Cricket V

[Paxter]

Well, this is pretty ridiculous. Close to a double-century opening stand now. The Proteas are going to have to get their act together very quickly, or else they are going to find themselves staring down the barrel of a 500+ first innings score from the Aussies. Things are looking very grim for them in this series right now.

Side-note: Phil Jaques' test career may be over...

[Jeor]

Terrible stuff about the terrorist attacks, and my condolences to those that were killed. In my own opinion it's pretty poor form for Broad to attack the police for their lax security when it's quite clear that a number of them were killed in the line of duty. I hope it doesn't derail the IPL, otherwise that will really create a firestorm and things could get very ugly. My main fear is that now that the unwritten rule about attacking sportsmen has been broken, other terrorist groups may seek to do the same thing at a later date.

As to the actual cricket...well, Hughes has his maiden century. It's amazing how the new Australian openers seem to get to their first century pretty quickly. Hussey (who originally started as an opener) only took 2 matches before he notched his first hundred; Jaques also did it pretty quickly. And now Hughes has done it in his second match. It really must be such a pressure release to get that first hundred out of the way so soon, and I guess it shows a strength of the Australian first-class system if the guys are adapting to international level so quickly.

On the other side of the coin, one only has to think of Mike Gatting, who took more than 50 innings until he got his first Test century. The guy had a brilliant first-class average of 50 but a poor Test average of 35. This isn't to say that English first-class cricket in Gatting's time wasn't good (it was in fact quite strong back then) but somehow recent Australians have managed to 'make it' on the international stage without too much pressure.

[Sir Thursday]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1711488' date='Mar 7 2009, 05.18']As to the actual cricket...well, Hughes has his maiden century. It's amazing how the new Australian openers seem to get to their first century pretty quickly. Hussey (who originally started as an opener) only took 2 matches before he notched his first hundred; Jaques also did it pretty quickly. And now Hughes has done it in his second match. It really must be such a pressure release to get that first hundred out of the way so soon, and I guess it shows a strength of the Australian first-class system if the guys are adapting to international level so quickly.

On the other side of the coin, one only has to think of Mike Gatting, who took more than 50 innings until he got his first Test century. The guy had a brilliant first-class average of 50 but a poor Test average of 35. This isn't to say that English first-class cricket in Gatting's time wasn't good (it was in fact quite strong back then) but somehow recent Australians have managed to 'make it' on the international stage without too much pressure.[/quote]

I don't think holding Gatting up as an example of an English opener works as a comparison here. Here are the all the debuts in the last 5 years that I can remember by English specialist batsmen at Test Level.

Strauss: 112 & 82 vs. New Zealand (Lord's)
Cook: 60 & 104* vs. India (Nagpur)
Bell: 70 & DNB vs. West Indies (The Oval) (He followed that up with 65* & 162* against Bangladesh on his next outing)
Pietersen: 57 & 64* vs. Australia (Lord's)
Shah: 88 & 38 vs. India (Mumbai)
Bopara: 8 & 34 vs. Sri Lanka (Kandy)

Apart from Bopara, they look pretty damn impressive to me. So I think you'll find that the phenomenon isn't limited solely to Australians ;).


Sir Thursday

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1711488' date='Mar 7 2009, 14.18']but somehow recent Australians have managed to 'make it' on the international stage without too much pressure.[/quote]

I'm going to have to agree with Sir Thursday here. The Gatting comparison doesn't really apply in a modern context at all - Cook, Geraint Jones, Strauss, Collingwood, Bell, Bopara, Pietersen, Prior and Ambrose all made hundreds within their first 6 test matches. Cook, Strauss and Prior scored their hundreds on debut, while Ambrose and Bell achieved the feat in their second test match. So the ease at which new batsmen are "making it" at test level doesn't appear to be unique to Australia.

[Jeor]

Alright, I'll concede defeat...I suppose a comparison between Australian batsmen of today and English batsmen of 20 years ago wasn't really going to hold water. ;)

Startling collapse by Australia. They've lost 6/23 to crash to 352 all out from the relative superiority of 4/329. Unbelievable - South Africa are right back in the game now and it's probably evens. They're a good chance of getting a first innings lead if they don't throw it away - 2nd day pitch, they'll want to make the most of some prime batting time.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1711611' date='Mar 7 2009, 19.52']South Africa are right back in the game now and it's probably evens.[/quote]

Not anymore! Australia right on top, with SA already 2 wickets down without a single run on the board. 350 is starting to look like a decent score. But SA did do a good job to pull themselves back from the abyss of 180/0 on Day 1.

