Anyone for cricket?

[Macca 16,970]

On the subject of Shield players on the fringe of Test selection , there are any number of them depending on opinion - Wade , Paine , Hazlewood , Maddinson , Christian , Ferguson , Harris , Cutting , Forrest , Rogers , Cowan , Klinger , Cooper , Davis , Bailey , Herrick , Hogan , Butterworth , Faulkner , Maxwell etc etc . Just throwing some names out there as obviously some of those I've mentioned may never play Test cricket .

It's my belief that the Sheffield Shield system is the best 2nd tier 1st class cricket in the World . It has served us well over many years and largely explains why Australia has been the most successful Test nation .

Edit - Mitchell Marsh ! Now there's an up and coming player . Future star .

Edited December 13, 2011 by Macca

[Axis of Bob 11,812]

AoB, obviously it's a very difficult concept to grasp....

Bob: Johnson adds batting depth to our lineup

Demonland: But Johnson has been bowling woefully for ages!

Bob: Okay, forget naming names, our tail is long because none of our bowlers can bat.

Demonland: But Johnson has been bowling woefully for ages!

Frustrating stuff.

Thanks Nash. I was beginning to worry that I was the problem. At least it made sense outside the bubble.

[H_T 3,047]

I'm sorry for missing the shenanigans on the weekend and re-hashing posts from the weekend and yesterday, but I must address this...

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.

A quick comparison of scores would put them ahead in anyone's book.

So, had we managed 350 + or even 200 in return on the first dig, would 150 have still been a good score on day 1 ?

[Macca 16,970]

Here are the Aussie squads for the 2 warm up games vs India . Shaun Marsh is a late withdrawal from the 3 day fixture ( back injury ). Ed Cowan takes his place .

http://www.24cricket...announced/8638/

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

I'm sorry for missing the shenanigans on the weekend and re-hashing posts from the weekend and yesterday, but I must address this...

A quick comparison of scores would put them ahead in anyone's book.

So, had we managed 350 + or even 200 in return on the first dig, would 150 have still been a good score on day 1 ?

Sure it would have, But it was never going to happen. The ball was moving around too much due to the pitch and cloud cover. 150 was a solid score under those conditions.

[45HG 1,539]

And in the fourth dig we scored 230 with a sub par score. If 230 is sub par in the fourth, and 150 is good in the first, how the hell do you figure that it was easier to bat in the first innings?

[Rogue 585]

AoB, obviously it's a very difficult concept to grasp....

Bob: Johnson adds batting depth to our lineup

Demonland: But Johnson has been bowling woefully for ages!

Bob: Okay, forget naming names, our tail is long because none of our bowlers can bat.

Demonland: But Johnson has been bowling woefully for ages!

Frustrating stuff.

Really, Nasher?

More like this:

Bob: Johnson adds batting depth to our lineup

Demonland: We lose more with the ball than he makes up with the bat.

Bob: Okay, forget naming names, our tail is long because none of our bowlers can bat.

Demonland: Sure, but so what? You should choose bowlers for their bowling; the batsmen have the responsibility of making the majority of runs.

[Biffen 12,943]

This is probably the lowest the Australian team has sunk. Losing to New Zealand in anything is horrendous-except whinging eh bro ?

[Biffen 12,943]

WYL ,Don Bradman and I agree . You win the toss and bat 9 times out of ten .On the tenth time you think about it for a while and then bat .

[H_T 3,047]

Sure it would have, But it was never going to happen. The ball was moving around too much due to the pitch and cloud cover. 150 was a solid score under those conditions.

Truth is you don't know that for sure. And the ball was moving around just as much on day one as it was day two. It wasn't just movement due to conditions that provided a low score. A closer look at those holding the willow may provide you with a greater insight.

[H_T 3,047]

I reckon the selectors may look at Ed Cowan for the. Boxing Day Test. Whether Watson is declared a starter there would be doubt on him bowling. I can't imagine them going in with a half baked Watson, I would be more inclined to give Dan Christian a go if Watson not 100%. Harris has declared himself fit. I would imagine Starc would make way. Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon the other bowlers. Cowan for Hughes. Punter, Haddin and Hussey to stay in for me, much to others apparent disgust.

[Axis of Bob 11,812]

The theory behind winning is the toss is that you compare the score you think you'd make in the 1st innings and compare it to what you think you'd make batting 4th. If you think you'd make more in the 1st innings than the 4th, then you bat. If you think you'd make more in the 4th innings then you'd bowl.

You very rarely have a pitch where it's easier to bat in the 4th innings than it is in the first innings.

This was one of those rare occasions.

[Biffen 12,943]

The wicket had a bit of green grass on it. Clarke lost his off peg by not offering to a straight one .Ponting walked LBW to a straight one . Hughes is cut obsessed .Forget the tail, forget the coin toss .We lost to NZ.Revolting .

[H_T 3,047]

The theory behind winning is the toss is that you compare the score you think you'd make in the 1st innings and compare it to what you think you'd make batting 4th. If you think you'd make more in the 1st innings than the 4th, then you bat. If you think you'd make more in the 4th innings then you'd bowl.

