• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

The Official BL Cricket Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sim0n said:
What do you guys think about India basically tearing up the test match tour schedule? They said they want to play Australia, England and Pakistan all the time, and not bother about the other teams as much (they've basically refused to play Bangladesh). This is (seemingly) good for India - it keeps their profits up because they only play the big names. But not so good for the rest of us. And could possibly lead to boredom through too much of a good thing ("another tour by Australia? Again?) - kinda like the tri-nations in rugby.
Click to expand...

Apart form the profit side of things i also think India would see this as the only way to have a chance of being regarded as the no.1 test playing nation. They currently sit 2nd on the ICC table having played 13 less tests than Austrlalia and 12 less than England. Imho i think India would be better off finding a way to play alternating home and away series every 2 years against the stronger teams and still fill thier obligation to play all the other test nations.

swifty said:
I'm still at a loss as to why the selectors are pesisting with Katich as an ODI batsman, honetly 50 0ff 83 is just ridiculous, and martyn 46 of 70 odd, they just can't bat like that...
Click to expand...

I think it's pretty harsh to judge any batsman on thier strike rate last night on that slow turning Adelaide wicket, especially when you have the worlds best off spinner in the game. :\
 
Pfft, scoring a mere 50 off nearly a third the balls that will be bowled in an ODI is sad, it basically means that he's wasted almost 6 overs, add martyns efforts to that and you've nearly wasted 10 precious overs thus putting pressure on guys like symonds, hussey and clarke to score quickly, put jaques in 94 off 112 is much more like an ODI openers innings...

Take that into account right, it means in number terms that their innings has been reduced to 40 overs, and 220 of 40 is much more a task than 220 of 50...

I was actually relieved when katich was given out....
 
In the context of the game staying in and scoring 4 runs an over was what was required and what pretty much happened. Symmonds, Hussey and Clarke would have been under a lot more pressure if we had have lost more early wickets and given Sri Lanka the oppurtunity to have thier field up, with the spinners bowling, and having more runs to play with. All in all it was just a shitty game to watch on a pitch that wasn't suited to big hitting.
 
Can anyone tell me what this "super sub" buisness is all about in the 1 day matches? I think thats what its called anyway (please excuse, new to the game).
 
bascially it's just that, the teams can select one player to be subbed in at any point in the game, generally another bowler so they can sub him in when they are bowling for one of the batsmen and have a greater depth to their bowling attack, it ususally favours the team that wins the toss...
 
Swifty, I thnk the point NM is making is that its not always possible for a batsman regardless of how good he is to go out and score at close to a run a ball. Conditions play a massive part in the ability for batsmen to score rapidly. I'm not the biggest Katich fan but I think his innings was what was required. No need to go out all guns blazing when chasing a low score on a turning deck against the best off spinner in the world.
Its kinda like trying to shoot a course record playing golf in blustery conditions with rock hard greens, nearly impossible. Even though one day cricket is often about big hitting and cavalier innings, sometimes a solid more traditional innings is required.
I think there are better players than Katich out there but I think his knock was a good one, 52 from 89 is pretty solid.


Beech
 
beech said:
Swifty, I thnk the point NM is making is that its not always possible for a batsman regardless of how good he is to go out and score at close to a run a ball. Conditions play a massive part in the ability for batsmen to score rapidly. I'm not the biggest Katich fan but I think his innings was what was required. No need to go out all guns blazing when chasing a low score on a turning deck against the best off spinner in the world.
Its kinda like trying to shoot a course record playing golf in blustery conditions with rock hard greens, nearly impossible. Even though one day cricket is often about big hitting and cavalier innings, sometimes a solid more traditional innings is required.
I think there are better players than Katich out there but I think his knock was a good one, 52 from 89 is pretty solid.


Beech
Click to expand...

I understand what you and NM are both saying, but when you look at the like of Hussey, Clarke, Symonds and Gillie, they didn't have any problems with it :\ and luckily too, otherwise it would've been a sad day for us...

I was also kinda liking the idea of hodge, but he's pretty disappointing really...
 
