3rd Ashes Test England v Australia July 6-10 1930hrs @ Headingley

[Kane McGoodwin]

Career county average

Harris - 50

Renshaw - 44

Bancroft - 31

Sure, but Harris has proven he is not at Test standard.

 

[Peter Bixley]

Kind of feel you can kiss goodbye introducing any new countries into Test Cricket if these two are the only formats left. The skillset between Tests and T20 is just too different, while with one dayers there's a more similar skillset for Tests.

If they only want to play ODI's during a WC year then they may as well just scrap the whole thing.

There are already too many test-playing nations as it is. It should have been left at eight, maybe nine. That way everyone can play everyone home and away on a four-year cycle, with two series at home and two away per calendar year. What we have now, with West Indies coming back only twelve months after they were last in Australia, is a monstrosity. Two-test 'series' are a joke. I can't help but feel tests would be more popular with a uniform calendar and a stable pattern of entry/qualification to the WTC final.

 

[to1994]

He's in then.

He's succeeded in County Cricket before and still failed at Test level in England.

Despite Warner's form, I'd also back him to do well at FC level, it happens with many players who're past it in internationals such as Ponting, Cook & Amla. CC is a massive step down in quality and is not remotely a sign that Harris has improved.

If you select Harris, you'll at best get the same results with the bat as Warner but likely see at least one dropped catch in the field, or the couple of boundaries he fails to stop will erase the 2 & 8 he scores in the game.

 

[PhatBoy]

There are already too many test-playing nations as it is. It should have been left at eight, maybe nine. That way everyone can play everyone home and away on a four-year cycle, with two series at home and two away per calendar year. What we have now, with West Indies coming back only twelve months after they were last in Australia, is a monstrosity. Two-test 'series' are a joke. I can't help but feel tests would be more popular with a uniform calendar and a stable pattern of entry/qualification to the WTC final.

Aside from the ease of staging a tournament, this makes no sense whatsoever. The limited teams part I mean.

It’s not a domestic sports competition where more teams equals dilution of a finite talent pool and thus a reduction in the quality of the product.

Name me a single international sport that has gone backwards as more teams have entered its top tier.

Basketball was the sole domain of America and to a minor extent the Soviet Union for a long time. While it’s still the USA then daylight, behind them is a big group including Australia, a handful of South American countries, and a number of nations from both eastern and Western Europe.

Not that I even like it now - it’s a terrible sport - but can anyone say honestly that rugby union isn’t better when it isn’t just NZ, SA, Australia, France and England competing? Ireland have had a stint at world number 1, the Welsh and Scottish have been strong relatively recently, the Italians are a bit behind but they’re competitive at least, and Japan now boast a win over SA.

Cricket itself was two competitive countries basically for its first 60 years. SA were generally rubbish, WI and India and NZ were minnows for anywhere between a decade and 30 years before they became regularly competitive. Pakistan I think were a bit quicker to get decent. No sooner had SA become world class than they disappeared from the sport for 20 years.

Even individual sports are always better when there are more people competing.

In a perfect world I would love home and away test series and 5 matches etc etc but it doesn’t work - you can’t have a World Cup, and yes I acknowledge that the one day and t20 editions ‘technically’ do this, given that pre-qualifying ranking points are accrued over years - where a team may finish the tournament with a team completely different to the one they started with.

Theoretically it’s possible in soccer or rugby or any other sport that has a World Cup when you factor in all the qualifying matches but it’s pretty unlikely.

At any rate the concept you’re describing is effectively a four-year tournament that achieves what other sports need about 2 months to complete: a World Cup finals tournament

 

[Nicho50]

Is there any reason why Maxy played county cricket? Personally it’s a no brainer that you play him as the spinner batting at 8 similar to Mo Ali. The pitches aren’t going to be turners and Murphy is no Lyon.

I think the runs from the tail has been the difference in all 3 games so far( aside from the Poms missed catches)

If you want spin you play Maxy if not you play Green Marsh and Neser all in the side that can bowl with Starc and Cummins.

 

[11kgm]

Is there any reason why Maxy played county cricket? Personally it’s a no brainer that you play him as the spinner batting at 8 similar to Mo Ali. The pitches aren’t going to be turners and Murphy is no Lyon.