You very rarely have a pitch where it's easier to bat in the 4th innings than it is in the first innings.

This was one of those rare occasions.

Yep. And why Clarke sent NZ in to bat at the toss.

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

And in the fourth dig we scored 230 with a sub par score. If 230 is sub par in the fourth, and 150 is good in the first, how the hell do you figure that it was easier to bat in the first innings?

Who said it was easier?? It is a TEST Match, A Test of mental & physical strength. 150 was a good score on that first day...This was proven by Australia's effort on the second day...ok. Do you follow me???

Now Australia is on the back foot, because no matter what our bowlers do...WE still must chase in the Fourth Ininngs...Never easy as the little Head Gremlins mount up...New Zealand leading by 241 is in the Box Seat, regardless of what the Biased Australians Journalist write...

Our Batting line up at this time is very flaky...Not truly awful but flaky when put under pressure

The Kiwi's never gave up...Considering what Dave Warner did...it was shameful. But it is always harder to Bat in a 4th innings than it is on day one when the mind is fresh.

Yes we made more runs in the 4th innings, but the stakes are higher because you know the total needed,and so do the bowlers....Psychology at play.

If you disagree with the above...so be it. But that is my view of the 5 day game.

Edited December 14, 2011 by why you little

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

Truth is you don't know that for sure. And the ball was moving around just as much on day one as it was day two. It wasn't just movement due to conditions that provided a low score. A closer look at those holding the willow may provide you with a greater insight.

Of course but that is Test Cricket...You back your team to do a job...The cloud cover over the first 2-3 days in Tasmania always meant the Ball was going to move around..That is why i would prefer to get the runs on the board than to chase....

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,798]

Quoting the learned,yet vitriolic ,Rhino......

"JJC, its been proven flawed and you and WYL just reinforce your ignorance. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where's it been proven flawed!!??

When I disagree with someone, I resist the temptation to call them ignorant. I know it weakens my argument.

Edited December 14, 2011 by JUMPING JACK CLENNETT

[Sir Why You Little 37,038]

Quoting the learned,yet vitriolic ,Rhino......

"JJC, its been proven flawed and you and WYL just reinforce your ignorance. "

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where's it been proven flawed!!??

When I disagree with someone, I resist the temptation to call them ignorant. I know it weakens my argument.

To true JJC. We all watch the game from different chairs.

[45HG 1,539]

I reckon my analysis quite a few pages back did the job very well, especially considering I've seen no stats or information to support your stance - aside, of course, from stating that some Waugh and Taylor teams couldn't chase in the fourth innings.

I'll give you some more info:

Australia have won the toss and batted 295 times for 145 wins - 49%.

Australia have won the toss and bowled 77 times for 40 wins - 51%.

Game. Set. Match.

[Rogue 585]

I'll just put this out there:

Given that batting first is common wisdom, teams tend to bowl first only when the pitch is likely to favour bowling on day one. Therefore it's not that surprising to see a decent win/loss ratio when teams bowl first, because it's not the default position - they only do so when they think it's clearly advantageous.

[H_T 3,047]

I reckon my analysis quite a few pages back did the job very well, especially considering I've seen no stats or information to support your stance - aside, of course, from stating that some Waugh and Taylor teams couldn't chase in the fourth innings.

I'll give you some more info:

Australia have won the toss and batted 295 times for 145 wins - 49%.

Australia have won the toss and bowled 77 times for 40 wins - 51%.

Game. Set. Match.

Check mate. Biffen and The Don would be interested in this also. I find it interesting that the spruiking on the "great" first innings of 150 only happened at the conclusion of the Test match. 'twas all quiet on the Friday.

[45HG 1,539]

I'll just put this out there:

Given that batting first is common wisdom, teams tend to bowl first only when the pitch is likely to favour bowling on day one. Therefore it's not that surprising to see a decent win/loss ratio when teams bowl first, because it's not the default position - they only do so when they think it's clearly advantageous.

This is what the sane have been arguing for possibly a year now. You don't always bowl, but you certainly bowl when conditions suit.

[H_T 3,047]

This is what the sane have been arguing for possibly a year now. You don't always bowl, but you certainly bowl when conditions suit.

Can I use this as my sig ?

Maybe the penny will drop one day. Just one day....<insert laughing emoticon rolling around>

[Rogue 585]

Katman returns?

AUSTRALIAN captain Michael Clarke is said to be behind a push to reinstate deposed opener Simon Katich in the Test team.

The claim, made in a report on Channel Nine last night, comes as Australia seeks to address its batting woes after the humiliating loss to New Zealand in Hobart.

''If the report on Channel Nine that Michael Clarke and the selectors are talking about Simon for Test cricket [is true], whether it be Boxing Day or any other day, Simon would be very excited and I would be very excited for him,'' the batsman's manager, Robert Joske, said.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz1gcX4FNSU

[Nasher 33,616]

Clarke pushing for Katich is amusing.