Handscombe would have to be a shot.
Looking at the pitches Swepson would also be worth a go.
Agree on Agar.
-
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
Looking at the pitches Swepson would also be worth a go.
Agree on Agar.
I think so. From memory though, that was due to a whole heap of unseasonable rain in the run up to the test
I don't have a problem with countries preparing pitches to suit themselves, I think that's part of touring and the home ground advantage.
Where I think the game has to draw the line though is specifically altering parts of the pitch to target certain individuals or advantage others.
Where I think the game has to draw the line though is specifically altering parts of the pitch to target certain individuals or advantage others.
Without a doubt. If for example you know someone has a bunch of offies and you have leggies, then doctoring the pitch to benefit that is fairly easy you'd think
Which is what looks like is happening here. Australia has a heap of left handers so they are giving Ashwin the ability to hit dry, rough outside their off stump.
Lyon bowling to right handers will be hitting grass.
Even moreso Jadeja who will bring it back into the left handers from the rough.
They don't have any recognised batsmen that are left handers to worry about that area.
Surprised they didn't fear him bowling them around their legs.
Ha! No greentops in England?? (I am always harsh on England btw. It's in the blood.)
Australian pitches are hard and fast because Australia is hot and dry.
Exactly. England is colder and wetter hence why the pitches are softer and have more green on them. Its part of parcel of the climate. You can't expect English pitches to have no green on them. If they do, then they are usually those boring dull and lifeless ones where both teams score 600 on it in their 1st innings, and is usually because they remain covered for too long and have been rolled too much
Nice little article here on the challenges and vagaries of touring and beating India.
www.theage.com.au
Adopting Gilchrist’s un-Australian tactics the best way to win in India
If touring teams don’t adapt their strategies in India, they will be going home in defeat.
Also sounds like Murphy and Handscomb are both firming to play ahead of Agar and Renshaw.
www.espncricinfo.com
This also shows the value of Starc and why we'll need him through the series. Not just for his wicket taking ability but to create footmarks for Lyon and possibly Murphy to bowl into against India's right hand batting lineup.
Handscomb and Murphy close in on a place in Australia's XI against India
Pat Cummins won't reveal the make up of his team until the toss in Nagpur
This also shows the value of Starc and why we'll need him through the series. Not just for his wicket taking ability but to create footmarks for Lyon and possibly Murphy to bowl into against India's right hand batting lineup.
Interesting observations I made in England too about the game at the grass roots level. That concrete and/or synthetic pitches are quite rare. A bit more common now. But not traditionally a really a big part of the game as far as I could tell. Is that right Posh?
I explained to English friends who lived in rural Cambridgeshire (a hot bed of village cricket) that at the lower levels, in Australia, we all grew up learning the game on concrete and/or synthetic wickets. Only if you got to a reasonable level were you privileged enough to then get a game on a turf wicket. Maybe a bit different if you are at elite private schools. But certainly not for public school kids and junior club cricketers where I grew up. Cambridgeshire folk seemed quite surprised.
This perhaps also influences the types of players we produce from the very formative years. Concrete and synthetic wickets create a lot of speed and consistent, true bounce. But don’t offer much variation (apart from one high school we used to play against, where their 40YO concrete pitch had so many cracks in it, it was more dangerous than Sabina Park). I can only imagine playing at the lowest levels in England, on pitches that just don’t have the budget to be really well prepared, what *smile* they are playing on. Balls must be skidding past at ankle bone height, losing quite a few yards of speed as they hit the deck.
Correct. synthetic wickets are an absolute rarity in England.
The only incorrect component of your post was around the ball going past at ankle height. Quite the opposite on most pitches.
Some you couldn't tell the pitch from the outfield and a wily 50 y.o bowling cutters off a length would be near unplayable. Certainly impossible to drive unless it was a half volley.
The only incorrect component of your post was around the ball going past at ankle height. Quite the opposite on most pitches.
Some you couldn't tell the pitch from the outfield and a wily 50 y.o bowling cutters off a length would be near unplayable. Certainly impossible to drive unless it was a half volley.
<
“Twiggy” Forrest taking on Meta/facebook over scam ads
|
Who are our well known/celebrity supporters?
>
