On 15/12/2011 at 21:45, Nasher said:

Clarke pushing for Katich is amusing.

"Michael, I'll return on one condition, you let me lead the rendition of "Under the Southern Cross" after a win, and you bloody well join in and don't pull up stumps until the last man leaves, after all, you are captain. Otherwise, I'll be asking "Where the bloody hell are ya!"

I didnt know Clarke was right into spin....... .

  On 15/12/2011 at 01:38, Rogue said:

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.

Good summary. This is what Bob had put down earlier in the thread. In favouring bowlersday one, you look to extract the venom early out of the wicket to allow you to enjoy better batting conditions later in the Test. This was exactly what happened at Bellerive notwithstanding those that have their deckchairs facing in the wrong direction.

Do the selectors have it in them to omit one of Ponting or Hussey?

Does anyone else find T20 really boring?

  On 17/12/2011 at 10:44, Clint Bizkit said:

Does anyone else find T20 really boring?

Absolutely..i have no interest in watching or following.

Boardwalk Empire is a much better option!!

  On 17/12/2011 at 10:51, why you little said:

Absolutely..i have no interest in watching or following.

Boardwalk Empire is a much better option!!

There is a separate thread for that form of the game but I wasn't impressed by last night's game.

However, I think they're really for different audiences in many cases.

There seems to be a belief that participation in 20:20 has affected the cricket development of many players and weakened the test side. That's the theory but I don't know if that's the reason for Australia's demise in test cricket.

  On 17/12/2011 at 11:21, Whispering_Jack said:

There is a separate thread for that form of the game but I wasn't impressed by last night's game.

However, I think they're really for different audiences in many cases.

There seems to be a belief that participation in 20:20 has affected the cricket development of many players and weakened the test side. That's the theory but I don't know if that's the reason for Australia's demise in test cricket.

It is too much like Baseball to me, without being Baseball....i like both Baseball and Cricket. But 20/20 is like a Hybrid. In the same way i find the International Rules games a yawn. 20/20 there is no subtlety which i consider a huge part of cricket.

Lets play a game of chess in 5 minutes.....But why??

  On 14/12/2011 at 20:26, 45HG16 said:

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.

Interesting stat...Where is it sourced.

Doesn't change my opinion though...if i am a Captain and win the Toss i will bat, with one exception.

If a pitch is wet, not damp but wet and the weather forecast is for dry days ahead. Then i would bowl.

But in all other scenario's i would Bat first and Back the team to make a score.

Now i know i will come under fire here...no problem.

How often is a pitch wet? Not often at all.

I can see the merit in what you guys are saying...but i hate the fourth innings chase more than the first innings fight.

That is what it comes down to.

So...you wouldn't always bat, hence you agree with us. I'm glad we settled this.

  On 15/12/2011 at 21:45, Nasher said:

Clarke pushing for Katich is amusing.

Why?

  On 17/12/2011 at 10:44, Clint Bizkit said:

Does anyone else find T20 really boring?

Yep, no real interest, & I've also lost interest over the last 10 Years in our test team.

I think it's the lack of characters & the 'statistical professionalism' thats detracted from the 'Game'. It seems to be tracking alongside the world of economists,,, boring...

Time to step back towards the Human touch of individuals and Ego. Much more interesting and Real, Like Lillie & 'Thomo'... And Merv the swerve. Early Warne. Greg Matthews.

PS: I have to say I'm regaining a little interest now in the New team with New players coming in, like Warner, Pattinson, etc.

Edited December 18, 201113 yr by dee-luded

  On 18/12/2011 at 00:30, dee-luded said:

Why?

Because it makes a complete mockery of Katich's little dummy spit not all that long ago.

  On 18/12/2011 at 01:39, Nasher said:

Because it makes a complete mockery of Katich's little dummy spit not all that long ago.

He's captain now & may well think of picking a stronger batting lineup. But then again he mightn't too.

Maybe he's (clarke) is growing up and rising above childish fears and childish resentments.

  On 17/12/2011 at 21:16, 45HG16 said:

So...you wouldn't always bat, hence you agree with us. I'm glad we settled this.

Now that is game set match.

  On 18/12/2011 at 01:48, dee-luded said:

Maybe he's (clarke) is growing up and rising above childish fears and childish resentments.

Nasher was talking about Katich and not Clarke.

  On 17/12/2011 at 14:00, why you little said:

If a pitch is wet, not damp but wet and the weather forecast is for dry days ahead. Then i would bowl.

