The Australian cricket non-official thread!

That John Hastings is a cricketer right down to his bootstraps. He's your real 1970's-1980's type of unit, a Mr Dependable if ever there was one.

It was great to see Mitchell Marsh do well with bat and ball in the same game too. Yes, he's a work in progress and yes, he's not everyone's cup of tea, but he has the advantage of youth on his side. He strikes me as the sort of kid that would lose confidence very quickly if he was moved in and out of the side.

This leads me - in a roundabout way - to one of my real bugbears regarding Test match selection. We often hear that "the 12th man has been released to play domestic cricket". In my opinion, that must stop. If you're not in the final XI, you should be nominated AND REMAIN AS the 12th man. It's too easy to just drag in Old Mate from whatever state association is hosting a Text match and send the non-selected bloke away and forget about him. To me, a squad is a squad!
 
Allan Border was right when the Kiwis were making all excuses saying that they got the right decision.

AB said everyone knew Warner wasn't out LBW the other night, even before he'd got off the ground, and he didn't get a reprieve.

You have to laugh though. If the that had happened to a Kiwi at the MCG, NZ would be going berserk tonight. LOL.
 
In the context of the game it was a huge match defining call. Yes it was out but NZ barely appealed, didn't refer and if they hadn't approached Umpire Gould after the replay then the decision would not have been reviewed
 
Matty76 said:
That John Hastings is a cricketer right down to his bootstraps. He's your real 1970's-1980's type of unit, a Mr Dependable if ever there was one.

It was great to see Mitchell Marsh do well with bat and ball in the same game too. Yes, he's a work in progress and yes, he's not everyone's cup of tea, but he has the advantage of youth on his side. He strikes me as the sort of kid that would lose confidence very quickly if he was moved in and out of the side.

This leads me - in a roundabout way - to one of my real bugbears regarding Test match selection. We often hear that "the 12th man has been released to play domestic cricket". In my opinion, that must stop. If you're not in the final XI, you should be nominated AND REMAIN AS the 12th man. It's too easy to just drag in Old Mate from whatever state association is hosting a Text match and send the non-selected bloke away and forget about him. To me, a squad is a squad!
Click to expand...
I see what you mean, however I think it's better to have the bloke who missed out on selection off playing, proving himself and pushing his case to be selected for the next game. I don't think there's any use in them running drinks and sub fielding when they could be out getting valuable match time. :)
 
A few surprises in our world T20 squad

Neville in for Wade, Smith back to Captain

Zampa, Tye and Agar also in

No Lynn or Head, unfortunately neither really grabbed their recent chances. I am surprised Boyce didn't get a look in, thought he bowled well.
 
What an absolute joke Australian selectors are ? U can't keep Lynn or Boyce out of that team that's just to name 2 , I'm not saying anymore WOW
 
Brendan_B said:
A few surprises in our world T20 squad

Neville in for Wade, Smith back to Captain

Zampa, Tye and Agar also in

No Lynn or Head, unfortunately neither really grabbed their recent chances. I am surprised Boyce didn't get a look in, thought he bowled well.
Click to expand...
Unfortunatelly appears Head & Lynn have paid the price for the debarcle that was the 3-0 Indian whitewash.

Boyce is unlucky, the appear to be going with the all rounder in Agar instead. Glad Smith is Captain - was rediculous he is our Test captain & a bloke who cant make the test team was captain in T20.

Will see how they go - Cricket Australia do not seem to care about the result in any T20 internationals. They showed that when they sent the bulk of our team to New Zealand to prepair for the ODI series - leaving the young blokes to take on India.
 
The New Zealand and Australian XI's have been named for the 1st Test at Wellington tomorrow:

NZ: Martin Guptill, Tom Latham, Kane Williamson, Henry Nicholls, Brendon McCullum, Corey Anderson, BJ Watling, Doug Bracewell, Mark Craig, Tim Southee, Trent Boult.

AUS: David Warner, Joe Burns, Usman Khawaja, Steve Smith, Adam Voges, Mitchell Marsh, Peter Nevill, Peter Siddle, Josh Hazlewood, Nathan Lyon, Jackson Bird.

Two very evenly matched teams - I think four of the NZ top six are potential walking wickets if Australia's bowlers can put the ball in the right place often enough. I hate these 2 Test series, absolutely hate them. To me it's a bloody mini-series!! :-)
 
Last edited:
A series should be 3 or 5.

That said, it was to be a 3 test series, but the Kiwis wanted the 3 ODIs instead.

On one hand they cry poor, saying they get no respect. On the other, they go for quick cash and don't want to play a test.
 
Two Test series leave too many unanswered questions, encourages pitch doctoring and allows inclement weather to directly affect the result of the series. Some sports like football (soccer) are suited to a two-game (home and away) fixture (eg in cup competitions) but in cricket it is ridiculous. If you can play three T20's or five ODI's (there have even been seven of the buggers played in previous tours!) in a series, then you can play three Test matches as a minimum.

