|
Post by sydneypotter on Dec 10, 2014 18:55:44 GMT
Have to agree with the overuse of the Captain Courageous label. Clark's role as captain over the past week has been exemplary and the grit needed to manage his injuries as well as the Hughes tragedy has been the stuff that identifies the true leaders. I can't help but think that given his history over the past couple of seasons that his time might be drawing to a close. It's said that a champion should never be written off and I have hopes that his career will be extended into the upcoming Ashes series. (look what Johnson achieved) The first two days of this test have shown a growing maturity in both Davie Warner and Steve Smith and a certain frailty in those around them. We will be needing more than three batsmen to tackle the English, assuming that Michael Clark makes the side. Watson on his day can be devastating both with the bat and ball; the problem being that those days are getting further apart. Brad Haddin batting at eight also tells a tale of the ageing warrior. Mitch Marsh is being given his chance for glory, albeit on the back of a tragedy. He's a talented player and if he takes his chance could be in the side for a long time. Good luck to the man. If the rain stays away we will get to see the bowlers. I can't see that Clark will be taking the field today so it will be interesting to see how Haddin plays as skipper. I'll be looking out for input from both Smith and Warner, either one could (perhaps not should) be handed the captains role sooner rather than later. My bet is Steve Smith and Warner as VC - but that's in the future. As said a champion shouldn't be written off easily.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 22:30:26 GMT
Have to agree with the overuse of the Captain Courageous label. Clark's role as captain over the past week has been exemplary and the grit needed to manage his injuries as well as the Hughes tragedy has been the stuff that identifies the true leaders. I can't help but think that given his history over the past couple of seasons that his time might be drawing to a close. It's said that a champion should never be written off and I have hopes that his career will be extended into the upcoming Ashes series. (look what Johnson achieved) The first two days of this test have shown a growing maturity in both Davie Warner and Steve Smith and a certain frailty in those around them. We will be needing more than three batsmen to tackle the English, assuming that Michael Clark makes the side. Watson on his day can be devastating both with the bat and ball; the problem being that those days are getting further apart. Brad Haddin batting at eight also tells a tale of the ageing warrior. Mitch Marsh is being given his chance for glory, albeit on the back of a tragedy. He's a talented player and if he takes his chance could be in the side for a long time. Good luck to the man. If the rain stays away we will get to see the bowlers. I can't see that Clark will be taking the field today so it will be interesting to see how Haddin plays as skipper. I'll be looking out for input from both Smith and Warner, either one could (perhaps not should) be handed the captains role sooner rather than later. My bet is Steve Smith and Warner as VC - but that's in the future. As said a champion shouldn't be written off easily. Excellent post Syd , much there that I'm in agreement with
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Dec 10, 2014 23:02:12 GMT
Have to agree with the overuse of the Captain Courageous label. Clark's role as captain over the past week has been exemplary and the grit needed to manage his injuries as well as the Hughes tragedy has been the stuff that identifies the true leaders. I can't help but think that given his history over the past couple of seasons that his time might be drawing to a close. It's said that a champion should never be written off and I have hopes that his career will be extended into the upcoming Ashes series. (look what Johnson achieved) The first two days of this test have shown a growing maturity in both Davie Warner and Steve Smith and a certain frailty in those around them. We will be needing more than three batsmen to tackle the English, assuming that Michael Clark makes the side. Watson on his day can be devastating both with the bat and ball; the problem being that those days are getting further apart. Brad Haddin batting at eight also tells a tale of the ageing warrior. Mitch Marsh is being given his chance for glory, albeit on the back of a tragedy. He's a talented player and if he takes his chance could be in the side for a long time. Good luck to the man. If the rain stays away we will get to see the bowlers. I can't see that Clark will be taking the field today so it will be interesting to see how Haddin plays as skipper. I'll be looking out for input from both Smith and Warner, either one could (perhaps not should) be handed the captains role sooner rather than later. My bet is Steve Smith and Warner as VC - but that's in the future. As said a champion shouldn't be written off easily. I always liked Steve Smith but he did look way out of his depth. He's now growing into a decent test cricketer. I think you're turning into a very handy test side, with the key being your added pace over our attack.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 23:29:50 GMT
Have to agree with the overuse of the Captain Courageous label. Clark's role as captain over the past week has been exemplary and the grit needed to manage his injuries as well as the Hughes tragedy has been the stuff that identifies the true leaders. I can't help but think that given his history over the past couple of seasons that his time might be drawing to a close. It's said that a champion should never be written off and I have hopes that his career will be extended into the upcoming Ashes series. (look what Johnson achieved) The first two days of this test have shown a growing maturity in both Davie Warner and Steve Smith and a certain frailty in those around them. We will be needing more than three batsmen to tackle the English, assuming that Michael Clark makes the side. Watson on his day can be devastating both with the bat and ball; the problem being that those days are getting further apart. Brad Haddin batting at eight also tells a tale of the ageing warrior. Mitch Marsh is being given his chance for glory, albeit on the back of a tragedy. He's a talented player and if he takes his chance could be in the side for a long time. Good luck to the man. If the rain stays away we will get to see the bowlers. I can't see that Clark will be taking the field today so it will be interesting to see how Haddin plays as skipper. I'll be looking out for input from both Smith and Warner, either one could (perhaps not should) be handed the captains role sooner rather than later. My bet is Steve Smith and Warner as VC - but that's in the future. As said a champion shouldn't be written off easily. I always liked Steve Smith but he did look way out of his depth. He's now growing into a decent test cricketer. I think you're turning into a very handy test side, with the key being your added pace over our attack. Pace is always important and useful , but not necessarily the defining factor in the outcome of a series , quality is still important , and in Anderson , Broad and Finn plus whoever else they select , we will still have plenty of quality , what we will miss from recent series is the match winning influence of Swann , I suppose that's something we now have to live without .
