Cricket VIII

[Jeor]

The Aussie record at Perth isn't good either, beaten here the last two summers by India and South Africa. A lot will depend on whether Roach can make use of the WACA pitch. At this stage I'm still not sure the Windies have enough bowlers to take 20 wickets to win a match, but their batsmen have shown some good fight. Gayle, Bravo and Barath have all made centuries and Nash came close (92 I think). The only two guys who haven't scored so far yet are Sarwan and Chanderpaul, who would've been the first two guys you would have picked to do it. So the Windies batting lineup is looking reasonably healthy.

Pakistan will be interesting indeed. No more Inzy so I think their batting is a bit weaker. Mind you Inzy had a horrible run of form last time he was in Australia (although I think that was mostly ODIs). If they had Younis Khan back in the team their batting would be a bit more solid. But as always, Pakistan have a huge amount of talent and a lot of unpredictable but potential matchwinners. Guys like Afridi, Kaneria, Asif, Yousuf might not be the most consistent of players but when they get it right, they can steamroll anyone.

[williamjm]

The only two guys who haven't scored so far yet are Sarwan and Chanderpaul, who would've been the first two guys you would have picked to do it. So the Windies batting lineup is looking reasonably healthy.

Unfortunately they don't seem to be healthy in a literal sense since both Chanderpaul and Barath are apparently unlikely to be fit to play, Chanderpaul in particular would be a big blow for the Windies.

Oddly, Australia seem to be considering a replacement spinner for the possibly injured Hauritz who has a career first class record of 11 wickets at 75. The Australian selectors do seem to have been making some very odd selections for spinners recently.

[Rimmer]

Great 3rd test, us against Pakistan, the only one I watched much of. The rain robbed us; we were 95% looking like taking it there. I'll just take a quick biased look at the NZ players from this game, the only one I watched properly.

McIntosh was about to be dropped, but with 74 and 23* he opened perfectly as the anchor. Should stay in the test team for a while now; they were good bowlers.

BJ in his first test got 18 off 69 in the first innings to see off the new ball on the first day, to set it up for the batsmen who scored, then 60* off 62 balls in the second when we were playing for the win. He's played in the T20 team a couple of times and it shows. Great test from him.

Guptill was disappointing with the bat but surprisingly got the openers (Butt and Fart) out when Vettori put him on before himself on Day 4. Amazing captaincy; I don't think Pakistan were prepared for off-spin when Patel was left out. :)

Taylor had a bad game but a great series, probably our most talented batsman

Flynn was disappointing. People are piling on runs in the domestic games, I think there were two or three double hundreds in the last couple of days, so we have options.

Vettori almost won the game single-handedly with the bat. I think he should bat higher, as the other batsmen play sensibly around him, and get a cool glare when they play a stupid shot. He's the top ODI bowler because he can tie up one end for no runs whenever he wants to. In tests he doesn't really get wickets, but he frustrates the batsmen enough to get themselves out to the other bowler. Brilliant captaincy too, showed a lot more spark than Yousuf.

McCullum kept nicely, taking 9 catches in the game, and batted very well too. In the ODIs, I think Ryder should now open with BJ, and keep him down the order, but I doubt that will happen.

Tuffey surprised everyone with the bat, but that's what should happen to be a good, annoying No. 8 (taking the reins from Vettori). 80* to really turn the game on its head. He also mopped up the tail with the ball in the first innings. He's back in the team after about 5 years and playing in the ICL, but fitting right in.

Southee wiped Butt with a nice ball at the start, and picked up a few other wickets. In our first innings he rightly used up our last challenge, as he's a very big hitter. He's our youngster with potential, and I think he showed it.

O'Brien just played his last test, off to shag the missus and play at Lords next year, and ripped apart the top order in the first innings to set the game up for us. Some original fielding from him too (missed with his hand on the boundary and popped his leg out). A real character; his blog's always worth reading. I'll miss him in the team, but he wants to go and start his family, so good on him. If I had an English wife and could play for Middlesex I would be taking off overseas as well.

Martin bowled well with little reward. He's probably our best test quickie with Bond always injured. His batting is always hilarious to watch, and gets the crowd going, I wouldn't change him. Our openers did well for once, but I've always thought that we should just send Martin out in a suit of armour to open and see what happens. If he takes the shine off for 3 overs then he's helped the team cause.

