Anyone for cricket?

[daisycutter 29,334]

Rotation looks like its working well today

what a disaster - serves the acb right for continually mucking around like headless chooks

[Sir Why You Little 36,630]

Cricket has lost it....Too much money in the IPL 20/20 comp

Batsmen have no idea how to dig in and wear a bowler down

"Who can stand in the way...when there's a $$$ to be made..." Midnight Oil '84

[Nasher 33,607]

Phew! Thank goodness they finally played Clarke, Wade, Warner et al. Definitely made them a stronger and more competitive side.

[daisycutter 29,334]

Phew! Thank goodness they finally played Clarke, Wade, Warner et al. Definitely made them a stronger and more competitive side.

an unsettled team plays unsettled cricket

too many changes too often

rotation (at least the acb way) not working

[dee-luded 2,959]

I'm not as quick to speculate on reasoning, but his fielding has been nothing short of shocking in the BBL this year from the couple of games I've seen.

Yep, I saw some vision of him missing a fly ball, perched under it, flop. It looked to me like classic behavior of poor eyes. I've gone thru it as well.

And his batting, said to be avoiding the bat.

He has never been fit enough to string enough Test together.

At best his batting was adequate and he was talk of as a future opener. I dont recall the captaincy because Clarke was the heir apparent, younger than Watson and with a more imposing record as an established batsman.

As far as his bowling concern, how often has he bowled "long stints". At best he has been a 2nd change bowler. Watson could do a hamstring just thinking about doing tai chi!

How about he is 43yo?

When he retired from Test cricket six years ago he complained about the physical stress of cricket.

Its age catching up with him despite his skin looking 23.

Agreed.

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

(43) what are you talking about? Did you think I'm having a go at him? Your defending him, like he needs defending, against what?

I know its age catching up with him, thats what I was saying rhino? but more specific re his problem is he can't see the ball well enough for the top level.

very frustrating fore some, aging... may explain some of his bad behavior this season.

& his skin looks like 300 Yrs... more like madam 2swords...

Edited January 19, 2013 by dee-luded

[MadAsHell 4,209]

an unsettled team plays unsettled cricket

too many changes too often

rotation (at least the acb way) not working

Not that I think they'd do it, but instead of the selectors having a rotation policy throughout all three forms of the game, I'd much rather see them have a policy of rotating their fast bowling attack from one form of the game to another, so your 3 quicks who play test cricket get their rest during the ODI's and 20/20's, ODI bolwers rest during the tests and 20/20's and you can use the 20/20's for your really young developing bowlers. While introduce a rule for the batsmen and keeper that they can only play two forms of the game so their forced to rest at some point during the summer.

For example an ideal (fully fit) XI that I'd love to see in each form of the game starting in India would look something like.

TEST XI ODI XI Twenty/20 XI

D. Warner D. Warner A. Finch

S. Watson S. Watson S. Marsh

P. Hughes M. Clarke T. Paine

D. Hussey D. Hussey B. Rohrer

M. Clarke G. Bailey G. Maxwell

G. Maxwell M. Wade G. Bailey

M. Wade M. Marsh M. Marsh

P. Siddle R. Harris M. Johnson

J. Pattinson C. McKay P. Cummins

N. Lyon M. Starc X. Doherty

J. Bird X. Doherty J. Hazelwood

Obviously injuries and form would mean that changes to teams would need to be made at certain times, however this way everyone would be getting rests at certain times, the fast bowlers especially. And injury prone players would be getting looked after such as Harris and Cummins who's bodies we know are no longer and not yet up to getting through a test match.

[Whispering_Jack 29,191]

It's good to see that there's a four day domestic game happening at last. The disappearance of these games in favour of T20 etc. is not helpful when you're preparing for an Ashes series.

Let's hope its a good game and the Vics do well.

[Whispering_Jack 29,191]

And my growing disenchantment with the game is not being helped by the scheduling of T20 on Australia Day.

