Anyone for cricket?

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

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.

Yes Warner Batted Beautifully...nobody else did. That is my issue..This current Batting line up was not going to chase down a 4th innings.

Take Warner out of it and we were pathetic. Hughes should have been out last night for 0 (again) but for some bizare reason the Kiwi's did not refer it.

Psychology did play a huge part in today..particularly when Ponting was out.

Kiwi's smelt it...Good Luck to them.

It should have been the other way round...Mr Bingle won the toss.

i would have backed our bowlers to do the job today...not the Batsmen.

That said it was a fantastic game...Pity there is only 20/20 games on before Boxing day....This ludicrous fixture has left no room for our batsmen to practice, but $$$ do the talking now sadly.

Edited December 12, 2011 by why you little

[Biffen 12,946]

Warner is class .Test cricket will only Improve his batting .Sehwag was correct .

Clarke is a [censored] .

Johnson cant bowl

Haddin cannot keep

Bring back Kat.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Yes Warner Batted Beautifully...nobody else did. That is my issue..This current Batting line up was not going to chase down a 4th innings.

Take Warner out of it and we were pathetic. Hughes should have been out last night for 0 (again) but for some bizare reason the Kiwi's did not refer it.

Psychology did play a huge part in today..particularly when Ponting was out.

No. That is my issue that I raised. You are changing your position You are wrongly trying to claim that if we won the toss and batted first that we would have done better. This does logically connect with your argument that I highlighted above. If the current batting line up was not going to chase down a 4th innings total then it sure as hell was not able to set a total for the other side to get.

And many of the players who were prominent when Aust chased down 310 against SA in SA 3 weeks ago failed miserably today. So Aust is more than capable to get the runs with that current batting line up not forgetting that Warner (who did not play in the SA run chase) got half of them. They just failed miserably. Whether you bat or bowl first, you cant have 20 dismissed batsman provide only 235 runs in total and expect to win a chase or to set a total. Clarke made the right call but his batsmen (Clarke included) failed to execute.

Psychology is always a factor in Test cricket. It had no bearing on the appropriate of the Toss decision. So dont bother making something up.

This ludicrous fixture has left no room for our batsmen to practice, but $$$ do the talking now sadly.

Warner seems to be able to cope with the money and the practice...

The Test players have just had series against Sri Lanka, South Africa and New Zealand so they have had sufficient practice. And its 12 days until the Boxing Day Test and then the Sydney Test. There simply is not reasonable time to have another long form game prior to then

Another red herring WYL.....

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

No. That is my issue that I raised. You are changing your position You are wrongly trying to claim that if we won the toss and batted first that we would have done better. This does logically connect with your argument that I highlighted above. If the current batting line up was not going to chase down a 4th innings total then it sure as hell was not able to set a total for the other side to get.

And many of the players who were prominent when Aust chased down 310 against SA in SA 3 weeks ago failed miserably today. So Aust is more than capable to get the runs with that current batting line up not forgetting that Warner (who did not play in the SA run chase) got half of them. They just failed miserably. Whether you bat or bowl first, you cant have 20 dismissed batsman provide only 235 runs in total and expect to win a chase or to set a total. Clarke made the right call but his batsmen (Clarke included) failed to execute.

Psychology is always a factor in Test cricket. It had no bearing on the appropriate of the Toss decision. So dont bother making something up.

Warner seems to be able to cope with the money and the practice...

The Test players have just had series against Sri Lanka, South Africa and New Zealand so they have had sufficient practice. And its 12 days until the Boxing Day Test and then the Sydney Test. There simply is not reasonable time to have another long form game prior to then

Another red herring WYL.....

Don't tell me the position i raised....Warner is a freak..and hopefully will have a long career..His footwork is not textbook, but his Power makes up for any of those short comings...Without Warner we were Shite...but we were even more shite because we chased a 4th innings total.

Clarke gave the initiative back to the Kiwis by bowling first..If you do not agree i don't really care.

You are not always right Rhino, but always most anti social.

Moderator indeed, whoever bestowed that upon you....

[Axis of Bob 11,841]

That Rhino is a moderator has nothing to do with you being wrong.

[Macca 17,032]

There could have been a round of 3 Shield games this Weekend . They could have held off the Big Bash for 4 days so our Test Batsmen and up and coming batsmen and bowlers get to have one last hit out before this important series against India .

The Test bowlers could have been rested but now Harris , Hazlewood and others have only nets or 4 overs per game in the Big Bash as preparation for Test cricket ( if they are called up ) .