So a good team effort from a bunch of pretty untalented individuals, against a bad team effort against a group of talented and undisciplined individuals. Pakistan's fielding was rubbish, Farhat's hundred was streaky, and Yousuf's captaining pretty insipid. Their fielding was terrible too. A shame it didn't rain!

Now Pakistan play Australia (after using us as a 'stepping stone'), and we play Bangladesh, who are able to surprise teams these days. I'm getting into my cricket again now after being in Canada for six months, and enjoying it a lot.

BTW, I think we should drop ODIs (too long) and T20s (too short) and just play tests and 30-thirtys. No bowling restrictions either; I want to see Vettori bowl the whole game and line up our team with big-hitting batsmen. If only I was in charge.

[DJDonegal]

Steyn out, South Africa in, pitch looks green.

Let's do this.

[ljkeane]

Steyn out, South Africa in, pitch looks green.

Let's do this.

Looks like putting South Africa in to bat wasn't a good idea, if we hadn't got three bonus wickets it would look even worse.

[DJDonegal]

And it;s looking really bad now. South Africa hit 418 all out and England are 216-6 in reply.

ETA: Er... 221-7.

[ljkeane]

And it;s looking really bad now. South Africa hit 418 all out and England are 216-6 in reply.

ETA: Er... 221-7.

300 for 8 now mainly thanks to Swann, if England can get the lead down to under 100 they might be able to scrape a draw. Having said that the nature of Strauss' dismissal perhaps doesn't bode well for batting last.

[Hereward]

Graham Swann is a cricketing god. I think I may love him.

Edit: I wondered if I'd jinxed him even as I posted. Of course, I bloody jinxed him. Will I never learn?

[DJDonegal]

After all the hard work I'd put in earlier... Thanks Hereward!

[Jeor]

Well, looks like Australia will win this Test but it was a major struggle. I feel sorry that the Windies didn't get something out of the series, they deserved more than a draw and two losses. Kemar Roach really messed up Ponting this Test with his quick bowling. I think Ponting is getting a little old and the genuinely fast quicks who bowl at the ribcage can now take him on - Sharma did it two years ago and Roach did it this year.

Great work by the Windies to bowl Australia out for 150 and keep themselves in the match, but they let themselves down with the batting effort in the run chase. 360 was always going to be tough. They'll get pretty close but they still needed more runs from the top order, particularly Gayle and Sarwan given that Chanderpaul was out with injury.

And on a completely different note, I now hate Shane Watson for personality reasons as well as injury reasons. The guy made a complete fool of himself giving Gayle a massive sendoff. I'm rather glad he's missed out on his Test centuries and hope he never scores one. ;) As Tony Greig put it, the best sledge to put Watson in his place is, "At least I have a Test century".

Add to this the fact I don't like Bollinger because of his hissy fits when decisions don't go his own way, plus Johnson and Haddin for their part in the fracas yesterday (and Haddin for cheating by breaking the stumps and pretending it was a bowled in an ODI vs NZ), plus Ponting for his holier-than-thou 'we've done nothing wrong' attitude in the Sydney Test vs India, and Michael Clarke for his all-round pretentious gooberness....unfortunately I don't like much of our current Australian team at all. ;)

[sh_wulff]

And on a completely different note, I now hate Shane Watson for personality reasons as well as injury reasons. The guy made a complete fool of himself giving Gayle a massive sendoff. I'm rather glad he's missed out on his Test centuries and hope he never scores one. ;) As Tony Greig put it, the best sledge to put Watson in his place is, "At least I have a Test century".

Add to this the fact I don't like Bollinger because of his hissy fits when decisions don't go his own way, plus Johnson and Haddin for their part in the fracas yesterday (and Haddin for cheating by breaking the stumps and pretending it was a bowled in an ODI vs NZ), plus Ponting for his holier-than-thou 'we've done nothing wrong' attitude in the Sydney Test vs India, and Michael Clarke for his all-round pretentious gooberness....unfortunately I don't like much of our current Australian team at all. ;)

Can't help but to concur, with the addition of not liking the Assie team much since Waugh was captain. Bring back Tubby I say! ;)

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Utter BS finish. Australia appealed on what was essentially a play and miss, Bowden gives it out due to being an awful umpire, and Roach immediately asks for the review. The review shows no evidence of the ball hitting the bat, no hotspot, no visuals, nothing. Yet somehow the decision stands, and Australia win.

Again, BS. Review system is useless.