Once upon a time that day was reserved for the Adelaide Test, then it was used for ODI's and now this ...

If they ever do that to footy, it'll be all over as far as I'm concerned.

[MadAsHell 4,209]

And my growing disenchantment with the game is not being helped by the scheduling of T20 on Australia Day.

Once upon a time that day was reserved for the Adelaide Test, then it was used for ODI's and now this ...

If they ever do that to footy, it'll be all over as far as I'm concerned.

Here here WJ.

As long as I've ever known, the cricket's belonged at Adelaide on Australia Day, whether that be a day of a test match or a One Day game.

On of my favourite things to do the last few years on Australia Day is listen to the hottest 100 with the cricket on mute with a lot of beers and a bunch of mates.

T20 just doesn't work on Australia Day, especially at a stadium that has no right to host international cricket.

[Macca 16,611]

Here here WJ.

As long as I've ever known, the cricket's belonged at Adelaide on Australia Day, whether that be a day of a test match or a One Day game.

On of my favourite things to do the last few years on Australia Day is listen to the hottest 100 with the cricket on mute with a lot of beers and a bunch of mates.

T20 just doesn't work on Australia Day, especially at a stadium that has no right to host international cricket.

In terms of paying customers and TV viewers, t20 is going to be a huge part of cricket's future . Some people may not like it, 'TD', but they will have to accept it. We're seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of the amount of International t20 and to a lesser extent, domestic t20 games being scheduled. The opposition to t20 reminds me of the opposition to One day cricket / coloured clothing and lights etc in the late 70's.

Test cricket scoring rates have most probably improved because of the influence of One-day cricket. Test scoring rates may get even better still because of t20. Dave Warner came through the t20 system to Test cricket and he's definitely a drawcard in the longest form of the game. Taking all personal feelings and all emotion out of things and then looking at t20 in a totally practical way, it's hard to see it failing in the future. Many see it as a threat but I believe it will bring about more popularity to the sport as a whole.

There is a new kid on the block and the kid packs a punch. Many women and young people love the sport (already) and that alone possibly points to a 'sure fire winner'. My view isn't a popular one and will upset the purists but ...

It should be remembered that my first love is Test cricket and probably always will be. I've never really compared One day cricket to Tests and doubt whether I would ever compare Test cricket to t20's. It's like comparing the marathon to the 100 metre sprint - view them separately and you may find you like them both. There is room for all 3 forms of the game going forward.

Michael Clarke has decided to play in the IPL this year. The view is that he will command somewhere in the vicinity of 750k to 1 million for this season alone. Not too shabby for 6 weeks worth of 'super short' cricket.

Edit : I agree with you somewhat re the Adelaide Test over the Australia Day weekend but I can't see it coming back in a hurry. Next year's Ashes series (here) has the 5th test being played in Sydney from Jan 3 to Jan 7.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Macca

[45HG 1,539]

You got me thinking, Jack.

Twenty20 is to cricket as an "around the world" goal-kicking competition would be for Australian Rules.

Imagine Queen's Birthday replaced with something so terribly soulless - devoid of history or character. A shell of its parent sport.

[Macca 16,611]

Most team sport is played over a 2 - 3.5 hour time period. Cricket, and in particular Test cricket, is played over a long period of time and on the World scale is not a massive sport. I love it but I also recognise that the sport itself needs to grow. But this is not about any particular individual's opinion. It has to be viewed as the masses view it.

We've now got a version of cricket that goes for ...... 3 hours . 'Hey presto', it's really popular. IMO t20 can only get bigger as the years go on. Many people regarded ODI's in the early days with extreme skepticism and branded it 'rigged' or part of the 'Packer Circus'. I maintain that t20 can bring more people to the sport as a whole and it can help and enhance Test cricket (mostly of an indirect nature)

Interesting that all 3 versions of the game were invented in England. I don't know how people can resist not sneaking a peek when Warner is at the crease in a t20 match.

