The Australian cricket non-official thread!
- Thread starter Matty76
- Start date
The Mad Hatter
OzCardTrader
At least he gave credit where it is due.
When three of your batsmen contribute next to nothing in consecutive tests, your spinner is not giving you much and you're constantly playing one quick down...then I'd be depressed too.
The schedule, the restng, the bs...its all out of whack too.
I reckon of all the sports we follow between us in this forum, cricket is the one where the scoreboard doesn't really lie. The grim reality of the last five Test defeats is that they are there in black and white, for all to see. Everywhere you look, and every way you pull it apart - the national team has become a statistical laughing stock in a sport that revolves around and reveres its "numbers".
Cricket Australia must now direct the national selectors that "generation next" starts immediately. "50/50" selections should preference the younger man. Additionally, the "pick and stick" policy must be enforced. Select players on a series-by-series basis. The absurdity regarding young Mitchell Marsh was unforgivable. "He needs runs, Mitch" - Rod Marsh. "He'll play all three Tests" - Mark Waugh.......and then he is dropped for Hobart on a "horses for courses" theory.
More to follow when I knock-off....this has been a depressing lunch break!!
Cricket Australia must now direct the national selectors that "generation next" starts immediately. "50/50" selections should preference the younger man. Additionally, the "pick and stick" policy must be enforced. Select players on a series-by-series basis. The absurdity regarding young Mitchell Marsh was unforgivable. "He needs runs, Mitch" - Rod Marsh. "He'll play all three Tests" - Mark Waugh.......and then he is dropped for Hobart on a "horses for courses" theory.
More to follow when I knock-off....this has been a depressing lunch break!!
The Mad Hatter
OzCardTrader
Nope.
And you should check out a fellow by the name of Stuart Law. One Test (vsSL in 1995/96 - actually, the test in which Ricky Ponting debuted too). Stuart Law had HUGE numbers. One test. 54*, no test average. 27080 First Class Runs at 50.52/
The Mad Hatter
OzCardTrader
I can remember a time when Test players played most Sheffield Shield games (if not playing a test, def inbetween, if not injured).
Also spent winters in England playing County Cricket.
Played club cricket too.
Didn't retire at 50. Didn't bowl six overs in training every third day. Practiced their fielding skills. And if you made the Australian team, didn't need their technique coached.
Also spent winters in England playing County Cricket.
Played club cricket too.
Didn't retire at 50. Didn't bowl six overs in training every third day. Practiced their fielding skills. And if you made the Australian team, didn't need their technique coached.
Not everyone performs on their debut Chris. Some people handle pressure better than other players. Why compare someone who made their debut as a batsman 20 years ago to someone making their debut as bowler now? Bowling to South Africa on your test debut, to the likes of Hashim Amla and Quinton de Kock is no easy task. And no I'm not saying it was easy for Stuart Law, rather that your comparison is no good.
Michael Bevan 19147runs at 57.32, 232 ODI matches, almost 7000 runs at 53.58 yet only averaged 29.07 in his 18 tests, was actually picked as a second spinner for some of them, 29 wickets at 24.24.
First class runs don't always equate to test success.
If you want hard luck how about a double century with the bat, 3 for 25 off 9 with the ball and dropped never to play a test again.
Not just beaten in the last 5 tests, flogged!! I don't think we have been close.
I don't believe you can compare players from different eras, every aspect of the game has changed so much.
Are we relying on science and technique to much?
What happened to sourcing blokes that are natural athletes and sportsman?
Tough on the new boys in the team but are they really the best we have? Callum Ferguson is a solid domestic cricketer but is he really an Australian number 6?
To me the biggest issue is Rod Marsh. Once he goes we may start to see some continuity and confidence in the playing squad.
I don't believe you can compare players from different eras, every aspect of the game has changed so much.
Are we relying on science and technique to much?
What happened to sourcing blokes that are natural athletes and sportsman?
Tough on the new boys in the team but are they really the best we have? Callum Ferguson is a solid domestic cricketer but is he really an Australian number 6?
To me the biggest issue is Rod Marsh. Once he goes we may start to see some continuity and confidence in the playing squad.
The Mad Hatter
OzCardTrader
If Callum Ferguson was 21-24, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. And I chose Stuart Law as he was 27 and a shield stalwart. He looks more talented and couldn't crack his way back in to the test side after 1 decent debut because of batsman around him also scoring 1000 Shield Runs a season to get in (or not in some cases). [Man...I'd love to have a couple of Shield bats doing 1000 runs a season like Hayden, Langer, Martyn...]
However, Ferguson is almost 32 (in a week or so). He has played 93 first class games for an average of 39.27. He played 30 ODIs for Australia so it's not like he's 'new' to the Australian side or set up. Ok, sure, it was a test debut. But he now has a batting average of 2. He's was a poor judge of a run and then a poor judge of a short delivery. Both dismissals were clumsy. Surely, there is someone between the ages of 21-25 who can be part of Generation Next to take his spot. CA were right to give Callum a shot with the series alive. But the meek, weak destruction of the batting line up in Tasmania is good enough reason to say thanks and on ya bike.
