Cricket

[IanG]

Well summed up Evo. That shining the bowl excuse was a cracker. Looking forward to think tanks and bonding trips that make no difference to our batting and bowling. That was ironic too coming from Navy who was the last to accept on the forum that the pommies were miles in front of us.

England got a lot more movement than the Australian bowlers, bowling with a ball they weren't used to. The condition of the ball was highlighted during the Sydney test, regardless of whether it was done naturally or whether they were cheating they got the ball in much better condition to swing than the Australians. If it doesn't matter who shines the ball why did England test all their players for how much they sweated and appoint the player who sweated the least the designated shiner? Its just an indication of how much better their preparation was.

 

[Leysy Days]

Seriously how much "preparation" does it take? After watching cricket for 40 years there are three obvious maxims that win test series: don't continually hang the bat outside off stump; bowl over after over of line and length; hold your catches.
You either follow those maxims or you don't - England did, we didn't.

Having had the opportunity to play a hell of a lot of very good standard cricket in 2 countries with some exceptional players, navy can tell you there is so much more than what you say.

With batting, it is a profession where technique & an automatic ability to pickup where/when the ball will reach you is the game. You cannot just pick a bat up in differing conditions & perform at your best. It requires people to hone their game to suit those conditions & to have played enough leading up to perform at your best. This is because you only have a split second from bowler to batsman so it needs to be 2nd nature how to sum up the speed the pitches play at, what bounce they have, what ball is used to then play (or not play) the appropriate shot.

& subcontinent to Australia is as vast as the difference gets. Its not coincidence we have won one series in India in 50 odd years whilst they rarely win here.

As navy said preparation certainly wasnt the difference between the two sides, but it did give them an edge & it certainly gives a good insight into where CA's priorities lie which if not brought to task for the future will set our quest to regain the ashes back even further. Which was navy's point.

They are now talking about taking out the shield final & also reducing the length of the shield season to fit in more domestic 20/20 games. Yourself & JB obviously wont have an issue with that seeing as its only a matter of being able to leave wide balls & bowl on the same spot.

 

[evo]

You cannot just pick a bat up in differing conditions & perform at your best.

;D

We are talking about Australians playing in Australia!

 

[Leysy Days]

England got a lot more movement than the Australian bowlers, bowling with a ball they weren't used to. The condition of the ball was highlighted during the Sydney test, regardless of whether it was done naturally or whether they were cheating they got the ball in much better condition to swing than the Australians. If it doesn't matter who shines the ball why did England test all their players for how much they sweated and appoint the player who sweated the least the designated shiner? Its just an indication of how much better their preparation was.

Very good point. Why did they go to so much trouble if it doesnt matter.

Its just another example of how far we are being left behind in our professionalism & singemindedness off-field.

Not sure how reviewing all of those operations brings so much mirth.

 

[Streak]

Very good point. Why did they go to so much trouble if it doesnt matter.

Its just another example of how far we are being left behind in our professionalism & singemindedness off-field.

Not sure how reviewing all of those operations brings so much mirth.

Given the damage on the ball I saw in the Sydney test after about 30 overs, I am sceptical that the sweat on the ball theory holds that much advantage. I think they have other means of getting the reverse swing they get.

 

[snaps truly]

Agree with you, especially the scheduling aspect. What would you be hoping to achieve with the zero points for non outright wins? Shield captains I think have usually played for the result, but I guess the old sporting declaration is becoming less frequent as the game gets more professional and more cut-throat for positions.

I like it Phantom, they could do worse.

 

[tigertim]

Even just in navy's playing days of traversing between distict cricket in Aus & county league in England it takes time, let alone Test players.

At the risk of being labelled a stalker may I ask which district cricket club you played for?

 

[Tigers of Old]

;D

We are talking about Australians playing in Australia!

:hihi

 

[pahoffm]

Agree with you, especially the scheduling aspect. What would you be hoping to achieve with the zero points for non outright wins? Shield captains I think have usually played for the result, but I guess the old sporting declaration is becoming less frequent as the game gets more professional and more cut-throat for positions.

I like it Phantom, they could do worse.

To me, if you're playing to develop teams for the extended game, reward should be given only for achieving an outright result.

If a team isn't good enough to bowl out a side twice, it shouldn't receive the points.

 

[Leysy Days]

At the risk of being labelled a stalker may I ask which district cricket club you played for?

