SA Footy

Armchair expert wrote:He does alright over there if not him Worrall then.

Siddle
5 games 16 wickets @24.12

Worrall
7 games 31 wickets @23.64


I would change it up more than Hazlewood did, top of off all day so predictable

Would Worrall still be eligible to play for Australia since he's taken advantage of his British passport, wants to identify as an Englishman and exercised his option as a British passport holder to play for Surrey?

Armchair expert wrote:He does alright over there if not him Worrall then.

Siddle
5 games 16 wickets @24.12

Worrall
7 games 31 wickets @23.64


I would change it up more than Hazlewood did, top of off all day so predictable

Siddle is almost 40. And is finished.

The Dark Knight wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:He does alright over there if not him Worrall then.

Siddle
5 games 16 wickets @24.12

Worrall
7 games 31 wickets @23.64


I would change it up more than Hazlewood did, top of off all day so predictable

Would Worrall still be eligible to play for Australia since he's taken advantage of his British passport, wants to identify as an Englishman and exercised his option as a British passport holder to play for Surrey?

I'm not totally sure, he had to play for X amount of years to quality for England so until then I think he could still play for Aus, won't happen though unfortunately.

Armchair expert wrote:

The Dark Knight wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:He does alright over there if not him Worrall then.

Siddle
5 games 16 wickets @24.12

Worrall
7 games 31 wickets @23.64


I would change it up more than Hazlewood did, top of off all day so predictable

Would Worrall still be eligible to play for Australia since he's taken advantage of his British passport, wants to identify as an Englishman and exercised his option as a British passport holder to play for Surrey?

I'm not totally sure, he had to play for X amount of years to quality for England so until then I think he could still play for Aus, won't happen though unfortunately.

ECB and ICC eligibility to play for England is three years of residence and not played as a local player in professional international or domestic cricket in a full member country within the last three years.

The Dark Knight wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:

The Dark Knight wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:He does alright over there if not him Worrall then.

Siddle
5 games 16 wickets @24.12

Worrall
7 games 31 wickets @23.64


I would change it up more than Hazlewood did, top of off all day so predictable

Would Worrall still be eligible to play for Australia since he's taken advantage of his British passport, wants to identify as an Englishman and exercised his option as a British passport holder to play for Surrey?

I'm not totally sure, he had to play for X amount of years to quality for England so until then I think he could still play for Aus, won't happen though unfortunately.

ECB and ICC eligibility to play for England is three years of residence and not played as a local player in professional international or domestic cricket in a full member country within the last three years.

Worrall would need to quit Surrey if Australia select him.

Given he's left Australia to play professionally they must be paying him accordingly.

UK players traditionally get a fixed wage regardless if they play games or not. Unlike here they get a wage and match payments.

Highly doubt he would quit for a couple of Test Matches and no stable job to go back to.

I think Worrall went to England, hoping to get a game for them..... Think he is, or is close to UK citizenship.

The Dark Knight wrote:ECB and ICC eligibility to play for England is three years of residence and not played as a local player in professional international or domestic cricket in a full member country within the last three years.

Is he a local player in England now? so wouldn't be eligible for Aus anyway?

Corona Man wrote:I think Worrall went to England, hoping to get a game for them..... Think he is, or is close to UK citizenship.

Yes, the journey started for him at the end of last summer and was covered April last year-
https://www.cricket.com.au/news/feature ... 2022-04-09

woodublieve12 wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:He does alright over there if not him Worrall then.

Siddle
5 games 16 wickets @24.12

Worrall
7 games 31 wickets @23.64


I would change it up more than Hazlewood did, top of off all day so predictable

Siddle is almost 40. And is finished.

24 wickets in 8 Shield matches last season at 25.6; economy rate of 2.4 is hardly past it.

But yes we have better options for the test side e.g. Boland. FFS in dropping Boland, the selectors were guilty of doing what they did by dropping Head for India. Horses for courses is one thing, dropping blokes who are clearly in our best XI is another thing altogether.

am Bays wrote:England played better yesterday, got to give credit where credit is due

And If I'm criticising them for sloppyness and not getting the basics right you've got to can our blokes for some of the liens and lengths we bowled and the no balls.

Losing 7-100 on that wicket is poor cricket as well

The door should've been shut on this test after day one but we left it ajar and England walked straight back into it yesterday

All Warner's fault - he only got one crossword answer the entire morning
Carey would have nailed it in an hour

I reckon its got a Page 3 girl and that's what Davey was actually looking at

RB wrote:

woodublieve12 wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:He does alright over there if not him Worrall then.

Siddle
5 games 16 wickets @24.12

Worrall
7 games 31 wickets @23.64


I would change it up more than Hazlewood did, top of off all day so predictable

Siddle is almost 40. And is finished.

24 wickets in 8 Shield matches last season at 25.6; economy rate of 2.4 is hardly past it.

But yes we have better options for the test side e.g. Boland. FFS in dropping Boland, the selectors were guilty of doing what they did by dropping Head for India. Horses for courses is one thing, dropping blokes who are clearly in our best XI is another thing altogether.

yeah fair point.

Davey working his way through the crossword

Over rates,
Crucified Australia in this game through no fault of our own.
Has it become a tactic for teams on the first day, deliberately go slow so you only get a couple overs with the new ball at end of the day when the batting team looks to shut up shop, might grab a late wicket. Still get a new ball next morning when batters have to get set again. We lost Carey and Smith before 90 overs were up, id say had they faced those 7 overs on the first day theyd still be in and we wouldve had 40 more on the board. The mindset changes facing 10 overs of the new ball rather than 3, many times we have seen Australia get away from teams late in the day when faced witha hard new ball.