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Dec 10, 2014 23:48:38 GMT
I always liked Steve Smith but he did look way out of his depth. He's now growing into a decent test cricketer. I think you're turning into a very handy test side, with the key being your added pace over our attack. Pace is always important and useful , but not necessarily the defining factor in the outcome of a series , quality is still important , and in Anderson , Broad and Finn plus whoever else they select , we will still have plenty of quality , what we will miss from recent series is the match winning influence of Swann , I suppose that's something we now have to live without . We've lacked a good flat wicket bowler for many years. Someone who can pick up wickets on something dead.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2014 23:55:37 GMT
Pace is always important and useful , but not necessarily the defining factor in the outcome of a series , quality is still important , and in Anderson , Broad and Finn plus whoever else they select , we will still have plenty of quality , what we will miss from recent series is the match winning influence of Swann , I suppose that's something we now have to live without . We've lacked a good flat wicket bowler for many years. Someone who can pick up wickets on something dead. What an excellent point you make ....indeed we have , probably longer than we would imagine .....who would you suggest was the last bowler of that ilk that we had ? .....I suggest that we may have to go back as far as someone like Chris Old , who was just that type of reliable bowler we are short of today .
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Dec 11, 2014 0:17:23 GMT
We've lacked a good flat wicket bowler for many years. Someone who can pick up wickets on something dead. What an excellent point you make ....indeed we have , probably longer than we would imagine .....who would you suggest was the last bowler of that ilk that we had ? .....I suggest that we may have to go back as far as someone like Chris Old , who was just that type of reliable bowler we are short of today . Chris Old? Bloomin' 'ell, that's going back a bit. Chris was on the wane when I started to fall in love with cricket. Was Freddy towards the end that type of bowler? ITB? Willis? For me you either need to have real pace - stock ball 90mph+ (Gough?), or a decent leggie (Ian Salisbury - can't think when we had a decent one - before my time anyway?). The very best at their art can do the job - but they really need to be on top form (Botham, Gus Fraser, + ?). It's the real difference between a good side, and a side that can dominate the world (Windies with their extreme pace - didn't matter if the wicket was dead, Australia with McGrath and Warney). Strange to see Haddin standing up without a helmet in this day and age.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 0:39:16 GMT
What an excellent point you make ....indeed we have , probably longer than we would imagine .....who would you suggest was the last bowler of that ilk that we had ? .....I suggest that we may have to go back as far as someone like Chris Old , who was just that type of reliable bowler we are short of today . Chris Old? Bloomin' 'ell, that's going back a bit. Chris was on the wane when I started to fall in love with cricket. Was Freddy towards the end that type of bowler? ITB? Willis? For me you either need to have real pace - stock ball 90mph+ (Gough?), or a decent leggie (Ian Salisbury - can't think when we had a decent one - before my time anyway?). The very best at their art can do the job - but they really need to be on top form (Botham, Gus Fraser, + ?). It's the real difference between a good side, and a side that can dominate the world (Windies with their extreme pace - didn't matter if the wicket was dead, Australia with McGrath and Warney). Strange to see Haddin standing up without a helmet in this day and age. Yes it is going back ....he was a fine bowler was Chris Old , on the faster side of fast medium , with the pace and quality to enable him to open the bowling and operate in a holding role when circumstances dictated it ....and do well in places like India where a good nagging length all day long can be a boon to the Captain , especially when the spinners were off colour .I don't think Freddy or Botham were that type of bowler .....Willis well he did have genuine pace , he was a different matter but could only bowl in shortish spells for most of his career due to his knees ....on song he was as good as most .....Gough was a trier no doubt about that , nearly as good as he thought he was ! ....Ian Salisbury was like most English Leggies ....poor ! there haven't been many .....in my era perhaps Robin Hobbs from Essex ? .....yes Gus Fraser would toil all day ...I would put him in the Chris Old Category ....a good bowler who could have been better if not for injury .....McGrath and Warne were exceptions to the rule , they don't come along too often in any era .Yes Haddin ought to know better really , but it's down to the individual .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 0:54:51 GMT
Chris Old? Bloomin' 'ell, that's going back a bit. Chris was on the wane when I started to fall in love with cricket. Was Freddy towards the end that type of bowler? ITB? Willis? For me you either need to have real pace - stock ball 90mph+ (Gough?), or a decent leggie (Ian Salisbury - can't think when we had a decent one - before my time anyway?). The very best at their art can do the job - but they really need to be on top form (Botham, Gus Fraser, + ?). It's the real difference between a good side, and a side that can dominate the world (Windies with their extreme pace - didn't matter if the wicket was dead, Australia with McGrath and Warney). Strange to see Haddin standing up without a helmet in this day and age. Yes it is going back ....he was a fine bowler was Chris Old , on the faster side of fast medium , with the pace and quality to enable him to open the bowling and operate in a holding role when circumstances dictated it ....and do well in places like India where a good nagging length all day long can be a boon to the Captain , especially when the spinners