How often is a pitch wet? Not often at all.

Talking about saying absolutely nothing under the naive pretence you are actually making a statement.

Well , well , Cowan and Marsh are now big chances for Boxing day and possibly Hilfenhaus as well .

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cricket/ed-cowan-and-shaun-marsh-in-boxing-day-seats/story-e6frfg8o-1226227116382

  On 20/12/2011 at 13:36, Macca said:

Well , well , Cowan and Marsh are now big chances for Boxing day and possibly Hilfenhaus as well .

http://www.heraldsun...o-1226227116382

Hilfenhaus. Why. What a backwards step that would be. He's just not that good. I understand that Starc isn't bowling well but until Harris or Cummins is ready to replace him, he should hold his spot over the has-beens like Hilfenhaus.

Cowan and Marsh for Hughes and Khawaja is improvement. Khawaja isn't in form and isn't making runs. Cowan and Marsh are. Mind you, same argument goes for Ponting and Hussey, but those will be the spots that Khawaja will be able to take back later.

  On 20/12/2011 at 13:52, titan_uranus said:

Hilfenhaus. Why. What a backwards step that would be. He's just not that good. I understand that Starc isn't bowling well but until Harris or Cummins is ready to replace him, he should hold his spot over the has-beens like Hilfenhaus.

Cowan and Marsh for Hughes and Khawaja is improvement. Khawaja isn't in form and isn't making runs. Cowan and Marsh are. Mind you, same argument goes for Ponting and Hussey, but those will be the spots that Khawaja will be able to take back later.

I'd be delighted for Ed Cowan if he got a baggy green. He's been scoring runs ever since he set foot in Tassie basically - deserves it. I think when push really comes to shove his Test career will be short, but I'm pleased his name's in the ring anyway.

Agree with you re: Hilfy. Another that I really wanted to make it for obvious reasons, but there's a bit of tedium in his name coming up. We've been down that path before with not much success, let's look forward not back.

  On 20/12/2011 at 14:33, Nasher said:

I'd be delighted for Ed Cowan if he got a baggy green. He's been scoring runs ever since he set foot in Tassie basically - deserves it. I think when push really comes to shove his Test career will be short, but I'm pleased his name's in the ring anyway.

It would be front and centre after yesterday's century for the Chairman's XI as well as his recent form.

Watched the Big Bash game last night between the Stars and Heat. Warne still has it. His descriptions prior to each delivery for the commentators and then delivery was remarkable. Great to watch. And even though Quiney, Hauritz and McCullum played well. Warne's presence and the ability to curb and influence by pressure with his deliveries as well as his insight to field placings helped turn the match for the Stars. 1/22 from his 4 overs. A record crowd at the Gabba watched on and were entertained. He can still provide a variety of delivery capable at the top level.

Ed Cowan should definitely play for Australia on Boxing Day

Hilfenhaus should definitely not play for Australia on Boxing Day. Unless he learns to bowl left handed, I have seen enough of Hilfy to believe he should wear the Tassie colours with pride for the rest of his career.

Cowan in for Hughes, one of Marsh/Christian in for Khawaja, and one of Hilfenhaus/Starc to play. Selectors claiming they want some experience when playing against India. Hard to argue against that, but at the same time it's difficult to see how Hilfenhaus will be any better than Starc. Not a particularly convincing selection for mine.

As I already said, stoked for Eddie Cowan though. Really hope he thrives.

Cowan, Marsh, Hilfenhaus named for Boxing Day

Expected (/hoped) lineup for mine:

DA Warner

EJM Cowan

SE Marsh

RT Ponting

MJ Clarke

MEK Hussey

BJ Haddin

PM Siddle

JL Pattinson

MA Starc

NM Lyon

Still find that tail a worry - not that I was expecting that issue to be resolved considering it's just a by-product of who our best bowlers happen to be at the time, but still. I reckon this side is about the best we can muster at the moment - that Hilfy sits twelfth is indicative of its (lack of) strength. Fingers, toes and elbows crossed that it's enough.

I can't stand Warne, but I was stunned by his genius last night. He seemed to be able to read the batsmen's minds. His control of length and line was phenomenal, despite his absence from top class cricket for years and despite the distraction of being " miked up". I know it's only hit and giggle in 20:20 but it's the bowlers who are made to look bad....but not Warne.

I'm a Test Cricket fan, but I'm prepared to follow 20:20 if it keeps up the profile of cricket, and as long as the majority of players regard Test cricket as the pinnacle.

