2 overs after a bowler goes down is a bit of joke, Marsh is just in the side this match for his fielding & vibes
Cricket Thread: Indian Summer
- Thread starter Mego Red
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 87,145
- 92,925
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
If the selectors truly wanted a 5th bowling option, they should have brought in Webster, which would also have given us another spin bowling option given he is bit funky.
Problem is Marsh is cricket royalty & selectors are not brave.
Probably only Bolland for injured Hazelwood.
- Aug 5, 2013
- 2,657
- 2,371
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
They let Labuschagne do his Neil Wagner impersonation in Perth with a full complement of fit bowlers in the team. Nothing when the side is actually short of fit and effective front line bowlers
- Oct 2, 2022
- 6,832
- 9,281
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Well, the coverage all day was that we would - but putting that aside, what's a way that we could have won this test without enforcing a follow on?
Or is your view that we wouldn't try to win the test?
The moment Hazelwood went down and Marsh obviously cant bowl, any chance we were going to enforce the follow-on was done. Smith dropping the catch certainly didnt help either.... but if you were watching you'd have seen Cummins and Starc struggling.
- Jun 21, 2014
- 9,419
- 10,523
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I only watched the end. If they hadn't made it, then we would obviously enforced the follow-on at that stage, regardless.
There was nothing to lose. We couldn't have lost, and might have won with a miracle and more energised bowlers in the morning.
We wouldn't have, for the reasons I've outlined 1000 times.
The bowlers were absolutely gassed, they weren't going out there again straight away. If we had the 3rd seamer, and we got them halfway through the day.... then yes of course.
Looking at the forecast for tomorrow, it's slightly worse than today as well. We'd be better off trying to get the openers into some form.
- Oct 2, 2022
- 6,832
- 9,281
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
So you would have just given up? Pursued a path with zero chance of victory?
Why not just ask if they can end the test early?
Who's saying give up ??
You'd bat for 20 overs and have a crack at them. The bowlers were gassed, down 1 frontliner and their chop out bowler can't bowl.
It's 1-1 in the series with 2 back to back Tests coming up. No need to take any risks.
Engage your brain for once.
- Oct 2, 2022
- 6,832
- 9,281
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Lol - so you bat for 20 overs to give your bowlers 90 mins of rest, then ask them to absolutely smash themselves in a shorter period of time to try and win.
Meanwhile, you've now set India a target of maybe 300 in 50 overs, and you're bowling to IPL specialists who will eat that up.
So, somehow you've managed to pull a convincing loss from the jaws of almost certain victory. And for what - 90 mins of rest?
Are you sure you're not Ravi Shastri??
That's the only explanation for this idea.
IPL specialists ?? You actually said that. They aren't playing on Indian postage stamps with the field up in Test cricket ?? You obviously weren't watching our bowlers struggle to bowl out the bottom 5 batsmen yesterday afternoon ?? You're an even worse judge of a game of cricket than you are football.
You've got dumber the longer this conversation has gone on.
- Oct 2, 2022
- 6,832
- 9,281
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Good on you, the only person in world cricket who wouldn't have enforced the follow on, and would have somehow squeezed a loss out of certain victory.
You realise how foolish what you said was right?
You genuinely were risking a very likely loss for TWENTY OVERS of rest? And all because Lyon was bowling pies and the old ball was difficult to do much with?
**** me - despite your needless insult of me (you're obviously feeling sensitive after realising your error), you're normally a good poster, but this is NOT your best work.
A simple chase of 300 in 50 overs throws the match right back to India to win - and yes, they have T20 champions across their test lineup. A chase like that would suddenly take the pressure off them - easy to hold for a draw, and every chance to win.
You're struggling with the comprehension that Test cricket, the bowling and the fields are a little bit different to Test cricket......
You said it yourself, Lyon bowling pies doesn't help so we are essentially relying on 2 gassed fast bowlers to bowl out an Indian order we STILL haven't done in a full days play
Certain victory is ridiculously presumptuous given we took that long to take 6 wickets let alone 10.
Kane McGoodwin
Make me an Admin!
- May 21, 2001
- 87,145
- 92,925
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Crows
Geez, some just love to argue over something that didn't even eventuate...
- Oct 2, 2022
- 6,832
- 9,281
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Test cricket is different to test cricket?
Presumably you mean to T20 - attacking fields in test cricket have often made it easier to score by 360 degree players who've had their skills developed in T20 IF they're willing to take that risk.
We've seen the wins of bazball, and the losses. There's every single chance a target would get chased down without an issue - and I'm sure we still have nightmares of what players like Ben Stokes have done to us.
There's probably no reason to insult each other about something that isn't even going to happen, though, so I'll end it here. We disagree and we're unlikely to agree, so I'm happy to let this go.
Done
- Aug 21, 2008
- 6,783
- 13,914
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
India treating it like a win
It may have very well just meant they retain the trophy. They only need to draw the series and typically play the MCG very well.
And Sydney
- Aug 21, 2008
- 6,783
- 13,914
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
That too, but they only need to win one of these tests now.
