Cricket 3

[Stubby]

[quote name='Brady' post='1401359' date='Jun 17 2008, 09.19']Did anyone see the last day of the Aus/WI match? I might watch the replay today on foxtel. I see Casson took threefer, and got 26 overs in, how did he look? It's decent figures, not great, but all the bowlers other than Clarke took a bit of stick from the looks of it.[/quote]

I watched him get his first wicket. It was a classic spinner's wicket. He was chucking it up there with lots of loop to Bravo. In the first two overs of it he got smashed for three sixes over cover - pure Windies batting. Then the wicket ball was after Lee had bounced one off Bravo's helmet at the other end and he simply played a forward defesive prod on the up to Jaques at silly point. It was well bowled. If you only saw the two previous overs you'd say he was too full - but it was clearly a plan.

I didn't see the rest of his bowling and can't comment on that.

[Paxter]

I watched bits of Casson bowl throughout the match. He bowled OK in the second innings, picking up the wickets of the Windies' highest scoring batsmen (Marshall and Bravo). He was, however, pretty damn awful in the first innings (nerves perhaps). At times during the match, Michael Clarke out-bowled him.

I think comparing the performance of the two (specialist) spinners in this test match tells a story:

Benn: 53 overs, 187 runs, 4 wickets (ave = 46.75)
Casson: 32 overs, 129 runs, 3 wickets (ave = 43)

IMO, Benn had the marginally better test match (his 4 wickets were Haddin, Symonds, Hussey and Katich and his RPO is better). Casson didn't bowl badly, but he wasn't brilliant either.

My opinions:
In the short term: if the best that Casson can do is match the [i]West Indies[/i] spinner's output, then Australia have some problems leading up to the India tour. The selectors should bring McGain or Cullen on the India tour as well as Casson.

In the long term: he may be a decent prospect. But I'm not convinced that he is the answer to our spinning problems. Needs a few more matches under his belt before we can form a more informed opinion on his ability at the top level.

[Hereward]

Casson has a wide variety of incredibly annoying tics, including stopping to rub his hands on the ground three times on the way back to his mark. Perhaps it was just nerves, but I must admit I took against him. He made Tufnell look suave. :P

[Jeor]

[quote name='Herekleides' post='1401769' date='Jun 17 2008, 18.28']He made Tufnell look suave. :P[/quote]

Now that's a big claim, Hereward! ;) Although I didn't see him bowl so I can't really tell. I guess we really can't make a judgment until he has a few more matches.

At the conclusion of the series...well, 2-0 was a comfortable Aussie win but the Windies have made some real progress. Their batting remains very weak but their bowling attack has improved dramatically and has shown they can get wickets, at least on their own home pitches. On the other side of things, I think we've seen a bit of a decline from Australia in the batting and bowling departments. The batting did put up some big scores but ultimately during the series they had more than a few bad sessions. And of the bowlers, there was nothing in the spin department from MacGill and just a bit more from Casson.

If the West Indies could just unearth one or two more batsmen, they would be a good team. Currently they've got a number of stylish players in the batting lineup who don't really give the impression of permanence at the crease. Gayle and Sarwan have the talent, and Bravo has the fight, but Chanderpaul is the only batsman who has both of those qualities. They need at least one more fighter/grafter in there, a defiant technician in the mould of a Dravid or Kallis to hold things together and give some more balance to the lineup.

[Paxter]

I agree with your assessment of the series Jeor. Some encouraging signs from the Windies despite the 2-0 scoreline. I agree that they need at least one more quality batsman in their line-up to be genuinely competitive. However, I think their current team would probably cause most other test nations some serious problems when playing in the West Indies. Away from home though, the Windies will still be easybeats.

What do we think about the Jaques vs. Katich tussle? Who won? Who is going to partner Hayden in the next test series? Is Hodge's career over now that Katich is ahead of him in the pecking order?

Statistically, Katich had a much better series than Jaques so Katich will be unlucky if he does get the chop.

Side notes:
Hussey had a very poor series. The worst of his career. Haddin was also fairly ordinary with the bat.

[Hereward]

I was doing some searching for the Greatest Athletic Feats thread when I came upon [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-f5pfBgpNE&feature=related"]this[/url]. I remember watching this at the time and I've never seen anyone bowl as quick as that since. Awesome. And Mr Holding sems like such a nice man, these days!

[Jeor]

I didn't think you rated Holding, H...although maybe that was when we were discussing the pantheon of greatest fast bowlers and you thought he was quick but not a 'great'. Cool how youtube has some of the stuff from earlier years.

Good point Pax about the Windies playing at home. They'll probably still struggle overseas on pitches that won't offer them as much assistance as the Caribbean ones. The pace attack might be ok in England, but most other places they won't be able to rely on the conditions to do magical things with the ball.

It'll be unlucky for either of Katich or Jaques, seeing as they got centuries. I'm a big Katich fan so I hope they get to fit him in somehow. He's a versatile batsman; he's now both opened and played at No.6 for Australia, and in first-class cricket he usually bats at No.3 or 4 in the middle order for New South Wales. Add in some decent left-arm chinamen and tactical experience as a long-time captain of his state side, and you have yourself a pretty handy cricketer. Selectors will be hoping that by the next time Tests come around they won't have to make a decision (either Hayden retires or someone gets injured again). Either way, Hayden can't be expected to go on for too much longer, so it might only be a temporary hiatus for whoever gets dropped.

Then again Hayden may be hanging on for the 2009 Ashes. He wouldn't be the first Aussie to retire after an Ashes series, heh.

