1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

2013 Ashes Part 2 - Down Under

Discussion in 'Cricket' started by Hugh Jarse, Aug 27, 2013.

  1. Hugh Jarse Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    2003 Ashes Part 1 was not an unbridled success if you follow the baggy green.

    Sacking the coach just before the series starts is not always a good sign.

    Off field issues with key players have not helped.

    Chopping and changing the lineup, making major changes to the batting and bowling roster for each test has also been a little distracting.

    Poor use of the DRS system, and issues with the DRS technology when it was used have been an annoying factor.

    The media performance of the replacement Coach will certainly add some ginger to the return series, and may ultimately be rather counterproductive and lead to some unsavoury crowd behaviours.

    We were done like a Labrador dogs breakfast.

    The stage is set for Ashes 2013 - the Sequel.

    Is there sufficient skill and ticker in the team to reverse the results of Part 1?
  2. fatprop David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    Too many men with short man syndrome in the Aus side, they look like a team filled with chippy halfbacks in need of a good smack
  3. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    Consistency of selection needs to be a major consideration for Australia to improve in the upcoming series. Changes should be like for like as much as possible so that one change doesn't mean our batting order gets completely flipped around.

    For the players on the cusp of the team, no favours are being done when they're brought in and then dropped and then brought in again. This has been the modus operandi of New Zealand cricket and rarely works. Players need to be given time to succeed.

    I think much of our order is pretty much locked in for this series:

    1. Rogers
    3. Watson
    4. Clarke
    5. Smith
    7. Haddin (possibly 6 if they play Faulkner again)
    8. Siddle
    10. Harris
    11. Lyon

    The remaining choices really boil down to whether they stick with Warner (I'd say the answer is probably yes) even though he caused a massive disruption at the start of the Ashes and his form was average.

    Six and seven comes down to whether they reinstate Hughes or retain Faulkner and bat Haddin at 6. Faulkner had a pretty strong debut taking 6 wickets but throughout recent series it has been our batting that has let us down. Personally I'd pick Hughes as I see him as a long term Australian test cricketer and leave him there.

    The other bowler is a tricky choice. Pattinson is possibly the front runner but he was mediocre in the first test, terrible in the second test and then broke down and then didn't play again.

    Starc played the 1st, 3rd and 5th tests and the chopping and changing clearly didn't help his bowling. Statistics wise he definitely came out of this series as our third pace bowler however Pattinson and Bird both suffered injuries. Realistically, Starc's 11 wickets from 3 tests was only marginally behind Siddle's 17 wickets from 5 tests. Siddle had a slightly better average and economy rate and Starc had a slightly better strike rate.

    The left field choice for this slot would be to pick Faulkner as the third seemer and bat him 8 and carry 6 specialist batsmen.

    Lyon has to be picked for every test. He has shown over the last couple of years that he is our best spinner and we need to persevere. It was telling that in the one test where spin really dominated (Lords), Lyon wasn't picked and Agar failed miserably.
  4. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    Bird on home turf. Shortens the tail but his accuracy fucked the Lankans hard and with pitches that actually do something he can again to England
  5. light Peter Fenwicke (45)

    Likes Received:
    Keep Starc and Marsh away from the side and we have half a shot.

    Agree with BH, only places up for contention should be the single opening spot, 6 and the third seamer. That being said, Warner will probably start the first game of the series and rightly so, he hasn't been shocking.

    As for the 6, I think it will be a young domestic guy. Probably Nic Maddinson or Joe Burns but could be Moses Henriques or Mark Cosgrove if they keeps scoring runs. First few games of the domestic season will be make or break for these guys and we will have some idea of who will be there.

    As for the third seamer, Pattinson only becomes available for the second test. Cummins needs to work on his body and recovery. Bird could get another shot.
    The_Brown_Hornet likes this.
  6. Brumby Runner Rod McCall (65)

    Likes Received:
    Taking BH's team as a starting point, I am not convinced Warner is the answer as opener - still more of a short form player who has intermittent success at test level, but his overall performance and batting average is not really up to scratch. Maybe the Cat is still interested?

    I would then stick with Faulkner as the third seamer so that a sixth specialist batsman can be included. In my book, that should be Voges until some of the talented newcomers show they can step up, such as Maddinson, Burns etc.

    I very much like Pattinson, Starc and Cummins, (also Bird and Hazelwood) but for the moment they probably should be cover for injuries to Siddle or Harris.
  7. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    I don't get the hatred for Starc. He needs to improve his consistency but that will hopefully come with more consistent selection. In 12 tests he's averaged 33.6 with the ball and a touch over 30 with the bat. That bowling average needs to come under 30 but those figures are hardly cause to discard him.

    Bird was picked for one test in England in conditions that should have suited him and was rubbish. Then he broke down. The concerning thing was that his pace was down compared to his previous domestic Summer and that made all the difference. If he can bowl that consistent line and length at around 135km/h then he is a threat. Once he drops closer to 130km/h as he did on this tour, he becomes easy pickings.

    I think the selectors would be really crazy to rush Pattinson (or Bird) back into the team. Pattinson has now had two stress fracture injuries in his back in the last two years. For a young fast bowler, they need to treat him with kid gloves otherwise they might ruin him.

