Cricket- the sport not the insect - Page 134 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1331  
Old 12-31-12, 12:05
Alphabet's Avatar
Alphabet Alphabet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The yard
Posts: 805
Default

No, of course it isn't- which is why the plan should be everybody else gets 30s and 40s, one person makes a bigger score and Clarke makes 100+. Of course it's unsustainable and with an approach like that we'll lose 2 or 3-1, but right now it really is the best we have to offer.

Anyway, we're not as fragile as India or Sri Lanka might be. We don't go all to pieces at the first sign of lateral movement or bounce as those two batting orders have done in recent years, so an England walkover over our batting order isn't a given. I think reports of "6 Australian walking wickets plus Clarke" are a bit exaggerated. Yes, they aren't a patch on our predecessors, but the only genuinely weak players in there are Watson and Hughes. The rest of the top 7 at the least can perform on occasion. I'll try to make an objective analysis of our likely top 7:

Cowan- occupies the crease fairly well, but rarely scores above 50. He can protect the middle order reasonably well from the new ball, but not from scoreboard pressure.
Warner- a proper batsman, not just a T20 wonderkid. But he has his Sehwag moments. The bottom line is he's talented and will definitely improve, but right now he's hit-and-miss.
Hughes- Lol.
Watson- Adds 'balance' to the side, but is totally unecessary. Drop him for a specialist bowler or batsman, because he doesn't offer nearly enough in either discipline. Spells of 2/50 and brisk 40s are pretty much the zenith of his talents.
Clarke- The best batsman, by some distance, in the line up, and in brilliant form as well. I expect him to do really well in England, but there may be problems with support.
D. Hussey- He has a great first class record, and also an exceptional record in England, but he's never played test cricket so who knows? Based on his ODI performances, he certainly has a sound head on him and has bags of experience, so I'm leaning towards the position that he'll be a reasonably good addition, but still not quite taking the place of his brother.
Wade- A real step up from Haddin, but he's not a top class batsman. Decent and effective, but not someone you really want to be relying too much.

While I'm at it, I may as well do the bowlers:
Starc/Cummins/Pattinson/Whoever's fit- Each have their own strengths and weaknesses. They're all handy with the bat, but with the ball, Cummins is the most complete. Pattinson can occasionally be indisciplined, and Starc is very much in the Mitchell Johnson mould. Starc excels when there's swing to be had, as he pitches the ball up, but if there's no swing then they are just treated as half-volleys. Their common problems are staying fit and lack of experience, both playing in England and playing against top batsmen. Pattinson, for instance, has only really played well against India's declining batsmen and New Zealand's poor batsmen.
Johnson- Ouch. He has a reputation in England of being rubbish, which isn't all that far from the truth, but he can on occasion do a reasonable job. I'd still be happier if he were left out of the squad, though.
Lyon- Not really all that good, picks up most of his wickets from mistimed slogs. But at least he keeps it tight. And, on the plus side, we don't necessarily need a world class spinner to succeed in England.
Siddle- A good bowler, who's hardworking, reliable and economical. He's nothing special, but he gets the job done with a minimum of fuss. While landing the ball outside off stump on a good length may be unspectacular, it gets results.

Last edited by Alphabet; 12-31-12 at 12:22.
Reply With Quote
  #1332  
Old 12-31-12, 13:40
movingtarget movingtarget is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alphabet View Post
No, of course it isn't- which is why the plan should be everybody else gets 30s and 40s, one person makes a bigger score and Clarke makes 100+. Of course it's unsustainable and with an approach like that we'll lose 2 or 3-1, but right now it really is the best we have to offer.

Anyway, we're not as fragile as India or Sri Lanka might be. We don't go all to pieces at the first sign of lateral movement or bounce as those two batting orders have done in recent years, so an England walkover over our batting order isn't a given. I think reports of "6 Australian walking wickets plus Clarke" are a bit exaggerated. Yes, they aren't a patch on our predecessors, but the only genuinely weak players in there are Watson and Hughes. The rest of the top 7 at the least can perform on occasion. I'll try to make an objective analysis of our likely top 7:

Cowan- occupies the crease fairly well, but rarely scores above 50. He can protect the middle order reasonably well from the new ball, but not from scoreboard pressure.
Warner- a proper batsman, not just a T20 wonderkid. But he has his Sehwag moments. The bottom line is he's talented and will definitely improve, but right now he's hit-and-miss.
Hughes- Lol.
Watson- Adds 'balance' to the side, but is totally unecessary. Drop him for a specialist bowler or batsman, because he doesn't offer nearly enough in either discipline. Spells of 2/50 and brisk 40s are pretty much the zenith of his talents.
Clarke- The best batsman, by some distance, in the line up, and in brilliant form as well. I expect him to do really well in England, but there may be problems with support.
D. Hussey- He has a great first class record, and also an exceptional record in England, but he's never played test cricket so who knows? Based on his ODI performances, he certainly has a sound head on him and has bags of experience, so I'm leaning towards the position that he'll be a reasonably good addition, but still not quite taking the place of his brother.
Wade- A real step up from Haddin, but he's not a top class batsman. Decent and effective, but not someone you really want to be relying too much.