[Hereward]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1401908' date='Jun 17 2008, 12.20']I didn't think you rated Holding, H...although maybe that was when we were discussing the pantheon of greatest fast bowlers and you thought he was quick but not a 'great'. Cool how youtube has some of the stuff from earlier years.[/quote]

I rate him as the quickest I've seen, but as you say, not in the pantheon of the true greats. He was rather one-dimensional, IMO, not seaming or swinging it.

PS Brian Close, while not a very good batsman, was hard as fucking nails. :eek:

[Stubby]

[quote name='Herekleides' post='1401963' date='Jun 17 2008, 20.05']I rate him as the quickest I've seen, .....[/quote]

I was still a somewhat young bloke when I saw him bowl on a typical 80's WACA wicket. We were sitting side on to the pitch and I could not see the ball.

Holding was seriously quick.

[Paxter]

Yeah, Holding was a great bowler. Athletic run-up, strong bowling action and plenty of pace. Awesome bouncer. Great bowler on any pitch because he didn't rely on swing/seam (i.e. bowler-friendly) conditions. It's a shame I never got to watch him bowl (I just turned 20 a couple of months ago so he was before my time).

I can certainly vouch for the fact that he is a good commentator though. Have you guys ever had the old "who's the best commentator" argument? My favourite has always been Boycott. I don't agree with everything he says (or even most of what he says) but I still find myself enjoying his commentary more than anyone else's. Must be the accent. Tony Cosier runs a close second. I don't mind Hussain either.

Navjot Sidhu and Ranjit Fernando are the funniest. Least favourite is Barry Richards. Also hate: Greig, Lawry, Taylor, Heals, Benaud and SOD. Which pretty much means that I put Channel 9 on mute and switch the radio on. Don't mind Chappell, Nicholas and Slater though.

[Hereward]

I believe it is a criminal offence in England to cast doubt on the divinity of Richie Benaud. :unsure:

I can't stand Boycott, I really can't listen to him. He's obnoxiously opinionated, won't listen to anyone else, and insists on saying the exact same thing over and over again. I hate Henry Blofeld as well, the upper-class knob. He's massively rude to the oiks, i.e. everyone but himself, is obviously of below average intelligence and has no sense of humour. Sadly, considering he was once my favourite player, I can't bear listening to David Gower droning on. Viv Richards is total crap as well. He can't string coherent sentences together.

I do like Vic Marks, Jonathan Agnew, Michael Holding, Ian Botham, Richie Benaud, Ian Smith, Tony Cozier and Colin Croft.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Herekleides' post='1402281' date='Jun 17 2008, 23.17']I believe it is a criminal offence in England to cast doubt on the divinity of Richie Benaud. :unsure:[/quote]

Lucky I'm not an Englishman then.

The last intelligent thing that Richie said on commentary must have been in the 60s or 70s because I'm yet to hear anything beyond the blatantly obvious from him.

I guess my love of Boycs' commentary derives from his willingness to deliver uncompromising opinions. Richie doesn't even have opinions.

I wholeheartedly agree that messers Agnew, Botham and Smith are excellent commentators (as well as Holding and Cosier as I alluded to before). I don't think I've ever heard the Master Blaster commentate but I imagine that he's not so good.

I also agree with you about Gower. He is the weak link in Sky's commentary team.

[Slick Mongoose]

[quote]I guess my love of Boycs' commentary derives from his willingness to deliver [s]uncompromising[/s] stupid opinions[/quote]

Fixed that for you.

Holding is my favourite. He's intelligent and explains things well.

[Maltaran]

[quote name='Herekleides' post='1402281' date='Jun 17 2008, 16.17']I do like Vic Marks, Jonathan Agnew, Michael Holding, Ian Botham, Richie Benaud, Ian Smith, Tony Cozier and Colin Croft.[/quote]

I agree with you, and I'd add CMJ to the list as well.

[Rimmer]

Try downing a shot every time Richie Benaud gushes about Andrew Symonds or the Aussie fielding in general, you'd be in hospital having your stomach pumped within the hour.

[Jeor]

Boycott's commentary can sometimes be good, but my beef with him (apart from being obnoxious sometimes) is that he commentates like a batsman. He rarely discusses the bowling (apart from saying that it is crap, eg, "That was a wide and full ball, deserved to be smashed") and always discusses things from a batting point of view. He describes almost every wicket as being the batsman's own fault rather than a bowler's good delivery, for instance.

Holding is good. Mark Nicholas is terribly sycophantic to the Australian team and given to hyperbole (I remember he described three catches as "the greatest you'll ever see" in a single Test match) and Richie Benaud has lost it a bit - often he doesn't know what the ball has done, I remember him describing a ball from a spinner that went down the legside as having gone "through the batsman's legs". ;)

[Stubby]

I like Tim Lane on Aussie radio. Benaud is OK (still like his comment when some poor bastard got one in the groin and he simply said: "Very painful.") but Billy Brmingham has made it too hard to take Richie seriously any more. Holding, Cozier, Botham and Aggers are the other good ones.

Can't stand the CH 9 team as a whole - radio goes on over the live TV if they are on.

[delete this account pls]

I think Benaud's OK. Taylor, Lawry, Slater, Nicholas and Healy are average. I don't like Ian Chappelle, he's so bloody boring, and I absolutely can't stand Tony "I hate Australia and everything about it even though I've lived there for years" Greig.

[sh_wulff]

tony cozier's commentary makes me sw00n

he could say anything at all in that accent of his ...

richie benaud is waaay past his use by date

anyways I tend to listen to the abc's commentary

[Jeor]

Of the Channel Nine young guns, Healy is way too partisan, and Taylor has a maddening habit of having a rising inflection in just about every sentence. Slater's manner is ok but he isn't very authoritative - not a very strong technical commentator.