    I think Cummins is going to struggle. He's now out for another domestic Summer with back injuries. Sadly I think he is going to be a player whose body just isn't up to the rigours of fast bowling.
  8. light Peter Fenwicke (45)

    Likes Received:
    I'm not worried about his average or wicket-taking ability, they are obviously OK. The issue is that test cricket is a game of patience and relies on consistent line and length. IMO you either need bowlers who can hit the same spot over after over or bowl with express pace - he is neither.

    Perhaps his accuracy will improve with experience and coaching attention but for now he is not in our best XI.

    His inaccuracy at the end of the fifth test nearly comprehensively lost us the game. I'd be interested to see the percentage breakdown of his wickets, he appears to get plenty of lower order wickets.

    BR, I can't see Katich or Hazlewood ever being part of the Test side again.
    Pfitzy likes this.
  9. The Red Baron Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    That's great that he averages a touch over 30 with the bat, but batting is not his job. You shouldn't measure a bowler by their batting average.

    I'm with [USER=4221]light[/USER] on this one. Starc needs to improve his accuracy. At the moment, he reminds me too much of Mitchell Johnson, only not as quick.
    Inside Shoulder and Pfitzy like this.
  10. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    It is not hate, it is frustration. Such potential that Starc's wasting.

    The problem with other people you mention is not that their bodies can't handle Test cricket. It's that CA have too many sports scientists and marketing maggots fucking around instead of letting people develop.

    Here, read this:

  11. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    How is Starc wasting his potential exactly? Of that young crop of fast bowlers, Pattinson is a bit ahead of Starc but is having far more injury problems. Starc has delivered much more in shorter form cricket whilst Pattinson has a moderately better test record.

    I think the handling of our bowlers has been poor and is partly responsible for some of the injuries, but at the same time, recurring stress fractures in the backs of several of our bowlers is hardly entirely down to sports scientists and marketing maggots.
  12. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    Well it fucking is. They bring through these young players as "the answer", and ignore the experience and hard edge of veterans who know how to fight, show patience, and grind an opponent down if necessary. Imagine having Brad Hodge at #3 - another bloke ignored for flashes in the pan with the right haircut.

    Sounds just like our fucking rugby problems eh?

    Go read that article to see what has happened to the competitive environment in Australian cricket the last decade and you'll start to understand.
  13. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    I have read the article.

    How is Brad Hodge relevant to a discussion about bowlers? Also, Ponting was batting at 3 until the end of 2012. Regardless of Ponting's drop in form he was never ever going to be dropped to bring in Hodge who was the same age as him. Hodge is just another cricketer who was unfortunate that most of his career coincided with a period when we had a dominant side.

    You are comparing apples and oranges saying that players like Hodge never got sufficient opportunity yet look at how crap our batsmen are now. By and large, the batsmen we are struggling with now weren't in the Australian team when Hodge was a realistic option and now, as a 38 year old, Hodge really isn't an option anymore.

    Who are the hard edged veterans who have missed out behind our current bowlers?

    The so called hard edged veteran batsmen who are missing out right now are generally struggling to average 40 in first class cricket.
  14. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    Because our domestic cricket scene had been totally fucked. Clearly you read the article but do not comprehend what it means.
  15. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    I agree that our domestic cricket is stuffed at the moment and whilst that article highlights many of the issues and I agree that it is well and truly time for Sutherland to be moved on, it has almost nothing to do with the points you've made regarding Starc wasting his potential and hard edged veterans being ignored.

    I'm genuinely interested in having a calm and rational discussion about this. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm probably even more of a cricket tragic than a rugby tragic.
  16. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    OK, here are my points:

    Reform domestic cricket i.e. put things back the way they were for four day cricket, and stick the BBL at either the start or end of Shield+ODD cricket.

    Ensure players earn their places at each with sustained cricketing and physical performance at the lower level. Fix the culture while you're at it (I suspect one thing will take care of the other - entitlement is an issue).

    Dissolve the central contracting system and make selection and payment results-based, with retainers for identified talent.

    Fire Sutherland. I should have typed that first.

    To broaden and strengthen players from both nations, include one team from the North Island and one from the South Island team from New Zealand.

    Remove the national Academy and establish state institutions instead. This provides players for the domestic i.e. state pathways, and ensures players aren't fast tracked just for being dominant in a small pool . shit this sounds more like our rugby issues every time I think about it.
  17. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    I agree with all those things, and much of that needs to happen but that is definitely a long term strategy in that it is unlikely to reap dividends for a long time.

    I don't think two years of the Big Bash is responsible for the serious lack of talent and depth amongst our batsmen in particular.

    It's also not like we've fallen away in long form cricket but have a massive glut of champion short form players.
  18. Pfitzy Tim Horan (67)

    Likes Received:
    I never think short term. Quick fixes almost invariably aren't.

    But all those changes could be implemented by the time next season hits.

    Except one: boot Sutherland tomorrow.
  19. mark_s Chilla Wilson (44)

    Likes Received:
    End please, or well before the first test of the summer. We have had the crazy situation in the last few years where there has been no SS during the domestic tests so any replacements for the test team need to come from either the BBL (or worsE) grade cricket. Its like being on tour and undermines our home ground advantage.
    Brumby Runner likes this.
  20. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    The BBL being in the middle of the domestic summer has to be one of the stupidest ideas CA has ever come up with. How do you select guys with some Shield form behind them if their season stops for 2 months? And what about blokes you drop from the test team to go back to domestic cricket and find some form? It's lunacy.
    Penguin and Brumby Runner like this.

Share This Page