were off colour .I don't think Freddy or Botham were that type of bowler .....Willis well he did have genuine pace , he was a different matter but could only bowl in shortish spells for most of his career due to his knees ....on song he was as good as most .....Gough was a trier no doubt about that , nearly as good as he thought he was ! ....Ian Salisbury was like most English Leggies ....poor ! there haven't been many .....in my era perhaps Robin Hobbs from Essex ? .....yes Gus Fraser would toil all day ...I would put him in the Chris Old Category ....a good bowler who could have been better if not for injury .....McGrath and Warne were exceptions to the rule , they don't come along too often in any era .Yes Haddin ought to know better really , but it's down to the individual . Yes I do apologise if I appear to ramble on at times ....I've been around this game a long time and I love it with a passion .......reminiscing about the great days gone by is one of the joys of Cricket for me ....forgive me for being boring ! I can't help myself
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 0:56:18 GMT
Yes it is going back ....he was a fine bowler was Chris Old , on the faster side of fast medium , with the pace and quality to enable him to open the bowling and operate in a holding role when circumstances dictated it ....and do well in places like India where a good nagging length all day long can be a boon to the Captain , especially when the spinners were off colour .I don't think Freddy or Botham were that type of bowler .....Willis well he did have genuine pace , he was a different matter but could only bowl in shortish spells for most of his career due to his knees ....on song he was as good as most .....Gough was a trier no doubt about that , nearly as good as he thought he was ! ....Ian Salisbury was like most English Leggies ....poor ! there haven't been many .....in my era perhaps Robin Hobbs from Essex ? .....yes Gus Fraser would toil all day ...I would put him in the Chris Old Category ....a good bowler who could have been better if not for injury .....McGrath and Warne were exceptions to the rule , they don't come along too often in any era .Yes Haddin ought to know better really , but it's down to the individual . Yes I do apologise if I appear to ramble on at times ....I've been around this game a long time and I love it with a passion .......reminiscing about the great days gone by is one of the joys of Cricket for me ....forgive me for being boring ! I can't help myself I've even replied to my own post !
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Dec 11, 2014 1:13:09 GMT
Chris Old? Bloomin' 'ell, that's going back a bit. Chris was on the wane when I started to fall in love with cricket. Was Freddy towards the end that type of bowler? ITB? Willis? For me you either need to have real pace - stock ball 90mph+ (Gough?), or a decent leggie (Ian Salisbury - can't think when we had a decent one - before my time anyway?). The very best at their art can do the job - but they really need to be on top form (Botham, Gus Fraser, + ?). It's the real difference between a good side, and a side that can dominate the world (Windies with their extreme pace - didn't matter if the wicket was dead, Australia with McGrath and Warney). Strange to see Haddin standing up without a helmet in this day and age. Yes it is going back ....he was a fine bowler was Chris Old , on the faster side of fast medium , with the pace and quality to enable him to open the bowling and operate in a holding role when circumstances dictated it ....and do well in places like India where a good nagging length all day long can be a boon to the Captain , especially when the spinners were off colour .I don't think Freddy or Botham were that type of bowler .....Willis well he did have genuine pace , he was a different matter but could only bowl in shortish spells for most of his career due to his knees ....on song he was as good as most .....Gough was a trier no doubt about that , nearly as good as he thought he was ! ....Ian Salisbury was like most English Leggies ....poor ! there haven't been many .....in my era perhaps Robin Hobbs from Essex ? .....yes Gus Fraser would toil all day ...I would put him in the Chris Old Category ....a good bowler who could have been better if not for injury .....McGrath and Warne were exceptions to the rule , they don't come along too often in any era .Yes Haddin ought to know better really , but it's down to the individual . Re: Haddin: given the heartache in cricket recently - we really don't need anymore. Chris Old - always makes me think of Mike Hendrick. Did they both have a 70's style beards for a while at the end? Can't remember if Derek Underwood was any good on a hard wicket (surely the world's fastest spinner? Ever?) Didn't he come off a medium pacers run-up? Willis - also had problems in terms of his run-up. Boy was it long. I never understood why he couldn't reduce it by two thirds and still maintain his pace? But he was an excellent bowler for a long time. I grew up watching him and thought he was just what to expect. I was wrong. Gough - can remember him playing in Australia in one of those triangular ODI series where he spent half the match watching the speed gun readings trying to get a 100mph delivery. Don't think he achieved it (especially as the fastest ball ever was 100.2 by Shoaib Akhtar). But Goughy was a genuine quickie at his best. I loved "Sali" - just because I was desperate for England to have a leggy - something that was pretty rare back then. Abdul Qadir was one of my heroes. I also remember an Indian leggy - Laxman Shiva... (who had about a 30 letters name)? Gus was great - before his injury. Excellent for a skipper. Ties up an end for a long spell. Economical but with the threat of a wicket. If he hadn't had the injuries he'd have been our McGrath.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Dec 11, 2014 1:17:34 GMT