I'm a bit like the bloke with the steering wheel on his pants as far as this is concerned.......'cos it's driving me nuts! :-)
 
Its a no brainer here, three tests are a must.

Recalling Jackson Bird has kind of come out of the blue. I would have played in him England. When they didnt I thought he was on the same list as Doug Bollinger - marked never to play test cricket again.

Well done to him. Hope he gets a bag full of wickets. Goes to show patience and persistance pays off. Who would have thought Siddle & Bird would be our strike bowlers on this tour 12 months ago!

Most of us thought Sids would be stranded in the 190's for test wickets.
 
A stunning day of Test cricket in Wellington, with swings and roundabouts galore!

New Zealand dismissed for 183 (Craig 41*, Anderson 38, Boult 24, Hazlewood 4/42, Lyon 3/32, Siddle 3/37). They were 5/51, 9/137 and then there came a frustrating last-wicket stand of 46. Peter Nevill took a left-handed screamer to dismiss Kane Williamson, look for it on the news reports tonight.

Australia currently 2/52 with Khawaja (24) and Smith (23) at the wicket. "Monty" Burns unluckily gloved Southee to Watling down the legside (decision was referred after an initial not-out) for 0 and Warner slashed loosely to fall to the same combination for only 5. Mark Craig just dropped Steve Smith at slip. Every other ball is seemingly going to the fence. Still about 90 minutes to go!!

EDIT: 3/147 at the close. Khawaja 57*, Voges 7*. Smith was out for 71. As if to prove to a bloke that you really have never seen EVERYTHING in a game of cricket, Adam Voges shouldered arms and was bowled off the third last ball of the day and umpire Illingworth incorrectly called no-ball! As there was no replay of the delivery on the big screen, no-one on the ground knew anything about it - however Mark Richardson in the commentary box nearly had a stroke!!
 
Last edited:
Brendan_B said:
In the context of the game it was a huge match defining call. Yes it was out but NZ barely appealed, didn't refer and if they hadn't approached Umpire Gould after the replay then the decision would not have been reviewed
Click to expand...

Barely appealed? As far as I know all you have to do is appeal, there's nothing in the rules that says how vocal it should be. NZ couldn't refer it - that type of decision (whether a catch has carried) can only be sent upstairs by the umpire.

To be honest I'm not totally convinced Henry appealed at all ... but the decision was with the umpire to decide if he had, and if so, it was at the umpire's discretion to send it upstairs.

In the end the right decision was made, but personally I think the entire referral situation is a joke. I'm happy if the right decision is made, but it more often than not seems not to be under the current set up. Warner's LBW was a different kettle of fish because he had the opportunity to refer it, his batting partner told him to, and I think most were baffled that he didn't. You'll always get the odd anomaly like that when you leave it in the hands of the players, though. I'd prefer to have the referrals left solely to the umpires. If they aren't sure then get it checked.

If Warner had stayed in and Marsh still out - I'm happy.

The Mad Hatter said:
A series should be 3 or 5.

That said, it was to be a 3 test series, but the Kiwis wanted the 3 ODIs instead.

On one hand they cry poor, saying they get no respect. On the other, they go for quick cash and don't want to play a test.
Click to expand...

I don't know when NZ have said they get no respect, but the financial situation at NZ Cricket really means the 3 ODI series was a good decision. The organisation lost $3.6 million in 2013/14, had a windfall last season because of the World Cup, and is expected to lose $5 million this year. We really only make money when it's a World Cup year, or when India tours. Pretty much every other year is a loss.

So while of course I'd prefer a three match test series, when you boil it down a three match ODI series and two tests is going to get NZ Cricket more money which is going to benefit the game in this country, and it's going to get them more media exposure and public interest, which can only benefit them in the long term. In the boom-bust reality NZ Cricket faces every year, it's not an ideal world.
 
As for this test, Australia bowled great in the first morning and the NZ batsmen just couldn't withstand it. They really needed to bat time for the first half a day because we've seen the pitch become great to bat on after that - as is usually the case at the Basin.

A real shame from my pov, the first three days were sold out - I've never known a single day of a test match to be sold out in NZ before, let alone the first three before the game even starts! Cricket definitely riding very high here at the moment (but this game doesn't look like it'll help much!).

Full credit to Aus though - virtually impossible to see any other result than an Aus win, at this stage. It won't rain, Wellington is having one of the all-time great summers.
 
The umpires wouldn't have referred the Marsh decision if they didn't see the replay on the big screen. Was he out? Absolutely. Should the Unpires have been able to check it after seeing the replay? No. Neither umpire had shown any inclination to check prior to the replay, that was my point.

Smart play from McCullum (of whom I am a big fan) by being in ear shot of the Umpire when the ball was replayed and gently suggesting it be checked. I believe that the Kiwis could have referred it though as the catch was never in contention, the issue was whether or not the ball hit the ground before it hit Marsh's boot
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom