Jump to content

Cricket XIX - Australian Hundreds and Other Myths


Recommended Posts

Some more weird selections from Australia for the morrow. Faulkner probably deserves a go, but Watto at 3? I suppose they've tried him everywhere else, and by sticking their most underachieving batsman in their most underachieving batting spot makes a sort of nihilistic sense.

This seems to mean that Australia are going into the next Test with four specialist batsmen, plus Steve Smith and Shane Watson as (alleged) batting all-rounders, and Brad Haddin and James Faulkner as other-discipline all-rounders. Hmm. I suppose that's not a million miles off the preferred England configuration (five batsmen, two bowling all-rounders, a wicketkeeper-batsman, and whatever Jonny Bairstow is supposed to be) but it still looks rather fragile. I suppose it qualifies as "positive" selection: backing the bowlers to out-bowl England against underperforming batsmen, rather than trying to shore up the batting and then lose anyway. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Well it´s not like Khawaja has done anything Faulkner can´t do and replacing Bird with Starc is a clear upgrade on the batting side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah -- can you guys explain that a bit more? (remember: n00b)

The pitch today is basically flat, right? But it (uncharacteristically for this ground) doesn't have a lot of bounce?

I was listening to Holding grumble about the selection of Swann and Anderson because of conditions on the pitch -- shitty because Swann isn't going to be very useful on it, and Anderson will be bowling 6s? Is he claiming that England should have gone with all fast/swing bowlers?

England should have selected Monty P.

I can only but agree. That said, this house is not a neutral party in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...