Good article about Cricket and culture by Greg Baum in todays Age . Unfortunately-football and cricket are less enjoyable things to watch these days because of overpromotion ,corpoatisation and crap administration turning games into big ads .I want people to start bringing their own food and drink to games like the old days .Screw the crap catering ,the non-stop Mac Chuck ,KFC and Beer and Bet ads .

The Nine Network has lost it. The camerawork has been ordinary and the last straw - leaving the game for the news at the start of NZ's second dig. Very ordinary.

Ch. 9 coverage is like one big advertisement. I cannot watch it anymore. The 12th man CD's are more informative. Thank goodness for ABC 774 where cricket is still the major reason for being there.

J.L. Pattinson!

... and he's a Victorian.

I'm watching this and Pattinson's figures are 7-5-7-5.

Incredible!

I'm watching this and Pattinson's figures are 7-5-7-5.

Incredible!

Good to see we didn't get the dud brother here.

There goes 10!

2nd Test team should be interesting. Of all the players out injured I think Cummins is the only one likely to be fit for Hobart, straight swap for Starc you'd assume?

Warner & Khawaja are probably in a bat off to see who survives when Watson & Marsh come back for Boxing Day. Surely Hughes will be one of the 2 to be dropped. I'm expecting the team for the 1st test v India to look like:

Khawaja

Marsh

Ponting

Watson

Clarke

Hussey

Haddin

Pattinson

Siddle

Cummins

Lyon

Warner/Starc 12th man

As for NZ I'm not sure what changes they can make, they only have 2 other players in their squad. Maybe Trent Boult in for Bracewell? NZ really need a good pace bowler. Last summer I remember seeing one in a 20/20 match NZ played called Adam Milne but haven't seen or heard of him since. They do have some good batsmen (despite today's efforts), they just need a quality pace bowler and they have the makings of a good team.

Edit: End bit about the black caps.

J.L. Pattinson!

... and he's a Victorian.

The boys done well !

Looks the goods.

The quicker we drop Hughes the better, with Clarke to 4, and Ponting to 5 with Huss 6. Watson in the open with warner.

we should retire one mature player per Year from Now on. Hussey or Punter at the end of this 2011/12 Summer, followed by the other next summer.

Watson could come down the order next year for Marsh, or Hughes could come back as a No 6?

The Bowling looks exciting.

There won't be any change for Hobart. Cummins and Harris won't be fit, nor will Watson or Marsh.

Assuming full fitness though, this is the team I'd play:

Watson

Marsh

Khawaja

Ponting

Clarke

Hussey

Haddin

Harris

Siddle/Pattinson

Cummins

Lyon

The only decision I can't be sure about is Pattinson or Siddle. Siddle bowled better than his figures showed and Pattinson wasn't very good in the first innings. But Pattinson did take 5-for which helps, and he looks like he has the tools (swing, bounce, pace etc.).

Warner isn't good enough and won't hold his spot when Marsh and Watson are fit. Marsh and Watson are both better than Hughes who has a fatal flaw in his technique, always being squared up to short balls and being caught in the cordon. Not good enough. Khawaja is better and needs to settle. Ponting is also better and holds his spot until Hughes can show that he isn't weak to the short stuff.

Did we play well or are NZ crap? I don't know where NZ would be without Vettori, has carried them many a time.

And surely we need to be a bit more patient with Hughes. These kids are our future and they need the experience to develop further.

Anyway, yes, it's nice to see good young Victorian in the team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dq_QHl76DM&feature=related

Did we play well or are NZ crap? I don't know where NZ would be without Vettori, has carried them many a time.

And surely we need to be a bit more patient with Hughes. These kids are our future and they need the experience to develop further.

Anyway, yes, it's nice to see good young Victorian in the team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dq_QHl76DM&feature=related

Hughes has a poor technique. Doesn't play straight enough to be an Test Opener.

Send him away to wake him up further, then bring him back as an slips field, and a No 5 or 6 bat.

I struggle with having to choose between Siddle and Pattinson. Siddle is currently our best bowler and Pattinson was hot in that second innings; it'd be a momentum sapper to drop him now. Does Harris have to come straight in to the side if fit? I'm assuming he won't be anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point.

Everyone seems to be an expert on Hughes' technique. Not saying I disagree with your assessment t_u, but I cringe a little when armchair experts comment on "technique" of professional batsmen.

I thought I read in recent reports that Harris is out for a while, so Siddle is not challenged on that front. If Cummins is fit (and I mean fit I would give Starc a rest). Unless Siddle can develop a consistent lethal ball that leaves the right hander he will struggle if Pattinson, Starc and Cummins continue to blossom.