[Rimmer]

I think that the replays have to show that the umpire is wrong for the decision to be reversed. I saw the snicko on the news later and it showed a nick; no idea why they didn't show it live. I saw Ponting talk to the batsman afterwards and they all seemed chummy enough, though I certainly don't blame the guy for using his challenge. Seriously though, what other game in the world would have an hour's buildup for 15 minutes of sport, with one team 14/1 odds to win, followed by a massive presentation ceremony? Who turns up to watch these days of test cricket? It's such a bizarre sport really.

Also, does anyone have anything against the Duckworth-Lewis system? If not, why don't they use something similar in tests, instead of having draws? We could've done with a rule like that after cruising against Pakistan at the end of the 1-1-1 series (one win to the rain). I think it would add to the tactical element if you're chasing a potential target.

While I'm ranting about the rules of cricket, I think one-dayers (and T20s) would be much better without over limits on the bowlers. Let Vettori bowl all innings if he wants to and see what the other team does about it; that'd be quite fascinating, and you could stack the team with more batsmen if you go for that strategy.

In my opinion, judged on recent performances, the best captains in the world at the moment are Vettori and Gayle, followed by Strauss, Smith and Dhoni. (with the Pakistani politics bringing up the rear). Haven't seen much of Sangakarra, and Ponting seems to mostly rely on the talent at his disposal, while other teams are finally catching up.

Vettori and Gayle really carry and influence their average teams in their own personal style. I bet Gayle was teaching the numbers 10 and 11 to hit balls out of the park all morning, as that was their best chance of a win. Not many teams have a sniff after the opposition scores 520 in the first innings, but he managed it somehow, with the most inexperienced test team in world cricket, after all the strikes over the last few months. Vettori has developed his batting style to be almost world class now, and has become our best test batsman over the last few years. He just had his best test series while being stand-in coach, and I don't think Tuffey or McCullum would be batting as sensibly without him at the crease. Both guys are funny and honest in press conferences, especially Gayle, and both have used their 'challenges' intelligently in the context of the games I've watched.

I was impressed with what I saw of Bollinger this morning, looks like a talent to me. Johnson is so hit and miss it seems.

[Jeor]

I'm not sure D/L in Tests would be a good idea. While it works for one-dayers because the pitch is relatively the same for both sides throughout the match, fifth day Test pitches vary in quality a lot. The Caribbean might produce a minefield whereas the Adelaide Oval would still be a road. It's impossible to quantify pitch deterioration accurately to build it into the D/L system so I don't think it would be fair in Tests. It might also put undue emphasis on winning the toss. Besides, I don't think Test match draws really are too much of a problem - some draws can be quite exciting, and there are really only a few games (mostly in Sri Lanka and other subcontinent pitches) that throw up boring batting fests where a draw is odds on favourite from Day 2.

As for ODI and T20 limits on the bowlers, I think they should stay in place. T20s in particular means you could pick just two bowlers and an all-rounder and stack the side with batsmen. With the amount of money Twenty20 is throwing out, everyone will want to be a batsman instead of a bowler, and the international game might suffer in the future with a dearth of quality bowlers, if there are only very limited spots for bowlers in ODI and Twenty20 teams.

I also think bowling limits just adds a bit more to the strategy (when to use your best bowler, batsmen trying to play out the last couple of overs of his spell), and it rewards quality teams. If there were no bowling limits, anyone with two decent bowlers could become the best nation in the world, which to me seems a bit like cheating ;). From an equity point of view this might be okay, but it swings the emphasis to batsmen/all-rounders too much.

Sorry Rimmer...didn't mean to dump on all your ideas. ;) I'm probably just too much of a traditional conservative to think outside the box.

I do agree that Gayle's stock has risen tremendously over the last two Tests. He was slammed by the press in Brisbane for not scoring and for going down to a heavy defeat but he really has led from the front and given Australia a massive scare.

As for other captains, I think Strauss is actually pretty good. Most of England's tactical problems appear to be with their negative and sometimes slovenly batting. A captain can't do too much about that. But when in the field, England are usually quite tactically sound.

