Cricket VIII

[Stubby]

......

Ditto.

And henceforth, Shane Watson shall be known to this poster as "the Goober".

[Sir Thursday]

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.

There are several big problems with this proposal, as I see it:

1) If you reduce the number of bowlers in the lineup, you significantly reduce the amount of game time bowlers are going to get. That means fewer bowlers around, which in turn means the pool of prospects to choose from will be vastly reduced in the long term. Think about what happened with the Australian team when their bowling attack was so strong for all their years - they didn't have the places available to blood new up-and-comers. If you do this in ODIs, it will have a similar effect on bowlers as a whole, as the top bowlers will occupy the reduced number of spots available for long periods of time, leaving nothing for the young guns.

2) Packing the side with batsmen doesn't devalue batsmen, since teams will need more of them. What it means is that in a competition like the IPL, you will find batsmen of a lower quality sneaking into the tournament.

3) There is no way this will increase/improve the strategy involved. When picking the team, you used to have to decide how many bowlers you need, or whether it's better to use all-rounders who might not necessarily bowl quite as well but can provide something with the bat if needed. With this change, that will all have disappeared - you need maybe three bowlers and a backup all-rounder, that's it. When the game is actually in progrees, the fielding captain used to need to manage and rotate his bowlers. He had to plan ahead, save his best bowlers for the right moments, match up his bowlers strengths against the batsman at the crease's weaknesses, and so forth. What is there to replace that in the version you're proposing? The batsmen don't have to come up with plans to play as many bowlers as they used to, either. I just don't see any advantages to this from a strategic point of view.

Sir Thursday

[Jeor]

Ahahahahahahah!! :D

Cruel I know. But The Goober, Watson, has been run out for 93 in a hideous mix up where my man Katich just makes it to his end before Watson and survives, and hopefully Katich will make a century just to subliminally rub it in even more. I'm sorry bit I really don't like Watson (in case you didn't notice).

EDITED: Well, Katich didn't make it either. I suppose he was a little bit at fault for the Watson runout so it was probably justice served in the end. Nevertheless Australia have a really imposing total and should push to around 500.

Just looking at this Pakistani team...one has to wonder where some of the more high profile players are. Younis Khan would add much needed stability to the batting, Shahid Afridi would add power hitting as Sehwag Lite as well as a useful backup spinning option (the lack of a fifth bowler was exposed today), Umar Gul was mysteriously absent as an experienced paceman and Danish Kaneria, the senior spinner in the side, is also not there.

If you stacked the Pakistani side with those guys, you would have a top-class attack of Asif, Aamer, Gul, Kaneria and Afridi as fifth bowler, and you'd have a much more robust batting lineup containing Khan, Yousuf, Afridi, plus the two Akmals and Misbah who seem to be reasonably decent. The only real weakness in the side would be the openers (plus the fielding). If the Windies could play that well, that full strength Pakistan side would have all the talent and class to really challenge Australia and pull off a win or two. As it is they're understrength, but still have an outside chance if it all clicks. I think their batting is a bit thin, though.

[Sir Thursday]

I think you're overrating Afridi a bit there. He hasn't played a test match since 2006, for one thing. Plus, looking at his ODI record I see that he averages less than 20 in 2009 (though I suppose that's in part because he has been coming in down the order a bit). Once, he was universally feared, but I think that time has gone.

Sir Thursday

[IheartTesla]

Interesting declaration by Punter there. Normally the conventional wisdom is to go up to at least 500. I'm not sure he has that much confidence in his bowling attack either, so it must be something to do with time left in the match and hoping the 5th day pitch has some devils in it.

[ljkeane]

Interesting declaration by Punter there.

I think it's a reflection of the fact that he doesn't consider this Pakistan team too much of a threat and that does seem reasonably justified.

England will be a bit disappointed with allowing South Africa to get over 300 in their first innings in Durban, with all the time that's being lost to bad light they'll need to score quickly if they want to get a result.

