Jeor Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 It's hard to diagnose the problem when it involves batting collapses, because it really involves intangibles rather than a technical reason (like people "lacking fight", "not building partnerships" etc). Even in good teams, in any given innings there will be some cheap scores in there. So why does it happen all at once? Hard to say. Mitchell Marsh was definitely not a No. 6 batsman, and having Marsh at 6 and Neville at 7 was a ridiculously weak batting lineup. So at least they fixed that. Part of it is the lack of experience. Apart from Smith and Warner, everyone else from 1-7 has not played any more than 20 Tests. Burns/Marsh at opener, Khawaja at 3, Voges at 5 (although an older player, still inexperienced in Test matches), Marsh/Ferguson at 6 and Neville at 7. It's very light on in terms of matches played. I see Rod Marsh resigned as chairman of selectors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 54 minutes ago, Jeor said: It's hard to diagnose the problem when it involves batting collapses, because it really involves intangibles rather than a technical reason (like people "lacking fight", "not building partnerships" etc). Even in good teams, in any given innings there will be some cheap scores in there. So why does it happen all at once? Hard to say. Mitchell Marsh was definitely not a No. 6 batsman, and having Marsh at 6 and Neville at 7 was a ridiculously weak batting lineup. So at least they fixed that. Part of it is the lack of experience. Apart from Smith and Warner, everyone else from 1-7 has not played any more than 20 Tests. Burns/Marsh at opener, Khawaja at 3, Voges at 5 (although an older player, still inexperienced in Test matches), Marsh/Ferguson at 6 and Neville at 7. It's very light on in terms of matches played. I see Rod Marsh resigned as chairman of selectors. I don't know if I buy the 'lack of experience' argument entirely, though it's undoubtedly a factor. I was just thinking that, in AB's absence, only Amla is really a test veteran on the South African side. Duminy has 38 tests behind him but a mediocre (if not downright poor) overall record for a specialist bat. Perhaps technical and mental suitability for test cricket, rather than experience, lies at the heart of Australia's problem. Re: Marsh, he might have jumped before he got pushed. His contract was up next year and after a five-year stint on the panel I think his time was up. The string of away defeats (Pakistan, India, England, Sri Lanka) wouldn't have helped either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consigliere Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 3 hours ago, Jeor said: It's hard to diagnose the problem when it involves batting collapses, because it really involves intangibles rather than a technical reason (like people "lacking fight", "not building partnerships" etc). Even in good teams, in any given innings there will be some cheap scores in there. So why does it happen all at once? Hard to say. I think it is alot harder to diagnose the problem when it happens once in a blue moon and it can be put down to a great bowling performance or a bad day at the office. Even that great Aussie side had a few batting collapses but those were a rarity. However, when the batting has looked brittle for five consecutive Tests then questions over technique and mentality need to be asked. Plus these issues go back even further - the one that sticks in my mind is the last Ashes series where Australia batted well and won on flat tracks but looked all at sea on surfaces where the ball did a bit. I think that there are serious question marks hanging over the heads of a number of the Aussie batsmen over their technical and mental ability in dealing with swing and seam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted November 16, 2016 Share Posted November 16, 2016 4 hours ago, Paxter said: I don't know if I buy the 'lack of experience' argument entirely, though it's undoubtedly a factor. I was just thinking that, in AB's absence, only Amla is really a test veteran on the South African side. Duminy has 38 tests behind him but a mediocre (if not downright poor) overall record for a specialist bat. Perhaps technical and mental suitability for test cricket, rather than experience, lies at the heart of Australia's problem. It may be that the lack of experience is a symptom of the root cause - players unsuitable (technically, temperamentally etc) to Test cricket and being unable to settle in the side. A number of those 'inexperienced' Australians are otherwise quite old in cricketing terms...sort of like a team of slightly less experienced Duminys. Whereas South Africa's lack of experience is just due to happenstance and not necessarily the ability level, as evidenced by some of the young guns they have coming up (Rabada etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 15 hours ago, Jeor said: It may be that the lack of experience is a symptom of the root cause - players unsuitable (technically, temperamentally etc) to Test cricket and being unable to settle in the side. A number of those 'inexperienced' Australians are otherwise quite old in cricketing terms...sort of like a team of slightly less experienced Duminys. Whereas South Africa's lack of experience is just due