Would be nice to have more batsmen of Gilly and Hussey's calibre but to fill a team of guys who bat like Gilly would be reckless. Whilst it provides a means for some massive rapidly scored totals it is also pretty high risks. There aren't many batsmen in the world who can do what Gilly does (when in form) and get make runs regularly. When batting like him there is a much greater chance of getting out. I think for balance its important to have batsmen who accumulate runs as well as guys who hammer it around. Its not that long ago that 52 off 89 would be considered quite good going. I think ideally you want as many batsmen as possible that are like Hussey. His natural game is to build an innings scoring a lot of singles, turning the strike over and punishing the bad ball. Although throughout his international career he has been quite a big hitter. He has the ability to build an innings and score rapidly when needed, Martyn is much the same.
Guys like Symonds are great to watch, seeing them smash good balls for six but at the end of the day if I had to place winning the game on someones shoulders I'd like to place it on a batsman who can stick around and play a measured innings, which is what I think Katich did. Saying that though, he wouldn't be my preference to have in at a crucial time of the match.
I reckon its a bit unfair to compare batsmen to Gilly because he is basically a freak, he has an amazing eye and is incredibly strong. I don't know too many batsmen that stack up to him in terms of the way he plays the game and with such success. Maybe Chris Cairns at his peak or Lance Klusener are comparable in power but probably fall short when compared to the regularity that Gilly does it. Then guys like Lara and Tandulker I'd say are better batsmen but a different style. Anyway hopefully Gilly will return to his blistering best soon.

Read an article in the paper in which Lehmann is backing Cosgrove as the next big thing, saying they should be blooding him and giving him a chance. I think if the bloke can get his weight under control he could be a massive asset to the team, the bloke is only 21 so has plenty of time but is already a very powerful batsman and handy with the ball too. Hopefully he isn't too far away from getting a chance, although i'm tipping there are still guys like Clarke in front of him.

Beech
 
In the context of the game, his innings was very good. It was a slow wicket and as we've seen from the last few matches, not easy to score at a run a ball. They were chasing a fairly low total so the run rate wasn't really too much of a factor.

Plus, he was the only one in the game that actually got to 50. So that says something about how slow the wicket actually was.

I'm sorry, but you can't expect someone to play a run a ball innings every innings. It is entirely dependant on the conditions, how much runs they are chasing etc. So credit to him where it is due.

As for Martyn, his strike rate is normally very good. In the end they made the total comfortably - because they kept wickets in hand and played sensibly. That alleviates the pressure on the lower order and means they can take more risks and inevitably have a higher strike rate.
 
-T{H}R- said:
As for India, ... they subscribe to an international body. They cannot make unilateral decisions - they play as per the draw. But I can understand not wanting to play weaker teams too often. They're not exactly huge drawcards.

And no, I don't necessarily think the money comes from there. They are sports mad, but at the end of the day, they aren't the be all and end all nation of cricket. And to me, it's not up to one nation, it's a collective decision.

Additionally, if you don't play the smaller teams, they aren't going to improve. And ideally there would be more strong nations playing the game.
Click to expand...

I fully agree with your closing argument, and I also think you're right that India shouldn't make unilateral decisions. I'm not sure you're right about the money. There were a couple of articles on this in the NZ Herald over the weekend, and apparently the Indian Board earns something like 60% of the money in the game. See here - there was a better article, but it's offline.

Bottom line though - if India just says 'screw you' to the smaller nations, there's not a lot that the ICC (which is Asian dominated anyway) can do :(.

Other topic: nothing wrong with 52 off 89 on a slow pitch, chasing a lowish score. Get in, blunt the opposition bowling, build a base for the innings, and let the big guns knock the runs off at the end.

[btw, great thread. Lots of intelligent comment in here]
 
I'd love to see Cosgrove in the side - it's nice to know there is still space for fatsos in the team. I am surprised that his name hasn't come up before actually, I think this is perhaps a case of NSW favouritism in the selection of the national side? I don't know if I subscribe to that particular theory, but Cosgrove has just as good numbers as Jaques this season, yet Jaques gets all the attention whilst it's left to the SA Captain to say something about Cosgrove.