Is Bazball not exactly the same thing Australian teams in the late 90's and early 2000's did? Only difference is the Poms need to take more risks than our start studded line up did.

Please, never pick Starc again

daysofourlives wrote:Over rates,
Crucified Australia in this game through no fault of our own.
Has it become a tactic for teams on the first day, deliberately go slow so you only get a couple overs with the new ball at end of the day when the batting team looks to shut up shop, might grab a late wicket. Still get a new ball next morning when batters have to get set again. We lost Carey and Smith before 90 overs were up, id say had they faced those 7 overs on the first day theyd still be in and we wouldve had 40 more on the board. The mindset changes facing 10 overs of the new ball rather than 3, many times we have seen Australia get away from teams late in the day when faced witha hard new ball.

Is Bazball not exactly the same thing Australian teams in the late 90's and early 2000's did? Only difference is the Poms need to take more risks than our start studded line up did.

Please, never pick Starc again

Don't think teams would go to that level re over rates - they lose so much of their match fees these days - wasn't it 100% for the Test Final! Surely they all get sick of that, even though they get paid well they all like more money

Eagles2014 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Over rates,
Crucified Australia in this game through no fault of our own.
Has it become a tactic for teams on the first day, deliberately go slow so you only get a couple overs with the new ball at end of the day when the batting team looks to shut up shop, might grab a late wicket. Still get a new ball next morning when batters have to get set again. We lost Carey and Smith before 90 overs were up, id say had they faced those 7 overs on the first day theyd still be in and we wouldve had 40 more on the board. The mindset changes facing 10 overs of the new ball rather than 3, many times we have seen Australia get away from teams late in the day when faced witha hard new ball.

Is Bazball not exactly the same thing Australian teams in the late 90's and early 2000's did? Only difference is the Poms need to take more risks than our start studded line up did.

Please, never pick Starc again

Don't think teams would go to that level re over rates - they lose so much of their match fees these days - wasn't it 100% for the Test Final! Surely they all get sick of that, even though they get paid well they all like more money

Isnt their match payments on top of their central contract, they would be losing bugger all.
Like they might be contracted on $500k per year and then get maybe $10k per test, pocket change, does anyone know?

daysofourlives wrote:

Eagles2014 wrote:

daysofourlives wrote:Over rates,
Crucified Australia in this game through no fault of our own.
Has it become a tactic for teams on the first day, deliberately go slow so you only get a couple overs with the new ball at end of the day when the batting team looks to shut up shop, might grab a late wicket. Still get a new ball next morning when batters have to get set again. We lost Carey and Smith before 90 overs were up, id say had they faced those 7 overs on the first day theyd still be in and we wouldve had 40 more on the board. The mindset changes facing 10 overs of the new ball rather than 3, many times we have seen Australia get away from teams late in the day when faced witha hard new ball.

Is Bazball not exactly the same thing Australian teams in the late 90's and early 2000's did? Only difference is the Poms need to take more risks than our start studded line up did.

Please, never pick Starc again

Don't think teams would go to that level re over rates - they lose so much of their match fees these days - wasn't it 100% for the Test Final! Surely they all get sick of that, even though they get paid well they all like more money

Isnt their match payments on top of their central contract, they would be losing bugger all.
Like they might be contracted on $500k per year and then get maybe $10k per test, pocket change, does anyone know?

You are correct
Don't know if the figures are correct but they get paid a match fee on top of their base contract
https://exploreorb.com/australian-crick ... rs-salary/

daysofourlives wrote:Over rates,
Crucified Australia in this game through no fault of our own.
Has it become a tactic for teams on the first day, deliberately go slow so you only get a couple overs with the new ball at end of the day when the batting team looks to shut up shop, might grab a late wicket. Still get a new ball next morning when batters have to get set again. We lost Carey and Smith before 90 overs were up, id say had they faced those 7 overs on the first day theyd still be in and we wouldve had 40 more on the board. The mindset changes facing 10 overs of the new ball rather than 3, many times we have seen Australia get away from teams late in the day when faced witha hard new ball.

Is Bazball not exactly the same thing Australian teams in the late 90's and early 2000's did? Only difference is the Poms need to take more risks than our start studded line up did.

Please, never pick Starc again

Yep, agree that is a potential tactic. In another situation, if a team bowls 86 on the first day, then get 3 short by mid-arvo on the second when the batting team are all out, taht is 7 overs or half an hour the game and the first batting team are behind. Even if the team bowling second gets through their allotted overs, there is another 7 overs/1/2 hour they could have had at the end opf day two, and that could be the difference between being say 2/130 compared to 4/145.

On the first day of thsi test, there was the pitch invasion, and a rain delay. Did this affect the amount of overs bowled or did they go even further that evening past the extra 1/2 hour?

And the ball should only be inspected at the end of an over if there is a problem, rather than 2-3 minutes wasted changing the ball during an over.

locky801 wrote:Green picks up Root 2nd ball but alas yet another no ball, pathetic 6 no balls in 4 overs

Agree it's PATHETIC

He's a professional cricketer, there's simply NO EXCUSE for this shit.
When getting a wicket that can be match or even series defining it's just inexcusable that a guy earning millions cant keep his F*****G foot behind the line !
He may have incredible talent as an all rounder but if ya gonna continue to play shit shots 3rd ball and bowl no balls ya not worth a cracker

Could be wrong, but the new ball is available at 90 overs, but not mandated that’s when it’s taken?

Surely if over rates are a concern and you want to save your new ball until the next day, you just press on with the old one for 7-10 overs?