Yes it is going back ....he was a fine bowler was Chris Old , on the faster side of fast medium , with the pace and quality to enable him to open the bowling and operate in a holding role when circumstances dictated it ....and do well in places like India where a good nagging length all day long can be a boon to the Captain , especially when the spinners were off colour .I don't think Freddy or Botham were that type of bowler .....Willis well he did have genuine pace , he was a different matter but could only bowl in shortish spells for most of his career due to his knees ....on song he was as good as most .....Gough was a trier no doubt about that , nearly as good as he thought he was ! ....Ian Salisbury was like most English Leggies ....poor ! there haven't been many .....in my era perhaps Robin Hobbs from Essex ? .....yes Gus Fraser would toil all day ...I would put him in the Chris Old Category ....a good bowler who could have been better if not for injury .....McGrath and Warne were exceptions to the rule , they don't come along too often in any era .Yes Haddin ought to know better really , but it's down to the individual . Yes I do apologise if I appear to ramble on at times ....I've been around this game a long time and I love it with a passion .......reminiscing about the great days gone by is one of the joys of Cricket for me ....forgive me for being boring ! I can't help myself To those of us who love the sport (thanks Dad, and the BBC for having cricket on in the summer when there was nout else to watch) - reminiscing about old series and players is essential. More so than football. Cricket is tradition. No need for an apology mate! Not boring at all. Like when my dad tells me that he may have seen the Don.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 1:26:58 GMT
Yes it is going back ....he was a fine bowler was Chris Old , on the faster side of fast medium , with the pace and quality to enable him to open the bowling and operate in a holding role when circumstances dictated it ....and do well in places like India where a good nagging length all day long can be a boon to the Captain , especially when the spinners were off colour .I don't think Freddy or Botham were that type of bowler .....Willis well he did have genuine pace , he was a different matter but could only bowl in shortish spells for most of his career due to his knees ....on song he was as good as most .....Gough was a trier no doubt about that , nearly as good as he thought he was ! ....Ian Salisbury was like most English Leggies ....poor ! there haven't been many .....in my era perhaps Robin Hobbs from Essex ? .....yes Gus Fraser would toil all day ...I would put him in the Chris Old Category ....a good bowler who could have been better if not for injury .....McGrath and Warne were exceptions to the rule , they don't come along too often in any era .Yes Haddin ought to know better really , but it's down to the individual . Re: Haddin: given the heartache in cricket recently - we really don't need anymore. Chris Old - always makes me think of Mike Hendrick. Did they both have a 70's style beards for a while at the end? Can't remember if Derek Underwood was any good on a hard wicket (surely the world's fastest spinner? Ever?) Didn't he come off a medium pacers run-up? Willis - also had problems in terms of his run-up. Boy was it long. I never understood why he couldn't reduce it by two thirds and still maintain his pace? But he was an excellent bowler for a long time. I grew up watching him and thought he was just what to expect. I was wrong. Gough - can remember him playing in Australia in one of those triangular ODI series where he spent half the match watching the speed gun readings trying to get a 100mph delivery. Don't think he achieved it (especially as the fastest ball ever was 100.2 by Shoaib Akhtar). But Goughy was a genuine quickie at his best. I loved "Sali" - just because I was desperate for England to have a leggy - something that was pretty rare back then. Abdul Qadir was one of my heroes. I also remember an Indian leggy - Laxman Shiva... (who had about a 30 letters name)? Gus was great - before his injury. Excellent for a skipper. Ties up an end for a long spell. Economical but with the threat of a wicket. If he hadn't had the injuries he'd have been our McGrath. Yes Hendrick and Old did sport similar beards . Derek Underwood was the greatest bowler of his type ( if he had a type ?) ......unplayable in English conditions on wet wickets bowling at almost medium pace ....as you have said less successful abroad on hard wickets . Willis did for a time operate off a very short run about 1973 .....but it did see as he got older his run up got longer an longer . Laxman Shivnaravnachrishnan I believe it was ! 1984 on Gowers winning tour of India ....he's now a commentator.I once played against Abdul Quadir ...not the nicest of guys I have to say ...Oh happy days and memories
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 1:28:00 GMT
Yes I do apologise if I appear to ramble on at times ....I've been around this game a long time and I love it with a passion .......reminiscing about the great days gone by is one of the joys of Cricket for me ....forgive me for being boring ! I can't help myself To those of us who love the sport (thanks Dad, and the BBC for having cricket on in the summer when there was nout else to watch) - reminiscing about old series and players is essential. More so than football. Cricket is tradition. No need for an apology mate! Not boring at all. Like when my dad tells me that he may have seen the Don. Just so
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Dec 11, 2014 1:40:17 GMT