It's a shocking piece of programming by C.A . Also , there are 5 and 6 day gaps between the 3rd and 4th Tests where the only practice Test players will get is in the nets or the Big Bash . That's fine if you are winning easily and have no reason to change the Team but as we well know ..........................

The lack of "other" 1st class cricket in the next 7 weeks will be a major issue and the media are already highlighting the shortfalls .

Shield cricket is our only real nursery for Test cricket and even though it's heavily subsidised without it we're cactus .

Edited December 12, 2011 by Macca

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

That Rhino is a moderator has nothing to do with you being wrong.

Correct...but i have have had enough of his PM's in the past to know how he likes to operate.

You would have bowled first too would you Spongebob??? Interesting.

I was going to jump on here last friday...but knew i would cop a barrage...Shame i should have backed my intuitions!

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

There could have been a round of 3 Shield games this Weekend . They could have held off the Big Bash for 4 days so our Test Batsmen and up and coming batsmen and bowlers get to have one last hit out before this important series against India .

The Test bowlers could have been rested but now Harris , Hazlewood and others have only nets or 4 overs per game in the Big Bash as preparation for Test cricket ( if they are called up ) .

It's a shocking piece of programming by C.A . Also , there are 5 and 6 day gaps between the 3rd and 4th Tests where the only practice Test players will get is in the nets or the Big Bash . That's fine if you are winning easily and have no reason to change the Team but as we well know ..........................

The lack of "other" 1st class cricket in the next 7 weeks will be a major issue and the media are already highlighting the shortfalls .

Shield cricket is our only real nursery for Test cricket and even though it's heavily subsidised without it we're cactus .

A most sensible Post. A breath of Fresh air round here!

[wisedog 352]

I'm really glad both Warner and Marsh have been able to take their form in other forms of the game, and bring it to test cricket.

The question is, where does this leave Watson? After years of debate, we finally have the opportunity to move him down the order, but I suppose it depends on how Clarke intends on using him in the bowling attack.

I would move him, but for another reason. The middle order has been a problem for years now, and I think it would be fantastic if Watson was able to settle things at 6, and play the 'Mr Reliable' role. Hussey did this beautifully for the first part of his career, but at 36, a tough decision needs to be made.

If it were up to me, the side would look something like this:

Warner

Marsh

Khawaja

Ponting

Clarke

Watson

Haddin

Siddle

Pattinson

Cummins

Lyon

[Jumping Jack Clennett 1,809]

"Win the toss...Bat". ( quoting WYL)

I agree with you on this ,WYL, but I'm reluctant to discuss it because it raises such vitriolic sentiment in those of the opposite opinion on this forum.

Most Test and first class captains agree with you, too.

Edited December 12, 2011 by JUMPING JACK CLENNETT

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

"Win the toss...Bat". ( quoting WYL)

I agree with you on this ,WYL, but I'm reluctant to discuss it because it raises such vitriolic sentiment in those of the opposite opinion on this forum.

Most Test and first class captains agree with you, too.

Thanks JJC...i would NEVER offer the initiative to an opposition Captain or Team. That they must earn by Beating me and my Team.

[Macca 17,032]

A most sensible Post. A breath of Fresh air round here!

Thanks Wyl

We used to have the Tests out of the way after Sydney so the current problem is a new one .

I think the only way you can have a round of Shield games during the Tests ( apart from next weekend ) is if you put the Big Bash on hold for 5 days sometime in January . An ideal time would be during the Sydney Test so fringe players can prepare for the final 2 Tests . Usually the Team doesn't change much from the Boxing day Test to the Sydney Test .

Btw , this new system of Boxing day Test , Sydney Test , Perth Test in mid January and the Adelaide Test over Australia day is probably here to stay so C.A need to get it right.

Cheers

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

Thanks Wyl

We used to have the Tests out of the way after Sydney so the current problem is a new one .

I think the only way you can have a round of Shield games during the Tests ( apart from next weekend ) is if you put the Big Bash on hold for 5 days sometime in January . An ideal time would be during the Sydney Test so fringe players can prepare for the final 2 Tests . Usually the Team doesn't change much from the Boxing day Test to the Sydney Test .

Btw , this new system of Boxing day Test , Sydney Test , Perth Test in mid January and the Adelaide Test over Australia day is probably here to stay so C.A need to get it right.

Cheers

C A want to make money...They give out such ridiculous Gold Contracts they must be paid for.....so the True Game of Cricket-The 5 Day Test suffers because of it...Sad Fact.

Edited December 12, 2011 by why you little

[Rogue 585]

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.

There's a point to be made about having a long tail but today's situation never would have happened had Johnson been playing. It probably would have been worse.

