FlyingHigh wrote:True all-rounders are a great part of cricket partly because of their rarity, but let's just hope our media don't get back on the "we need an all-rounder" bandwagon. Or worse still, our selectors do the same and try to manufacture something.
The reality is that Australia desparately needs a quality allrounder. They are not getting any runs from their keeper and they need a 5th bowler for some variety. I agree that you don't play an allrounder just for the sake of it .... they have to be good enough.
Lightning McQueen wrote:How good is Ben Stokes? To get over the line in them circumstances is a true test of character and grit.
Given that he batted unconventionally to start with, having 9 off 81 deliveries and the like, it was truly a great knock.
Exactly.
I keep saying it, he's a gun. Just such a dynamic cricketer that I enjoy watching, takes something special to bowl the most overs in an innings and then come out at number 5 and play an innings like that. Didn't bowl that well in the first and second tests but found his rhythm in this match and bowled well without luck.
FlyingHigh wrote:True all-rounders are a great part of cricket partly because of their rarity, but let's just hope our media don't get back on the "we need an all-rounder" bandwagon. Or worse still, our selectors do the same and try to manufacture something.
The reality is that Australia desparately needs a quality allrounder. They are not getting any runs from their keeper and they need a 5th bowler for some variety. I agree that you don't play an allrounder just for the sake of it .... they have to be good enough.
Every team needs a quality allrounder, just like a quality Centre half forward, but you can play around them if you don't.
Been saying for years we need a gambling medium-pacer to bowl those 2-3 over spells, 6-8 an innings depending on how the game is going - Dougie Walters, Mark Waugh, Greg Blewett, Andrew Symonds, even Shane Watson towards the end of his career. Mitchell Marsh's bowling is perfect for the role, shame his batting isn't.
gadj1976 wrote:I went to bed at 4-229 and thought we would lose it because of the way we were bowling. Just utter rubbish. Hardly any deliveries would've hit the stumps in the first session. 5 wides by Patto? Don't really know what he was doing but he looked ready for a spell.
I was surprised to get so close in the end. The comical part of it was that I hear we bowled bouncers to the tail again? What is that tactic? Can no one bowl a good yorker any more? Then to hear that we stuffed up a DRS and the umpires stuffed up a simple LBW chance just goes to show that the game is run in farcical fashion.
Yes I agree ... the bowling immediately after Roots dismissal was the period that really let the Poms in the game. I had to force myself to not leave at lunch cos I also was convinced we wld lose at that stage.
And lose we did. But I have to admit I am glad I saw it...
FlyingHigh wrote:True all-rounders are a great part of cricket partly because of their rarity, but let's just hope our media don't get back on the "we need an all-rounder" bandwagon. Or worse still, our selectors do the same and try to manufacture something.
The reality is that Australia desparately needs a quality allrounder. They are not getting any runs from their keeper and they need a 5th bowler for some variety. I agree that you don't play an allrounder just for the sake of it .... they have to be good enough.
Every team needs a quality allrounder, just like a quality Centre half forward, but you can play around them if you don't.
Been saying for years we need a gambling medium-pacer to bowl those 2-3 over spells, 6-8 an innings depending on how the game is going - Dougie Walters, Mark Waugh, Greg Blewett, Andrew Symonds, even Shane Watson towards the end of his career. Mitchell Marsh's bowling is perfect for the role, shame his batting isn't.
I'm not so sure on that, we have no genuine bunnies and bat down to 11, Cummins (22), Pattinson (27) and Starc (28) are just below all-rounder status IMO, if we had a keeper with better batting capabilities we could squeeze in another bowler.
But none of those are good enough to bat in the top 6 - we have better tail-enders than other teams. Fair enough if we had a keeper as a true all-rounder, ie Gilchrist or Alec Stewart, and maybe Marsh at 7 would work well. Carey is not up to batting in the top six, he will be a good number seven like Healy and Haddin. But you see what sort of trouble England get into by trying to play bit-players in different positions. They are just lucky at the moment they have a genuine allrounder.
Hopefully this begins the discussion around the review system. Either review every decision or review none. The review system was brought in to stop the howlers. They can check for a front foot no ball on every decision if they want. High pressure and tension can affect different people differently. It affects some people in a positive way but for most it's the opposite. Paine reviewing the LBW was a case in point, Nathan Lyon spending the ball before he had it and missing the run out and Joel failing to give a plumb LBW which would have seen the Test over are all examples of pressure causing them to fail. Enter Ben Stokes and Jack Leach to show how to deal with pressure. Hats off to the Poms. Don't think the 4th Test could get anymore intriguing, bring on some sleep tonight
Magellan wrote:No fireworks, rock music, and razzle-dazzle bullshit required, just 100% pure cricket (I’m looking at you, T20 cricket).
But you know what, I think it was Stokes T20 experience that got them over the line, he knew when to go and had the ability to hit the shots needed, he wasn't going to be able to hit 4's with 8 on the boundary so he had to go upstairs. In many ways T20 has enhanced test cricket.
cokadonkeytoo wrote:Hopefully this begins the discussion around the review system. Either review every decision or review none. The review system was brought in to stop the howlers. They can check for a front foot no ball on every decision if they want. High pressure and tension can affect different people differently. It affects some people in a positive way but for most it's the opposite. Paine reviewing the LBW was a case in point, Nathan Lyon spending the ball before he had it and missing the run out and Joel failing to give a plumb LBW which would have seen the Test over are all examples of pressure causing them to fail. Enter Ben Stokes and Jack Leach to show how to deal with pressure. Hats off to the Poms. Don't think the 4th Test could get anymore intriguing, bring on some sleep tonight
I'm not bothered with the way the review system works, don't waste your reviews if it isn't out.
Senor Moto Gadili wrote:Carey was playing T20 in England, so I assume he is still there. Should simply be a case of calling him up, but they will not drop Tim Paine. Only chance for a change is injury.
cokadonkeytoo wrote:Hopefully this begins the discussion around the review system. Either review every decision or review none. The review system was brought in to stop the howlers. They can check for a front foot no ball on every decision if they want. High pressure and tension can affect different people differently. It affects some people in a positive way but for most it's the opposite. Paine reviewing the LBW was a case in point, Nathan Lyon spending the ball before he had it and missing the run out and Joel failing to give a plumb LBW which would have seen the Test over are all examples of pressure causing them to fail. Enter Ben Stokes and Jack Leach to show how to deal with pressure. Hats off to the Poms. Don't think the 4th Test could get anymore intriguing, bring on some sleep tonight
I'm not bothered with the way the review system works, don't waste your reviews if it isn't out.
Agree, if we didn't fk it up, everyone in the cricket world would be saying how good the review system is working how it's meant to.
Mind you, I was a bit skeptical of the line as it hit is front pad. Similarly with Paine's in the first innings, whose I thought was missing or at worst would have got benefit of the Umpire's call.
