Agree re: Head. Leysy's point re: his performances of recent times were more towards him being the best ODI in the land.
Great players don't through troughs like that.
Great players don't through troughs like that.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
Yesterday Smith said White was brought into the squad because Australia had to solidify our middle order. Smith claimed the middle order has let us down in recent times.
So today they name the 11 for the first ODI.
3 specialist batsmen
1 keeper
7 bowlers including 3 all rounders
The debate shouldn't be about Maxwell or White or even Lynn.
It needs to be about the structure of the bloody team.
We have so many bowlers that even when we are getting beaten we can't bowl them all.
Meanwhile England's specialist batsmen rip us to shreds.
I reckon even I could get runs against Marsh, Tye and Stoinis. They are medium pace hacks at best.
I despair of smart people who make dumb selection decisions.
So today they name the 11 for the first ODI.
3 specialist batsmen
1 keeper
7 bowlers including 3 all rounders
The debate shouldn't be about Maxwell or White or even Lynn.
It needs to be about the structure of the bloody team.
We have so many bowlers that even when we are getting beaten we can't bowl them all.
Meanwhile England's specialist batsmen rip us to shreds.
I reckon even I could get runs against Marsh, Tye and Stoinis. They are medium pace hacks at best.
I despair of smart people who make dumb selection decisions.
poppa x said:
Agree with all that. As a pom I'm just happy to have won a game but England won due to bowling from specialist bowlers and batting from specialist batsmen. There seems to be an obsession in cricket now due to scoring more runs in 50 over cricket to have to follow T20 cricket which is all about players that can do everything. England picked bowlers who can bat a bit, and a bunch of batsmen.
Having said that, the biggest surprise in the Aussie team is Zampa. There is no chance he is an International spinner as he doesn't take wickets. Michael Clarke was commenting about Adil Rashid yesterday and was ok with his stats of 2/73 but would take it everyday if it was a 3 for. Zampa will never return figures of that, add him to the all rounders in Head, Marsh and Stoinis and none will run through a team, leaving way too much pressure on Starc and Cummins to take wickets.
I'll be surprised if Hazlewood isn't in the team on Friday and I'd personally bowl Smith ahead of Zampa. If Smith bowls 10 overs and goes for 70 (similar to Zampa yesterday) he'll probably take a couple of wickets and I'd take that way ahead of Zampa. I'd have thought Lyon should have been in the team though.
poppa x said:
i would count Head as a bat, he can bowl a bit, but he is in the team because of his batting.
but i agree with the rest. maybe Marsh has improved in his time away from the team, but before yesterday he had passed 5 once in his last 5 innings, and that was in a game Aust made 378 and he came in at 3/250 after 40 overs.
Stoinis's batting is good enough at the moment.
Paine is a weakness at 7 though. if we lose quick wickets he is ok to come to try to steady the ship, but in an innings like last night he does not have the ability to score quickly enough. he has never had a strike rate over 100 in an ODI innings. Cummins probably should have come in before him last night.
Kohli lbw for 5. India 3/26. Good to see.
And he reviewed it, not watching but the commentary says it was crashing in to middle stump.
The arrogance of some of these players astounds me.
If I was a team coach, I would have a rule. If you've been given lbw you can only review it if you know you've nicked it.
I really like DRS but the one knock I have on it is that batsmen earlier in the innings (e.g. Watson) can benefit more by using up all the reviews.
To limit that somewhat I would give teams 10 per Test.
And he reviewed it, not watching but the commentary says it was crashing in to middle stump.
The arrogance of some of these players astounds me.
If I was a team coach, I would have a rule. If you've been given lbw you can only review it if you know you've nicked it.
I really like DRS but the one knock I have on it is that batsmen earlier in the innings (e.g. Watson) can benefit more by using up all the reviews.
To limit that somewhat I would give teams 10 per Test.
23.21.159 said:
IMO Kohli is over rated and benefits from playing a ridiculous amount of cricket on the sub-continent.
In this series with South Africa, sure he's Indias highest scorer with 191 runs from 4 innings, but bearing in mind he scored 153 in the 1st innings of the 2nd test theres not much else to write home about. Would much prefer either Smith or Root ahead of Kohli as they score more runs in varying conditions and it would be far better for the team to have a consistent run scorer (like Root) than a 1 innings flash in the pan type that Kohli has proven to be outside of the subcontinent.
mrposhman said:
I’d have Kohli a fair way ahead of Root. Both are a long way behind Smith, but even smith’s home average is >20 higher than his away average.