I think the runs from the tail has been the difference in all 3 games so far( aside from the Poms missed catches)

If you want spin you play Maxy if not you play Green Marsh and Neser all in the side that can bowl with Starc and Cummins.

You would think by order of CA they want him to replaced Murphy plus he's our best fielder which can only help us

One interesting thing is poor Neser missed almost 2 days to rain

Could see something like

Warner/Green
Usman
Marnus
Smith
Head
Marsh
Carey
Maxwell
Cummins
Starc
Hazelwood

 

[Peter Bixley]

Aside from the ease of staging a tournament, this makes no sense whatsoever. The limited teams part I mean.

It’s not a domestic sports competition where more teams equals dilution of a finite talent pool and thus a reduction in the quality of the product.

Name me a single international sport that has gone backwards as more teams have entered its top tier.

Basketball was the sole domain of America and to a minor extent the Soviet Union for a long time. While it’s still the USA then daylight, behind them is a big group including Australia, a handful of South American countries, and a number of nations from both eastern and Western Europe.

Not that I even like it now - it’s a terrible sport - but can anyone say honestly that rugby union isn’t better when it isn’t just NZ, SA, Australia, France and England competing? Ireland have had a stint at world number 1, the Welsh and Scottish have been strong relatively recently, the Italians are a bit behind but they’re competitive at least, and Japan now boast a win over SA.

Cricket itself was two competitive countries basically for its first 60 years. SA were generally rubbish, WI and India and NZ were minnows for anywhere between a decade and 30 years before they became regularly competitive. Pakistan I think were a bit quicker to get decent. No sooner had SA become world class than they disappeared from the sport for 20 years.

Even individual sports are always better when there are more people competing.

In a perfect world I would love home and away test series and 5 matches etc etc but it doesn’t work - you can’t have a World Cup, and yes I acknowledge that the one day and t20 editions ‘technically’ do this, given that pre-qualifying ranking points are accrued over years - where a team may finish the tournament with a team completely different to the one they started with.

Theoretically it’s possible in soccer or rugby or any other sport that has a World Cup when you factor in all the qualifying matches but it’s pretty unlikely.

At any rate the concept you’re describing is effectively a four-year tournament that achieves what other sports need about 2 months to complete: a World Cup finals tournament

I just don't understand the logic of adding more test teams at a time when the schedule is packed and the format is getting pushed to the fringes. More teams would simply mean just more two-test series. We haven't yet played Afghanistan or Ireland in a test and they've had status for several years. When did we last play Bangladesh at home? We haven't been to WI for more than 8 years.

Each sport must be viewed on its respective merits. Test cricket isn't like any of the other sports you mention. It takes so long to start and complete a match, which means that each country needs a strong domestic structure that has games lasting at least four days. It just simply isn't realistic at a time when the world is reverting to the shorter format, attention spans are shorter, and the calendar more congested. The only way your suggestion might work is with a promotion/relegation system, but it's impossible to ever see how newcomers could ever be good enough to challenge the bigger teams.

The limited overs format benefits from more teams taking part, particularly T20. The more strong teams, the better. But you're not likely to get it in test matches. We only have 12 teams despite 147 years of test matches. The minnows are hardly getting games as it is.

What the ICC should be doing is shoring up the test game in the established countries so that we have a limited number of teams that are all competitive, rather than three decent teams and nine mediocre ones and counting. What has happened in WI is a crying shame, for example. The ICC should also be looking to expand the limited overs game.

 

[lazy77]

Aside from the ease of staging a tournament, this makes no sense whatsoever. The limited teams part I mean.

It’s not a domestic sports competition where more teams equals dilution of a finite talent pool and thus a reduction in the quality of the product.

Name me a single international sport that has gone backwards as more teams have entered its top tier.

Basketball was the sole domain of America and to a minor extent the Soviet Union for a long time. While it’s still the USA then daylight, behind them is a big group including Australia, a handful of South American countries, and a number of nations from both eastern and Western Europe.

