High Tower said:

Hopes had a go at the other bloke, it wasn't on purpose. Fact is the Vics had another 7 balls to face to get one run if they did take the catch.

The Vics were in raptures. Bordering on hysterical in the stands. Won by 6 wickets.

Indeed,wasnt many Vic supporters there.Was surprised Vettori was low down the order. Him batting would of made a difference

  WonnaJurah said:

Indeed,wasnt many Vic supporters there.Was surprised Vettori was low down the order. Him batting would of made a difference

He bowled well. I'm surprised late in the Vic innings when Vettori was bowling, QLD's skipper Simpson didn't give him enough protection to stop those singles and 2's on the on-side. Hussey & MacDonald milked 8-10 runs off Vettori's last over with just single's and 2's on the on-side. Then, the game was well and truly over. From memory it was something like a 7-2 field !

Vettori himself, with his experience should have recognised this when they ran the first two.

Edited January 20, 201015 yr by High Tower

Good to see the Vics make the Champions League again. But winning the Big Bash is going to be pretty difficult, with no White, McKay, Siddle, Bravo, or Taylor.

Will be interesting to see what Taylor and Bravo do come the Champions League if Trinidad and Tobago, or Central Districts (Taylor's NZ team), or the Royal Challengers Bangalore qualify. I would assume that they signed their Victorian contracts with a clause that allows them to play for their home teams if they qualify.

  Nasher said:

A mate at work made an interesting comment today, in that all the 'great' sides of the past all have one thing in common; they have a plethora of great bowlers. WI in the 80s and Aus in the 90s/early 00s are examples of this, but both those sides also had a bunch of great batsmen so it's a bit inconclusive.

If you believe these sentiments (and it's of course very debateable) then you'd have to say that as long as we've got a middle of the road bowling attack, then we're no certainties to win any series, especially against the stronger nations. It doesn't matter how strong our batting lineup is.

IMO, it's more important, in any form of the game, to have a bowling line-up that can take 20 wickets. Most batsmen can make runs against poor bowlers or flat pitches. Obviously you need competent batsmen who can put together decent length innings (Pakistan doesn't have these, neither does Bangladesh), but bowlers are more important than batsmen who average 50+.

On a related note, has there ever been an XI in which 10 of the 11 have taken a Test wicket? Our team in Hobart was just that, with only Haddin not having ever taken a Test wicket.

  titan_uranus said:

On a related note, has there ever been an XI in which 10 of the 11 have taken a Test wicket? Our team in Hobart was just that, with only Haddin not having ever taken a Test wicket.

Interesting stat that one. Has there ever been a Test Keeper that has taken a Test wicket ?

  titan_uranus said:

IMO, it's more important, in any form of the game, to have a bowling line-up that can take 20 wickets. Most batsmen can make runs against poor bowlers or flat pitches. Obviously you need competent batsmen who can put together decent length innings (Pakistan doesn't have these, neither does Bangladesh), but bowlers are more important than batsmen who average 50+.

Can you name a Test team that has had sustained success over a 2 year period where they have not had at Least one batsman who average 50+? The evidence would suggest not

Over the past 35 to 40 years, Test Cricket has been dominated by Australia, West Indies and then Australia. They both possessed fantastic bowling attacks but also intimidating and commanding batsmen over that period. These great sides prove hands down that you need both to be a great side without one being more important than the other. I can name a number of teams who had a great attack but crumbled for success because they could not chase or set runs with class batsman. Pakistan and Sri Lanka during the 1990's

And in limited over ODI and 20/20 its totally about runs and batting so much its not funny. The fielding and the bowlers have been absolutely neutered out of the game (as they are in Tests) in the flashy show for runs. I would always go with a masterful batting line up and a competent tight bowling attack in these fixtures. I have seen some bowlers at Test level who were very pedestrian work out a successful ODI career because of the one sided blunted nature of the game.

  titan_uranus said:

On a related note, has there ever been an XI in which 10 of the 11 have taken a Test wicket? Our team in Hobart was just that, with only Haddin not having ever taken a Test wicket.

Possibly WA in the 1980s. Former Aust Wicketkeeper Tim Zoehrer was a very handy leggie and played and bowled for WA. I think he even took a 5 for somewhere amongst that. I dont think he ever bowled for Australia though. I might be wrong on that.

  High Tower said:

Interesting stat that one. Has there ever been a Test Keeper that has taken a Test wicket ?

Mark Boucher

  Rhino Richards said:

Can you name a Test team that has had sustained success over a 2 year period where they have not had at Least one batsman who average 50+? The evidence would suggest not

Over the past 35 to 40 years, Test Cricket has been dominated by Australia, West Indies and then Australia. They both possessed fantastic bowling attacks but also intimidating and commanding batsmen over that period. These great sides prove hands down that you need both to be a great side without one being more important than the other. I can name a number of teams who had a great attack but crumbled for success because they could not chase or set runs with class batsman. Pakistan and Sri Lanka during the 1990's

And in limited over ODI and 20/20 its totally about runs and batting so much its not funny. The fielding and the bowlers have been absolutely neutered out of the game (as they are in Tests) in the flashy show for runs. I would always go with a masterful batting line up and a competent tight bowling attack in these fixtures. I have seen some bowlers at Test level who were very pedestrian work out a successful ODI career because of the one sided blunted nature of the game.

Interesting Stat that one and they were certainly 3 Great Sides. I agree that Bowling is being made more difficult particularly those bloody roads they prepare in India when sub continent Teams seem to play.

Would be interesting to know how many Bad Bowling attacks have taken 20 wickets in 5 days against a good batting attack...very few i would bet.

  why you little said:

Would be interesting to know how many Bad Bowling attacks have taken 20 wickets in 5 days against a good batting attack...very few i would bet.