ETA: And SA now effectively four down with three wickets being taken and Smith at the hospital having an x-ray!! I'm calling it now. This series is virtually over - I just can't see a way out of this for SA. Kallis looks like a sitting duck against Johnson ATM. Fantastic fast-bowling from a relatively inexperienced attack.

[sh_wulff]

the WI vs Eng looks like fizzling to a draw
Sad about [url="http://content.cricinfo.com/wiveng2009/content/current/story/394311.html"]Gayle[/url]getting injured

[url="http://content.cricinfo.com/nzvind2009/content/current/story/394273.html"]Tendulkar [/url] is a legend

[ants]

Amazing bowling by M. Johnson, well backed up by all the other Australian bowlers. Seems incredible that on the first and third days 4 and 5 wickets fell, while on the second day 14 fell (including Smith). With Smith already out in the second innings, I imagine South Africans are praying for rain!

Interesting stuff on Sobers. I never saw him play or his bowling stats, so a little surprised they don't stand up to what I've been told about how good he was. Seems he was very versatile, but not as effective as I've been told.

And I stand by Haddin. He didn't get near to that onside catch off Kallis.

[delete this account pls]

I think the last year has really seen the making of Johnston as a test cricketer. He needed to step up, and he really has.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Brady' post='1712901' date='Mar 9 2009, 11.56']I think the last year has really seen the making of Johnston as a test cricketer. He needed to step up, and he really has.[/quote]

And he really [i]should[/i] have picked up an Allan Border Medal in the process.

BTW its Johnson not Johnston!! [/nitpick]

Anyway, Aus well on their way to an extremely convincing series victory here. I still think that this SA team is very good (maybe even better than Australia on paper), but they really have underperformed in their own conditions and have (I think) underestimated their opponents. The introduction of Hughes and North has been a massive boost to the Aussie test team. Look out England!!

Which brings me to the WI v England series, and it looks like it will be another draw, which will be enough for a WI victory in the series. It's not often that a 5 test series ends in a 1-0 result! Great batting from Gayle, Chanderpaul and Nash in this test. Sarwan finally failed!! I must say I don't think I've ever witnessed a series that was so dominated by the bastmen. If you look at the series stats, 9 batsmen are averaging over 49 (10 if you include Bopara, who for some reason was ommitted for this test) and only 1 bowler is averaging less than 30 (Swann). Those are incredibly one-sided statistics - especially in the WI where you often encounter pitches with variable bounce. Anyway, I suppose it's a good Ashes warm-up for the English batsmen. But the English bowlers will not be able to take many positives from this series (apart from Broad who has averaged 33 with the ball in hand on this tour - an improvement on his previous average of over 40).

Meanwhile, NZ are getting smashed all over the place after winning the T20s. India have been very dominant so far and deserve their 2-0 lead. Mind you, Ryder played a great innings in the last match. And losing Vettori was a massive blow for the Kiwis. I doubt India would have scored 390 the other day if he had played.

[Paxter]

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it's official. If you weren't already aware, yes, Darrell Hair is a total ****head:

[quote]Lorgat, who was speaking shortly after arriving in Australia, was reacting to remarks from Taufel and Davis that they had been left high and dry when the attack started. He suggested that the pair needed time to reflect on things.

"I am mindful of the experience they have gone through and I think it is a difficult time for them," he said. "I guess if you or I had gone through something we might have reacted in a similar fashion and I think we must just understand the context and we must just allow them to settle down and be more rational in their assessment of what has transpired."

Speaking to AFP, Hair was clearly angry. "No one could possibly comprehend the frightening and life threatening nature of the predicament they found themselves in," he said. "For Lorgat to blandly ask them to be 'more rational' I think [smacks of] bullying and they are embarrassed that the full truth of the situation came out into the open.

"I wonder if Lorgat would be making his shallow and insincere comments if it had been he trapped in a hail of bullets and felt abandoned by the very security forces that were supposed to protect them?

