got the best of the conditions to bat in. We would have got rolled for less if we batted on the pitch first.

This match has shown, once again, our fragile batting line up. The bowlers did fine, we conceded 150 and 226 and didn't let any batsman get past 56. Can't fault any of them (although I've already heard one person say that we lost because we let Boult and Martin add 20-odd runs for the final wicket in their second innings...).

The fault lies with our batsmen. Hughes, Khawaja, Ponting, Hussey and Haddin are all out of form and giving us nothing. I'd tip the first two to be the ones to make way for Watson (who absolutely must replace Hughes), and Marsh (who must come in if fit, meaning a second player must go out). In a way that's the best thing for the team, but in a way it's not, in that we'd be removing the two young batsmen and keeping the older ones.

Agree. Hughes should go. I would be holding our experience players accountable more than Khawaja. If a maligned 20/20 player in his 2nd Test can carry his hand through the innings and make a ton then whats the excuse for Ponting and Hussey. Huseey has been great up to the SA tour and has been a key batsman but he is burning credits quickly and Punter must be getting low. Australia has had too many batting collapses over the past 2 years. I am not sure Watson and Marsh will both be fit. I would be prepared to pick Ed Cowan (there you go Nasher) for Hughes. I'd give Khawaja another chance.

AoB raises a really good point about the tailenders. Australia has not been used to having such a long tail.

I did not 'unfairly discount' anyone. When I said what I said, there was nothing to suggest he would score 123* and carry his bat like he did today. Don't say there was. Sure, he's now gone on to show me and the world that he has the skill to make it at Test level, and his innings today was amazing. But hindsight is a wonderful thing, and when I said what I said, this innings was not something many people would have foreseen.

The issue is giving a batsman a chance and you didn't but you danced on every failure (and there were only 3) as some reinforcement of your blinkered view and Warner in the past innings made your earlier comments indefensible.

How can you say it was a dangerous idea to bowl first (and thus bat last), but then say that 150 was a good score in the first innings? If 150 was a good score first up, and the pitch was a 'billiard table', surely batting first would have been risky? Turns out we made the highest score of the match in the fourth innings. If Warner had had some support from someone else in the top 7, we would have won.

WYL is a definite entry in the KFC Classic Comments Competition this year.

The point I'm making is that our tail is very fragile without Johnson. Siddle is an honest batsmen for a bowler, Pattinson and Starc may become that in time and Lyon is a number 11. When you have a 6 and 7 that are struggling then the tail looks exceptionally long. I worry about it for the future, when our bowling line up starts looking like: Pattinson, Cummins, Hazelwood, Lyon.

England had the '6 out = all out' problem in the 5-0 Ashes here, and it meant that they played Ashley Giles instead of Panesar.

We now have a very long tail. It's an issue without Johnson because he has done well at number 8 for us. He's bowling rubbish, but his absence has resulted in us losing lance in the lower half of our batting order. 15 runs from him today would have won us the match.

15 runs if we were chasing 241. As I said above, his impotent bowling would have seen us chasing more than that.

Your point about the tail is correct though. It's long. However, Harris can bat, and strengthens it slightly if he comes in at 8.

In the end, we shouldn't be picking bowlers because they can also bat a bit. We should back our top 7 to get the job done. Sure, it'd be nice if we batted to 9 or 10, but I'd rather us play four bowlers who can take 20 wickets and a top 6 who can make a sufficient number of runs.

To be fair Starc > Johnson when it comes to bowling. But in this Test there was not alot in it. And Johnson is a proven performer with the bat at this sort of stuff.

We were 2/159...... Its a very poor performance. I'd like to see the Vodafone ad with all the batting line up (sans Warner) saying where they can improve a la Bollinger. Problem is the ad could go for at least 10 mins.

We now have a very long tail. It's an issue without Johnson because he has done well at number 8 for us. He's bowling rubbish, but his absence has resulted in us losing lance in the lower half of our batting order. 15 runs from him today would have won us the match.

...and the 15+ extra runs we would have conceded had he been bowling for us?

I agree with TU that you shouldn't be picking bowlers because they can bat a bit.

What's new, WYL not happy with bowling first.

But what's this, a contradictory post? This post is so true to form.

How can you say it was a dangerous idea to bowl first (and thus bat last), but then say that 150 was a good score in the first innings? If 150 was a good score first up, and the pitch was a 'billiard table', surely batting first would have been risky? Turns out we made the highest score of the match in the fourth innings. If Warner had had some support from someone else in the top 7, we would have won.