Edited January 26, 2013 by Macca

[MadAsHell 4,209]

In terms of paying customers and TV viewers, t20 is going to be a huge part of cricket's future . Some people may not like it, 'TD', but they will have to accept it. We're seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of the amount of International t20 and to a lesser extent, domestic t20 games being scheduled. The opposition to t20 reminds me of the opposition to One day cricket / coloured clothing and lights etc in the late 70's.

Test cricket scoring rates have most probably improved because of the influence of One-day cricket. Test scoring rates may get even better still because of t20. Dave Warner came through the t20 system to Test cricket and he's definitely a drawcard in the longest form of the game. Taking all personal feelings and all emotion out of things and then looking at t20 in a totally practical way, it's hard to see it failing in the future. Many see it as a threat but I believe it will bring about more popularity to the sport as a whole.

There is a new kid on the block and the kid packs a punch. Many women and young people love the sport (already) and that alone possibly points to a 'sure fire winner'. My view isn't a popular one and will upset the purists but ...

It should be remembered that my first love is Test cricket and probably always will be. I've never really compared One day cricket to Tests and doubt whether I would ever compare Test cricket to t20's. It's like comparing the marathon to the 100 metre sprint - view them separately and you may find you like them both. There is room for all 3 forms of the game going forward.

Michael Clarke has decided to play in the IPL this year. The view is that he will command somewhere in the vicinity of 750k to 1 million for this season alone. Not too shabby for 6 weeks worth of 'super short' cricket.

Edit : I agree with you somewhat re the Adelaide Test over the Australia Day weekend but I can't see it coming back in a hurry. Next year's Ashes series (here) has the 5th test being played in Sydney from Jan 3 to Jan 7.

Most team sport is played over a 2 - 3.5 hour time period. Cricket, and in particular Test cricket, is played over a long period of time and on the World scale is not a massive sport. I love it but I also recognise that the sport itself needs to grow. But this is not about any particular individual's opinion. It has to be viewed as the masses view it.

We've now got a version of cricket that goes for ...... 3 hours . 'Hey presto', it's really popular. IMO t20 can only get bigger as the years go on. Many people regarded ODI's in the early days with extreme skepticism and branded it 'rigged' or part of the 'Packer Circus'. I maintain that t20 can bring more people to the sport as a whole and it can help and enhance Test cricket (mostly of an indirect nature)

Interesting that all 3 versions of the game were invented in England. I don't know how people can resist not sneaking a peek when Warner is at the crease in a t20 match.

You make some very good points Macca, and to a degree I agree with a lot of what you say.

While Twenty/20 is easily my least liked form of the game, I do agree that there is a place for it, I just don't like the overkill that is Twenty/20. I'll attempt to go into more detail.

1. As I've mentioned, playing a T20 game on Australia Day in Sydney instead of a Test or ODI in Adelaide which has always been the case for as long as I've been following cricket which is over 20 years now. Cricket is our national day, and what better option on Australia Day is there, then to spend (a very large portion of the day) with the cricket on while having a few beers, bbq, hottest 100 on while watching the cricket, it's at the stage when it's part of the day and T20 really just takes what's been apart of Australia Day away as far as I'm concerned.

2. Twenty/20 World Cups every 2 years! Has anyone ever heard of another sport having a World Cup every 2 years???? You'd barely have been finished celebrating your victory before you're defending your World title again. If they really want a T20 competition like this every 2 years, thenhave the World Cup every 4 and have them bring it into the Commonwealth Games and make it an Under 23's competition, similar to Soccer in the Olympics. This way we at least get to see some new faces come onto the scene and our top players get a rest, which not many of them do anymore. Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh are all part of the Commonwealth anyway. Zimbabwe have been kicked out, but no loss there and the West Indies could compete as Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobego, Barbados etc and we could still even allow Scotland, Canada, Kenya to compete etc...