"Does someone have to die before ICC even remotely begins to understand the reality of the matter? It's one thing to provide security and protection but another to actually be secure and protected. Quite simply, ICC and the PCB [Pakistan Cricket Board] totally failed the Sri Lankan players and the umpires, full stop."[/quote]

As has been mentioned before in this thread, several Pakistani security personnel [i]lost their lives[/i] when performing their duty. To say that the players/officials were "abandoned" when security personnel actually died is just ridiculous. How does he think the family of the deceased security guards must feel when the officials are accusing their loved ones of failing in their duty? Who exactly is making shallow and insincere comments here Darrell? Logart's comments just didn't deserve this kind of reaction at all. What a ****head. Seriously, my hate for Darrell Hair knows no bounds. I really need to go to reconciliation before Easter...

[sh_wulff]

[quote]What a ****head. Seriously, my hate for Darrel Hair knows no bounds. I really need to go to reconciliation before Easter...[/quote]

isn't he the same umpire that kept on referring Muarli for chucking?
that fat bloke has 0 credibility :rolleyes:

[Paxter]

[quote name='sh_wulff' post='1713237' date='Mar 9 2009, 20.35']isn't he the same umpire that kept on referring Muarli for chucking?[/quote]

Yes. But wait, there's more!! He was also at the centre of the '06 ball tampering controversy with Pakistan. And this latest incident is just the cherry on top.

[Stubby]

ants:

I now stand corrected re Haddin. I reckon he's just dropped Kallis - even though the rest of the team is not acting too disappointed, I reckon there might have been a nick there. Regardless, he's not as good as I thought earlier in the week. Humble pie thus consumed. ;)

[Maltaran]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1713254' date='Mar 9 2009, 12.12']Yes. But wait, there's more!! He was also at the centre of the '06 ball tampering controversy with Pakistan. And this latest incident is just the cherry on top.[/quote]

He subsequently accused the ICC of racism because they suspended him but not Doctrove.

[williamjm]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1712943' date='Mar 9 2009, 04.05']Anyway, I suppose it's a good Ashes warm-up for the English batsmen. But the English bowlers will not be able to take many positives from this series (apart from Broad who has averaged 33 with the ball in hand on this tour - an improvement on his previous average of over 40).[/quote]

Yes, it's probably solidified the likely batting order for the upcoming Ashes, with the only question mark remaining being the number 3 position as Shah has failed to secure it there are a number of contenders - a return for Ian Bell (the unimaginative option), a return for Michael Vaughan (only a good idea if he starts scoring some serious first-class runs in the run-up to the Ashes), Ravi Bopara (batted well in the last test, but I'm not sure number 3 is the best position for him) or maybe a recall for Robert Key.

On the other hand, it's thrown the identity of the bowlers into confusion. Flintoff is a certainty, if fit, but I'm not sure about any of the others. Swann and Panesar seem to have a good competition going for the spinner's position, and I reckon they may well both be better than whoever the Australians come up with. The remaining seamers are more of a problem, Anderson and Broad look in pole position at the moment but neither is really bowling well enough to cause any concern for the Australians. Personally I'd be tempted to recall Matthew Hoggard who seemed very harshly treated by being dropped after one bad performance following years of being England's most consistent bowler. Hopefully they've finally got tired of Steven Harmison although the number of extras his replacement Amjad Khan is conceding is ridiculous (and he's just been added to the ODI squad :rolleyes:). Probably the best to hope for is that either Ryan Sidebottom actually returns to full fitness and form or Simon Jones' body manages to hold together for a long enough period for him to be recalled (I'm not holding my breath about the latter but it would be great if it did happen). What do other people reckon will be the likely bowling lineup?

[Paxter]

[quote name='williamjm' post='1714335' date='Mar 10 2009, 10.57']The remaining seamers are more of a problem, Anderson and Broad look in pole position at the moment but neither is really bowling well enough to cause any concern for the Australians. Personally I'd be tempted to recall Matthew Hoggard who seemed very harshly treated by being dropped after one bad performance following years of being England's most consistent bowler. Hopefully they've finally got tired of Steven Harmison although the number of extras his replacement Amjad Khan is conceding is ridiculous (and he's just been added to the ODI squad :rolleyes:). Probably the best to hope for is that either Ryan Sidebottom actually returns to full fitness and form or Simon Jones' body manages to hold together for a long enough period for him to be recalled (I'm not holding my breath about the latter but it would be great if it did happen). What do other people reckon will be the likely bowling lineup?[/quote]

