titan_uranus

We shouldn't be dropping any of our bowlers, I don't think. If we do, Starc is the one to go, but I'm not sure dropping him after one game is going to help much. Apparently, yes. Pretty disgraceful, really.

I think he hit it, but the evidence was inconclusive. The hot spot potentially only showed up after the ball passed the bat (it was inconclusive FFS!). The sound was there, sure, and probably was bat hitting ball, but with no deflection, it only gets to the likelihood, not the conclusiveness, of Dar making an error. In the end, Erasmus should have told Dar that the evidence was inconclusive, and Dar should have stuck to his original not-out call. The end result may have been the right one, but it wasn't produced for the right reasons. All in all, a sad way to end a great Test which unfortunately has been marred by poor umpiring and the DRS. As for changes, Cowan was ill apparently, so give him another Test before making the switch. Harris/Bird would be handy, but who gets dropped? Starc to me was the worst of the three bowlers. I'd leave them be, though. And, Clarke needs to learn to stop using referrals on 50-50 LBW decisions.

I've been away for the weekend so I've just caught up on the past few days' happenings. The Broad decision is a disgrace from most parties. Firstly, Dar should have paid it out. I struggle to think of what he must have thought happened - off Haddin's gloves? I don't get it. Second, Clarke will hopefully have learnt his lesson - stop reviewing marginal LBW decisions and retain the reviews for the howlers. The referral of the LBW call going down leg was pathetic. Finally, Broad. It happens all the time, batsmen choosing not to walk when they're clearly out and waiting for the umpire. But I've never seen someone edge the ball to slip and pretend it didn't happen. When it's to the keeper and it's a straight line and/or a faint edge, I can understand a player using the doubt to hide. But there was no doubt with that. We've been pretty good in this Test, except for all four evening sessions. After tea on Day 1 we lost 4 wickets. After tea on Day 2 we let Cook and Pietersen cruise. After tea on Day 3 we let Bell and Broad cruise. After tea on Day 4 we lost 4 wickets. It's killing us. This Test is still winnable, but we need Haddin to be mature and play the guiding knock that Hughes played in the first innings. All of Agar, Siddle, Pattinson and Starc can bat. A useful 10-30 runs from each, maybe with one pushing closer to 50, and with Haddin batting through at the other end, and we're not out of it. Still plenty of problems, though. Cowan's not good enough, neither Smith nor Hughes have the techniques to be consistently good players, Watson's horrendously over-rated (he averages 35, two centuries ever and hasn't hit one for 3 years), and Clarke's out of form and injured. It's not a great batting line-up.

This is incredulous.

The news continues to indicate that Warner's going to play the first Test - e.g. http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/648105.html Disgraceful, if true.

Your other points? They were these: You called me a 'fwit' You said [censored] spills from my mouth You said I believe that players who start well go downhill from there. Of course, that's not what I said, but what do you care? I didn't respond to these points because you didn't deserve a response.

Well I guess that means we agree. The irony in your last sentence is enjoyable, really.

So you're clearly another idiot who subscribes to the 'you don't know what you're talking about if you haven't played AFL before'. One of the only benefits of a world where only AFL players could comment on football would be your absence from it. If you wish to go down the 'he's had a better first year, therefore he's going to be a better player' route, then go for it, but history has shown that the start a player makes to their career doesn't always reflect the career overall. I can cope with a Wines/Toumpas comparison, but not as much with a 'Wines is better than Toumpas' whinge. I'm not judging his status at all, I'm merely pointing out to those who are drooling over him that his form in the last few weeks had tapered, which may (or may not) have led to his being made the substitute (I'd say it was relevant at the least). I'm probably biased, to an extent most on here are, but not in this regard. Clearly if you needed to pick one of the two to play in your side right now you'd pick Wines, but that doesn't mean Wines is going to be the better player, and I'm more than happy to have Toumpas on the list instead of Wines.

Well that shows the commentators don't really know what they're talking about. Wines is a good young player, sure, but creative play-maker he is not, so that comment is baloney. It's also pertinent to note that Wines was the sub yesterday. His game was good, sure, but before Cassisi went down, to state the obvious Wines was considered the 22nd player. The continued Wines v Toumpas stuff is frustrating, especially given Toumpas has shown true development in the space of half a season (both pre- and post-Neeld).