Bollinger did look quite dangerous in this Test. Much more so than Johnson. I think in the next year or two Johnson may be found out. His average is slowly creeping up, and he isn't getting any better - he still bowls plenty of rubbish, and lots of his wickets come from bad balls. The commentators were saying in the last Test that they've never seen someone get so many wickets off a wide half volley, and I think they're right. He produces a magic LBW ball every once in a while but the rest is full of rubbish that he happens to every now and then manage a wicket off. Johnson lacks a stock ball and has no consistency. He's still a valuable part of the team with his batting and his genuine pace and unpredictability, but I don't see him being in the line of great Australian pace bowlers.

[ljkeane]

In my opinion, judged on recent performances, the best captains in the world at the moment are Vettori and Gayle, followed by Strauss, Smith and Dhoni. (with the Pakistani politics bringing up the rear). Haven't seen much of Sangakarra, and Ponting seems to mostly rely on the talent at his disposal, while other teams are finally catching up.

I haven't seen a lot of Vettori but I'd definitely disagree about Gayle, he's done reasonably well recently but far to often he looks completely disinterested.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

I think that the replays have to show that the umpire is wrong for the decision to be reversed. I saw the snicko on the news later and it showed a nick; no idea why they didn't show it live. I saw Ponting talk to the batsman afterwards and they all seemed chummy enough, though I certainly don't blame the guy for using his challenge. Seriously though, what other game in the world would have an hour's buildup for 15 minutes of sport, with one team 14/1 odds to win, followed by a massive presentation ceremony? Who turns up to watch these days of test cricket? It's such a bizarre sport really.

Also, does anyone have anything against the Duckworth-Lewis system? If not, why don't they use something similar in tests, instead of having draws? We could've done with a rule like that after cruising against Pakistan at the end of the 1-1-1 series (one win to the rain). I think it would add to the tactical element if you're chasing a potential target.

While I'm ranting about the rules of cricket, I think one-dayers (and T20s) would be much better without over limits on the bowlers. Let Vettori bowl all innings if he wants to and see what the other team does about it; that'd be quite fascinating, and you could stack the team with more batsmen if you go for that strategy.

In my opinion, judged on recent performances, the best captains in the world at the moment are Vettori and Gayle, followed by Strauss, Smith and Dhoni. (with the Pakistani politics bringing up the rear). Haven't seen much of Sangakarra, and Ponting seems to mostly rely on the talent at his disposal, while other teams are finally catching up.

Vettori and Gayle really carry and influence their average teams in their own personal style. I bet Gayle was teaching the numbers 10 and 11 to hit balls out of the park all morning, as that was their best chance of a win. Not many teams have a sniff after the opposition scores 520 in the first innings, but he managed it somehow, with the most inexperienced test team in world cricket, after all the strikes over the last few months. Vettori has developed his batting style to be almost world class now, and has become our best test batsman over the last few years. He just had his best test series while being stand-in coach, and I don't think Tuffey or McCullum would be batting as sensibly without him at the crease. Both guys are funny and honest in press conferences, especially Gayle, and both have used their 'challenges' intelligently in the context of the games I've watched.

I was impressed with what I saw of Bollinger this morning, looks like a talent to me. Johnson is so hit and miss it seems.

I disagree with using D/L in tests. As we've just seen (england just holding on against SA) draws are actually a big part of test cricket, and I've seen dozens of incredibly close finishes with teams hanging on which would've been all over with D/L. It would dilute the purity of test cricket for me.

[williamjm]

Also, does anyone have anything against the Duckworth-Lewis system? If not, why don't they use something similar in tests, instead of having draws? We could've done with a rule like that after cruising against Pakistan at the end of the 1-1-1 series (one win to the rain). I think it would add to the tactical element if you're chasing a potential target.

I think that's a bad idea, it would fundamentally change the nature of the game since Test cricket has never been about having to achieve a certain run rate. I'm also not clear how it would work fairly with the varying conditions throughout a Test meaning that teams would not have the same conditions, obviously that can happen in one-day matches as well but not to the same extent. Also, how would you calculate the winner if, for example, the two teams scored at the same approximate run-rate in their first innings, one team gets through half their second innings at a higher run-rate and there isn't enough time for the second team to bat their second innings? Either you'd have to completely ignore the second innings that was completed or you wouldn't give the second team a chance to respond. It would just be too complicated to make it work fairly.

[Rimmer]

As for ODI and T20 limits on the bowlers, I think they should stay in place. T20s in particular means you could pick just two bowlers and an all-rounder and stack the side with batsmen. With the amount of money Twenty20 is throwing out, everyone will want to be a batsman instead of a bowler, and the international game might suffer in the future with a dearth of quality bowlers, if there are only very limited spots for bowlers in ODI and Twenty20 teams.

