Sam Konstas: Are you on board with him?

[Soggy2112]

Most of the takes are born from the fact that he had limited FC experience, was absolutely fawned over by the cricket media, and is in the Test team way before he was ready for it or earned the ppportunity. Not his fault but he is the recipient of such good fortune and hence becomes the target.
Swing for the fences with no fear is great, but just about every other player gets to toil away for years refining their game in all conditions before getting a national gig. Now he’s off on an overseas tour with virtually no experience against spin in FC cricket, and hasn’t earned that chance in many peoples eyes. But the selectors make the call, and they are to blame if he fails, not Sam.

Three problems I have with this argument.

1. Swing for the fences is not how he’s batted to this point in his career, whether or not it’s been instructed, or he’s taken the “be aggressive” instruction and ran with it, who knows?

2. The “other players have had to toil away for years for an opportunity” argument is pretty weak, because there really aren’t any players who have put up consistently big numbers. It’s an idea from when we had guys like Hussey, Hodge, Love etc averaging 50+ for years. There aren’t players who have consistently scored enough runs to say they “deserve” an opportunity. The only one would be Bancroft, who perhaps should’ve got a go last year, but given Green’s success at 4, that’s a tricky argument, but he certainly couldn’t be picked this series.

3. The 19 with limited first class experience argument does not hold up either IMO, there have always been players who have been noticed coming up through the ranks, that get a crack at international level after limited shield exposure. If they think he has what it takes, why is it necessary to serve a long apprenticeship in a lesser competition. It certainly hasn’t hurt Cummins.

I know you’re not necessarily making those arguments btw, just saying that’s why they’re silly.

Ultimately what I think it really is is Australian tall poppy syndrome in full effect. We’re seeing a kid with all the talent in the world being pretty successful and having the time of his life, who hasn’t felt the need follow the same conventions we did necessarily, and people want to cut him down.

 

[PhatBoy]

Three problems I have with this argument.

1. Swing for the fences is not how he’s batted to this point in his career, whether or not it’s been instructed, or he’s taken the “be aggressive” instruction and ran with it, who knows?

2. The “other players have had to toil away for years for an opportunity” argument is pretty weak, because there really aren’t any players who have put up consistently big numbers. It’s an idea from when we had guys like Hussey, Hodge, Love etc averaging 50+ for years. There aren’t players who have consistently scored enough runs to say they “deserve” an opportunity. The only one would be Bancroft, who perhaps should’ve got a go last year, but given Green’s success at 4, that’s a tricky argument, but he certainly couldn’t be picked this series.

3. The 19 with limited first class experience argument does not hold up either IMO, there have always been players who have been noticed coming up through the ranks, that get a crack at international level after limited shield exposure. If they think he has what it takes, why is it necessary to serve a long apprenticeship in a lesser competition. It certainly hasn’t hurt Cummins.

I know you’re not necessarily making those arguments btw, just saying that’s why they’re silly.

Ultimately what I think it really is is Australian tall poppy syndrome in full effect. We’re seeing a kid with all the talent in the world being pretty successful and having the time of his life, who hasn’t felt the need follow the same conventions we did necessarily, and people want to cut him down.

The level to which he’s been cut down has been over the top I think, but people saying ‘hang on a minute, it’s a bit over the top to make out like he’s been a huge success’ are justified IMO.

It’s still up in the air because basically he’s had one legitimately good hour of test cricket and even that could have come apart at the seams a handful of times.

It’s a long, long time ago now but for example Justin Langer hit a half-century on debut.

To do it he faced 150 balls in a low scoring test match (decided by 1 run) against Ambrose, Walsh and Ian Bishop.

He wasn’t able to cement himself a spot for another 8 years.

Cricket has changed a lot since then I know. My point is that what he’s shown on a positive side is that he has ‘game’ or whatever other buzzword you want to use. But it’s an extremely brief sample size and people saying that he’s got a lot still to prove are exactly right so they’re entitled to say it. They’re wrong to use it as a tool to actually criticise him, though.

 

[ABAB]

Get the best of Bumrah? The one time he did make a score he played and missed about 100 times and scored runs from very streaky/lucky shots.

You do know what lucky/streaky shots are don't you??? He played high risk shots and middle a majority of them because he has the talent. How many play and miss did Jaiswal and Labuschagne played........

 

[apollo_creed]

You do know what lucky/streaky shots are don't you??? He played high risk shots and middle a majority of them because he has the talent. How many play and miss did Jaiswal and Labuschagne played........