3. The Big Bash becoming franchised based was a big mistake for mine, the crowds were better when it was state based. Personally I don't think franchises work for Cricket, especially in this country because there's to much history. Again a better idea I reckon could have been making a team based out of Canberra or something and filling it with imports and players the States didn't want on their main list. That way you still could have had the big names while not destroying the State based competition.

4. While I have no evidence to back this up, I wonder if the ICC's love affair with Twnenty/20 Cricket, the IPL and Champions league keeping all nations busy for the full 12 months of the year, is part of the reason holding a nation like Ireland back from gaining full test and ODI status. If there was ever a country that deserved this recognition based on results (especially when you compare them to Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) then it's Ireland. I've watched them closely at two World Cup's now and I can honestly say it'd be tough to find another country that plays with as much passion and commitment then the Irish. This is a country that really wants it. In those World Cups I've seen them beat Pakistan, Bangladesh, chase down over 300 to beat England and also draw with Zimbabwe. They've also given South Africa and the West Indies some trouble. Yet still no invitation into First Class cricket, and I can't help that feel that if all the time the top nations are now being forced to put towards Twenty/20 cricket that Ireland very well may have had the opportunity to play more cricket against top nations and be the 11th International Test nation by now.

So I think they just need to re-look at how they present Twenty/20 cricket. It's fantastic that it gets more people through ght gates and interested in cricket, and if it helps them break into the USA market then that can only be a good thing. I just hope they it doesn't get to a stage where instead of the Boxing Day Test we have the Boxing Day Twenty/20 match.

[Macca 16,611]

You make some very good points Macca, and to a degree I agree with a lot of what you say.

While Twenty/20 is easily my least liked form of the game, I do agree that there is a place for it, I just don't like the overkill that is Twenty/20. I'll attempt to go into more detail.

1. As I've mentioned, playing a T20 game on Australia Day in Sydney instead of a Test or ODI in Adelaide which has always been the case for as long as I've been following cricket which is over 20 years now. Cricket is our national day, and what better option on Australia Day is there, then to spend (a very large portion of the day) with the cricket on while having a few beers, bbq, hottest 100 on while watching the cricket, it's at the stage when it's part of the day and T20 really just takes what's been apart of Australia Day away as far as I'm concerned.

2. Twenty/20 World Cups every 2 years! Has anyone ever heard of another sport having a World Cup every 2 years???? You'd barely have been finished celebrating your victory before you're defending your World title again. If they really want a T20 competition like this every 2 years, thenhave the World Cup every 4 and have them bring it into the Commonwealth Games and make it an Under 23's competition, similar to Soccer in the Olympics. This way we at least get to see some new faces come onto the scene and our top players get a rest, which not many of them do anymore. Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh are all part of the Commonwealth anyway. Zimbabwe have been kicked out, but no loss there and the West Indies could compete as Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobego, Barbados etc and we could still even allow Scotland, Canada, Kenya to compete etc...

3. The Big Bash becoming franchised based was a big mistake for mine, the crowds were better when it was state based. Personally I don't think franchises work for Cricket, especially in this country because there's to much history. Again a better idea I reckon could have been making a team based out of Canberra or something and filling it with imports and players the States didn't want on their main list. That way you still could have had the big names while not destroying the State based competition.

4. While I have no evidence to back this up, I wonder if the ICC's love affair with Twnenty/20 Cricket, the IPL and Champions league keeping all nations busy for the full 12 months of the year, is part of the reason holding a nation like Ireland back from gaining full test and ODI status. If there was ever a country that deserved this recognition based on results (especially when you compare them to Zimbabwe and Bangladesh) then it's Ireland. I've watched them closely at two World Cup's now and I can honestly say it'd be tough to find another country that plays with as much passion and commitment then the Irish. This is a country that really wants it. In those World Cups I've seen them beat Pakistan, Bangladesh, chase down over 300 to beat England and also draw with Zimbabwe. They've also given South Africa and the West Indies some trouble. Yet still no invitation into First Class cricket, and I can't help that feel that if all the time the top nations are now being forced to put towards Twenty/20 cricket that Ireland very well may have had the opportunity to play more cricket against top nations and be the 11th International Test nation by now.