When someone is snicking the cordon so often over such a long period of time even Blind Freddie will have an opinion. And T_U, Warner has had one innings at the top level. Blanket comments about his Test capability reflect more on you than the target.

I agree, in part, Nasher. Most people wouldn't know what is wrong with his technique as they would only look at the result. Most of the 'technique' issues raised by armchair pundits have been rubbish.

That said, Martin is exactly the sort of bowler he will struggle with the way he plays. However, Martin is generally pretty tough on most lefties. Hughes just plays the game a different way, because he struggles to score through the onside as he can't get around his front pad. Therefore a bowler who swings it away from him can afford to bowl a leg/middle stump line to him, which forces him to play at a lot of good balls. If a bowler did that to, say, Mike Hussey, then he'd be worked for runs through the on side all day.

I don't have a problem with his dismissal yesterday, though. That's his scoring zone, but he just didn't get over the ball enough. It's one of his great strengths, the cut shot, and his technique means that he can cut balls far closer to him than most batsmen.

It's a style you often see at lower levels of cricket. It doesn't make it bad, but it presents a different set of challenges.

I struggle with having to choose between Siddle and Pattinson. Siddle is currently our best bowler and Pattinson was hot in that second innings; it'd be a momentum sapper to drop him now. Does Harris have to come straight in to the side if fit? I'm assuming he won't be anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point.

I would assume that also. Perhaps an unchanged line-up for Hobart... Are you going Nasher ? Hopefully the weather is good for the Test.

I'm intrigued by watching newcomers into the side. Breath of fresh air.

John Buchanan has his work cut out for him.

Martin's batting average of ~2.3 or so after 92 innings. Wow. 30 ducks.

I would assume that also. Perhaps an unchanged line-up for Hobart... Are you going Nasher ? Hopefully the weather is good for the Test. I'm intrigued by watching newcomers into the side. Breath of fresh air. John Buchanan has his work cut out for him. Martin's batting average of ~2.3 or so after 92 innings. Wow. 30 ducks.

No, don't think I'll be going. I think if I was going to wag work, my wife (who has pregnancy related pelvis issues) would prefer that I stay at home and help look after the kids, and they're too little to enjoy watching hours of Test cricket at a time.

There was an article a while ago about Chris Martin being statisically the worst Test batsman of all time, outdoing the likes of Courtney Walsh etc. He's also one of two Test cricketers (30+ matches) to have more wickets than runs scored. I thought that was pretty funny :-)

I like his cricinfo bio:

"Hardworking with the ball and outrageously feeble with the bat" and "by the end of the decade Martin was New Zealand's fourth highest Test wicket taker of all time but he was equally well known for his comically inept batting. Getting Martin out is as difficult as making a cup of tea and often takes less time. "

The guy's nearly 37 years old too, it's amazing that he's managed to forge such a successful Test career as a bowler without making some inroads in to at least being able to stick the bat in front of the ball occasionally. Look at Glenn McGrath's improvement with the bat as his career progressed.

Unfortunately for Martin, there's no Steve Waugh mentor equivalent in NZ it seems, as was the case with Glenn McGrath.

They put up a graph of his career batting innings yesterday. And despite Michael Slater's constant giggling and snorting, it did make interesting viewing.

His top 3 highest scores were 12 (2010), 7* (2004) and 7 (2008) IIRC.

Much talked about Courtney Walsh and Glenn McGrath would look upon those stats with a reflection of self-pride regarding their own swinging of the willow.

I guess in countries like NZ you can forge a reasonably long career if you are above capable in one skill but lamentable with the other.

FWIW, I always thought Dilip Doshi, Jim Higgs, Bruce Reed and Mike Whitney (yeah I know he blocked a draw) were incredibly poor batsman. Courtney Walsh was similarly poor over a long stretch.

I guess in countries like NZ you can forge a reasonably long career if you are above capable in one skill but lamentable with the other.

I don't know that that washes - Glenn McGrath's improvement had no effect on the longevity or effectiveness of his career because ultimately it was still his bowling that did the talking. It was just an added bonus, and probably a testimony to his work ethic and desire to do the right thing for his team. Those other old guys came from a different era and probably spent 0% of the time working on their batting, in the era of professional cricket I'd expect better. Then again, maybe Martin is considered a lost cause, but I find that hard to believe that nobody could teach him how to get forward and block the ball properly when it's on the stumps.

