SA Footy

Starts Thursday.
Post here for this test.

who is going?

me.

I will be there on the Sunday.Any one else? Sam?

Not going, no tickets.

Has Clarke done enough to stay in? Has Clark done enough to stay in?

I think Clarke (batsman, with an 'e') has done enough to stay in ahead of Watson. Good patient innings, and there is still plenty left in the tank. If they play two spinners though, I wouldn't be surpirsed if he was dropped for the third medium pacer...

I think Clark (bowler, no 'e') will be bloody stiff and miss-out to MacGill. It will turn a mile in Adelaide on the fourth and fifth days...

We could always drop Langer for Jaques... Who was it pushing for that one?

McGill was considered a big chance to play in Adelaide but I reckon they'll have to keep Stuart Clark in the side after his efforts in this test match. I reckon Watson will come in if fit and Clarke will be the one to be left out.

regards,

REB

MightyEagles wrote:Starts Thursday.
Post here for this test.

Starts Friday.

Will be there, taking my backpack REB.

Does it really matter when it starts.

smac wrote:
Will be there, taking my backpack REB.

Bloody Riff Raff!

regards,

REB

Will be there with bells on Fri, Sat and Sun memebers tickets of course where the real beer is served

heater31 wrote:Will be there with bells on Fri, Sat and Sun memebers tickets of course where the real beer is served

yep 5 days on members tickets, will only be in there for drinks and occasional a/c.

Yeah we won the 1st test but we allowed the poms to make a best 5
last dig innings in EG v AU test matches.
The bowling needs reviewing
WE NEED A 5TH BOWLING ALLROUNDER.
We cant rely on two 36+ year olds + 2 others at 30 to carry an attack all series.

Martyn then Clarke out
Watson in if fit then Symonds then Hopes in.

Adelaide oval is not a spinners paradise theses days in fact the quicks
have out performed the spinners in domestic and test games quite often.
Macgill is not required, Symonds can be the off spinner instead.

There may be a consideration to play Gilchrist at 6 and include Macgill
that would be a mistake as well, Gilchrist is batting poorly at test level.
If Haddin was at 6 it would be worth a gamble.
Having said that Gilly is long overdue for test match form.
Right now if Gilly was injured Australia would not be disadvantaged.
In the past to mention Haddin in Gillys class would be laughable, not right now though.

If we did play 2 spinners and dropped a quick bowler it must be Lee and
not Clark, when was the last time Lee dominated vrs the Poms in test cricket ?
It only took Clark 1 test to star against England.

MALS BEST TEAM
--------------------

LANGER
HAYDEN
PONTING
WATSON
HUSSEY
SYMONDS
HADDIN
LEE
CLARK
WARNE
MCGRATH

Reality suggests SYMONDS/HADDIN will miss out for MARTYN/GILCHRIST

Damien Martyn is the most fortunate if selected , his 5 day form is average.

Mal - what is it with your infatuation with Hopes? He is so far from our best XI that it beggers belief!

What we sometimes forget is that the Australian team already has the best allrounder this generation has seen - Mr Gilchrist!

His batting allows us to play another bowler and still have a very solid and long batting line-up. An allrounder must be able to justify their position on either (or both) of their skills. Look at Botham, Hadlee, Sobers and Flintoff. They all would have made their respective test teams with one of their skills. This should be our selection criterea for selecting an all-rounder. I think Watson could get there with his batting (and his bowling would therfore be a bonus), but I think there are others that deserve a spot first. (Jaques, Hodge, Johnson and Tait for starters.)

Will be there on Friday, should be good

Max wrote:Mal - what is it with your infatuation with Hopes? He is so far from our best XI that it beggers belief!

What we sometimes forget is that the Australian team already has the best allrounder this generation has seen - Mr Gilchrist!

His batting allows us to play another bowler and still have a very solid and long batting line-up. An allrounder must be able to justify their position on either (or both) of their skills. Look at Botham, Hadlee, Sobers and Flintoff. They all would have made their respective test teams with one of their skills. This should be our selection criterea for selecting an all-rounder. I think Watson could get there with his batting (and his bowling would therfore be a bonus), but I think there are others that deserve a spot first. (Jaques, Hodge, Johnson and Tait for starters.)

Hopes is just an extension of a 5 bowler theory after Watson + Symmo
Jimmy Hopes is an underated cricketer and what I like about him at state
level is his ability to perform and win games in tight contests.