Watson is going to open, says Lehmann: http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/645441.html. He's opened in the tour match with Cowan, who made 3. Currently Watson's on 72. Watson opening means, you'd think, one of Cowan and Rogers will shift down the order, probably to 3. Cowan's opened in this match with Watson, so maybe it will be Rogers to bat at 3? Amazing innings for Somerset. 2/304, then 3/310. Then 9/310. They lost 6/0. Six wickets. For. Zero. Runs. Amazing. Pattinson and Starc took 4 each, Siddle couldn't get one. With Watson, Cowan, Rogers and Clarke the presumed top 4, Haddin and the bowlers from 7-11, we now have Hughes, Khawaja, Faulkner and maybe Steve Smith battling for the last two spots. I'll ignore Smith because he didn't make the tour match, so it's Hughes, Khawaja and Faulkner for those middle two. You'd assume that Watson opening means he can't bowl too much, so maybe we'll lean towards Faulkner for a fifth bowler. He sure as heck better make some runs though.

The Australian side playing Somerset right now is this: Cowan Watson Hughes Khawaja Clarke Faulkner Haddin Siddle Pattinson Starc Lyon Before the game Haddin said that Rogers wasn't playing because he's had a lot of time in the middle for Middlesex already, so he's already got his form. What worries me is the inclusion of Faulkner. Not a fan. I think the idea is that we get more from playing Faulkner than we do from playing the weaker of Hughes/Khawaja. I don't like it. I'd hope to see Rogers open, Watson to bat at 6, and Faulkner not to play the first Test. But I'm guessing that, unless Hughes and Khawaja both pile on the runs (that's not going to happen), the weaker of those two will be dropped to make room for Rogers.

It's not a requirement at all. So stop mentioning it. There are plenty on here who don't know what they're talking about, including in their (at times) abhorrent comments on Toumpas, but that is nothing at all to do with whether or not they have played football before.

Another of you knobs with the 'you haven't played football, so shut up' rubbish. None of us have. FFS. Being an ex-AFL footballer is not a requirement to be able to express opinions on football.

If Toumpas doesn't excite you, I don't know what does. Finally we have a young midfielder who is showing marked improvement, is clearly learning from his mistakes, and has skills that the rest of our side dream of.

Also, Fawad Ahmed comes home, Steve Smith is added to the squad (what joy!), and Ashton Agar is going to stick around the squad like he did in India.

Brilliant: http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/australia-sacks-cricket-coach-mickey-arthur-on-eve-of-ashes-20130624-2orlv.html Mickey Arthur has just been sacked.

Locked to the top of the first page (like the Code of Conduct thread).

Forgot about Bird. He might get a game over Starc. But Siddle surely starts, surely. Our best and most consistent fast bowler both against India and over the summer. Also just cracked his maiden first class century.

I don't know what to do with the batting. It's so weak. I want to see Watson bowling - he's not good enough as a batsman only, so he has to bowl or just not play. One or the other. He should be batting lower down the order to accommodate the bowling (i.e. not 1-3). Rogers and Cowan should open. Clarke to bat at 4. Outside of that, I don't know. Hughes is crap. Khawaja is worse. Haddin and Wade can't bat higher than 6, really. So maybe this: Rogers Cowan Hughes Clarke Watson Haddin Wade Starc Siddle Pattinson Lyon This isn't a team that is going to win the Ashes, unfortunately. We'll do OK bowling England out, but we're not going to be able to put enough runs on the board. Rogers and Clarke are the only batsmen that give me confidence; one of them has a dodgy back and the other, knowing the selectors, might not get a game in favour of the most undeserving hack in Australian cricket right now. Also, Lyon has to start over Ahmed. Ahmed needs to find his feet at this level. Give him time to just be around the side and to get a feel for what bowling at a high level consistently is going to take. Rushing him in to an Ashes XI could break him.

I'm sick of David Warner. I want him out of the side, and I guess this is a good way to start. Hopefully, if the selectors have any sense, they won't pick him for the first Test. To do so would be to say 'if you have talent, then it doesn't matter if you're stupid, rude, uncouth, ill-disciplined, or immature, you can still walk into the Australian side'. Moreover, he'll have had 0 warm-up games, and his recent 'form' is despicable. Warner is not a required player. Not even close. Rogers and Cowan to open.

