Jump to content

Cricket XXV - The long runup to the World Cup


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Another 100 for Smity. What a champ!





I think Ian Healy is the worst as far as bias is concerned; he makes no bones about the fact that he wants Australia to win and thinks they're amazing compared to what every other team can put up. Mark Nicholas for some unusual reason is a massive Aussie cheerleader and Ian Chappell always comes across as an arrogant know-it-all critic who thinks all the captains currently on the field don't know anything. Warne is still new but can go on about some silly tangential things quite a bit.



By that measure I personally think Taylor and Slater are the least bad, in the sense that they make an attempt not to be biased (Taylor's analysis is better than Slater, who doesn't offer very much insight). It's good to hear Bill Lawry as well.



In truth I think the commentary is suffering from a lack of overseas talent. When you have all the former Aussie players commentating (Chappell, Healy, Taylor, Slater, Warne) it does give you a rather one-sided look at things. People like Mark Nicholas and James Brayshaw are meant to balance it as outsiders but they don't really have the gravitas to pull it off.



What Channel Nine need is to sign a big-time overseas personality who is a good commentator in their own right. Off the top of my head I like Michael Holding and Mike Atherton, but even if you couldn't get them, there are other international commentators available like Bob Willis, Bumble, Nasser Hussain etc who would (while not being perfect themselves) balance it out a bit more.




The bolded part is why I dislike Taylor so much. Because he was a captain, he thinks that every tactics that he doesn't agree with is dumb. The best example is the leg slip against Rogers. Even as Taylor was explaining why it was a dumb idea, Dhoni dropped a catch in that leg slip area. Yet Taylor continues on as to why its a bad tactics! Just unable to accept that the other captains have a plan and know what they are doing. Dhoni can't do any right. He changes tactics, its a bad idea. He doesn't change tactics, it's a bad idea. It's ridiculous.



Warne isn't a very good commentator. I only like him for the laughs. He always has these dumb/funny stories, and that is about the only thing he adds to the commentary. Alternatively, when spinners are on, he provides some good insight, but that's about it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again India can't get the tail out, and once again Steve Smith scores big. He is having an amazing year. His last six innings have been 97, 162*, 52*, 133, 28, 192.



Good to see Haddin get some runs too.



Re: the commentators, I agree Taylor can be a bit arrogant too but I feel that Ian Chappell is the worst in that respect. It must be torture to be a currently playing captain and always hear these armchair commentators slag you off to the viewing public. I'm pretty sure anyone who is an international captain is not a chump and I'm sure that quite often they have good plans that just don't come off, or good plans that other players don't execute and thus make them 'look bad'.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Ian Chappell's big problem is that he's run out of things to say. There's nothing fresh in his commentary, it's the same old, sad, wistful lamentations and pining for the good old days, when you had to prove yourself to be a real man to be a test player, let alone a captain. I do feel a bit sorry for him, as he's lost all of his contemporaries and just doesn't fit in with the new crew (which, in some ways, is a compliment in my books).



On Taylor, I agree with both Jeor and TWS. Can't stand his arrogance.



But Warne is just a total idiot. As excellent a bowler as he was, he just does not belong in the commentary box. He offers little in the way of insight or balanced critical analysis. He takes parochialism to a level not even "true-blue Heals" can sustain. He shows not even the slightest bit of basic respect that common courtesy would demand towards the opposition.



We've been watching the current test match on mute, and found it to be fantastic. It really is so much better without having to listen to the channel nine commentary.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Clarke comes off better because as a current player (as far as we know) he needs to be respectful to his future opposition, while also boosting his teammates - so he's unlikely to be dumping on any of the players on the field and is more constructive. He's also obviously very close to the game and has the best and most accurate up to date information on the current players on the field.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and since we're talking about commentary...another pet peeve of mine is the difference between a 'wild shot' and a 'good shot'. Say a delivery comes in, short and wide. The batsman goes for a big cut.



If he misses, it's called " a wild shot", "he lost his concentration", or the bowler "tempted him with that one".



If he hits it for four, it "got the treatment it deserved", "that delivery was rubbish, a loosener", or it was "good positive batting".



In my experience, bad balls are bad balls, whether you hit them or not. I've never met a bowler who purposely served up some short and wide stuff (incidentally this doesn't apply to full and wide, which might indeed be part of a plan since it's giving the ball a chance to swing). If a batsman goes after some wide balls with some lusty swings, that's totally fine and not a sign of wildness or losing his concentration at all.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

India's batting today reminded me of Michael Vaughan in the 03/04 Ashes, the only difference being Vaughan probably took on a better bowling attack with McGrath, Gillespie and co. Nonetheless, it's been an unprecedented assault on the most dominant bowler in the world over the last 12 months. Johnson also started this match with a bowling average of 11 at the MCG.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both teams have scored so quickly (Australia 3.71, India 3.65) that I think a result is still possible. Certainly I think Australia will still think they're good value for a win.



Hard to see how India could win this, given that they haven't really been able to bowl Australia out cheaply.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was some shocking cricket from India yesterday. After batting themselves into a position from which 650-700 was a real possibility, the middle order succumbed to ridiculous batting. Rahul played like the match was already won, and wasted a rare second chance, not to mention perfect batting conditions, a well set partner and plenty of momentum. Dhoni played at a delivery he should've left. Even Rahane got himself out LBW to a straight half-volley, though it's hard to criticize a man who has just scored 147 off 170.



Australia will now go on to win this one. Despite reasonable bowling by India in the second innings, they will be chasing 350-400. There may be some temporary resistance but I expect that there will a rapid collapse at some stage like in every one of their five innings so far.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Australia still don't have this in bag. Far from it actually. India is still in the game if they get Aussies out soon. Even 350 is achievable in one day with India's batting lineup. They only need a couple of their batters to fire and they can win this. Their top and middle order is perfectly capable of chasing 350-ish total.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of batting lineups capable of hitting 350 in a day. However, over a hundred years of test cricket history says that fourth innings chases are extraordinarily difficult. Chases in the high 200's have historically resulted in close chases. Once you're target is over 300, the bowling team is clearly the favourite. Over 350-400, there are only a handful of successful chases. The Adelaide test is the perfect example. It just took a slightly loose waft from Vijay, and things unravelled rapidly for India. Rather than the exception, this is the historical rule.



Of course, India can certainly do it. A repeat of the Kohli-Rahane first innings partnership would probably account for a 350 chase. If Australia choose to set 400, then a draw becomes a distinct possibility because they'll eat up at least 14-15 overs out of a possible 90 to score the extra 75 runs. But looking at the most likely scenario, which I think would involve Smith declaring with a lead of 350 and ~85 overs remaining, is an Australia win.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm inclined to agree with Arya in that we tend to overestimate the ability of a batting team to make a successful fourth innings run chase. Historically the numbers just don't add up and unless Smith declares very charitably, it will be a draw or an Aussie victory.


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...