I think that bowlers are already not a big enough part of T20, and that having only two or three good ones would make them more important. Kyle Mills, consistently in the top one or two bowlers for ODIs, couldn't get a game in the IPL. Look at how many high-paid batsmen there are already, then look at the bowlers. I think less bowlers would make them more valuable.

Stacking a side with batsmen would mean that a good T20 batsman becomes less valuable; only the best would be worth buying in the IPL for example. Different teams would choose different combinations of batsmen and bowlers based on their strengths and weaknesses (any team with a great spinner would be stacked with batsmen, therefore making their spinner worth the money). To me, this would add a new element to the whole buying and selling process in the IPL. Why are Tendulkar/Flintoff/McCullum/Dhoni etc worth more money than Murali/Bond/Vettori/McGrath? Because bowlers aren't valuable enough to a team effort.

I've always been more interested in the overall strategy of a cricket game rather than the ball going on to the bat. If I were in charge, we'd have microphones on the players, so we can hear what the batsmen were saying to each other every ball. They've done it in a few novelty T20s and I loved it; I remember Gilchrist really getting into it and commentating, I remember Ponting joking about taking an easy wicket by mistake; I remember hearing what Fleming said to his bowler at the start of an over. Let's face it, professional sport is now all about TV entertainment.

As for DL in tests, it would have to be a hideously complicated equation, far different to the ODI DL, and take all sorts of things into account. Personally, I felt hollow after the NZ-Pak series, because the rain lost it for us.

I'm young, and I realise that I'm wanting to overturn the sacred traditions, but in reality: most people get bored watching tests, we're getting sick of one-dayers and the World Cups are terrible (look at the next one's schedule), and T20s are too short and predictable. It's my favourite sport to watch, but I'd enjoy it more if they made changes. Challenges add a new strategy to cricket, I've seen Vettori and Gayle use them as they should and I've seen teams waste them stupidly, and I like that.

[Rimmer]

Bollinger did look quite dangerous in this Test. Much more so than Johnson. I think in the next year or two Johnson may be found out. His average is slowly creeping up, and he isn't getting any better - he still bowls plenty of rubbish, and lots of his wickets come from bad balls. The commentators were saying in the last Test that they've never seen someone get so many wickets off a wide half volley, and I think they're right. He produces a magic LBW ball every once in a while but the rest is full of rubbish that he happens to every now and then manage a wicket off. Johnson lacks a stock ball and has no consistency. He's still a valuable part of the team with his batting and his genuine pace and unpredictability, but I don't see him being in the line of great Australian pace bowlers.

I don't think you should ever go by stats. Chris Martin helped us in our last game by bowling consistently and building pressure, not taking wickets. Vettori bowls all day for no runs, and the batsmen then played stupid shots to the 'part-timer' Guptill. Unless you have Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist and Ponting in your team, then you need a unified team effort to win a game - hence why Pakistan played so badly, with no captain and terrible team politics. If they had Wasim and Waqar, or Imran Kahn, it would be a different story of course. Where the hell is Afridi in the tests anyway? Why did Younis Kahn sit out? These are the problems, there's nothing wrong with the individual talent.

[Jeor]

What a goober, Shane Watson has tried to justify his antics by saying Gayle wound him up beforehand. Can't believe he's still trying to defend himself. Gayle had a classic reply in the newspapers where he said Watson was just 'soft'. I hope Gayle tonks the crap out of Watson in any future encounters, and I hope Watson never ever gets that Test century (I may possibly relent if it is needed to win the deciding game of an Ashes series).

Looking forward to the unpredictable Pakistan. I hope they get a good game in first, as opposed to the Windies who had a dog of a game at the Gabba. I may possibly even be rooting for Pakistan this summer. Traitorous as I am, I simply just hate four of the Aussie cricket team (Watson, Haddin, Clarke, Bollinger), plus the occasional dislike of two more (Ponting, Johnson). It's hard to root for your national team when it's a team full of those guys. Out of the current crop I only truly like Katich, Hilfenhaus and maybe Hauritz. Maybe I'm just getting more cynical as I get older...I remember liking almost all of the players in past Australian teams (Taylor, both Waughs, Warne, Gilchrist, Lehmann, Gillespie to name just a few that I really liked, and the rest were generally ok too).