Look for his runs? Or what happened his ability to not nick off to slip every innings.
He's taking the piss out of the former captain who orchestrated sandpaper gate
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Look for his runs? Or what happened his ability to not nick off to slip every innings.
Bazball wouldn't even be effective at the G anyway. Way too big to get away with it.Given the MCG and SCG pitches aren't flat anymore, Bazball won't be as effective here.
What about Test experience? Had this happen to Smith we wouldn't have even cared but then doubtful Bumrah and Kohli would have done it.Exactly. It's silly to whinge about an adult test player being intimidated like he's a child.
In my opinion...and it's only my opinion, but if I was asked to pick a best Australian Test team since 1980 onwards, then the Openers would be Matthew Hayden and the other one would be Mark Taylor.
In my opinion...and it's only my opinion, but if I was asked to pick a best Australian Test team since 1980 onwards, then the Openers would be Matthew Hayden and the other one would be Mark Taylor.
Given the MCG and SCG pitches aren't flat anymore, Bazball won't be as effective here.
Hard to disagree but I’ll have a go. I’d put Boon slightly ahead of Taylor if it was solely about picking an opener. If you add contribution to leadership and fielding then Taylor may get the nod.
Boon played against many of the bowlers mentioned by a previous poster but also faced the cream of the Windows - Garner, Holding, Marshall.
Regards
S. Pete
Everything .Again what’s that got to do with anything when he’s not there, though? What are they planning for when he’s not at the crease?
I don’t doubt he rubbed them the wrong way and they desperately wanted to get him out while we he was there in order to give it to him. But after his first knock, he spent a combined 22 overs in the middle and they lost 5-96.
Whenever a team loses a series and there are flashpoints within it, I think people look back at it for all these little cues and things that maybe aren’t always there, as to why a side won or lost:
Scott Boland took 10 wickets in this game, Pat Cummins scored 90 runs and took 6 wickets in the last, and India’s batting let them down badly for most of the series. That’s the upshot of a lot of it IMO.
Anyone in the playing XI is fair game. If he wasn't ready, he wouldn't have been picked.What about Test experience? Had this happen to Smith we wouldn't have even cared but then doubtful Bumrah and Kohli would have done it.
Same quality fast bowlers?lol, it’s literally what just won them the decisive test in the NZ series; playing that way on a pitch that had plenty in it.
Again what’s that got to do with anything when he’s not there, though? What are they planning for when he’s not at the crease?
I don’t doubt he rubbed them the wrong way and they desperately wanted to get him out while we he was there in order to give it to him. But after his first knock, he spent a combined 22 overs in the middle and they lost 5-96.
Whenever a team loses a series and there are flashpoints within it, I think people look back at it for all these little cues and things that maybe aren’t always there, as to why a side won or lost:
Scott Boland took 10 wickets in this game, Pat Cummins scored 90 runs and took 6 wickets in the last, and India’s batting let them down badly for most of the series. That’s the upshot of a lot of it IMO.
Nah, JimBob's point that leads come and go through a match was right. 180 in the first innings by India wasn't a "good" score, which was your original point. Australia under performing in their first innings didn't suddenly invalidate India's batting failures.lol. bullshit.
at the time of the post it was dead even. Australia registered a lower total than Indias first Innings. Proving the initial post that we were miles ahead incorrect.
Bumrah going out injured and unable to bowl was a major factor for Australia winning in the end.
We were lucky in the end we didn't have to face Bumrah, His out was massive.
Boland and Cumdog were smashed in the last Ashes.Same quality fast bowlers?
Nah, JimBob's point that leads come and go through a match was right. 180 in the first innings by India wasn't a "good" score, which was your original point. Australia under performing in their first innings didn't suddenly invalidate India's batting failures.
It was a good pitch for bowlers but the batsmen from both sides largely underperformed. India batting first and failing to have any meaningful advantage heading into the second innings proved costly to them. 340 odd by India overall was under par. Australia proved that by the end.
It's all good though. I have been in your shoes and been wrong before. You will get the call right next time.
I'm impressed by your capacity to double down in the face of all evidence. A cynic would highlight the stupidity but I'm an optimist and so would rather praise your courage.Yep, you are in those shoes now.
I'm impressed by your capacity to double down in the face of all evidence. A cynic would highlight the stupidity but I'm an optimist and so would rather praise your courage.
Or he held a bit of grudge with what Kohli did to him the previous Test? Mind you he handle that situation very well.Anyone in the playing XI is fair game. If he wasn't ready, he wouldn't have been picked.
I think he loves the attention.
I was answering a question about what Gavaskar said.Don’t be a troll…it favoured the touring side
Same quality fast bowlers?
Because the pitch were flat.Boland and Cumdog were smashed in the last Ashes.
i'd add that Indias bowling has big issues too. There is a massive gap between Bumrah and the rest.
Take Bumrah out and it's a completely different lineup. Ours is much more consistent across the bowling lineup.
Confirmed, he has no balls.King Kohli with a sense of humour
get around him
and no runsConfirmed, he has no balls.
Top 25 test bowlers by bowling average since WW2, qualification 2000+ balls bowled.
View attachment 2197835