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.

England v NZ & Aust 2015

Discussion in 'Cricket' started by Quick Hands, May 24, 2015.

  1. No4918 John Hipwell (52)

    Likes Received:
    Watson has retired from test cricket following his latest injury. There ends the most frustrating test career of the last 25 years.

    He and Warner heading home will leave a hole in the ODI squad. Glad we are up 2-0 and another couple of guys will get a chance to show their skills.
  2. Highlander35 Paul McLean (56)

    Likes Received:
    Finchy is over his injury concerns and is joining the squad, think he's the only inclusion.
  3. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    Can't say that I'm sad to see Watto retire from tests. A fine limited overs player but a limited test player who got far too many opportunities in his career. That said, if a few other batsmen had stuck their hands up a bit earlier he might have played half the tests he did.

    I see Warnie has put together his best Test and ODI XI's that he's played in and unsurprisingly he's gone without SWaugh in each of them. What a butthurt dickhead he is at times. You can't tell me that Steve Waugh wasn't in a world XI for the last 20-25 years in test cricket, let alone an Australian one. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean they can't play. He also selected Mitch Johnson over Dizzy, which I think is a travesty as well.
  4. Train Without a Station Steve Williams (59)

    Likes Received:
    I don't think selecting Mitch Johnson over Dizzy is a bad call at all.

    306 wickets in 71 tests vs 259 wickets in 70 tests. Definitely more potent bowler. He has either the highest or second highest MOTM record for Australian cricketers also.

    Even at his worst he was still taking wickets. In the "disastrous" 2010/11 Ashes (for him) he still took 15 @ 36 in 4 tests.
  5. Strewthcobber Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    In the one day side he's basically chosen border over swaugh, which is at least arguable. But he must be the only bloke on the planet who would pick Mark over Steve in a test XI.
    Slater's inclusion is the other odd one
  6. Strewthcobber Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    It is that alright. You look at the 24 50s and wonder just what could have been.

    Ended up with a batting average higher than his bowling average. Not many achieve that.
  7. Aussie D Dick Tooth (41)

    Likes Received:
    Let's hope he never becomes one of the test selectors then!
  8. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:

    Dizzy in his pomp was absolutely unplayable, it's just a shame that his last year or two weren't as productive. He also had Warne and McGrath in the attack with him, which both helped and hindered him in terms of collecting more wickets. I also reckon he was one of the most unlucky bowlers I ever saw in that so often he was actually too good for the batsmen. He'd be in my test attack any day of the week. None of this is to say that Mitch isn't any good, far from it.
  9. light Peter Fenwicke (45)

    Likes Received:
    Dizzy's advantage is that he was a fantastic student of the game and has a phenomenal cricket brain. As others have eluded, he was perhaps hindered by the wicket taking abilities of the two greatest test bowlers that have ever played the game.

    He would stroll into my XI.

    Funnily enough despite the double ton, I think Johnson is a superior batsman than Gillespie was.
    The_Brown_Hornet likes this.
  10. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:

    That's been the big surprise to me. His knowledge of the game is absolutely second to none. I never thought he had in him but he does and in spades.
  11. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    Until Steve Smith scored his double century at Lords, Gillespie was the last Aussie to score a test double century away from home. That was over nine years ago!

    He's also the only Aussie to my knowledge to be dropped after scoring a double ton.
  12. Lindommer Andrew Slack (58)

    Likes Received:
    Far be it for me to act like a wet blanket here but, Dizzy's double ton WAS against Bangladesh. They weren't so flash when they first came into test cricket.

    I reckon there'd be some blokes in your comp, Bh, who're capable of a good score against the Bangladeshis.
  13. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    Maybe Ponting shouldn't have called for the nightwatchman to come in ahead of him then.

    Of course scoring a double ton against Bangladesh is easier than against most other teams. Gillespie is still the only Aussie to have done it.
  14. barbarian Nick Farr-Jones (63)

    Likes Received:
    I'd wait a couple of months until you talk down the Bangladeshis. Looking like the upcoming serious may be a close one.
  15. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:

    They're certainly much better now than they were when they first were granted test playing status.

    I wonder who our new opening batsmen will be?
  16. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    But he wasn't given out "handled the ball" he was given out for "obstructing the field" so you're not comparing like with like.

    Handled the ball dismissals only involve handling the ball after it has been bowled, i.e. the Steve Waugh incident.

    This involves a player taking evasive action after the ball is pelted at him from less than 20 metres.

    Ben Stokes would indeed be an amazing athlete if, in a split second he can simultaneously:

    Turn his face away from the ball, and,

    fall/dive backwards AWAY FROM THE BALL, and

    have the presence of mind to grab at the ball with his hand.

    At the very least the batsman should have been given the benefit of the doubt.
  17. barbarian Nick Farr-Jones (63)

    Likes Received:
    Yeah I get that. I think you can make that argument for sure.

    The key phrase is 'pelted at him'. Because it wasn't pelted at him, it was pelted at the stumps. He wasn't in the way of the ball, and was far enough away from it to bring the dismissal into the realm of possibility.

    I don't doubt he was taking some form of evasive action, but that action likely prevented his dismissal. That makes the decision of the umpires legitimate, if maybe a little harsh.
  18. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    But it's not the same.

    One incident involved a player knocking the ball away from his stumps in the act of playing a legitimate delivery. As seen from the footage, he clearly knocked the ball away from the stumps and a the time the ball would have been less than 30cm from the stumps. At no point is Waugh taking evasive action.

    The other involved a player trying to avoid a ball thrown in the general direction of the stumps. It seemed to me to be more a case of self-preservation than a deliberate action.

  19. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    I think it was fair to give it out.

    Stokes is entitled to protect himself from the ball and that is what he was attempting to do however the ball wasn't going to go close to hitting him as he first thought.

    Once the conditions arose that Stokes wasn't in danger of being hit by the ball but still wilfully stopped it, he had to be given out in my opinion.

    It would be a different situation entirely if Stokes was directly in front of the stumps and used his hand to stop the ball hitting him. That would be not out.

    It's certainly an unlucky dismissal but I think a correct one. I have no issue with Starc appealing and no issue with Smith not calling him back. I would expect the same if it happened to us.
    Strewthcobber likes this.
  20. Quick Hands David Wilson (68)

    Likes Received:
    Gee, I don't think he had as much time as you think to make the decision. He seems in post #658 to be moving away from the ball and turning away at the same time. If you look at the incident in real time as opposed to slow motion, it seems to me that he had no time to make all these decisions.

    You'll also not from post #658 that his upper body has moved about half a metre away from the ball and the place that the ball strikes his hand is directly over his right leg. i.e. had he stayed upright the ball would have passed straight over his right leg, which would bve fairly close to hitting him I'd have thought.

    What ever happened to the batsmen getting the benefit of the doubt?

    I'm glad none of you blokes were umpiring when I was batting, talk about trigger fingers.;)

Share This Page