I preferred the interstate 20:20.

Cowan for Hughes is a big plus. That helps.

Marsh or Christian for Khawaja is an improvement too. Marsh gets first dibs but if he isn't fit then Christian bats at 6, which pushes Ponting, Clarke and Hussey up one. Not ideal, but until Marsh is fit again we have no choice.

Selecting HIlfenhaus is just ridiculous. We took 40 wickets against NZ without too much trouble. Sure, it was only NZ, and Starc wasn't as good as Pattinson, but there is absolutely no need whatsoever to drop him just so we can play Hilfenhaus. Hilfy is just rubbish. I have no idea what the selectors see in him, he's shown repeatedly that he is limited and just really not that good.

  On 21/12/2011 at 12:40, titan_uranus said:

Selecting HIlfenhaus is just ridiculous. We took 40 wickets against NZ without too much trouble. Sure, it was only NZ, and Starc wasn't as good as Pattinson, but there is absolutely no need whatsoever to drop him just so we can play Hilfenhaus. Hilfy is just rubbish. I have no idea what the selectors see in him, he's shown repeatedly that he is limited and just really not that good.

Bit perplexed by the negativity surrounding Hilfenhaus. If the selectors see him as a better option, more durable and think that he can provide a bit of variety (ie swing), power to the selectors. To puff your chest out and call him complete "rubbish" is a disgrace. The bloke has represented Australia and occassionally performed admirably in taking bags of wickets for his country.

If you have no idea what the selectors see in him, that says more about you, than the selectors titan.

Nasher, the side you've listed I agree with, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Hilfenhaus in for Starc.

  On 21/12/2011 at 22:14, H_T said:

Bit perplexed by the negativity surrounding Hilfenhaus. If the selectors see him as a better option, more durable and think that he can provide a bit of variety (ie swing), power to the selectors. To puff your chest out and call him complete "rubbish" is a disgrace. The bloke has represented Australia and occassionally performed admirably in taking bags of wickets for his country.

If you have no idea what the selectors see in him, that says more about you, than the selectors titan.

Nasher, the side you've listed I agree with, but it wouldn't surprise me to see Hilfenhaus in for Starc.

Oh come on HT, my possible hyperbole aside, my point is that Hilfenhaus just hasn't been that competitive or threatening of a bowler when he's bowled for Australia. If the selectors have seen something new from him, then so be it, but I don't think it's a progressive step forward to look to Hilfenhaus. He's had his turn, and he didn't take it.

'Occasionally performed admirably', in all honesty, is spot on. He's never taken a 5-for.

Hilfenhaus has been a good bowler for Australia in the past. He lacked penetration against England last series, but before then he has been very good. His series breakdown has been as follows:

vs South Africa (away) 2008/09 - 7 wickets at 52.28.

vs England (away) 2009 - 22 wickets @ 27.45

vs West Indies (home) 2009/10 - 5 wickets @ 14.00

vs Pakistan (neutral) 2010 - 8 wickets @ 23.75

vs India (away) 2010/11 - 6 wickets @ 43.50

vs England (home) 2010/11 - 7 wickets @ 59.28

Firstly, it shows that he has been a successful bowler for us in the past.

In the final series against England, he had an economy rate of 2.62. This was by far the best of the Australian bowlers, with Siddle being next best of the main bowlers at 3.28 rpo. It wasn't that he was bowling badly, he just wasn't penetrating. If he was bowling badly then he would have dumped much earlier. This is reinforced by the fact that he bowled the most overs of any Australian bowler, despite only playing 4 tests.

He also had the lowest (behind George who only played one test) economy rate in the Indian tour, bowling the second most overs (82 overs, behind Hauritz's 90 overs).

Before these series he has been a very good bowler. But in these two series he lacked penetration, which is what Chris Rogers has been saying about him. He also says that this season he has recovered that pace and penetration, making him a very good bowler. He bowling well in the Shield and, if he's bowling well, then he has demonstrated that he is a capable international bowler.

He's a proven bowler who is emerging from a lean patch. He has a massive tank (I hear he runs a 15+ beep) and can bowl many overs a day. Against the top batsmen in the world, we can rely on him to perform a role for our attack and not let the captain down. That's what you want and that's why he's there.

Conversely, Starc has shown that he's not yet capable of maintaining pressure for long periods of time. I'd be surprised if Starc played on Boxing Day.