Not that I even like it now - it’s a terrible sport - but can anyone say honestly that rugby union isn’t better when it isn’t just NZ, SA, Australia, France and England competing? Ireland have had a stint at world number 1, the Welsh and Scottish have been strong relatively recently, the Italians are a bit behind but they’re competitive at least, and Japan now boast a win over SA.

Cricket itself was two competitive countries basically for its first 60 years. SA were generally rubbish, WI and India and NZ were minnows for anywhere between a decade and 30 years before they became regularly competitive. Pakistan I think were a bit quicker to get decent. No sooner had SA become world class than they disappeared from the sport for 20 years.

Even individual sports are always better when there are more people competing.

In a perfect world I would love home and away test series and 5 matches etc etc but it doesn’t work - you can’t have a World Cup, and yes I acknowledge that the one day and t20 editions ‘technically’ do this, given that pre-qualifying ranking points are accrued over years - where a team may finish the tournament with a team completely different to the one they started with.

Theoretically it’s possible in soccer or rugby or any other sport that has a World Cup when you factor in all the qualifying matches but it’s pretty unlikely.

At any rate the concept you’re describing is effectively a four-year tournament that achieves what other sports need about 2 months to complete: a World Cup finals tournament

Basketball is a good sport and was never the "sole domain of America and Soviet Union". It's a ridiculous thing to say and shows you have no idea.

I agree with the rest.

 

[Freezin]

With every county game, well into day 3, sods law, Neser is cooling his heels in rain sodden Wales. No way Neser will be an in then for Old Trafford....even missing out of some outdoor net practice with the Aust squad. That fella can't take a trick...a 50 + or a five for might of earned him a number 8 batting / 1st change bowling gig in the 4th test.

 

[Peter Bixley]

With every county game, well into day 3, sods law, Neser is cooling his heels in rain sodden Wales. No way Neser will be an in then for Old Trafford....even missing out of some outdoor net practice with the Aust squad. That fella can't take a trick...a 50 + or a five for might of earned him a number 8 batting / 1st change bowling gig in the 4th test.

He might get an innings to have a bowl for Glamorgan. Should be enough to keep the engine warm, showcase his form and keep him fresh. He's a rank outsider for getting a game next week.

 

[PhatBoy]

I just don't understand the logic of adding more test teams at a time when the schedule is packed and the format is getting pushed to the fringes. More teams would simply mean just more two-test series. We haven't yet played Afghanistan or Ireland in a test and they've had status for several years. When did we last play Bangladesh at home? We haven't been to WI for more than 8 years.

Each sport must be viewed on its respective merits. Test cricket isn't like any of the other sports you mention. It takes so long to start and complete a match, which means that each country needs a strong domestic structure that has games lasting at least four days. It just simply isn't realistic at a time when the world is reverting to the shorter format, attention spans are shorter, and the calendar more congested. The only way your suggestion might work is with a promotion/relegation system, but it's impossible to ever see how newcomers could ever be good enough to challenge the bigger teams.

The limited overs format benefits from more teams taking part, particularly T20. The more strong teams, the better. But you're not likely to get it in test matches. We only have 12 teams despite 147 years of test matches. The minnows are hardly getting games as it is.

What the ICC should be doing is shoring up the test game in the established countries so that we have a limited number of teams that are all competitive, rather than three decent teams and nine mediocre ones and counting. What has happened in WI is a crying shame, for example. The ICC should also be looking to expand the limited overs game.

I don’t see it that way.

As far as a test championship having an ‘equal’ fixture, yes having more teams makes that harder. It crams the schedule.

But there’s no reason that the tournament HAS to be based around an even fixture where everyone plays everyone. As long as there is some sort of effort to equalise the fixture it shouldn’t matter - like how teams a, c, e, g, I, go into one pool and b, d, f, h, j go into another and the top team from each plays in the final. Or whatever.

There is no inherent need for every team to play every other team in a particularly compressed period of time. Once every 4 years minimum would be easily do-able with 12 test sides.

Remember India DIDNT tour Australia between 1991-92 and 1999-00. I know they’re coming for the second summer in a row but the WI hadn’t been here for 7 years before the summer just gone.