Take the Indian squad: Warner, Cowan, Hughes, Clarke, Watson, Smith, Khawaja, Wade, Haddin, Henriques, Maxwell, Doherty, Lyon, Siddle, Starc, Pattinson, Johnson. I cut from that squad Khawaja, Watson, Haddin, Henriques, Maxwell, Doherty and Johnson. Henriques, Maxwell and Doherty drop themselves. Khawaja isn't good enough, and I don't think ever will be good enough. He struggled against swing bowling when he last played Test cricket, continually pushing outside off without covering the line, so I can't see how England will suit him. Watson doesn't add to the side. He doesn't score enough runs to hold his spot as a batsman, and even if he bowls, he still doesn't score enough runs to be in the top 6. Time to cut our losses, find a real batsman, and move on. Johnson is just too far back in the queue for a fast-bowling spot (provided we have a full choice of players). His form in England also requires him to be injury-cover at best. Haddin didn't do anything to disgrace himself, but I feel we need to move on with our keepers. To that squad, then, I add Jackson Bird, Pat Cummins, Shaun Marsh, George Bailey, Chris Rogers, Tim Paine and Fawad Ahmed/Jon Holland. Bird, for mine, starts the first Test in the Ashes as the third pace option behind Siddle and Pattinson. Starc is inconsistent and doesn't swing it as regularly as Bird does. It's line ball though, but Bird's on the plane regardless. Cummins also heads over as a back-up paceman, but to me he needs to show form for Australia A in the lead-up series before he edges into the top three pacemen. Handy back-up, though. In terms of batsmen, Shaun Marsh is more than good enough to be a Test cricketer. He was in a terrible mental state in 2011/2012, which saw him capitulate over our summer. He's been reprimanded and disciplined for being a loose cannon, but since he's returned, his form has been great, and much better than his 'rivals' for the batting spots. Mainly, though, he's actually a batsman, unlike the attempted all-rounders we've been trying to use. Bailey can't do much more before getting selected, and it's a good idea to get someone in there who can lead if Clarke can't be on the field (especially with Watson and Haddin staying in Australia). Chris Rogers has a proven record in England, averaged 50 this Shield season with three 100s, and deserves to be back-up. Tim Paine is a better batsman than Haddin, and would have been our first-choice keeper if it wasn't for his hand injury. He deserves to be around the squad and learning, rather than wasting away in Australia. Fawad Ahmed gets to be the back-up spinner, but doesn't play unless Lyon gets injured (can't imagine any pitch in England warranting two spinners). If he is ineligible, Jon Holland hopefully has healed by then, and gets the spot. Stay away from Doherty and Maxwell. If Cummins and Bird aren't fit, Ryan Harris is next, and then it's a toss up between reinstating Johnson, or Ben Hilfenhaus. Or Josh Hazlewood. Warner stays, but with Rogers in the squad, he has to make runs early. We shouldn't persist with him if his tendency to flash outside off with no technique continues to reap him sub-20 scores. Hughes stays, but moves down the order, to take the pressure off him batting at 3. Smith also stays, to my chagrin, because we need to reward players who perform and show application, and, as much as it pains me to say it, he did this in India. He doesn't bowl as anything other than a part-timer, though. My XI for the first Test: Cowan Warner Marsh Clarke Hughes Smith Wade Pattinson Siddle Bird Lyon

Pity we're frittering away our bowlers' good work with more insipid batting. Opening with Maxwell = attempt to prevent backlash for picking him in the first place. He's crap. Shouldn't play for us again in the near future. Watson and Warner are living on credits long, long used up. I don't want to see them in the first Ashes Test (I know they'll be there, but undeservedly). Our bowlers haven't been great this series, but our batting has been worse (as per usual). We need refreshment of the top 6 for England. Marsh, Doolan, Rogers, Burns, Maddinson, White, McDonald, I don't care who. We can't keep playing Warner, Watson, Hughes and Smith as four of our top 6/7. Edit: Heard an interesting fact today. Apparently, from three Tests each, Nathan Lyon has faced more balls batting than Shane Watson. Don't know what the actual figures are though.

Really? I disagree completely - after how we've played the first three Tests, to turn it around and get some competitiveness, and/or a win, would be great for the players, as well as the coaches, and will help curb the Indian team's arrogance. No one would have thought we'd be close to them this match, so to prove them wrong and to get a bit of confidence/form would be good. Hilfenhaus has to be about 4 places back. Surely he's behind Pattinson, Siddle, Starc, probably Bird, Johnson and Cummins too.

Finally something of a contest in this series. Lyon is bowling his heart out, has 3 and should have 4 (Tendulkar was pretty adjacent on a missed sweep earlier). Siddle also bowling well (as per usual). I really hope Lyon can get a bag of wickets, to make the haters shut up, to give him more confidence, and to show that we do have a spinner who can get it done if we just let him try. Edit: Next over, Lyon has Dhoni dropped, but then gets Tendulkar LBW. Good stuff. They're 5/180, a very different look to their score compared to recent Tests. Their lower order finally to be tested properly; Jadeja, Ashwin and Kumar can all bat, but they're all flakey.

Agree, especially re: Lyon. He cops a lot (even getting dropped) for not taking wickets when people expect them on India's turners, but India's pitches are so much drier than ours, it's a different type of spin that gets wickets. Lyon's a better bowler in Australia (and South Africa, even), where the pitches bounce more. His best bowling is when he gets bounce, not when he gets ripping turn.