Or maybe he's just been ignored because they think he's too fat? ;)
 
I certainly wouldn't say NSW favourtism given the current squad. Not exactly flush with NSW batsmen ... I think it was the third test match that didn't have one specialist batsman from NSW.
 
fronky said:
Or maybe he's just been ignored because they think he's too fat? ;)
Click to expand...

Actually, they wouldnt let him play for SA until he lost some weight after he came back from playing county cricket in England.

But i agree, this guy is good (in OD and Tests), I rate the SA team this year as a real contender - they got a few in there i could definately see playing international cricket; like Cullen (the off-spinner).
 
Disapointing start to the tour of South Africa. Seems Smith has found some form and without McGrath and Ponting in the team we are struggling a touch. I guess this is sort of to be expected when you take the best batsman and bowler in the world out of the one team.
I think if they are serious about winning over there they are going to have to bolster the bowling stocks with a bit of experience. I think Kasper would be the most appropriate and if the selectors had some balls maybe even Dizzy. Bracken bowled well but Lee, Lewis and Johnson were average if not worse. I know they need to blood young players in preperation for the World Cup but there has to be a balance. The best time to blood young guys is when there is someone like McGrath in the team so if the young guys faulter there is still some experience to fall back on. I guess you could argue that Lee is that experienced player but due to the pace he bowls at he is sometimes going to be expensive when batsmen just get lucky edges etc.
Hopefully Jane McGrath will return to good health and Glenn can continue his cricketing career. Really do have to feel sorry for the McGrath's since this is the 3rd time round now.


Beech
 
I don't want to be too presumptuous, but I think that right now is the start of something cricket lovers have been talking about for some time: the post McGrath post Warne era. I can't see McGrath coming back with much venom, if he comes back at all. I don't think that he was too impressive during the Australian summer, and he is now 36. Hopefully Jane gets better but even so the prospects for his successful return are dim in my opinion.

Warney on the other hand, well who knows. He'll probably be around for a few more years and continue to demolish opposition batting line ups, but he isn't playing one dayers anymore and his effectiveness may be curtailed without McGrath holding down the other end. This remains to be seen.

The start of this tour is revealing what the future holds for Australia. We can talk about batsmen as much as we want but Australia has world class batsmen coming out of its pores. Somebody once told me that 'bowlers win games, batsmen save them'. It's our bowlers (I believe) that have largely contributed to Australia's era of dominance, and losing McGrath is really going to affect us because you can't simply replace the highest wicket taking fast bowler in the history of test cricket.
 
btw, how do you correctly pronounce Jaques?
I can't believe it would be pronounced Jaykes as most people do. Surely it's more like Jarkes with a soft J, you know like the Frenchy way?
This issue has been irritating me for some time...
 
its jakes.

As far as the selectors are concerned, Dizzy and Kasper have retired from One Day cricket, just like Martyn and Test cricket ;)
 
I think McGrath has been very good throughout the Australian summer. Just because a bowler doesn't take a load of wickets doesn't mean he is bowling poorly. I think McGrath will return with just as much venom as ever. Throughout the summer he has been bowling faster than he has in years. But you do have a point Fronky, this is an indication of what is to come when the best spinner and best fast bowler in the world do retire.
I agree with the theory that bowlers win games and batsmen save them. Obviously batsmen contribute to victories but the reality is to win Test Matches you have to have a team that can bowl the other team out twice, thats take 20 wickets. doesn't matter if your batsmen make 800 runs if your bowlers can't bowl a team out twice then you can't win a Test.

Beech
 
I also think Tait should be given another chance in the Aussie team. I remember watching him in the Ashes series, he didn't really set the world on fire but it was a tough ask for a young player, and there was definitely something about him that I found impressive. I think he has a lot of potential, he almost singlehandedly won the ING cup for SA, he's got a big arse and he bowls fast.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top