They would not be a bad bowling attack then.

I think the whole issue is that you may not get 20 wickets because you dont set the opposition enough runs. And in most cases, WYL, when a team wins the toss they bat.... Why?

Jason Krejza's noteworthy effort in India in 2008 was a case of an ordinary bowler having a good day or should I say Test out.

  Rhino Richards said:

They would not be a bad bowling attack then.

I think the whole issue is that you may not get 20 wickets because you dont set the opposition enough runs. And in most cases, WYL, when a team wins the toss they bat.... Why?

Jason Krejza's noteworthy effort in India in 2008 was a case of an ordinary bowler having a good day or should I say Test out.

Yes you are probably right, but the point i was trying to make i suppose is ...A poor batting line up will make the odd big score more than a bad bowling attack will take 20 wickets.

Would take a while to collect the data but would be interesting to see the percentages on that.

  why you little said:

...A poor batting line up will make the odd big score more than a bad bowling attack will take 20 wickets.

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh Test performances would prove otherwise

  Rhino Richards said:

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh Test performances would prove otherwise

Do those 2 teams get 20 wickets very often? i am no expert on those 2, but i havent heard of any great bowling performances on the news or radio at all. I am always worried they are Hungry rather than how well they played. Zimbabwe is such a mess-unnecesarily too which makes it even sadder...

  why you little said:

Do those 2 teams get 20 wickets very often? i am no expert on those 2, but i havent heard of any great bowling performances on the news or radio at all.

More than they would hit a big score.

Great to watch The Big V beat South Australia over there.

Well done to all, Mcdonalds bowling was spot on.

But it made me think of something....BRING BACK STATE OF ORIGIN FOOTY!! It is badly missed.

  why you little said:

Great to watch The Big V beat South Australia over there.

And didn't it emphasise, once again, the value of winning the toss and batting!

We did so well to make the Final after chasing runs so often , after losing the toss. If we'd won the toss a few times we'd have romped it in even more easily.

Just like when S.A. won the toss against NSW and romped home...

  JUMPING JACK CLENNETT said:

And didn't it emphasise, once again, the value of winning the toss and batting!

We did so well to make the Final after chasing runs so often , after losing the toss. If we'd won the toss a few times we'd have romped it in even more easily.

Winning the Toss in Twenty Twenty is even more crucial i believe. Lose a couple of early wickets chasing and that Run Rate Required just Blows out.

But Victoria bowled superbly I mean Nannis 1-8 and McDonald 3 for, Just Killed the Croweaters dead.

Ah! This argument is like masturbating with a cheese grater - slightly amusing but mostly painful.

  why you little said:

Winning the Toss in Twenty Twenty is even more crucial i believe.

It's no use digging yourself out of the hole WYL. It may be more relevant in some cases for Twenty/20 or One Day, but you haven't a leg to stand on in the Test arena. Give it up.

  why you little said:

Winning the Toss in Twenty Twenty is even more crucial i believe. Lose a couple of early wickets chasing and that Run Rate Required just Blows out.

But Victoria bowled superbly I mean Nannis 1-8 and McDonald 3 for, Just Killed the Croweaters dead.

Carp.

Lose a couple of wickets earlier, when you bat first and you have no momentum.

20/20 is all about runs runs and more runs. Its about creating momentum with the bat and maintaining it.

When you win the toss why wouldn't you bat and set the momentum? Equally if you dont win the toss, you still got the same 20 overs in the same conditions to bat. Its a shoot out. I noticed the Vis losing the toss the other day to Tassie did not hurt them.

  45HG16 said:

Ah! This argument is like masturbating with a cheese grater - slightly amusing but mostly painful.

Brilliant analogy. Little has been amusing so far.

  High Tower said:

It's no use digging yourself out of the hole WYL. It may be more relevant in some cases for Twenty/20 or One Day, but you haven't a leg to stand on in the Test arena. Give it up.

I think he is more dug down than the Beaconsfield miners. And with less chance of rescue too.

  High Tower said:

It's no use digging yourself out of the hole WYL. It may be more relevant in some cases for Twenty/20 or One Day, but you haven't a leg to stand on in the Test arena. Give it up.

I wasn't talking about the Test Arena i was talking about 20/20 & yes it is far more relevant.

  45HG16 said:

Ah! This argument is like masturbating with a cheese grater - slightly amusing but mostly painful.

I don't think Masturbating with a cheese Grater would be Amusing in the slightest 45

I have not done it, but as you have i will take your word for it! :lol:

ahh, what would we do without capitals.

  High Tower said:

ahh, what would we do without capitals.

I'd die a Very happy man.

Tightening up at the end of the Under-19 semi final.

Australians chasing 206 have made 4 runs off the last 4 overs losing one wicket and are currently 8-203 with 2 overs remaining. No runs off the bat from the last two overs.

Aussies win by 2 wickets having made 7 runs off the last 27 balls.

Edited January 27, 201015 yr by 45HG16

  On 27/01/2010 at 04:43, 45HG16 said:

Tightening up at the end of the Under-19 semi final.

Australians chasing 206 have made 4 runs off the last 4 overs losing one wicket and are currently 8-203 with 2 overs remaining. No runs off the bat from the last two overs.

Aussies win by 2 wickets having made 7 runs off the last 27 balls.

Phew...

Mitchell Marsh is going to be a star. Should force his way into the Australian team in the next 12-24 months.

How on earth does Michael Clarke get a gig in the Twenty/20 side for Australia, let alone the captaincy for the Twenty/20 side ?

His Twenty/20 form is horrible.