Harmison and Panesar always play well in England (Harmison: 128 wickets @ 28 at home, compared to 93 wickets @ 37 away, Panesar: 80 wickets @ 27 at home, 43 wickets @ 45 away), so I would be tempted to play both of them in the first test. They would probably play alongside Broad, Anderson and Flintoff (Flintoff batting at six is a bit suspect, but Broad is a very useful number 8 and Prior is almost good enough to get into the team on batting alone - so it should be OK). Sidebottom might get the nod over Anderson if he is fully fit - he basically won the two series against NZ on his own so he deserves a bit of faith from the selectors. Broad should be dropped if he goes back to averaging 47 with the ball ;)

I wouldn't count on a return from Jones or Hoggard. Michael Vaughan might get a chance though - with McGrath gone he might find the going a little easier than the '05 Ashes. And his record against Australia is superb relative to Ian Bell (Vaughan averaging 48 compared to Bell's terrible 25). I doubt Bopara would play unless Pietersen was willing to move to number 3. Key will only get a chance if Cook fails in each of his innings in the first two or three tests.

ETA: So my ideal team would be:

1. Strauss
2. Cook
3. Pietersen
4. Collingwood
5. Bopara
6. Flintoff
7. Prior
8. Broad
9. Anderson
10. Harmison
11. Panesar

Of course, if Pietersen can't bat at three, then Vaughan would come into the team in place of Bopara and Pietersen/Collingwood would move down one spot.

[Jeor]

Interesting lineup, Pax - I agree with most although I think the batting looks a bit thin. Broad down at No. 8 is a deep lineup and does offer some safety, but I'm not sure that it compensates for the slightly below-par pairing of Bopara and Flintoff at 5 and 6. While Bopara's batting has come along, Flintoff is not a specialist batsman. I'd only bat Flintoff at 6 if I knew that the top 5 were specialist batsmen, the keeper at 7 was a decent batter and Broad is a safety at 8. At the moment I'd say Bopara is essentially a poor man's Collingwood. There are enough part-time bowlers in that lineup that it would be possible to sacrifice Bopara for a true specialist batsman in Shah, which would beef up the lineup a bit at not too much expense.

[Paxter]

[quote name='Jeor' post='1714599' date='Mar 10 2009, 18.44']At the moment I'd say Bopara is essentially a poor man's Collingwood. There are enough part-time bowlers in that lineup that it would be possible to sacrifice Bopara for a true specialist batsman in Shah, which would beef up the lineup a bit at not too much expense.[/quote]

I actually think that Bopara is a true specialist batsman. His first class batting average is one run less than Shah's - so the difference between the two is fairly negligible. And I also prefer Bopara's technique - it looks more solid to me. Shah's bottom-handedness is a bit of a liability in my books. And Shah has struggled on the WI tour so far, whereas Bopara excelled when he did get his opportunity.

In any case, I think Prior (averaging 47) and Broad (averaging 28) should be able to provide good cover for Freddie and Bopara. In all honesty, I think Prior is good enough to bat at No. 6 if Freddie is really struggling.

[ants]

Personally I think the critiscm of Hair is pretty unfounded.

1. [b]IF[/b] Murali doesn't chuck, the only way it was proved so was through an awful lot of x-rays and medical evidence. Given that wasn't available to Hair when he called him, I believe he was more than justified calling it.

2. Hair was one of the best umpires Australia produced in the last 10 years.

3. Although I don't think it was racism, I think Hair was clearly targetted after the ball tampering issue. Inzaman had no basis to go against them, and the umpires were both justified in their decisions. Both umpires agreed, yet only one was targetted for dismissal. And Inzaman had nothing done against him. Obviously the letter and payoff request were bad form by Hair, but that said they were stripping him of a lot of years of salary.

[quote name='Ser Stubby' post='1713316' date='Mar 10 2009, 00.22']ants:

I now stand corrected re Haddin. I reckon he's just dropped Kallis - even though the rest of the team is not acting too disappointed, I reckon there might have been a nick there. Regardless, he's not as good as I thought earlier in the week. Humble pie thus consumed. ;)[/quote]
My problem isn't so much he dropped him, as it would have been very hard, but that he didn't even get close. I don't think the fact he stands up over the stumps for MacDonald is evidence of his glovework.