While I'm at it, I may as well do the bowlers:
Starc/Cummins/Pattinson/Whoever's fit- Each have their own strengths and weaknesses. They're all handy with the bat, but with the ball, Cummins is the most complete. Pattinson can occasionally be indisciplined, and Starc is very much in the Mitchell Johnson mould. Starc excels when there's swing to be had, as he pitches the ball up, but if there's no swing then they are just treated as half-volleys. Their common problems are staying fit and lack of experience, both playing in England and playing against top batsmen. Pattinson, for instance, has only really played well against India's declining batsmen and New Zealand's poor batsmen.
Johnson- Ouch. He has a reputation in England of being rubbish, which isn't all that far from the truth, but he can on occasion do a reasonable job. I'd still be happier if he were left out of the squad, though.
Lyon- Not really all that good, picks up most of his wickets from mistimed slogs. But at least he keeps it tight. And, on the plus side, we don't necessarily need a world class spinner to succeed in England.
Siddle- A good bowler, who's hardworking, reliable and economical. He's nothing special, but he gets the job done with a minimum of fuss. While landing the ball outside off stump on a good length may be unspectacular, it gets results.
Cummins is the one Australia misses the most. Lyon has improved but do we have anyone else as good or better. The others they tried like Doherty, not sure whether they are up to it. Johnson has improved recently but needed to improve a lot. Not sure if Australia will risk him in an Ashes Series unless injuries leave them no choice. Siddle is an honest workhorse and Hilfenhaus is good on a suitable pitch but not much variation in his bowling. Starc is a good one day bowler and bowls well to the lower order. He needs to improve.
Reply With Quote
  #1333  
Old 12-31-12, 13:49
Alphabet's Avatar
Alphabet Alphabet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The yard
Posts: 805
Default

The best way to approach it would be to go in expecting to compete (and playing competitively) rather than win 5-0, exposing our youngsters to English conditions and more top class cricketers, with an aim of making a serious attempt at winning them back in the home series, and building a platform to progress on next time we tour.

If we acquit ourselves well and don't get smashed, then I'll be quite pleased, even if that means a series defeat. We're still a team in transition, whereas they're more or less at their peak.
Reply With Quote
  #1334  
Old 01-02-13, 11:14
hoerpi's Avatar
hoerpi hoerpi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 366
Default

This is horrible but maybe NZC can learn a lesson, you need to act mature and take care of your greatest player.
__________________
I like cyclists dressed in orange.
Reply With Quote
  #1335  
Old 01-02-13, 11:41
Alphabet's Avatar
Alphabet Alphabet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: The yard
Posts: 805
Default

Oh dear, N.Z. 10 wickets lost in 116 balls is terrible.
Reply With Quote
  #1336  
Old 01-02-13, 14:37
hoerpi's Avatar
hoerpi hoerpi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 366
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alphabet View Post
Oh dear, N.Z. 10 wickets lost in 116 balls is terrible.
Hopefully the team against England will be.

Guptill
Fulton
Williamson
Taylor
Ryder
McCullum
Watling
Vettori
Southee
Bracewell
Boult

In that order, McCullum hasn't been a good opener lately and his hitting can benefit from a move down the order. Even if this game has been terrible there are som good young pacemen from NZ.
__________________
I like cyclists dressed in orange.
Reply With Quote
  #1337  
Old 01-02-13, 23:09
movingtarget movingtarget is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,163
Default

And Sri Lanka thought they had problems. NZ all out for under 50, even against a good attack is a dire performance.
Reply With Quote
  #1338  
Old 01-03-13, 06:01
the asian's Avatar
the asian the asian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Colombo
Posts: 3,294
Default

Good innings by Thirimanne. Finally given the chance to bat in the middle order in tests and he delivers!
Reply With Quote
  #1339  
Old 01-03-13, 08:49
auscyclefan94's Avatar
auscyclefan94 auscyclefan94 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the asian View Post
Good innings by Thirimanne. Finally given the chance to bat in the middle order in tests and he delivers!
Sri Lanka quite well today, considering their injuries. Their big test will be how they respond tomorrow when bowling against the Australians.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by diggercuz View Post
second post ever after reading the forum for the last few years and one thing i must say, ACF94 is probably the most intelligent poster here, never biased to BMC or Cadel, and never gets worked up over anything.
Reply With Quote
  #1340  
Old 01-03-13, 10:02
movingtarget movingtarget is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,163
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the asian View Post
Good innings by Thirimanne. Finally given the chance to bat in the middle order in tests and he delivers!
Deserved a century and he was obviously disappointed.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.