It is not a contradiction at all, it is about a pitch that was never going to dry out and Batting on it in a 4th innings was always going to be the dangerous part, particularly with a Batting line up that was too old or sadly out of form....Dave Warner the exception.

Clarke should have backed himself and his Batsmen to get a score on Day 1 minus Daniel Vettori...the 5 day weather forecast told him that.

Our Bowlers did an exceptional job but that Batting line up was to dodgy for a fourth innings chase.

What alot of rot. TUs right. You're comments are full of contradictions that lynch your argument.

And its not an issue batting a 4th innings when the Kiwi's lynchpin spinner is out.

The issue was not the toss but two appalling batting performances. By batting second we actually got the best of the conditions to bat in. We would have got rolled for less if we batted on the pitch first.

Agree. Hughes should go. I would be holding our experience players accountable more than Khawaja. If a maligned 20/20 player in his 2nd Test can carry his hand through the innings and make a ton then whats the excuse for Ponting and Hussey. Huseey has been great up to the SA tour and has been a key batsman but he is burning credits quickly and Punter must be getting low. Australia has had too many batting collapses over the past 2 years. I am not sure Watson and Marsh will both be fit. I would be prepared to pick Ed Cowan (there you go Nasher) for Hughes. I'd give Khawaja another chance.

AoB raises a really good point about the tailenders. Australia has not been used to having such a long tail.

The issue is giving a batsman a chance and you didn't but you danced on every failure (and there were only 3) as some reinforcement of your blinkered view and Warner in the past innings made your earlier comments indefensible.

WYL is a definite entry in the KFC Classic Comments Competition this year.

We disagree again Moderator...You discount psychology...Batting a fourth innings is never the best time to Bat.

Ross Taylor said it after day 1...."We made 150, we are still in this Game" He was right.

We disagree again Moderator...You discount psychology...Batting a fourth innings is never the best time to Bat.

Ross Taylor said it after day 1...."We made 150, we are still in this Game" He was right.

5 of our six specialist batsman were poor.

3 of them have been for 2 years.

It is time for 3 batsman changes going into the boxing day test.

Out: Hughes, Khawaja, Ponting and Hussey is close to his last game.

We are finding it hard to beat NZ imagine the slaughter that is India coming up

It is not a contradiction at all, it is about a pitch that was never going to dry out and Batting on it in a 4th innings was always going to be the dangerous part, particularly with a Batting line up that was too old or sadly out of form....Dave Warner the exception.

Clarke should have backed himself and his Batsmen to get a score on Day 1 minus Daniel Vettori...the 5 day weather forecast told him that.

Our Bowlers did an exceptional job but that Batting line up was to dodgy for a fourth innings chase.

150 on day one was a good score, 233 in the first innings was much harder batting than day one? Surely you're joking. That doesn't make sense at primary school level - possibly earlier.

Congratulations to Dave Warner - fabulous innings . The bowlers did their job as well - especially good considering how inexperienced they are ( apart from Siddle ) . Well done to the Kiwi's and they thoroughly deserved their victory . Bracewell's 9 wckts for the match was something he'll always remember - well played .

Our current top 7 apart from Warner and Clarke are either getting too old , not good enough , past it or need a spell .

It seems most of the new players are performing really well and all of the "Old boys" are either finished or close enough to it . If we were a strong team you'd probably send Khawaja back to Shield ranks . Though this is a little difficult as apart from the "Other" 2 tour games involving India there isn't any 1st class cricket in Australia until the 2nd of February - shocking planning .

If Warner has strained his lower back he may not play in Melbourne . Marsh and Watson may not be fit either . Trying to pick the top 7 for Boxing day would be total guesswork .

I originally thought that we'd beat India in the upcoming series with a fit Cummins , though even if he were available now I'd be quite concerned .

Sport being what is though , we could come out and thrash India in Melbourne !

150 on day one was a good score, 233 in the first innings was much harder batting than day one? Surely you're joking. That doesn't make sense at primary school level - possibly earlier.

45 they put the score on the board. 150 on day 1 was a good score because we only managed 136 when it was our turn. Puts the kiwis ahead in my book.

Without Warners superb knock we were thrashed. Even Steve Waugh and Mark Taylors sides struggled to chase a 4th innings target many times.