The insistence of Australia, India and England playing one another in a perpetual circle jerk where the phrase ‘we need to look towards the insert India/England series’ becomes the most spoken phrase in mainland Australia, causes a huge strain on the rest of the fixturing in test cricket.

 

[RookiePick]

I'll continue to bang this drum:

ODI have been stuffed up because cricket administrators have tried to make them far more like T20s instead of Test Day 1's in trying conditions.

If they gave ODI's to the bowlers, the way T20 is given to the batsmen, you have something cooking.

Instead we are currently left with T20 that has 30 overs of filler.

 

[PhatBoy]

Basketball is a good sport and was never the "sole domain of America and Soviet Union". It's a ridiculous thing to say and shows you have no idea.

I agree with the rest.

They played in 5 straight Olympic finals and a 6th two Olympics later. Yugoslavia broke the stranglehold they had on it at that level at least.

Edit: in fact the only time the US contested the Olympics prior to 2004 and not won, the Soviet Union did.(twice)

So yeah I am/was not trying to say that there weren’t other decent countries who played the sport or that no one else cared - of course they did, it’s been a popular sport in most parts of the world for ages hence it became an Olympic sport in the first place.

But the pecking order was fairly ‘set’ for a long time before there were as many countries in the mix as there has been in the last 30 years

 

[western royboy]

I don’t see it that way.

As far as a test championship having an ‘equal’ fixture, yes having more teams makes that harder. It crams the schedule.

But there’s no reason that the tournament HAS to be based around an even fixture where everyone plays everyone. As long as there is some sort of effort to equalise the fixture it shouldn’t matter - like how teams a, c, e, g, I, go into one pool and b, d, f, h, j go into another and the top team from each plays in the final. Or whatever.

There is no inherent need for every team to play every other team in a particularly compressed period of time. Once every 4 years minimum would be easily do-able with 12 test sides.

Remember India DIDNT tour Australia between 1991-92 and 1999-00. I know they’re coming for the second summer in a row but the WI hadn’t been here for 7 years before the summer just gone.

The insistence of Australia, India and England playing one another in a perpetual circle jerk where the phrase ‘we need to look towards the insert India/England series’ becomes the most spoken phrase in mainland Australia, causes a huge strain on the rest of the fixturing in test cricket.

all about the $$$ nothing else

 

[dogs105]

Saw an interesting perspective on Twitter that Maxwell would offer as much as Murphy right now.

Green
Khawaja
Labuschagne
Smith
Head
Marsh
Maxwell
Carey
Neser
Cummins
Starc

 

[Peter Bixley]

Saw an interesting perspective on Twitter that Maxwell would offer as much as Murphy right now.

Green
Khawaja
Labuschagne
Smith
Head
Marsh
Maxwell
Carey
Neser
Cummins
Starc

There's batting deep and then there's this.

There's no way Maxwell gets a game though. Murphy would have to get injured. It would defy logic to parachute in Maxwell over Murphy. I'm not even sure Maxwell would be a better spinner than Head in a test match in England, so we'd likely go all-seam before drafting in Maxwell.

 

[The Passenger]

I like the concept of the WTC and whilst it's still finding its feet in what is the best format to make it work, overall it's a positive step.

Agree with the notion that 2-test series suck. Even though the WTC changed to a % of max points to determine ladder order, I still feel it's not even when some teams are playing regular 2-test series and others always 3 and sometimes 4 or 5.

IMO all test series should be 3 tests minimum. Not many nations can now justify more than 3, but obviously, the Ashes can whilst series between Eng/Ind and Aus/Ind can as well. For the purposes of the WTC any series longer than 3 tests, only the final 3 tests should count. This would square up the number of games played on the WTC table (6 series and 18 games), whilst not allowing there to be dead-rubbers in 4 & 5 test series that are one-sided.

Just looking at the schedule of the current WTC and of the 27 series, 18 are now scheduled for 2 tests, so the above is obviously never gonna happen.

 

[Santana]

Maxwell suggestions....

 

[Peter Bixley]

Neser is batting for Glamorgan. He's 1* from 2 deliveries.