Re: Haddin: given the heartache in cricket recently - we really don't need anymore. Chris Old - always makes me think of Mike Hendrick. Did they both have a 70's style beards for a while at the end? Can't remember if Derek Underwood was any good on a hard wicket (surely the world's fastest spinner? Ever?) Didn't he come off a medium pacers run-up? Willis - also had problems in terms of his run-up. Boy was it long. I never understood why he couldn't reduce it by two thirds and still maintain his pace? But he was an excellent bowler for a long time. I grew up watching him and thought he was just what to expect. I was wrong. Gough - can remember him playing in Australia in one of those triangular ODI series where he spent half the match watching the speed gun readings trying to get a 100mph delivery. Don't think he achieved it (especially as the fastest ball ever was 100.2 by Shoaib Akhtar). But Goughy was a genuine quickie at his best. I loved "Sali" - just because I was desperate for England to have a leggy - something that was pretty rare back then. Abdul Qadir was one of my heroes. I also remember an Indian leggy - Laxman Shiva... (who had about a 30 letters name)? Gus was great - before his injury. Excellent for a skipper. Ties up an end for a long spell. Economical but with the threat of a wicket. If he hadn't had the injuries he'd have been our McGrath. Yes Hendrick and Old did sport similar beards . Derek Underwood was the greatest bowler of his type ( if he had a type ?) ......unplayable in English conditions on wet wickets bowling at almost medium pace ....as you have said less successful abroad on hard wickets . Willis did for a time operate off a very short run about 1973 .....but it did see as he got older his run up got longer an longer . Laxman Shivnaravnachrishnan I believe it was ! 1984 on Gowers winning tour of India ....he's now a commentator.I once played against Abdul Quadir ...not the nicest of guys I have to say ...Oh happy days and memories I bow to you Sir. A far better cricketer than I ever was: playing against Abdul Qadir (was that in the Lancashire League?). I'm sure many of the top cricketers (sportsman) aren't that nice anyway. I still remember bowling in my folk's back garden pretending to be Qadir (when I wasn't ITB/Tavere!). Respect about finding Laxman Shivnaravnachrishnan. He was the first light for spin bowling for quite a while if I remember. Even played in ODIs. Very surprised he managed only 9 tests though. Yes, Willis's run up got silly at the end (especially at the end when every other bowling was drastically reducing their run up). Didn't Freddy Trueman say he didn't go that far on holiday?
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Dec 11, 2014 1:45:34 GMT
Also have to add that Clark is using his bowling attack far more wisely than we ever seem to.
We just seem to follow a formula. Broad bowls 6, then change while Anderson bowls 8 then is replaced by Broad (if I remember correctly). In the first session he's tried all his bowlers and they're all still fresh. It's not just bowling to a pre-defined formula.
|
|
|
Post by ukcstokie on Dec 11, 2014 1:59:42 GMT
Good reaction from the Australian team. Johnson hitting Kohli on the helmet: Initially most of the team were concerned for Kohli (then when he was OK they checked Johnson).
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 11, 2014 9:58:33 GMT
Have to agree with the overuse of the Captain Courageous label. Clark's role as captain over the past week has been exemplary and the grit needed to manage his injuries as well as the Hughes tragedy has been the stuff that identifies the true leaders. I can't help but think that given his history over the past couple of seasons that his time might be drawing to a close. It's said that a champion should never be written off and I have hopes that his career will be extended into the upcoming Ashes series. (look what Johnson achieved) The first two days of this test have shown a growing maturity in both Davie Warner and Steve Smith and a certain frailty in those around them. We will be needing more than three batsmen to tackle the English, assuming that Michael Clark makes the side. Watson on his day can be devastating both with the bat and ball; the problem being that those days are getting further apart. Brad Haddin batting at eight also tells a tale of the ageing warrior. Mitch Marsh is being given his chance for glory, albeit on the back of a tragedy. He's a talented player and if he takes his chance could be in the side for a long time. Good luck to the man. If the rain stays away we will get to see the bowlers. I can't see that Clark will be taking the field today so it will be interesting to see how Haddin plays as skipper. I'll be looking out for input from both Smith and Warner, either one could (perhaps not should) be handed the captains role sooner rather than later. My bet is Steve Smith and Warner as VC - but that's in the future. As said a champion shouldn't be written off easily. I always liked Steve Smith but he did look way out of his depth. He's now growing into a decent test cricketer. I think you're turning into a very handy test side, with the key being your added pace over our attack. I think Smith has astonishingly fast hand eye coordination that compensates for technical issues. In Australia on quick straight pitches he gets away with this, I'm less sure he'll cope with a moving ball in English conditions. I'm sure our bowling coaches are figuring a plan of attack for him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 12:01:22 GMT
Yes Hendrick and Old did sport similar beards . Derek Underwood was the greatest bowler of his type ( if he had a type ?) ......unplayable in English conditions on wet wickets bowling at almost medium pace ....as you have said less successful abroad on hard wickets . Willis did for a time operate off a very short run about 1973 .....but it did see as he got older his run up got longer an longer . Laxman Shivnaravnachrishnan I believe it was ! 1984 on Gowers winning tour of India ....he's now a commentator.I once played against Abdul Quadir ...not the nicest of guys I have to say ...Oh happy days and memories I bow to you Sir. A far better cricketer than I ever was: playing against Abdul Qadir (was that in the Lancashire League?). I'm sure many of the top cricketers (sportsman) aren't that nice anyway. I still remember bowling in my folk's back garden pretending to be Qadir (when I wasn't ITB/Tavere!). Respect about finding Laxman Shivnaravnachrishnan. He was the first light for spin bowling for quite a while if I remember. Even played in ODIs. Very surprised he managed only 9 tests though. Yes, Willis's run up got silly at the end (especially at the end when every other bowling was drastically reducing their run up). Didn't Freddy Trueman say he didn't go that far on holiday? No it was in a Sunday friendly game ....but you wouldn't have known it though ! .....Played against Collis King the following week and he got 200 , absolute carnage !