to happenstance and not necessarily the ability level, as evidenced by some of the young guns they have coming up (Rabada etc). I think the inexperience comes down to the fact that Harris, Watson, Clarke, Haddin, Johnson, Rogers and Siddle have gone from being regulars to retirees (or near-retirees) in a short period of time. The transition hasn't been managed well, and hasn't unearthed enough younger players to become long-term replacements. ETA: Actually, including Watson in that list was probably unfair to the other players. His inclusion in the team was a net detriment over time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Unsurprisingly it's been a tough morning for Pakistan so far. Touring NZ in November is a difficult proposition and not necessarily the best preparation for an Australian tour (given that bounce and pace will be bigger factors in Aus than swing and seam). I do worry that by the time they get to the 'Gabba they will be down on confidence, especially from a batting perspective. As for England, they were looking good until Kohli and Pujara dug in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 It looks like Hameed doesn't deserve the Baby Boycott moniker. No way Boycott lets anyone run him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 So Australia, you think you can steal our Collapse Crown? Take that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeor Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 Pffft, we Aussies would be happy with a 5/103 scoreline. Would show that our top order has some promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted November 19, 2016 Author Share Posted November 19, 2016 I haven't been able to watch too much of this test but, although not winning the toss wasn't ideal, England have dug themselves a bit of a hole with the soft wickets yesterday. They probably had a few chances to restrict India a bit more in their first innings then, although it wasn't easy batting, Stokes, Bairstow and Rashid showed you can bat on it so they could have gotten themselves into a better position to avoid defeat given a few more runs from the top order. Hard to see anything other than an India win at this stage though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 I was reading an article on Cricinfo about how Australia might respond to their recent defeats and it's quite reminiscent of discussion about English selection during the dark days of the 1990s. I think the England team of that time conclusively proved that dropping players after a single match and primarily picking based on recent form in domestic cricket wasn't necessarily a recipe for success. I think in recent times the English selectors can err a bit too far in the other direction at times but I still think consistency of selection is better than the alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brAnthelAstgreenseer Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Hameed doing a solid blockathon . Very impressive . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Australia have selected an Englishman? Did I read that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted November 20, 2016 Author Share Posted November 20, 2016 Argh, I was just about to post about how well Hameed's done and he gets a grubber. Still, it looks like England have found the opener they've been looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 30 minutes ago, Maltaran said: Australia have selected an Englishman? Did I read that right? Well, Andrew Symonds turned out OK. Sort of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 So, that's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Pretty good fight from England in their second dig so far, hopefully that continues today. @williamjm: It will be interesting to see whether the Aussie selectors adopt a 'pick and stick' approach with their new players. It's justifiable to drop an older player like Ferguson after one test if you are deciding to do a complete refresh and make selections for the long-term. But if they discard the likes of Renshaw or Handscomb after just a few failures (like they did with Phil Hughes), we really will be seeing an 'England in the 90s' flashback. The tricky thing for the young guns (provided they do survive the rest of the Australian summer) is that their first Test tour will be to India...not an easy place to cut your teeth as a test batsman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Winged Shadow Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 You're curse-fu is strong. Well done. England did an England again. Now please stay away from here during the 3rd Aussie test, kthxbai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 That was predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Haha yes that wasn't a particularly prescient post yesterday. Plenty of Aussie fans are howling about Nevill's axing. While I understand his merits as a gloveman, the number 7 slot is an important batting position in modern day cricket, and Nevill hasn't exactly covered himself in glory. Wade is averaging 34 in test cricket (with two hundreds) while Nevill is batting at 22. I wonder whether Lyon would also have been omitted if SoK hadn't sustained an injury over the weekend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.