 

[Silver Tongue]

Great post, terrific read thanks.
Yes, you were my pet-hate opener with good technique and unlikely to have a slash. In our League were a lot of Old Scholar teams whose batsmen had been well-coached. Sound defence, smack the bad ball; hard to get out. A bloke named Simon Lane was my nemesis --- a cross between Greg Chappell and Mark Waugh in style and technique. I never got him out.

I played A1 Turf which at the time was a good level, probably equivalent to B-Grade District Cricket, from whose A-Grade State teams were selected. Our A1 keeper left the Club and played A-Grade District with success; made the State squad a couple of times. Our Captain-Coach for one season was an ex-SA opening bat. The Club Admin. and many of the team were in awe of him, but he was a long-neck boozehound and only lasted a year. I was his into-the-wind swing bowler, used to shut down one end. That season I bowled the most overs in the Comp. Our other opener was a tall, slim bloke with a whippy action who got me a lot of wickets. Batsmen used to try to keep him out and took their chances against me which = wickets, thanks Smithy.

I loved this anecdote:

When I think back to those pre-helmet days, it makes me shudder.
One of my best mates was our #3; in one game he was through a pull shot too quickly and the ball smacked into his lower R-hand jaw. We heard the <crack> of his jaw breaking from beyond the boundary . His jaw was wired for a long time and he had to carry wire-cutting snips with him in case of emergency throw-up. He could only eat blended foods, soups etc.
Those were the days, eh?

This is hilarious:

My Clarrie story goes back to the early 90's. In about 2010, I made the switch from boat to beach fishing, first along Adelaide Metro beaches (smaller fish, but more of them) then later along the S-E side of Yorke Peninsula which was a revelation. There we've caught many, many more fish than we ever had from THEBOAT which was a money pit. A greater variety of species and bigger fish too.

Lehmann tweeted that without Warner's 66 we lose the 2nd Test, conveniently overlooking Smith's ton and Head's 77. Warner contributed, but was not the match-winner. You're right; they have Bairstow who probably causes more harm than Warner, anyway.
I doubt that they'll drop Warner, mostly because they'll be trying to send a message to the Poms that they're unruffled by the Lords loss.
They'd be mugs to drop Marsh, though.

Reading your and BlueBayou's posts remind why I miss playing cricket and the comraderie and story telling in the bar after a day's play. Brilliant stuff from you two. I was lucky enough to play A grade cricket as a young bloke and we had many older players who could capture an audience over a convivial beer telling yarns of past players, demon fast bowlers, country week exploits, gun batsman of old. ... as a kid I loved it and listened attentively to each word spoken ... the digression to fishing tales or anecdotes about life were part of the moment. Really it was about respecting those who had played the game prior. I loved it and respected the privilege of accessing wisdom.

Long retired now but luckily I still see some of those men intermittently for reunions or just catch ups.

Reading your posts is a rare pleasure.

 

[toml]

Is there any reason why Maxy played county cricket?

From what I have read in the T20 blast and county cricket threads on reddit apparently they just asked if he wanted to stay and play some red ball cricket, no direction from CA to stay despite what the Maxi fan bois on here have tried to fabricate

 

[Peter Bixley]

From what I have read in the T20 blast and county cricket threads on reddit apparently they just asked if he wanted to stay and play some red ball cricket, no direction from CA to stay despite what the Maxi fan bois on here have tried to fabricate

That’s exactly what it is. Just an opportunity to play one game before he goes home. He has no chance of joining up with the lads at Old Trafford.

 

[Peter Bixley]

Glamorgan 93-7, Neser 7* from 20 balls.

Maxwell got 81 from 67 with the bat for Warwickshire and his bowling is currently 6-1-26-0.

 

[troybe]

Don’t ever complain about another pitch again. This is the pitch for WI v IND at Dominica, looks like they’ve dropped in the pitch from Roland Garros.

 

[toml]

View attachment 1736691

Don’t ever complain about another pitch again. This is the pitch for WI v IND at Dominica, looks like they’ve dropped in the pitch from Roland Garros.

Sums up why the Windies don't produce quicks like they used to. This is pretty much what you see every single First Class match (including limited overs) there. They all just come through trundling offies now.