So I think they just need to re-look at how they present Twenty/20 cricket. It's fantastic that it gets more people through ght gates and interested in cricket, and if it helps them break into the USA market then that can only be a good thing. I just hope they it doesn't get to a stage where instead of the Boxing Day Test we have the Boxing Day Twenty/20 match.

Good post TD and you make some excellent points. I think it's more about a mindset here rather than who is right and who is wrong.

I suppose I'm just one of those people who (on occasions) will embrace something new straight away, without hesitation. I've been a critic of modern footy for a number of years (as opposed to the 'glorious' days of the 70's, 80's and 90's) but have only recently decided to change. Mainly because those days aren't coming back and it's time I got on with things. So I've finally changed my mind and I already feel better for it. There is nothing wrong with hanging on to the past but if you know the future is going to be vastly different you have to adapt.

I'll address your points individually TD ...

1 :- Australia day weekend :- I think on this particular weekend we may well go back to ODI's and the t20's will come later. Maybe it's because they've got to fit 5 ODI's in against the Windies in early February and then immediately go to India is the reason. Not sure on that but it seems they've chucked these 2 t20 games in before the Sri Lankans go home. Could be just an expediency thing this time around.

2 :- t20 World Cup :- Yep, every 2 years seems a bit over the top but the tournament only goes for 3 weeks and once again, it probably comes down to demand and money. Tomorrow's crowd could a huge one for instance and the counter argument for those who love t20 internationals might be - "Why aren't there more matches" . As an aside, a few years ago, ESPN paid 1 Billion dollars for the rights to broadcast the Champions League finals (another annual 3 week tournament) Money talks.

3 :- City based Big Bash teams :- I reckon in time the City based teams will be almost totally accepted. Remembering that this sport has a huge appeal to women and young people (who may or may not have any connection to the Bushrangers or such like) . Stars and Renegades pulled nearly 50,000 to their 2nd clash . That's good numbers. Perth, Hobart and Adelaide regularly played to packed houses. There's talk of Geelong and Canberra having teams in the future. The Big Bash could get very big.

4 :- Test status for minnow nations :- Maybe we could have a 2nd tier Test cricket system or for clashes between non Test nations, it just continues to come under the banner of 1st class cricket . Zimbabwe's and Bangladesh's infrastructure isn't strong and is largely the reason these 2 nations struggle. (though both nations have produced some fine cricketers) Don't know enough about Ireland's cricket infrastructure so it's hard to have a definitive view. You made some interesting points though TD.

Think the Boxing day Test is fairly safe. Though we did get a Big Bash game in the evening! I view both sports separately so switching from one to the other is like switching from AFL to NFL

Just a final point. Shield cricket has been heavily subsidised for many many years. It doesn't even go close to paying for itself. Of course, many of us would like it to stay in it's current set up. It's the lifeblood of our Test side and is still a strong and vibrant competition. But it plays to sparse crowds and has done for years. It would cost millions to run it. As a business model it doesn't really work but there is no talk of scaling it down.

T20 pays it's way and in time it may end up helping to subsidise shield cricket. That's part of the reason why I believe t20 is good/great for cricket on an overall basis.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Macca

[MadAsHell 4,209]

Good post TD and you make some excellent points. I think it's more about a mindset here rather than who is right and who is wrong.

I suppose I'm just one of those people who (on occasions) will embrace something new straight away, without hesitation. I've been a critic of modern footy for a number of years (as opposed to the 'glorious' days of the 70's, 80's and 90's) but have only recently decided to change. Mainly because those days aren't coming back and it's time I got on with things. So I've finally changed my mind and I already feel better for it. There is nothing wrong with hanging on to the past but if you know the future is going to be vastly different you have to adapt.