Actually with all the talk of England not having enough bowlers it looks like South Africa might be the ones who could have a problem in this test with Ntini struggling and Kallis really isn't up to doing much bowling anymore.

[Jeor]

Actually with all the talk of England not having enough bowlers it looks like South Africa might be the ones who could have a problem in this test with Ntini struggling and Kallis really isn't up to doing much bowling anymore.

It would've been hard to do but it seems clear onw that picking De Wet over Ntini for this Test would have been the best thing to do, De Wet was hard done by to be left out after his bowling performance in the First Test. Steyn doesn't look quite in top notch condition yet and as you say with Kallis not bowling much that really puts the pressure on the other two pacemen. By most accounts Morkel seems to be bowling well but Ntini is still looking flat. It'll be hard for them to make the move but it's possible Ntini might make way for De Wet in the next Test.

Regarding Australia-Pakistan, I don't think Ponting's declaration was too early. The Pakistani batting lineup is known for being weak and after scoring 450, even if the Pakistanis managed to match that I don't think he would have been in any serious danger of losing as the pitch seems rather benign. As it is, Australia still managed a big first innings lead and although there was a slight scare, Aussies look well on top.

I really like the look of Umar Akmal. Looks like a complete batsman with an orthodox and compact technique. He showed he could drive and also play the short ball. Misbah's half century was calm and measured, and Yousuf looked good for the short time he was in there - although that seems to always be the case with Yousuf. I don't think Pakistan have to worry about numbers 4 to 7 (completed by Kamran Akmal, one of the better batting keepers going around). Unfortunately everything else is still a question mark. Aamer's vigilant stand aside, the tail looks quite weak, and the top order didn't really assert themselves, although the Aussie bowling was admittedly quite tight. They're definitely missing Younis Khan's solidity and controlled aggression. And it looks like the days of the Pakistani tail being a source of surprise runs are long gone. Wasim Akram's slogging from No. 8 plus all manner of all-rounders messing up the batting order (Razzaq, Mahmood) usually meant that Pakistan batted quite deep and could occasionally squeeze out quite a bit extra from the last three or four wickets.

I guess Sir Thursday's right, I am overrating Afridi a bit, his performances against England in the Test series were indeed quite a few years ago...but he did have pretty good Test career numbers (averages 37.40 with a strike rate of 86 with the bat, and a touch under 35 with the ball) and he's still amazingly young (only 29! and the guy has been around for ages). Another guy I'd forgotten was Shoaib Malik, who I think I spotted in the Pakistani dressing room. He's a decent batsman who could also provide some overs of offspin (I think his action was cleared up, wasn't it?). But I guess as a former captain there might also be issues other than his form that cloud his inclusion in the final team.

Shane Watson, hard though I am on him, has turned in an amazingly consistent run of scores as an opener and deserves some kudos. I don't think anyone really thought he would succeed as anything more than a makeshift opener for a couple of Tests (certainly I didn't). But apart from being the only guy who seemed to consistently swing the ball when Australia fielded, he's more than holding his place as a frontline batsman. One wonders if the Australian selectors will still force him down the order (as commentators always seem to be talking about) if he continues in this run of form.

[delete this account pls]

Goober finally got a century. Does it make me a bad sport that I was hoping he'd fall short again, if only for the lulz?

[Daeric]

Nah, everyone must have someone in sports that they want to fail so they can laugh at.

In other worlds SA seem to be collapsing hard.

[Stubby]

Goober finally got a century. Does it make me a bad sport that I was hoping he'd fall short again, if only for the lulz?

Nope - I was thinking the same thing.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Am I the only one blown away by Aamer? Most exciting genuine fast bowler I've seen for years. And he's 17.