I get where you're coming from, but you can't disentangle his batting from his bowling; if so, we may as well say that it'd be handy having D Hussey coming in at 8.

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

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.

Mitchell Johnson would have made probably made a large difference...New Zealand's total would have been bigger...Johnson needs to almost reinvent himself, and in all honesty will be lucky to wear a Baggy Green again...Our Bowlers and tail cannot be blamed in this game.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

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.

This is such utter rubbish.

Sure, in an ideal world we'd play 11 batsmen. Since we didn't bowl today, shouldn't we have played four batsmen instead of Siddle, Pattinson, Starc and Lyon?

Come on now, you're intelligent. It cuts both ways. We would have liked to have someone with batting prowess in the tail, but we need four bowlers who can take 20 wickets, and we shouldn't be picking bowlers coz they can bat.

There's a point to be made about having a long tail but today's situation never would have happened had Johnson been playing. It probably would have been worse.

I get where you're coming from, but you can't disentangle his batting from his bowling; if so, we may as well say that it'd be handy having D Hussey coming in at 8.

^This.

[Axis of Bob 11,841]

How is it a difficult concept to grasp?

For the past 5 years we have had a certain balance to our batting lineup since Johnson has been in the side. It has meant that we have, in the past, fielded a stronger batting lineup than we have at the moment.

I could easily have not mentioned Johnson at all and, instead, simply said that our bowlers in this test are weaker as a collective than they have been for some time. This was exposed during that run chase.

I think people are looking for an anti-Johnson angle on this one when it was simply a comment about the batting strength of our bowlers. It was not a comment about selection and it certainly wasn't a comment with any particular agenda behind it. I'll try to remove the subtlety from my posts in the future, but doing so certainly takes a lot of the fun out of posting.

[Sir Why You Little 37,125]

How is it a difficult concept to grasp?

For the past 5 years we have had a certain balance to our batting lineup since Johnson has been in the side. It has meant that we have, in the past, fielded a stronger batting lineup than we have at the moment.

I could easily have not mentioned Johnson at all and, instead, simply said that our bowlers in this test are weaker as a collective than they have been for some time. This was exposed during that run chase.

I think people are looking for an anti-Johnson angle on this one when it was simply a comment about the batting strength of our bowlers. It was not a comment about selection and it certainly wasn't a comment with any particular agenda behind it. I'll try to remove the subtlety from my posts in the future, but doing so certainly takes a lot of the fun out of posting.

I don't think its anti Johnson at all. Mitchell was always selected primarily as a bowler. And it is that part of his game that has fallen away. Yep he can hit a ball but mainly when his confidence is up, and that has been in trouble for a while. Peter Siddle can often hit a ball but like Johnson can go out very cheaply.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Correct...but i have have had enough of his PM's in the past to know how he likes to operate.

For the record, WYL, you have sent me more PMs over the time and some have been weird. And in the last instance, I disabled any further PM communication because of your inflammatory language and the fact that when you clearly did not undertstand that alleging suicidal tendencies on a public figure was uninformed, inappropriate for public discussion, in appalling taste and had no relevance to the topic of discussion.

I only raise this to counter your slimy inference on me.

Thanks Wyl

We used to have the Tests out of the way after Sydney so the current problem is a new one .

I think the only way you can have a round of Shield games during the Tests ( apart from next weekend ) is if you put the Big Bash on hold for 5 days sometime in January . An ideal time would be during the Sydney Test so fringe players can prepare for the final 2 Tests . Usually the Team doesn't change much from the Boxing day Test to the Sydney Test .

Btw , this new system of Boxing day Test , Sydney Test , Perth Test in mid January and the Adelaide Test over Australia day is probably here to stay so C.A need to get it right.

Cheers

Which fringe players are you concerned about? Marsh and Watson are the only players likely to come into the side. Their issue is fitness. If they fail their fitness test then the only other likely option is playing Ed Cowan who has come off a century on the weekend. Surely he should be practised enough. And the issue of weakness in the team is the failure of the current batting line. They have played six Tests and other matches in a gruelling program over the past two months or so. And given that Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Haddin are experienced campaigners I am not sure that pushing them through a four day game would not leave them stale for battle ahead

Mitchell was always selected primarily as a bowler. And it is that part of his game that has fallen away. Yep he can hit a ball but mainly when his confidence is up, and that has been in trouble for a while. Peter Siddle can often hit a ball but like Johnson can go out very cheaply.

Johnson is a bowling all rounder and his batting has been important to the team notwithstanding his wayward bowliong. How has Johnson been in trouble for a while with his batting. Three weeks ago he anchored the South Africa run chase under pressure with a damaged foot. He played beautifully and couragreously.

