Jump to content

Cricket XXII - A Cook's Tour


Stubby

Recommended Posts

It looks like England's search for a Flintoff replacement has been successful. Stokes looks to be the real deal. Otherwise, this England team has played worse than the truly weak England teams of the 90's and early 00's. I remember even in 02/03, England came into the Sydney test 4-0 against an Australian team at the peak of their powers, and managed to win the test after a cracking second innings century by Vaughan. The current team is just pathetic.



Looking forward to South Africa, Australia need to sort out the batting lineup. Bailey has played poorly against a weak, demoralised bowling attack. If he gets picked, the SA bowlers will be jumping over each other to get to bowl to him. I think sadly Bailey's test career is going to finish at Sydney, though in some ways, you couldn't blame the selectors if they choose to give him another chance.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like England's search for a Flintoff replacement has been successful. Stokes looks to be the real deal.

I think sadly Bailey's test career is going to finish at Sydney, though in some ways, you couldn't blame the selectors if they choose to give him another chance.

Agreed on both points. Stokes has been the find of the tour; at first I was unconvinced that he could be a Test level batsman or a decent fourth seamer, but he's scored a century (plus this gritty 47) and taken 6 wickets in an innings, so that sorts that out. He's also bowling consistently in the mid to upper 130+ kphs, which is better than Tremlett et al.

Bailey's actually only played 7 innings despite playing 5 Tests (due to England's weak batting the Aussies haven't really had to bat two completed innings) and is unlikely to get much of a chance to score big in this innings either, since Clarke will likely declare at some stage. From that point of view one might say that Bailey's unlucky, and that combined with the fact this Australian team is playing well enough to carry him at the moment might give him a slight chance to continue to South Africa, but I think it's unlikely.

He's another case of ODI form not translating to Test form (see Bevan, Michael). He's been a nervous starter and the attacking Test fields don't allow him to calmly knock around a few singles to get settled first, and his defence has been exposed in the longer game as he's been caught behind the wicket a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4/93, looks like Bailey will get his chance to score after all.



The Australian top order really hasn't played that well this series. Individual centuries aside, they haven't put together decent, regular partnerships throughout the series and I think a lot of our runs have come from the middle to lower order.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is pretty much without doubt the worst Ashes series I've ever seen from England, and arguably it's the worst ever. One good day in the entire series against a reasonable Australian side playing well but hardly a spectacular team. The rest of it's been pretty much unrelenting capitulation from England. Embarrassing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is pretty much without doubt the worst Ashes series I've ever seen from England, and arguably it's the worst ever. One good day in the entire series against a reasonable Australian side playing well but hardly a spectacular team. The rest of it's been pretty much unrelenting capitulation from England. Embarrassing.

I think that's what's made it so bad for England. If they were getting beaten 5-0 by the best team in the world (ie South Africa) or by India at home, or by one of the great Australian teams of the late 1990s/early 2000s, that would soften the blow a little bit. But the fact is this Australian team is nothing special. They only have one consistently world-class player (Clarke) and even he hasn't really scored in this series, so how they have contrived to lose in this manner (it's not 5-0 yet but seems it's just a matter of time) is even more perplexing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.

In fairness Australia have a pretty good bowling unit and they all seem to have hit top form at the same time. That's a decent basis for winning a series against any team, see England in 2005. And if it was just a case of losing to an Australian side playing well I wouldn't be too upset, it's the complete collapse on pretty much every front which grates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. Haddin is 75 years old, Smith is a non-bowling, non-batting all-rounder, Watson could get out LBW while going to the shops, Harris' knees are made of glass and Johnson couldn't find the pitch with GPS, a map and a compass, yet we're going to lose 5-0? Something is amiss with the universe.

This is the most accurate description of the current Aussie team i have seen :lol:

I totally agree with you too. I thought the exact thing before the Ashes, and it seems all those guys fixed those things this series. I have always been harsh at Smith but he really made me eat my words this series. I think Watson got LBW'd only once (?), and Johnson has been really accurate all series. Not to mention Harris managed to stay fit all series. Something truly is amiss with the universe!

As much as I enjoy seeing England lose, this series has been very anti-climatic. I had such high hopes. At least the urn is back, so there is that. Hopefully South Africa will be a good competitive series.

For now I will just let myself be entertained by douchebag aussie commentators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good hundred for Rogers.

Credit to him for sticking at it after looking a bit shaky initially in the Summer. Apparently he's now the top run scorer across the two back to back series.

ETA: I'd think 46 probably isn't going to be a sufficiently impressive score to cement Bailey's place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, good stuff from Rogers. It probably helped that Bell didn't have as good of a series here.



Bailey would be disappointed with that shot. Almost got a 50. Nonetheless, some much needed runs from him. I think he should be kept for the South Africa series. It's not like we've got really good replacement and his experience will mean that he is more likely to come out of this rut than a new guy. Hopefully these runs will get his confidence up.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand. Haddin is 75 years old, Smith is a non-bowling, non-batting all-rounder, Watson could get out LBW while going to the shops, Harris' knees are made of glass and Johnson couldn't find the pitch with GPS, a map and a compass, yet we're going to lose 5-0? Something is amiss with the universe.

:lol:

I missed this yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, not sure if Bailey's done enough to keep his spot. But I agree with TWS that he's probably still as good an option as anyone else that the selectors might pick for South Africa, especially given that it's going to be a much more hostile attack and Bailey's experience could be better than sending in a young gun like Maddinson or whomever. I think with Rogers' late blooming we're seeing the benefit of picking and sticking with an experienced player over one that might have youth on their side. Good on Rogers, it's a real good story.



As for hoping South Africa will be a good competitive series, it will be up to the Aussies...I have a feeling South Africa are going to smash us. Though without Kallis and with Amla in middling form we might be able to give them a competitive match or two.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bailey has got to go. Jeor has got it absolutely right. Without freebie singles down to third man and other such easy opportunities to rotate the strike (this is his great skill backed up by the ability to hit sixes down the ground once he's in) Bailey looks to be a vulnerable test batsman. Steyn's going to eat him up for breakfast. I think Smith and Haddin's form gives Australia the perfect opportunity to bring in a new batsman at 6. Guys like Burns, Maddinson and Doolan have all been spoken about in recent times. But a tour of South Africa is not a great place for a debut, particularly given the form that Steyn, Philander and Morkel are in. The concerning thing for Australia is that even though Steyn and Philander are 1 and 2 in the test bowler rankings, Morkel was probably the best bowler during the recent India-SA tests. It might be a good chance to give Phil Hughes a comeback. He's got a history of success against SA.



On paper it would seem that SA should win quite comfortably. However, there are a few chinks in the armour. De Villiers and Du Plessis were in superb form versus India, but De Villiers is shouldering a huge burden with the keeping and batting at 5. Amongst the others, Smith and Amla have declined in recent months. Peterson and Duminy are still struggling to justify their selection, but are being persisted with due to lack of suitable alternatives. Kallis leaves a gigantic hole in the batting lineup as well. If the Australian bowlers maintain their rage, and Harris can last another 3 tests, I think there will be huge pressure on the SA batsmen. I don't think SA have ever enjoyed a period of sustained favouritism and expectation as they are going through now. There will be an opportunity there for Australia to capitalise.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...