Rhino Richards

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

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. 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 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. 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? Correct.

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.....

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.

Its an appalling contradiction even by your standards. The pitch did dry out. The scores in the 2nd innings validate that. And why would you put a batting line up "that was too old or sadly out of form" on the worst of the pitch. Remember Brownlie got 56 out of their 150. Given the pitch was wet, Vettori would not have had any impact. The batting line up was dodgy whether you bat it first or last. The toss was right the batting was not. You dont understand psychology. As Captain he has to say that. Even if they made 50 he would be talking it up. At the post match Taylor sounded generally surprised that they won. to150 was a poor score. Our batting effort was worse. Waugh and Taylor never struggled against NZ in the 4th innings. It took just one batsman just one to stick with Warner. And given you believe Warner has a questionable technique then if he can hit 123 no in his second test then there were no demons in the wicket. Definitely earlier.

To be fair Starc > Johnson when it comes to bowling. But in this Test there was not alot in it. And Johnson is a proven performer with the bat at this sort of stuff. We were 2/159...... Its a very poor performance. I'd like to see the Vodafone ad with all the batting line up (sans Warner) saying where they can improve a la Bollinger. Problem is the ad could go for at least 10 mins.

What alot of rot. TUs right. You're comments are full of contradictions that lynch your argument. And its not an issue batting a 4th innings when the Kiwi's lynchpin spinner is out. The issue was not the toss but two appalling batting performances. By batting second we actually got the best of the conditions to bat in. We would have got rolled for less if we batted on the pitch first. Agree. Hughes should go. I would be holding our experience players accountable more than Khawaja. If a maligned 20/20 player in his 2nd Test can carry his hand through the innings and make a ton then whats the excuse for Ponting and Hussey. Huseey has been great up to the SA tour and has been a key batsman but he is burning credits quickly and Punter must be getting low. Australia has had too many batting collapses over the past 2 years. I am not sure Watson and Marsh will both be fit. I would be prepared to pick Ed Cowan (there you go Nasher) for Hughes. I'd give Khawaja another chance. AoB raises a really good point about the tailenders. Australia has not been used to having such a long tail. The issue is giving a batsman a chance and you didn't but you danced on every failure (and there were only 3) as some reinforcement of your blinkered view and Warner in the past innings made your earlier comments indefensible. WYL is a definite entry in the KFC Classic Comments Competition this year.

We are not there at all ! What an insult to a player who batted through the innings and hit a century....and apparently has very little technique. Absolute awesome effort. I cant work out the love affair with Khawaja and the dismissive attitude to Warner. He was badly let down by other players with better techniques and value their wickets. I would have thought losing a winning test to the 8th ranked Test team is appalling. Well done Bracewell....6 wkts. How long since the Kiwis won a Test without Vettori?

Thank God he values his wicket. He is not making many runs and this technique is still dodgy but he values his wicket. FMD. That is so gobsmacking wrong its laughable. He has shown himself in the toughest conditions to be a very good batsman with sound technique, wonderful concentration.

The only thing that has changed has been the level you unfairly discounted him by earlier and be shown up for it by the events. You havent seen him enough to make the blanket negative assessment of him like you have. Warner has previously shown this capability to bat well but not be subdued by opposition attacks atr Shield leve. This innings is a vintage Warner knock. Could be a valuable Test player with his good fielding, handy leg breaks and seemingly authoritative batting. He deserves his ton. And FWIW, Khawaja does not look like a Test batsman with the right temperament if he continues not to make runs. Cant build on his starts.

I agree about Warner and Hughes. How anyone could have discounted Warner up to this stage has got me beat. Yesterday was a really good Test of attitude and application in conditions ideal for swing. He showed excellent temperament. I know its only early days but Lyon looks the most capable spinner we have in the Test team since McGill's demise. And provided he can stay fit, Pattinson looks an absolute beaut. i thought Siddle bowled the best i have seen him bowl in a long time. He needs to work hard to continually bowl in the corridor of uncertainty. While i think Australia can win here, I think the Indians will be sobering opponent on flatter truer wickets. Should be fascinating

Ha ha! We do have a Mitch Johnson replacement. Hughes was on a hinding to nothing today with the ball moving. Martin should have had nine slips for Hughes.

I can't believe it. What was Clarke thinking when he won the toss and bowled. Doesn't he know the golden rule when you win the toss you bat first? Seriously though, the right call by Clarke. Pattinson's wicket ball to McCullum was an absolute gem. Kiwis right in trouble at 6-83 at lunch with a long tail and no Vettori. Brownlie continues to impress.

I would have thought Hughes would certainly be out too. Right now, we dont know whether Warner is actually good enough to hold his spot against more seasoned players who have had more opportunity to get the runs on the board.

On Warner - I would not write him off at all. The ABC commentators spoke postively of a recent Shield century which was a patient measured knock. He deserves his chance. On the Aust Test team..... Lets not get ahead of ourselves...... There's promise being shown on some reasonably helpful wickets. India will be another Test. Their batting is still awesome but there ability to get 20 wickets in a Test is challenged if H Singh and Z Khan are not fit.

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

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

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.

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 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.

Oops now 5/99. Ryder plays another amateur hour shot. Its abysmal efforts like this almost lose you the Test. Now Vettori in...Kiwis always rely on him.

Not if the Kiwis bat in such a cavalier manner. We handed the first session to them on a plate with some awful bowling and they politely handed it back to us at 4/94. I cant believe Taylor's dumb shot before the break.

No I didnt. I acknowledged it and agree its not good enough.......

That is not in question. Its the reasons put forward for why Can you give me examples where Victoria's anti youth policy has crucified it. They promote Cameron White at a youing age to Shield level and gave him the captaincy at 21! They uncovered Peter Siddle at young age in Gippsland in his early 20s. They have promoted James Pattison. Thats not true. MacDonald, White, Pattinson, Siddle, McGain, Hussey have all represented their country at various times I want the Test team to play its best players...period. I could not give a stuff where they came from. And I am not interested in parochial gratuities

Victoria had Matthew Elliott who had set himself up for a fine Test career only to self implode through no ones fault but his own. The issue of the NSW players making Test teams is the fact that NSW produces the best players through a vibrant metro and country set up. Australia's Test history is littered with the evidence that a strong NSW breeds a strong Test team. I just want the best Test team period. I dont care where they come from. There is nothing more small minded than the ignorant State based parochialism when its comes to the National team interest.