"Win the toss...Bat". ( quoting WYL)

I agree with you on this ,WYL, but I'm reluctant to discuss it because it raises such vitriolic sentiment in those of the opposite opinion on this forum.

Most Test and first class captains agree with you, too.

JJC, its been proven flawed and you and WYL just reinforce your ignorance. I would stick to analysing kick outs on a footy field.

Show me one ex or first class captain that has stated that Australia should have batted at Hobart after winning the toss?

That Rhino is a moderator has nothing to do with you being wrong.

Correct.

[Biffen 12,946]

How is it a difficult concept to grasp?

For the past 5 years we have had a certain balance to our batting lineup since Johnson has been in the side. It has meant that we have, in the past, fielded a stronger batting lineup than we have at the moment.

I could easily have not mentioned Johnson at all and, instead, simply said that our bowlers in this test are weaker as a collective than they have been for some time. This was exposed during that run chase.

I think people are looking for an anti-Johnson angle on this one when it was simply a comment about the batting strength of our bowlers. It was not a comment about selection and it certainly wasn't a comment with any particular agenda behind it. I'll try to remove the subtlety from my posts in the future, but doing so certainly takes a lot of the fun out of posting.

Johnson can't control the ball-hes 29 now .Yes he can bat a bit .The middle order is weak ,as is the top order .You dont pick a team based on all round ability because then you get very average bowlers who stay in the team for their batting .

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I could easily have not mentioned Johnson at all and, instead, simply said that our bowlers in this test are weaker as a collective than they have been for some time. This was exposed during that run chase.

I think people are looking for an anti-Johnson angle on this one when it was simply a comment about the batting strength of our bowlers.

Might have been easier Bob. Its got everyone off on the wrong foot and the point seems to have been misconstrued.

[Nasher 33,617]

Johnson can't control the ball-hes 29 now .Yes he can bat a bit .The middle order is weak ,as is the top order .You dont pick a team based on all round ability because then you get very average bowlers who stay in the team for their batting .

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.

[Macca 17,032]

No 1st class cricket whilst the Tests are being played . This amounts to about 53 days ( from about Dec 9 until Feb 2 ) . This is a ridiculous piece of scheduling . The battle weary players can rest . What happens to Khawaja if he gets dropped ? There is no pathway back .

[H_T 3,049]

"Win the toss...Bat". ( quoting WYL)

I agree with you on this ,WYL, but I'm reluctant to discuss it because it raises such vitriolic sentiment in those of the opposite opinion on this forum.

Most Test and first class captains agree with you, too.

Prove it ! Taylor would have done the same as Clarke had he won the toss. That wicket would have had Bob Brown salivating more than the thought of a Carbon Tax.

[titan_uranus 25,043]

How is it a difficult concept to grasp?

For the past 5 years we have had a certain balance to our batting lineup since Johnson has been in the side. It has meant that we have, in the past, fielded a stronger batting lineup than we have at the moment.

I could easily have not mentioned Johnson at all and, instead, simply said that our bowlers in this test are weaker as a collective than they have been for some time. This was exposed during that run chase.

I think people are looking for an anti-Johnson angle on this one when it was simply a comment about the batting strength of our bowlers. It was not a comment about selection and it certainly wasn't a comment with any particular agenda behind it. I'll try to remove the subtlety from my posts in the future, but doing so certainly takes a lot of the fun out of posting.

This is all true, but I feel you're putting too much importance on it. If we continually had a tail that was collapsing each innings, and we were leaving batsmen stranded, that would present an issue. That's not happening.

First innings in Brisbane - 6th wicket fell at 345, 10th wicket fell at 427. Pattinson made 12, Starc made 32*. Not a problem.

First innings in Hobart - 6th wicket fell at 69, 10th wicket fell at 136. Siddle made 36, Pattinson made 17. Again, I don't see a problem.

We do not have four bunnies batting 8-11. None of them may have the ability to score a Test century, but that's not important. Siddle and Pattinson have both shown that they have the ability to bat for a decent length innings (in Siddle's case, he's done that repeatedly).

Yes, in the second innings in Hobart Siddle, Pattinson and Starc all fell cheaply and in quick succession. But having a tail that does that once in a while is excusable. For me, the strength of a bowling line up should be measured by their ability to take 20 wickets. The ability for our 8, 9, 10 and 11 to bat is obviously useful, but not as important. Like I said above, I'd rather have a top 7 who can make us the majority of our runs, and a tail who can take 20 wickets.