|
|
|
Post by sydneypotter on Dec 11, 2014 18:52:52 GMT
I have to say that yesterday's play wasn't particularly inspiring. The Indian skipper's century came to an abrupt end when he should have been looking for a big score. Well done Johnson after a shaky start to the series. He seemed to be having trouble gaining his balance and rhythm at the start of the day but gradually steadied the ship and bowled with consistency if not with any spice. Peter Siddle might be a worry. He spent a fair slice of the day off the field getting treatment for something or other whilst Harris looked like he wasn't too fit. Start of the series I know, but a tad concerning all round. It could be that the 'young guns', or at least Cummins, should be considered for the next test. Was very surprised to see Michael Clark take the field. He was undoubtedly in some discomfort and wasn't at his most lively, but never the less he provided a sense of stability that the Aus bowlers needed at times. The flat Adelaide wicket is a batsman's paradise together with the inclement weather the other day it looks like a draw is a likely result, hard fought but still a draw. We shall see. As we all know this game has a habit of being unpredictable most of the time. Both sides, for different reasons, are under prepared and that might take a little time to sort out. The 408 in the middle of the field of play is a constant reminder, not that anyone needs to be reminded, of the circumstances surrounding the test. Emotions are still very raw. The first ball bouncer that hit the Indian skipper's helmet must have sent shivers around both teams and both sets of supporters. Respect to Clark I say. He handled the incident with aplomb. Good man. Summary: they need to establish their batting credentials and the Australian bowlers need to toil on what is an unresponsive wicket. Test cricket at its best.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2014 18:59:22 GMT
I have to say that yesterday's play wasn't particularly inspiring. The Indian skipper's century came to an abrupt end when he should have been looking for a big score. Well done Johnson after a shaky start to the series. He seemed to be having trouble gaining his balance and rhythm at the start of the day but gradually steadied the ship and bowled with consistency if not with any spice. Peter Siddle might be a worry. He spent a fair slice of the day off the field getting treatment for something or other whilst Harris looked like he wasn't too fit. Start of the series I know, but a tad concerning all round. It could be that the 'young guns', or at least Cummins, should be considered for the next test. Was very surprised to see Michael Clark take the field. He was undoubtedly in some discomfort and wasn't at his most lively, but never the less he provided a sense of stability that the Aus bowlers needed at times. The flat Adelaide wicket is a batsman's paradise together with the inclement weather the other day it looks like a draw is a likely result, hard fought but still a draw. We shall see. As we all know this game has a habit of being unpredictable most of the time. Both sides, for different reasons, are under prepared and that might take a little time to sort out. The 408 in the middle of the field of play is a constant reminder, not that anyone needs to be reminded, of the circumstances surrounding the test. Emotions are still very raw. The first ball bouncer that hit the Indian skipper's helmet must have sent shivers around both teams and both sets of supporters. Respect to Clark I say. He handled the incident with aplomb. Good man. Summary: they need to establish their batting credentials and the Australian bowlers need to toil on what is an unresponsive wicket. Test cricket at its best. It's the greatest game in the world mate ......you can keep your 20/20, Big Bash and IPL ...Test Cricket. Is what the game is all about And you can include ODI 's in with the 20/20 stuff .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 0:18:42 GMT
Fabulous catch by Nathan Lyon
|
|
|
Post by sydneypotter on Dec 12, 2014 5:44:55 GMT
You have perhaps misunderstood my post. Yes, I do know and I agree that test cricket is perhaps the greatest game on earth, What I'm saying is that yesterday's play didn't stir the juices, either from an excitement or a technical stand point. I attend five day matches in preference to other forms of the game by choice. in fact I can't remember the last 20/20 I attended - no that's not altogether true. I went along to a Sydney Sixers game at the Olympic Stadium a few years ago with my wife. (she detests cricket, but was persuaded to come along for the night) Chis Gale was in form that evening and my wife thought it was tolerable - only just. The last five day match she attended was in the seventies when she sat through a World X1 v's West Indies. Marvellous match. Richards scored 85 coming in at first drop after Fredericks made a hash of it after 30 minutes or so. I sat on the edge of my seat and she either read to knitted. She hasn't been to a five dare since. As for me I have my ticket organised for the first day of the Sydney Test as I have done for many years. This year will be special. I have a mate who is an SCG member so we will be attending all five days (if it gets that far in) viewing from the magnificent members stand. I also attend Sheffield Shied matches at the SCG - along with a smattering of spectators. Good value at less than $5 a ticket for the day. The days are normally very enjoyable. Watching high standard cricket in a world class historic ground with like minded people. It would take a lot to beat that. So no Bish, I'm not advocating the shorter game as being superior, merely saying that the day's play wasn't to my taste and was certainly not up to scratch, The series will no doubt improve and hopefully my five days at the SCG in January will be as involving as they have been in past years.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 12, 2014 7:03:52 GMT