[Sir Thursday]

Looks like the Pakistan selectors are thinking the same as you, Jeor. They're going to try and get Younis playing again: http://www.cricinfo.com/ausvpak09/content/current/story/441538.html

[Jeor]

It may seem odd to favour Khan given that he hasn't played much cricket lately, but apart from Yousuf no one in the batting lineup has played more than 30 Tests (and only Kamran Akmal in the entire team has played any more than that). Yousuf makes for a rather forlorn figure in the batting lineup as the only credentialled Test batsman - everyone else is a journeyman first-class veteran or an inexperienced young 'un. Khan's experience should at least stiffen things up a bit in terms of aggression if he plays - the top 3 looked quite indecisive and timid during most of their innings.

The problem is who to drop if Khan gets back into the team. Both Butt and Faisal Iqbal managed scores in the 40s, so Farhat looks like the fall guy. However I don't know if that's a legitimate move to lose an opener when you're putting in a No.3 (maybe Iqbal could open?).

On the Australian team side, Watson will have gained much confidence from this match and I expect he'll continue in his current rich vein of form. It's always worrying if you're in good form but can't cash in with a century but (unfortunately!) that wasn't the case. Abdur Rauf (guy who dropped him on 99), you've now inflicted more of Shane Watson upon the world. ;) He also genuinely swung the ball, more than the other bowlers, and that was a surprise. It does help him become more of an all-rounder again though.

On other matches, it's interesting to see South Africa managing to collapse in a style that would have made 1990s England teams proud. I'm installing cable so will get to see all of the next Test soon, woo! Also interesting to note that England's two most maligned batsmen, Cook and Bell, made centuries. Broad is now taking the step up of developing into a wicket-taker and bringing that bowling average down, while Swann with his key wickets and lower-order batting is becoming one of England's most valuable players. If England continue as they are, by the time the next Ashes rolls around we may be in trouble even at home. In the summer of 2010/11, Ponting, Katich and Hussey will all be over 35 and Watson will have probably returned to his old ways.

[Hereward]

I thoroughly enjoyed the England v South Africa Test, but let's not get carried away. Broad and Swann are turning into top class playes, and Cook may return to that state if his technical changes can be made to bed in, but Bell has still never scored a century until someone else has already scored one. Add to that Pietersen's continued slump and the aging of Collingwood and the batting is still very light.

[ljkeane]

I certainly wasn't expecting England to rip through the South African batting lineup like that, it was very enjoyable. Having said that like Hereward I don't think we should get too carried away, this team still has some issues.

I wouldn't describe the batting as very light, when they perform well it's pretty good and the two major problems Cook and Bell do have 19 test centuries between them which isn't bad, but it is still pretty inconsistent and getting a good performance from that lineup is far from guaranteed.

[IheartTesla]

Did I read correctly that Swann has better bowling and batting figures than Swann? Along with 100% less pedalo related incidents I might add. England just found their latest all rounder I guess.

I think the Saffers will come back hard next test. Steyn needed some bowling time to shake off the rust, Kallis will probably be healthier and de Wit for Ntini might lend more bite to their bowling attack. Their batting is the real problem though.

[DJDonegal]

I guess you mean Swann has better figures than Flintoff? Only the pedalo comment is giving that to me.

[Maltaran]

Swann is apparently the first English spinner to get 50 Test wickets in a calendar year. This is also the first full year he's been in the squad.

Assuming you meant Flintoff (a safe assumption given the pedalo reference) - I'd be surprised if Swann's batting average was higher than Freddie, but it's a safe bet that he's a better bowler. Although if you are right, then he should probably swap places with Malfoy in the batting order.

[IheartTesla]

Yeah I meant Flintoff. According to cricinfo Swann has a Test avg of 35.61 while Flintoff has 31.77. Of course Flintoff played many more matches (130 innings to Swann's 17) so we'd have to wait a few years to make a decent statistical comparison.

[Maltaran]

Yeah I meant Flintoff. According to cricinfo Swann has a Test avg of 35.61 while Flintoff has 31.77. Of course Flintoff played many more matches (130 innings to Swann's 17) so we'd have to wait a few years to make a decent statistical comparison.

I agree - from a statistical point of view, 17 innings is too small a sample size to make a really meaningful comparison.