Gilchrist is the best allrounder agree, but right now
His efforts in 2005/2006 have dropped appreciably as a batsman at TEST level[not o/dayers]

As for Botham/Hadlee/Sobers/Flintoff doing both, dunno

Botham + Flintoff as bowlers YES as batsman DOUBTFUL
Hadlee as a bowler YES as a batsman absolutely NO
Sobers as both YES

My definition of an allrounder would be
A champion at 1 skill and adequate at the other
To find an allrounder who averages 50 with the bat and 25 with the ball
would be nearly an impossibility.[except Sobers]
Every allrounder is invariably superior at one of his trades.

Flintoff is not a test standard batsman, he is adequate at best.
His bowling is sensational for a non new ball bowler.

Rightly or wrongly, my definition of a TRUE all-rounder is someone who would be selected in the team for more than one discipline. In other words, someone like Garfield Sobers would have played as a batsman had he not bowled, and also as a bowler had he not batted. Sobers is the best "cricketer" I've ever seen. Having a player like Sobers was like going into a match with 12 players.

Some people have the hide to tell me players such as Brett Lee is an allrounder. He is a quick bowler and very handy lower order batsman but would never be selected as a batsman only. Therefore, by my definition, he is not an allrounder. Flintoff, Botham, Hadlee, Imran etc are all bowlers with above average batting ability, but doubtful if any of them would have made it as batsmen only.

Also, by my definition, I cannot entertain Gilchrist as an allrounder. Had it not been for his extraordinary batting talents, it's doubtful if he would have ever been chosen to play for Australia.

Then there are so-called "allrounders" who do a bit with the bat and a bit with the ball, but wouldn't be selected as either on their own. The game has seen many such players.

i doubt there are many people that would doubt gilchrist is one of the best allrounders ever, but the fact is he is in some serious trouble with his test batting. i wonder whether his keeping is good enough to keep him in the side. (missed a tough but getable stumping yesterday) and does drop the odd chance. dont watch state cricket that much, would haddin be the best keeper in aus?? i know he can definately hold a bat, maybe its his turn, until of course gilly proves he is a test batter again.

cant see s.clark getting dropped for adelaide just took 4 in 2nd inns, made a few runs, and took 8 in a match at adeaide a couple of weeks ago. im a massive m.clarke fan but feel he will be the unlucky one. and theyll opt for macgill. wouldve been good to see m.clarke bowl afew overs, they had plenty of runs to play with and had he bowled well may have been the answer instead of macgill.

also think that if hayden doesnt make runs this test people will start talking about a Langer- Jacques opening partnership. really impressed with langers batting both digs.

see you all in the chappell bar on fri, sat, sun, mon, and tue if needed. go the aussies!!!!!!

good call Adel hawk.

i think in this day and age with such big and fast runs being scored the need for people that can hold there own in bowling and batting are needed as safety precautuions. i remember when craig mcdermott started making some runs people started calling him an allrounder and he hated it. he thought he was a very good bowler who could score some runs if needed. flintoff would have to be one of the most overrated allrounders going around. not doubting his bowling ability definately very very good but for a captain of his country he sure doesnt bat for his team. ordinary dismissals in both inns when trying to save a game.

Adelaide Hawk wrote:Rightly or wrongly, my definition of a TRUE all-rounder is someone who would be selected in the team for more than one discipline. In other words, someone like Garfield Sobers would have played as a batsman had he not bowled, and also as a bowler had he not batted. Sobers is the best "cricketer" I've ever seen. Having a player like Sobers was like going into a match with 12 players.

Some people have the hide to tell me players such as Brett Lee is an allrounder. He is a quick bowler and very handy lower order batsman but would never be selected as a batsman only. Therefore, by my definition, he is not an allrounder. Flintoff, Botham, Hadlee, Imran etc are all bowlers with above average batting ability, but doubtful if any of them would have made it as batsmen only.

Also, by my definition, I cannot entertain Gilchrist as an allrounder. Had it not been for his extraordinary batting talents, it's doubtful if he would have ever been chosen to play for Australia.

Then there are so-called "allrounders" who do a bit with the bat and a bit with the ball, but wouldn't be selected as either on their own. The game has seen many such players.

After that post I rate you as the 3rd best cricket expert.

You blokes are like Fleet Street. Sack Langer..now it's sack Gilly and then it will be Sack Marto. Nah, bring in Watto if fit for Clarkey and restrict the changes to a minimum. Forget about McGill until Sydney. Pieterson will eat him alive at the Oval.

regards,

REB