Dont really want to reveal that on here to be honest. But it was in Tasmania then Perth & the Yorkshire & Durham county league in England.

 

[Punxsutawney Phil]

Given the damage on the ball I saw in the Sydney test after about 30 overs, I am sceptical that the sweat on the ball theory holds that much advantage. I think they have other means of getting the reverse swing they get.

I didn't see the condition of the ball in Melbourne, but Bresnan was getting it to reverse in our second innings there after about 25-30 overs as well.

However, it isn't just about the reverse swing, it is about landing the ball in a good area time after time which enables the reverse swing to become lethal. Even if our bowlers could get reverse swing, their scattergun approach would have been much less successful than what England produced.

There are a few damning stats from the series that show just how poorly we bowled....

In Jonathan Trott's hundred in Melbourne, around 85 or his first 100 runs were scored on the on side. Most bowlers in under 12 would understand that he is a good legside player so dont *smile* feed him there.

Also Alistair Cook isn't a great driver yet he was contstantly fed short *smile* on both sides of the wicket. Around 5% of his runs in the series were scored between mid on and mid off.

Just dumb bowling from our blokes.

 

[tigertim]

Dont really want to reveal that on here to be honest. But it was in Tasmania then Perth & the Yorkshire & Durham county league in England.

Fair enough. I thought you meant here in Melb. Navy must have been a handy cricketer to play district & county league.

 

[Leysy Days]

Fair enough. I thought you meant here in Melb. Navy must have been a handy cricketer to play district & county league.

Nah was old & washed up by the age of 30 when he moved to Melbourne.

Must have been the boags on the cereal before primary school. ;D

 

[snaps truly]

To me, if you're playing to develop teams for the extended game, reward should be given only for achieving an outright result.

If a team isn't good enough to bowl out a side twice, it shouldn't receive the points.

They're only four day games though. Unless every pitch played on was a wicket which assisted the bowler, which would be in the best interest of Australian cricket, not bowling a team out twice but still winning surely deserves some kind of reward. It's still a win.

 

[jb03]

England got a lot more movement than the Australian bowlers, bowling with a ball they weren't used to. The condition of the ball was highlighted during the Sydney test, regardless of whether it was done naturally or whether they were cheating they got the ball in much better condition to swing than the Australians. If it doesn't matter who shines the ball why did England test all their players for how much they sweated and appoint the player who sweated the least the designated shiner? Its just an indication of how much better their preparation was.

Just all these snide comments about what England do with the ball makes me laugh. They can swing it, we can't. In fact, we rarely produce any quality swing ballers.

Fair enough. I thought you meant here in Melb. Navy must have been a handy cricketer to play district & county league.

Apparently on a par with his punting.

 

[tigertim]

Just all these snide comments about what England do with the ball makes me laugh. They can swing it, we can't. In fact, we rarely produce any quality swing ballers.


Apparently on a par with his punting.

Be fair JB, to play at district standard ( or Premier as its now called, grade cricket in NSW I think) is a fair standard. I only made it to 3rd and 4th grade level at suburban level.

 

[IanG]

Just all these snide comments about what England do with the ball makes me laugh. They can swing it, we can't. In fact, we rarely produce any quality swing ballers.

I actually don't think England did anything illegal. It should be possible for our bowlers to swing it as much as England did but we weren't trying to maximise our chance of getting it to swing.

 

[Leysy Days]

Apparently on a par with his punting.

Be fair JB, to play at district standard ( or Premier as its now called, grade cricket in NSW I think) is a fair standard. I only made it to 3rd and 4th grade level at suburban level.

Yes be fair JB. Getting sick of Tim having to stick up for navy in the face of your onslaughts.

 

[mb64]

"We were beaten by a better side" isn't acceptable so there's a lot of finger pointing going on; professional sport must have a scapegoat. They can blame the coaches and the selectors but ultimately it rests with the blokes on the field, and they weren't good enough. Perhaps multiple areas are under-performing, but if this series was played 10 times at different venues and under varying conditions, the result would be similar each time IMO.

But with a better preparation & better selection we would have been beaten but not slaughtered.

 

[jb03]

Yes be fair JB. Getting sick of Tim having to stick up for navy in the face of your onslaughts.

;D Tim had it all wrong, he thought I was sledging your punting but I was actually wrapping it up!