I'll address your points individually TD ...

1 :- Australia day weekend :- I think on this particular weekend we may well go back to ODI's and the t20's will come later. Maybe it's because they've got to fit 5 ODI's in against the Windies in early February and then immediately go to India is the reason. Not sure on that but it seems they've chucked these 2 t20 games in before the Sri Lankans go home. Could be just an expediency thing this time around.

2 :- t20 World Cup :- Yep, every 2 years seems a bit over the top but the tournament only goes for 3 weeks and once again, it probably comes down to demand and money. Tomorrow's crowd could a huge one for instance and the counter argument for those who love t20 internationals might be - "Why aren't there more matches" . As an aside, a few years ago, ESPN paid 1 Billion dollars for the rights to broadcast the Champions League finals (another annual 3 week tournament) Money talks.

3 :- City based Big Bash teams :- I reckon in time the City based teams will be almost totally accepted. Remembering that this sport has a huge appeal to women and young people (who may or may not have any connection to the Bushrangers or such like) . Stars and Renegades pulled nearly 50,000 to their 2nd clash . That's good numbers. Perth, Hobart and Adelaide regularly played to packed houses. There's talk of Geelong and Canberra having teams in the future. The Big Bash could get very big.

4 :- Test status for minnow nations :- Maybe we could have a 2nd tier Test cricket system or for clashes between non Test nations, it just continues to come under the banner of 1st class cricket . Zimbabwe's and Bangladesh's infrastructure isn't strong and is largely the reason these 2 nations struggle. (though both nations have produced some fine cricketers) Don't know enough about Ireland's cricket infrastructure so it's hard to have a definitive view. You made some interesting points though TD.

Think the Boxing day Test is fairly safe. Though we did get a Big Bash game in the evening! I view both sports separately so switching from one to the other is like switching from AFL to NFL

Just a final point. Shield cricket has been heavily subsidised for many many years. It doesn't even go close to paying for itself. Of course, many of us would like it to stay in it's current set up. It's the lifeblood of our Test side and is still a strong and vibrant competition. But it plays to sparse crowds and has done for years. It would cost millions to run it. As a business model it doesn't really work but there is no talk of scaling it down.

T20 pays it's way and in time it may end up helping to subsidise shield cricket. That's part of the reason why I believe t20 is good/great for cricket on an overall basis.

Equally well put Macca.

End of the day, you're right, it's here and it's not going anywhere, so people may as well get used to it. I just hope they get the balance right with it so that the game can continue to grow without selling it's soul so to speak. Only time will tell I guess.

[Macca 16,611]

Equally well put Macca.

End of the day, you're right, it's here and it's not going anywhere, so people may as well get used to it. I just hope they get the balance right with it so that the game can continue to grow without selling it's soul so to speak. Only time will tell I guess.

I agree with you totally on the balance, though all the nations will probably chase the cash so we will all have to be ready. Just on chasing the cash ...

I read somewhere that Cricket Australia received 6 million dollars from the BCCI for each ODI that India were involved in last February (2012) . It was one of the reasons we had a round robin series involving Sri Lanka as well. CA received similar amounts for the India/Sri Lanka ODI's. Obviously driven by the huge TV audience back in India. It's any wonder we play India on an annual basis now (Tests and/or ODI's) .

I stand corrected on the 6mil figure but I'm almost sure that's right. (couldn't find a link)

Edited January 27, 2013 by Macca

[MadAsHell 4,209]

Squad for India named.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/heat-on-lyon-after-test-squad-named-20130131-2dmc2.html

Personally I think a 17 man sqaud is a bit overkill. Don;t really see much upside with Smith and Henriques and I think Haddin's very stiff, personaly I would of taken Haddin as the reserve keeper but play him as a specialist batsman with the amount of experience we've lost. I would of just gone with a 15 man squad being:

Warner, Watson, Hughes, Haddin, Clarke, Wade, O'Keefe, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon, Bird

Khawaja, Maxwell, Doherty, Starc

[Macca 16,611]

Squad for India named.