You have perhaps misunderstood my post. Yes, I do know and I agree that test cricket is perhaps the greatest game on earth, What I'm saying is that yesterday's play didn't stir the juices, either from an excitement or a technical stand point. I attend five day matches in preference to other forms of the game by choice. in fact I can't remember the last 20/20 I attended - no that's not altogether true. I went along to a Sydney Sixers game at the Olympic Stadium a few years ago with my wife. (she detests cricket, but was persuaded to come along for the night) Chis Gale was in form that evening and my wife thought it was tolerable - only just. The last five day match she attended was in the seventies when she sat through a World X1 v's West Indies. Marvellous match. Richards scored 85 coming in at first drop after Fredericks made a hash of it after 30 minutes or so. I sat on the edge of my seat and she either read to knitted. She hasn't been to a five dare since. As for me I have my ticket organised for the first day of the Sydney Test as I have done for many years. This year will be special. I have a mate who is an SCG member so we will be attending all five days (if it gets that far in) viewing from the magnificent members stand. I also attend Sheffield Shied matches at the SCG - along with a smattering of spectators. Good value at less than $5 a ticket for the day. The days are normally very enjoyable. Watching high standard cricket in a world class historic ground with like minded people. It would take a lot to beat that. So no Bish, I'm not advocating the shorter game as being superior, merely saying that the day's play wasn't to my taste and was certainly not up to scratch, The series will no doubt improve and hopefully my five days at the SCG in January will be as involving as they have been in past years. Off on a tangent - but reading you wax lyrical about the SCG, I wondered if you are happy with the redevelopment? Better or worse than before? Looks to me it's lost some of its unique character; now just another concrete bowl with the old pavillion all that's left of an iconic sporting arena. But I've not seen it so I'd appreciate your thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Dec 12, 2014 7:10:03 GMT
On the subject of the test itself, looks like another classic Adelaide test - fill your boots batting for the first 3 days then try and force a result on a deteriorating pitch.
I suspect though that time is against a result. Australia will likely bat for an hour in the morning to post a 350+ lead and India should be Ok to play time out if they choose. But who knows; if Johnson finds his mojo with a couple of early wickets and India panic there may be an excellent end to this test.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 10:55:35 GMT
You have perhaps misunderstood my post. Yes, I do know and I agree that test cricket is perhaps the greatest game on earth, What I'm saying is that yesterday's play didn't stir the juices, either from an excitement or a technical stand point. I attend five day matches in preference to other forms of the game by choice. in fact I can't remember the last 20/20 I attended - no that's not altogether true. I went along to a Sydney Sixers game at the Olympic Stadium a few years ago with my wife. (she detests cricket, but was persuaded to come along for the night) Chis Gale was in form that evening and my wife thought it was tolerable - only just. The last five day match she attended was in the seventies when she sat through a World X1 v's West Indies. Marvellous match. Richards scored 85 coming in at first drop after Fredericks made a hash of it after 30 minutes or so. I sat on the edge of my seat and she either read to knitted. She hasn't been to a five dare since. As for me I have my ticket organised for the first day of the Sydney Test as I have done for many years. This year will be special. I have a mate who is an SCG member so we will be attending all five days (if it gets that far in) viewing from the magnificent members stand. I also attend Sheffield Shied matches at the SCG - along with a smattering of spectators. Good value at less than $5 a ticket for the day. The days are normally very enjoyable. Watching high standard cricket in a world class historic ground with like minded people. It would take a lot to beat that. So no Bish, I'm not advocating the shorter game as being superior, merely saying that the day's play wasn't to my taste and was certainly not up to scratch, The series will no doubt improve and hopefully my five days at the SCG in January will be as involving as they have been in past years. No mate , I understood your point completely ......perhaps I was guilty of sowing seeds of confusion with my reply . I was just emphasising my opinion on Test Match cricket being superior to the shorter forms of the game.....I wasn't pointing the finger at you for being a Bish Bash enthusiast !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 11:17:59 GMT
You have perhaps misunderstood my post. Yes, I do know and I agree that test cricket is perhaps the greatest game on earth, What I'm saying is that yesterday's play didn't stir the juices, either from an excitement or a technical stand point. I attend five day matches in preference to other forms of the game by choice. in fact I can't remember the last 20/20 I attended - no that's not altogether true. I went along to a Sydney Sixers game at the Olympic Stadium a few years ago with my wife. (she detests cricket, but was persuaded to come along for the night) Chis Gale was in form that evening and my wife thought it was tolerable - only just. The last five day match she attended was in the seventies when she sat through a World X1 v's West Indies. Marvellous match. Richards scored 85 coming in at first drop after Fredericks made a hash of it after 30 minutes or so. I sat on the edge of my seat and she either read to knitted. She hasn't been to a five dare since. As for me I have my ticket organised for the first day of the Sydney Test as I have done for many years. This year will be special. I have a mate who is an SCG member so we will be attending all five days (if it gets that far in) viewing from the magnificent members stand. I also attend Sheffield Shied matches at the SCG - along with a smattering of spectators. Good value at less than $5 a ticket for the day. The days are normally very enjoyable. Watching high standard cricket in a world class historic ground with like minded people. It would take a lot to beat that. So no Bish, I'm not advocating the shorter game as being superior, merely saying that the day's play wasn't to my taste and was certainly not up to scratch, The series will no doubt improve and hopefully my five days at the SCG in January will be as involving as they have been in past years. Congratulations to David Warner by the way ....a century in each innings of a Test Match is a marvelous achievment , that doesn't occur too often and he has done it twice .....well played to him .You must be pleased Syd as I know you are an admirer of him as a batsman ?