Same goes for Voges. Did a job for a bit but runs against WI need a big fat * against them, really. At 37, and his run of poor scores, it's time to say thanks for the 20 tests [20 he thought he probably would never ever get] and find someone else too.
As for Jason Gillespie, fair call. But I pretty much think after 2005, they dropped him after he lost pace. That test against Bangladesh was a bit of luck.
The Mad Hatter
OzCardTrader
Bevan was scared of the quick ball at his body. Did well in Pakistan. Then England sussed out his weakness in 1994/95 where he scored 7, 21, 3, 35, 8 and 7 to be replaced by Greg Blewett who promptly scored a ton on debut in Adelaide in the the 4th Ashes Test. So Bevan's first 3 tests netted him 243 of his 785 runs. In 15 tests he scored 524 runs. And he scored 52, 85* and 87* vs WI in 1996/97 coming in at 7 or 8 but the 6 tests after that vs SAF and England, next to nothing. Purely suited to the ODI game where short balls at his body weren't really allowed.
I'm sure you guys have seen the statistics in terms of Australia's collapses in recent times, but to lose 8 for a meek 32 and not even last til lunch time after being 2/129, they just reached a new low. It's gone to the point where you can pretty much expect an Aussie collapse in every test, and it is not a good look and embarrassing to watch as an Australian.
Do give credit to the SA bowlers, yes, they were too good at the end, bowling and batting with absolute confidence and class. But I can solely put the blame of this series defeat on the batsmen, especially the middle order. I don't think that collapses are a new "habit" of theirs, I actually think that they literally have mental issues with their techniques while they are at the crease. In other words, this batting lineup is soft as butter. How can it be that it only takes the SA bowlers, especially Rabada, 1-2 bounces to drain the batsmen (especially one of the high calibre of Smith) of their confidence with their technique for them to fold like that is beyond me. It's pretty ironic to think that SA were able to adapt to the conditions very well and change their strategy accordingly, while the Aussie batsmen, and dare I say bowlers, cannot even adapt to their own conditions.
I have day 3 tickets to the Adelaide test, and if SA bowl first, I might not even have to use it at this rate.
This is probably the lowest the Australian cricket team have been in the history of their existence. The best thing to do now is to just bleed youth into the team, and accept that they are rebuilding.
Do give credit to the SA bowlers, yes, they were too good at the end, bowling and batting with absolute confidence and class. But I can solely put the blame of this series defeat on the batsmen, especially the middle order. I don't think that collapses are a new "habit" of theirs, I actually think that they literally have mental issues with their techniques while they are at the crease. In other words, this batting lineup is soft as butter. How can it be that it only takes the SA bowlers, especially Rabada, 1-2 bounces to drain the batsmen (especially one of the high calibre of Smith) of their confidence with their technique for them to fold like that is beyond me. It's pretty ironic to think that SA were able to adapt to the conditions very well and change their strategy accordingly, while the Aussie batsmen, and dare I say bowlers, cannot even adapt to their own conditions.
I have day 3 tickets to the Adelaide test, and if SA bowl first, I might not even have to use it at this rate.
This is probably the lowest the Australian cricket team have been in the history of their existence. The best thing to do now is to just bleed youth into the team, and accept that they are rebuilding.
No doubt a bit of luck but nearly always is to score a double, still big call not to play him again seeing it was about the time we embarked on the search for an all rounder.
I don't think his problem against the short ball were as bad as made out and a lot of the problem was due to the fact everyone kept telling him he had a problem. You don't score the first class and ODI runs he did if all it takes is a couple of short ones to get you out.
The selectors seem to want players who have proven themselves at first class level for a decade, problem is by the time they have most are 30 and are well aware that it is their one and only chance. They also haven't been challenged with a step up in level for over a decade. Plenty cant handle either.
I don't think the pressure on a under 25 player is anywhere near as intense, they know if they don't make it they can go back to first class level, work on their game and likely get another shot. A few seem to flourish with the step up and perform as well or better than they do at first class level.
Aus trouble is we don't have the luxury of being able to blood and carry players for a few test at the present time and we don't have any young players that are screaming to be selected.
Too much short form cricket and too much $$$ in playing it means that players techniques are going to be poor.
They focus their energies into that game as that's where the $$$ is.
All limited overs cricket is played on flat tracks with no assistance for bowlers and once they play against quality swing or a ball that moves we are stuffed!!!
They focus their energies into that game as that's where the $$$ is.
All limited overs cricket is played on flat tracks with no assistance for bowlers and once they play against quality swing or a ball that moves we are stuffed!!!