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/heat-on-lyon-after-test-squad-named-20130131-2dmc2.html

Personally I think a 17 man sqaud is a bit overkill. Don;t really see much upside with Smith and Henriques and I think Haddin's very stiff, personaly I would of taken Haddin as the reserve keeper but play him as a specialist batsman with the amount of experience we've lost. I would of just gone with a 15 man squad being:

Warner, Watson, Hughes, Haddin, Clarke, Wade, O'Keefe, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon, Bird

Khawaja, Maxwell, Doherty, Starc

17 seems a tad high without a reserve keeper. They've got 9 batsmen in the squad so in any given Test, 3 will sit out. In the Tests where we play 2 spinners, 3 of the quicks will be 'rotated' out. The 1st and 2nd Tests are back to back with a weeks break before the 3rd and 4th Tests are again 'back to back'. We now know that they're probably going to continue on the fast bowler rotation so maybe at least 4 of the quicks will play at some stage. Possibly all 5.

Not sure on Doherty but O'Keefe was his only real rival for the left arm orthodox position (Beer and Holland are both injured apparently) Xavier could play in at least 2 of the Tests. Surprised with Smith's selection but can understand Henriques getting a call up. They will possibly need a 5th bowler who can bowl medium pace instead of spin. Think I'm right in saying that Watson has put his bowling on hold for the time being.

At least they've got quite a few options (except a back-up keeper). I agree with you re Haddin. You never know what can happen on the eve of a Test.

[45HG 1,539]

Smith over Haddin makes no sense.

[Guest the Sorcerer]

Hussey - clarke

http://www.themiddlestump.com/2013/01/are-australia-in-disarray.html

[MadAsHell 4,209]

Hussey - clarke

http://www.themiddlestump.com/2013/01/are-australia-in-disarray.html

It's an interesting read...

[daisycutter 29,334]

Smith over Haddin makes no sense.

smith over anyone makes no sense

[Biffen 12,824]

Smith over Haddin makes no sense.

Haddin drops catches.

He needs to average 50 before he fields .

Smith is a nothing cricketer .

Chris Rogers must have a problem personality .

[Macca 16,611]

Haddin drops catches.

He needs to average 50 before he fields .

Smith is a nothing cricketer .

Chris Rogers must have a problem personality .

The only way I can see Smith playing is if we encounter a 'raging turner'. Even so, it's drawing a long bow. Either Maxwell or Henriques will probably play as the 5th bowler/no.6 or no.7 batsman. (Wade might bat at no.6)

Much will depend on the make up of our 4 front line bowlers. If/when we play 2 spinners then Henriques will probably play as the 3rd seamer. I can't see Smith being picked as the 2nd spinner over Doherty (though Xavier hasn't got great credentials either).

I hope Doherty can step up because if he doesn't, we could struggle to bowl the Indians out for a reasonable score. India will have looked at our squad and identified our weaknesses.

Expect all the wickets in the 4 tests to favour spin. Or more to the point, not give any assistance to the quicks. England defeated India 2-1 when they toured there late last year. The only time England played one spinner was the Test that they lost (the1st Test) Of course, England have 2 class spinners in Swann and Panesar.

Maybe Pup can chime in with another 6 for 9 . That would help

Edited February 2, 2013 by Macca

[Macca 16,611]

Thought Pakistan had a decent 1st day against South Africa. Bowled the Proteas out for 253 and seemingly right in the game until ...... day 2 .... Pakistan all out for 49 with Dale Steyn taking 6 for 8 !

South Africa have already got an overall lead of 350 odd with 7 wickets in hand (batting the 2nd time). Game over.