FWIW, I think Cummins would not have enforced the follow on even if we had bowled them out, one quick down already, recent history shows the follow on being enforced rarely happens.
All that correct logic aside, Cummins also would have had one look at the forecast for today and seen any follow on decision would have been pretty much irrelevant anyway, and chosen not to enforce it and rest his bowlers.
That's far more likely than India's team who struggled to cobble together 250 going full T20 mode with no field restrictions and hit 360 off 30 overs today.
I think they would have made them follow on if we got them all out early - but that boat had long sailed before the tail-enders took the decision out of Cummins' hands.
The Adelaide/Brisbane/Melbourne/Sydney tests all come in consecutive weeks, with little time to recover between matches. There was a longer gap between Perth & Adelaide. Australians have long been wary of enforcing the follow-on with back-to-back tests, due to the fatigue resulting from bowling consecutive innings. Fatiguing the Australian bowlers was the main reason India batted for so long in their 2nd Innings in Perth.
With Hazlewood injured, Marsh being utterly useless as a bowler (even when he's not injured) and Lyon badly out of form, Cummins would have been almost entirely reliant upon himself and Starc. It was always going to be too much to ask of them, once the Indian innings dragged on and the chances of taking a win diminished. My guess is that the cut-off time for them was probably around the tea break (maybe even lunch) - get them all out before then, and they risk the fatigue for the win; get them out after that time and it's not worth the risk (with 2 games still to play).
I reckon lunch was the go, but the longer it dragged on the less likely it was going to happen. They got to tea and we were done.
Weather not looking great for today either.
That's their own stupidity. It's cost them games before, and it has arguably contributed to them not winning this game.
For some reason the Australian quicks have an obsession with trying to bounce the tailenders out. This is bizarre, on a wicket where almost every wicket has been taken behind the stumps - caught by the keeper/slips/gully. Jadeja is pretty much the only player who wasn't out in this fashion.
The decision to move away from a plan that was working (bowling either at the stumps, or around 4th-5th stump) to a plan based almost solely on bouncers is an example of monumental stupidity... but it's something they do with monotonous regularity (often losing Test matches as a result).
Against tail enders, they just need to bowl at the wickets. "You miss I hit" should be their mantra.
So... with the Brisbane test set to peter out to a draw, when rain and/or bad light bring things to a miserable end this afternoon, what changes should or will we see for the Melbourne test?
Obviously Hazlewood is out, and Bolland his replacement. This one is both a should & will happen, given that it's a forced change and the selectors have given no indication of wanting to blood another quick this summer.
Mitch Marsh should be dropped. His recent batting form has been reminiscent of the days when he held the WOAT title. Bizarrely, his bowling is even worse than his batting, which takes some doing. The problem is compounded by the fact that he's currently unfit for bowling (regardless of the lies they told us before the match). He should be replaced by Xavier Bartlett, who (unlike Marsh) can actually bat & bowl. This should happen, but I do not expect that it will happen.
McSweeney should also be dropped, replaced by Konstas. He's currently played 5 innings (1 not out), for a total of 69 runs at an average of 17.0. The most generous appraisal of McSweeney's opening is that he's hung around long enough to take the shine off the ball, allowing Head the freedom to play his natural game. A more realistic appraisal is that McSweeney has struggled to survive, and has barely troubled the scorers. Konstas is only 19, and has burst onto the 1st Class scene this season. Konstas has shown good form, across multiple different formats - and he's a natural opener. McSweeney should be given other opportunities in the future, when vacancies open up in the middle order (Smith's days are numbered). For now though, he should be dropped. Having said that he should be dropped, I think there's a genuine 50/50 chance that this will happen.
Obviously Hazlewood is out, and Bolland his replacement. This one is both a should & will happen, given that it's a forced change and the selectors have given no indication of wanting to blood another quick this summer.
Mitch Marsh should be dropped. His recent batting form has been reminiscent of the days when he held the WOAT title. Bizarrely, his bowling is even worse than his batting, which takes some doing. The problem is compounded by the fact that he's currently unfit for bowling (regardless of the lies they told us before the match). He should be replaced by Xavier Bartlett, who (unlike Marsh) can actually bat & bowl. This should happen, but I do not expect that it will happen.
McSweeney should also be dropped, replaced by Konstas. He's currently played 5 innings (1 not out), for a total of 69 runs at an average of 17.0. The most generous appraisal of McSweeney's opening is that he's hung around long enough to take the shine off the ball, allowing Head the freedom to play his natural game. A more realistic appraisal is that McSweeney has struggled to survive, and has barely troubled the scorers. Konstas is only 19, and has burst onto the 1st Class scene this season. Konstas has shown good form, across multiple different formats - and he's a natural opener. McSweeney should be given other opportunities in the future, when vacancies open up in the middle order (Smith's days are numbered). For now though, he should be dropped. Having said that he should be dropped, I think there's a genuine 50/50 chance that this will happen.
- Aug 30, 2021
- 19,211
- 37,961
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
Since winning a priority? Don’t you just follow the Crows for the enjoyment?