How many times?

How many times?

That's your answer is it???

Not the fact the Kiwi's were actually leading on the first innings.....

Fair enough.

It is not a contradiction at all, it is about a pitch that was never going to dry out and Batting on it in a 4th innings was always going to be the dangerous part, particularly with a Batting line up that was too old or sadly out of form....Dave Warner the exception.

Clarke should have backed himself and his Batsmen to get a score on Day 1 minus Daniel Vettori...the 5 day weather forecast told him that.

Our Bowlers did an exceptional job but that Batting line up was to dodgy for a fourth innings chase.

Its an appalling contradiction even by your standards. The pitch did dry out. The scores in the 2nd innings validate that. And why would you put a batting line up "that was too old or sadly out of form" on the worst of the pitch. Remember Brownlie got 56 out of their 150. Given the pitch was wet, Vettori would not have had any impact.

The batting line up was dodgy whether you bat it first or last. The toss was right the batting was not.

We disagree again Moderator...You discount psychology...Batting a fourth innings is never the best time to Bat.

Ross Taylor said it after day 1...."We made 150, we are still in this Game" He was right.

You dont understand psychology. As Captain he has to say that. Even if they made 50 he would be talking it up. At the post match Taylor sounded generally surprised that they won.

45 they put the score on the board. 150 on day 1 was a good score because we only managed 136 when it was our turn. Puts the kiwis ahead in my book.

Without Warners superb knock we were thrashed. Even Steve Waugh and Mark Taylors sides struggled to chase a 4th innings target many times.

to

150 was a poor score. Our batting effort was worse. Waugh and Taylor never struggled against NZ in the 4th innings. It took just one batsman just one to stick with Warner. And given you believe Warner has a questionable technique then if he can hit 123 no in his second test then there were no demons in the wicket.

150 on day one was a good score, 233 in the first innings was much harder batting than day one? Surely you're joking. That doesn't make sense at primary school level - possibly earlier.

Definitely earlier.

Its an appalling contradiction even by your standards. The pitch did dry out. The scores in the 2nd innings validate that. And why would you put a batting line up "that was too old or sadly out of form" on the worst of the pitch. Remember Brownlie got 56 out of their 150. Given the pitch was wet, Vettori would not have had any impact.

The batting line up was dodgy whether you bat it first or last. The toss was right the batting was not.

You dont understand psychology. As Captain he has to say that. Even if they made 50 he would be talking it up. At the post match Taylor sounded generally surprised that they won.

to

150 was a poor score. Our batting effort was worse. Waugh and Taylor never struggled against NZ in the 4th innings. It took just one batsman just one to stick with Warner. And given you believe Warner has a questionable technique then if he can hit 123 no in his second test then there were no demons in the wicket.

Definitely earlier.

That is supposed to change my mind is it??

The ball was still moving around today so i wouldn't want to chase on it with that batting line up. I have no problem with Warners technique of Brute Force, it is unique but it aint for every player. Thank Christ he was there today. Say what you like but NZ were in the box seat after the toss if you looked closely at the long rrange weather predictions.

That is supposed to change my mind is it??

The ball was still moving around today so i wouldn't want to chase on it with that batting line up. I have no problem with Warners technique of Brute Force, it is unique but it aint for every player. Thank Christ he was there today. Say what you like but NZ were in the box seat after the toss if you looked closely at the long rrange weather predictions.

No just educate you.

Regardless of the ball moving around by your own flawed logic of runs scored the 4th innings was the highest score so it was easier to bat on.

At 2/159, Australia was in the box set with only 82 runs to get. Only a fool would not want to be chasing that. You either did not see Warner bat or you have your 20/20 goggles on too tight. He batted 317 mins for 123. It was not a show of brute force but a mature display from a 2nd Test batsman who has been wrong maligned and pidgeon holed. His efforts embarrassed his team mates. If he could bat on that strip and Nathan Lyon could bat for 30 minutes then why cant the others.

Its a pity that Tests are played on wickets and not the Bureau of Meteorology website otherwise you're onto something special. Otherwise you lack of understanding of cricket is breathtaking on one hand and unerringly consistent on the other.

I didn't say anything about Johnson's bowling, since we didn't bowl today.

I simply made the point that our tail is much longer now that we don't have him at number 8. If he was batting at 8 today (ignoring bowling) then we probably would have won. It is a genuine issue.