Big Cricket Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Warner may as well go T20 style if he's going to get out anyway. I feel like Green would be a good opener, but then you have Usman and Green neither rotating the strike potentially which is not a good pairing.

Did Boland bowl bad or was he without luck? Either way Hazelwood will come in again for the next test, just curious.

Surely Marnus buckles down next test at least once for a score of 70+, Smith's 100th was one to forget with the bat.

The bowling attack looks crap with all this short stuff. Short stuff is great to watch, but it needs to be done situationally, not just as some weird hail mary ploy with few runs to defend.

No issues with Murphy, not his fault he wasn't tried at all. If they don't want to use a spinner than bring Green in for him and utilise Head/Marnus/Smith to keep the over rate ticking when needed.
Neither boland or starc are good short ball bowlers .

It was left to Cummins to bowl short when he should be attacking the stumps .

Really missed green as he is a far superior bowler to Marsh .
 
Really missed green as he is a far superior bowler to Marsh .
In English conditions, I actually disagree.

Mitch is a very good bowler over there as he pitches it up more consistently and nips it around. He was severely underused in this match for me, poor captaincy from Cummins.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

If it was up to me, I would drop Warner. From one time averaging around 50, his last three years (one century aside) have been poor (averaging around/just under 30 for those three years). Whilst I agree he wasn't terrible in the first couple of tests, it is a pretty low bar now days when "not terrible" is the best we can expect from him. Broad simply has his measure and it's time to move on. I would keep Marsh in and open with Marsh and bring Green back in if fit and we are actually prepared to bowl both he and Marsh. Hazlewood for Boland, who has been unlucky but also not at his best and the wickets (surprisingly) haven't really suited him. Depending on the wicket, I would keep Murphy in unless an absolute green top as no way to assess his performance when he basically wasn't bowled. But I feel we need more batting depth given our fickle top order of late (Usman aside).

It's a little make-shift but I can't see how we drop Marsh and am not convinced we can persist with Warner (although before or after the series would have been better). If Green isn't fit or we aren't going to bowl him, then, urrrgggg, Harris or Renshaw for Warner (neither of which inspire me). Someone also needs to give Green some nasty pills. The guy needs to believe in himself and get some aggression.
 
"I’ll have another look and see if there’s anything we might do differently ...,” Cummins said post-match. “I felt like we made some decent decisions out there.”

Decent decisions my ass.
Had a below par score and got pretty close to defending it. They didn't get it perfect but I thought they did OK.
 
In English conditions, I actually disagree.

Mitch is a very good bowler over there as he pitches it up more consistently and nips it around. He was severely underused in this match for me, poor captaincy from Cummins.
Marsh, Green, Murphy and Head have all been underbowled. Smith and Labuschagne as well, I guess. Cummins gives off serious "I don't trust you" vibes if you're not a main bowler. You'll get the ball late, if at all, and bowling to well-set batsmen - and if you do take a wicket, then get off again while I have a crack at the guy who's new to the crease...
 
Marsh, Green, Murphy and Head have all been underbowled. Smith and Labuschagne as well, I guess. Cummins gives off serious "I don't trust you" vibes if you're not a main bowler. You'll get the ball late, if at all, and bowling to well-set batsmen - and if you do take a wicket, then get off again while I have a crack at the guy who's new to the crease...
I think it was Michael Clarke who was the same. Ponting and Smith had reasonable faith in their part timers if memory serves me right.
 
I think it was Michael Clarke who was the same. Ponting and Smith had reasonable faith in their part timers if memory serves me right.
I think you've got it wrong, Clarke was a very creative on field captain. I reckon he's about the best I've seen.
 
Replacing Warner is Head/Marsh/Green is dangerous IMO. yes it’s a short term fix and allows them in the aide but it’s also great way to destroy their form/conform especially in the case of the two all rounders
 
Marsh, Green, Murphy and Head have all been underbowled. Smith and Labuschagne as well, I guess. Cummins gives off serious "I don't trust you" vibes if you're not a main bowler. You'll get the ball late, if at all, and bowling to well-set batsmen - and if you do take a wicket, then get off again while I have a crack at the guy who's new to the crease...
That's pretty fair actually.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Didn’t realise Alastair Cook is still playing county cricket. Coming up to 5 years post retirement. Another bloke who’s end came about very quickly. Averaged over 50 alot of his career then it went down very fast after that.
 
Replacing Warner is Head/Marsh/Green is dangerous IMO. yes it’s a short term fix and allows them in the aide but it’s also great way to destroy their form/conform especially in the case of the two all rounders

Head worked in India when he opened
 
Wtf is going on in the women's Ashes?
The ladies have been sliding back to the pack for a while. India have troubled us in the coloured clothing too.

Way too many extras, just sloppy performances costing us really.
 
Wtf is going on in the women's Ashes?

The ladies have been sliding back to the pack for a while. India have troubled us in the coloured clothing too.

Way too many extras, just sloppy performances costing us really.

No Meg Lanning for this series would be a factor surely
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top