He played and missed outside off stumps 14 times in 62 deliveries. This doesn’t include the 3 or 4 lbw shouts, edges that fell short or went nowhere near intended. He was very lucky in that knock.

He might be a gun but he won’t get anywhere longterm playing like he did against India. He rode his luck and was very streaky. Thankfully there’s by all reports a technically competent sensible batsman there.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Three problems I have with this argument.

1. Swing for the fences is not how he’s batted to this point in his career, whether or not it’s been instructed, or he’s taken the “be aggressive” instruction and ran with it, who knows?

2. The “other players have had to toil away for years for an opportunity” argument is pretty weak, because there really aren’t any players who have put up consistently big numbers. It’s an idea from when we had guys like Hussey, Hodge, Love etc averaging 50+ for years. There aren’t players who have consistently scored enough runs to say they “deserve” an opportunity. The only one would be Bancroft, who perhaps should’ve got a go last year, but given Green’s success at 4, that’s a tricky argument, but he certainly couldn’t be picked this series.

3. The 19 with limited first class experience argument does not hold up either IMO, there have always been players who have been noticed coming up through the ranks, that get a crack at international level after limited shield exposure. If they think he has what it takes, why is it necessary to serve a long apprenticeship in a lesser competition. It certainly hasn’t hurt Cummins.

I know you’re not necessarily making those arguments btw, just saying that’s why they’re silly.

Ultimately what I think it really is is Australian tall poppy syndrome in full effect. We’re seeing a kid with all the talent in the world being pretty successful and having the time of his life, who hasn’t felt the need follow the same conventions we did necessarily, and people want to cut him down.

In all walks of life you live and die by your behaviour and your values. Cricket shouldn't be any different. Scrutiny is a part of life.

 

[sr36]

He played and missed outside off stumps 14 times in 62 deliveries. This doesn’t include the 3 or 4 lbw shouts, edges that fell short or went nowhere near intended. He was very lucky in that knock.

He might be a gun but he won’t get anywhere longterm playing like he did against India. He rode his luck and was very streaky. Thankfully there’s by all reports a technically competent sensible batsman there.

I think there will be a re-evaluation of risk. With the ball bouncing and seaming as much as it did in the last two tests, nicking off was the high risk dismissal. It was going over the stumps unless really full - meaning lbw and bowled balls were much more playable. Blocking was a high risk shot. I think he got it right in Melbourne - played and missed a heap batting conventionally in the first over - it was a matter of time before he nicked one. Shifted to shots that made him less likely to nick off. Also made Bumrah shift from his unplayable length to targetting the stumps with balls that were full and very playable.

He got carried away in Sydney.

 

[Soggy2112]

He played and missed outside off stumps 14 times in 62 deliveries. This doesn’t include the 3 or 4 lbw shouts, edges that fell short or went nowhere near intended. He was very lucky in that knock.

He might be a gun but he won’t get anywhere longterm playing like he did against India. He rode his luck and was very streaky. Thankfully there’s by all reports a technically competent sensible batsman there.

I think the point we’re missing is that it would be extremely surprising if he did. He said himself, he had a plan, and then went out and executed it effectively.

In terms of the merit of the plan itself, McSweeney and Khawaja had both gotten out to Bumrah 4/5 times heading into the fourth test and had looked fairly comfortable against the other bowlers. McSweeney in particular I felt looked really technically sound. He was playing it under his eyes, bat was coming down straight with minimal gap between bat and pad, and he had fairly good weight transfer. The only criticism is he played at some balls he could have left but that’s harsh when you’re facing a guy who bowls 140+ and is a genuine LBW/bowled threat. I think Konstas basically assessed that if he played conventionally he had no chance. The part about his play that was smart, was that with the shots he played, with the fields that were set, the only real risk was getting bowled and we know that the vast majority of Bumrah’s balls don’t hit the stumps. So while it was a gamble that needed some luck, it was smart cricket that played the percentages. It also, forced Bumrah off his normal line and length, which allowed the other bats to get settled and into the game, which I think was just as important as the runs he scored.

So yes, he was lucky at times, but he was taking calculated risks. For a 19 year old on debut to have the intelligence and courage to try that is immensely impressive and I don’t quite understand why people are seeing it as a negative. We know he has the ability to bat “normally” at Shield level and he’s just shown he has the ability and temperament to match it with the best of the best so there’s plenty of reason to be bullish about him as a prospect.

 

[Spirit Level]

Anyone who can rustle the jimmies of the Indians like he did I can get on board with.

Showed them up as the spoilt children they are.