Actually he blocked a couple of Nathan Lyon's overs with a somewhat technically sound yet fragile technique; with soft hands and very dead bat, before proceeding to unleash with a technically correct attempt to hit over mid-off. Unfortuantely for Martin he seems to lack the strength and nous to pull it off (as expected with most no.11's), as it appeared the ball was hit with as much power as 'some' of the kids in the dinner-break Milo hit & giggle cricket during the One-Day Internationals. (I highlight 'some', because many kids display a much stronger handling of the bat than Martin and can hit it further).

Ouch.

I don't know that that washes - Glenn McGrath's improvement had no effect on the longevity or effectiveness of his career because ultimately it was still his bowling that did the talking. It was just an added bonus, and probably a testimony to his work ethic and desire to do the right thing for his team. Those other old guys came from a different era and probably spent 0% of the time working on their batting, in the era of professional cricket I'd expect better. Then again, maybe Martin is considered a lost cause, but I find that hard to believe that nobody could teach him how to get forward and block the ball properly when it's on the stumps.

My thought was on the fact that Martin and Walsh (in the latter part of his career) were not subject to fierce competition for their position in the team. And a result they were able to build quite a substantial ordinary batting record over a long period of time while they bowled. Maybe that sort of cricketer is fading out of the game.

I would have thought for some years in the Australian team that evey tail ender is a potential batsman and are expected to put a price on their wickets. As a result "tailenders" like Lillee, McGrath, Warne, Gillespie, Siddle, Johnson and McDermott all improved as batsman over the course of their career.

Many Test tailenders would be very capable state grade level batsman. Martin would be a scratchy tailender at state grade level.

It is surprising that the NZ system could not improve his batting over time.

I also get surprised that any player can get to Test, ODI level and be either deemed or suspect for throwing. I know the rules are more lenient but there were a number of SAfrican and Sri Lankan spinners up to 5 years ago that were under question.

Oh and how could I ever forget Devon Malcolm and Phil Tufnell with the bat?????

Everyone seems to be an expert on Hughes' technique. Not saying I disagree with your assessment t_u, but I cringe a little when armchair experts comment on "technique" of professional batsmen.

Sorry for expressing an opinion using the word 'technique'. But when you watch how he plays short stuff, and you watch his dismissals, his front foot ends up square of the wicket and he fends at the ball away from his chest. Yesterday's cut shot is a bit different but generally when defending short balls angled across him he doesn't get his body behind the ball and pushes away, with feet moving all over the place. It's not a technique/style/whatever you'd like me to call it that works at Test level.

When someone is snicking the cordon so often over such a long period of time even Blind Freddie will have an opinion. And T_U, Warner has had one innings at the top level. Blanket comments about his Test capability reflect more on you than the target.

Where did I say that on the basis of this Test Warner is incapable? I said he's not good enough. That comes from having watched him at NSW level. He has made plenty of runs, sure, but that's over one season. For me I haven't seen enough of him at that level to warrant long-term selection. Moreover I believe Watson, Marsh and Khawaja are all better than him, making him in a prime position to be dropped for being 'not good enough'.

I agree, in part, Nasher. Most people wouldn't know what is wrong with his technique as they would only look at the result. Most of the 'technique' issues raised by armchair pundits have been rubbish.

That said, Martin is exactly the sort of bowler he will struggle with the way he plays. However, Martin is generally pretty tough on most lefties. Hughes just plays the game a different way, because he struggles to score through the onside as he can't get around his front pad. Therefore a bowler who swings it away from him can afford to bowl a leg/middle stump line to him, which forces him to play at a lot of good balls. If a bowler did that to, say, Mike Hussey, then he'd be worked for runs through the on side all day.

I don't have a problem with his dismissal yesterday, though. That's his scoring zone, but he just didn't get over the ball enough. It's one of his great strengths, the cut shot, and his technique means that he can cut balls far closer to him than most batsmen.

It's a style you often see at lower levels of cricket. It doesn't make it bad, but it presents a different set of challenges.

Agree with this. Yesterday's dismissal is different, off a cut shot of the middle of the bat rather than an edge. But don't forget he was dropped the ball before which would have made his dismissal, if the catch was held, another in the series of slips cordon catches resulting from poorly played shots to short deliveries.

Where did I say that on the basis of this Test Warner is incapable? I said he's not good enough. That comes from having watched him at NSW level. He has made plenty of runs, sure, but that's over one season. For me I haven't seen enough of him at that level to warrant long-term selection. Moreover I believe Watson, Marsh and Khawaja are all better than him, making him in a prime position to be dropped for being 'not good enough'.

Unless they debut like McGain, I dont write anyone off in their first Test. I hadnt seen enough of Pattinson and Cummins to warrant long term selection then blow me down they did well. Hmmm