|
|
|
Post by sydneypotter on Dec 12, 2014 22:05:33 GMT
Apologies for the bit of a ramble Patrick, it surely is a sign of reaching back into 'the good old days' when cricket was mostly traditional but was being shaken by Mr Packer and then the growth of the one day and short bash styles. The SCG and most other grounds in Australia have been transformed from 1920's style arenas to more commercially viable stadia. The demise of white picket fences around the SCG are sadly missed but not I have to say are the old Berrungle, Sheridan and Bob Stands. In remember perching precariously on the edge of the Sheridan Stand seating apron to watch a full days play v's the West indies. The crowd that day exceeded 50K with a goodly proportion of them having to stand. No I don't miss that too much. Although I do miss the Sydney Hill. My first experience of test cricket at the SCG was spent on the Hill in the full sun watching both the cricket and the crowd. it was nothing like Old Trafford, Trent bridge or any other English ground I'd been more accustomed. What a shock. The recent replacement of the M A Noble and Bradman Stands represents a step into the 21st Century. Wonderful viewing, tremendous customer service and food outlets - not the mention the micro brewery beneath the stands. The ground isn't too big either - a good thing I believe. I'm sure that the cricketing world was happy with the decision not to replace the Members and Ladies Stands. They seem to reek of tradition, so long may they remain. Even the Ladies are still referred to a 'Lady Members', much to the disgust of the feminists who after all pay the same fees as the male members. Don't you love that. Pushing back at the PC police in a gentle but firm manner. I do. Someone was saying that the Adelaide Oval remains one of the worlds most charming grounds. I have to agree, but it has lost some of its unique character after its recent make over. The long boundaries are much shorter and the sides of the wicket are much longer. It has in fact been converted into an AFL Oval. The new stands are tastefully designed but don't have the same country feel that the old red tin roofs had. Very happy that, unlike Sydney, the wonderful old scoreboard is still there and provides all the stats in the old-fashioned way. It still takes three men to change the score by one. Of course drop ins are more usual than the exception these days at most grounds. The current drop in used in Adelaide does seem to have reflected the traditional flat track that cricket supporters are familiar. So hopefully that will be maintained across the other grounds. Quick and bouncy in Perth, spinners at the SCG and a bit of a mess in Melbourne (Sorry, the intercity rivalry showing through) The MCG, to me. is the one cricket ground that doesn't look or feel like a cricket ground. It is a concrete coliseum of enormous proportions. Attending a Boxing Day test, irrespective of the opposition, at the MCG is another experience that cricket lovers should have. It's a terrific way to get over Christmas lunch and all the booze that sometimes goes with it.
|
|
|
Post by sydneypotter on Dec 12, 2014 22:15:03 GMT
I wouldn't know if you have heard but Sean Abbott yesterday returned a 6/14 number in NSW's victory over Qld. Surely good for him and good for cricket.
Lyons did a stirring job yesterday and Davie Warner is answering his critics in the only way he can. Yes Bish, I am an unashamed Warner admirer as you know. To snag a century in both innings is way beyond even my expectations. However, I have to add that both he and Smith should consider taking the reverse sweep from their shot selections. The chase for quick runs after he reached his century was understandable but really, some of those shots were not pretty to watch.
Last day today. Unusual having a Saturday as the last day. I can only see a draw. The Indians have a number of class players who will probably have a go and then battern down the hatches if it gets tight.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2014 0:21:52 GMT
I wouldn't know if you have heard but Sean Abbott yesterday returned a 6/14 number in NSW's victory over Qld. Surely good for him and good for cricket. Lyons did a stirring job yesterday and Davie Warner is answering his critics in the only way he can. Yes Bish, I am an unashamed Warner admirer as you know. To snag a century in both innings is way beyond even my expectations. However, I have to add that both he and Smith should consider taking the reverse sweep from their shot selections. The chase for quick runs after he reached his century was understandable but really, some of those shots were not pretty to watch. Last day today. Unusual having a Saturday as the last day. I can only see a draw. The Indians have a number of class players who will probably have a go and then battern down the hatches if it gets tight. Yes saw his wickets on Sky Sports News , well done to him ....he had the nerve to bowl some short stuff too, good luck to him in the future .
|
|