Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[western royboy]

There are way too many "off-spinners" with very, very dodgy actions.
And 1 bloke caused it all.

preach it

 

[Phone]

think you guys are being a bit mean to tony lock

 

[Ill Chicken]

Lee had a couple of pretty ordinary test series and tailed off quite a bit towards the end of his career, but in his prime he was an extremely good bowler who complemented McGrath beautifully. I never really bought into the mentality that he was only getting a game because of his marketability when he was picked ahead of guys like Kasprowicz, Bichel and Gillespie - it's arguable that Kaspa and Gillespie were better bowlers, but Lee offered what nobody else could and that was extreme pace with a degree of control that far exceeded Shaun Tait's.

Pretty comfortable with the Langer over Hayden call too. Langer was remarkably dominant at times once he taught himself to cover drive.

Lee kept getting sucked into the whole mantra of bowling line and length and consistent which meant he dropped down in pace for the sake of trying to eliminate the occasional four ball which he didn't avoid anyway. His role was to bowl as fast as he could the whole time and not worry about going for runs.

Langer can be a hard task master in the same vain Hayden is. He has those eyes that never seem to stop watching you. From a few blokes in the WA, you can't go out and have a beer with those boys without feeling like they're writing mental notes on you the whole time. In terms of player, they're a bit different and is probably a fair reason why they were so successful together.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Fair enough call I reckon. IMO there are two batting positions: top order (1, 2 or 3) and middle order (4-7). But if you can bat surely it doesn't matter where you do, you'd have to think Clarke could do well as an opener if he had to.

In theory yes, but in practice, another thing entirely. I remember the period when Ian Chappell batted 3 for Australia and SA and was continually walking in with the score 1 for single figures, so one day he thought if he was virtually opening the innings, he may as well do just that. He failed miserably as an opener and the theory was by walking in with 1 wicket down, it made him psychologically more determined. Many other players have done well at 4, but not at 3. Steve Waugh and Alan Border both had stints at 3 but discovered they were far more effective down the order. Clarke opening would be interesting, but if he is making runs where he is, leave him there.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

There are plenty better options for the Test team in Australia than Peter Siddle.

Peter Siddle is down on pace, not swinging the ball, seems to have lost his trademark aggression (since becoming a vegan).

I think he still performs a role in the team, is an honest bowler who makes the batsman play at a lot of deliveries, but I feel when i'm watching him bowl that we're just waiting for the batsman to make a mistake rather then get done by a gem.

I heard Siddle being interviewed the other day on radio. He was asked about his loss of pace, and he denied it. He claims he is just as quick now as he's ever been. He's kidding himself, he's clearly dropped at least 10kph, if not more.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Lee kept getting sucked into the whole mantra of bowling line and length and consistent which meant he dropped down in pace for the sake of trying to eliminate the occasional four ball which he didn't avoid anyway. His role was to bowl as fast as he could the whole time and not worry about going for runs.

Langer can be a hard task master in the same vain Hayden is. He has those eyes that never seem to stop watching you. From a few blokes in the WA, you can't go out and have a beer with those boys without feeling like they're writing mental notes on you the whole time. In terms of player, they're a bit different and is probably a fair reason why they were so successful together.

If ever a team needed to feel like that, it's WA. Can't do them anything except good.

 

[The Speaker]

think you guys are being a bit mean to tony lock

There aren't too many dodgy left-arm orthodox guys floating around.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

There aren't too many dodgy left-arm orthodox guys floating around.

Tony Lock was okay towards the latter stages of his career, playing here in WA, but when he first started playing Test for England he was a real chucker and had to modify his action which was more suited to darts than cricket. You're right about most left-arm orthodox bowlers in general, they probably wouldn't get much advantage with a dodgy action.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Lee kept getting sucked into the whole mantra of bowling line and length and consistent which meant he dropped down in pace for the sake of trying to eliminate the occasional four ball which he didn't avoid anyway. His role was to bowl as fast as he could the whole time and not worry about going for runs.

It was disappointing at the time hearing the criticism of Lee, but you are correct. We already had McGrath and Gillespie in the team who could peg batsmen down. Lee's role was simply to charge in and bowl as quickly as possible, that was his value to the team. In doing so, he would get knocked around a bit, but he did this job well. I wasn't keen on the over-use of the short ball to tail enders, but I rated Lee highly as a quick.

It was a similar role to Thommo when he came into the Aussie team in 1974-75. They had Lillee and Walker who could tie batsmen up, Chappell just wanted Thommo to let 'em have it, which he did to perfection.

If you managed to survive for any length of time against a Thomson or Lee, you were guaranteed a bit of rubbish you could help yourself to a boundary, but there was always that unplayable ball just around the corner. Thommo and Bing never bowled for averages, they bowled for wickets. Team players.

I sometimes feel the role of the express quick is often misunderstood by the cricket public.

 

[Kyptastic]

James Faulkner will be a quality player, but the hype outweighs the performance greatly at this time.

 

[Hellgood]

Darren Sammy would be in Australia's ODI and T20 sides.

Well, he's consistently proven that he is the best innings finisher in the world. Smoked them again tonight.

 

[Zach Package]

Well, he's consistently proven that he is the best innings finisher in the world. Smoked them again tonight.

He'd be competing with Faulkner for that 3rd quick/no8 bat spot. and tbh, i'd still pick Faulkner

 

[Partridge]

In theory yes, but in practice, another thing entirely. I remember the period when Ian Chappell batted 3 for Australia and SA and was continually walking in with the score 1 for single figures, so one day he thought if he was virtually opening the innings, he may as well do just that. He failed miserably as an opener and the theory was by walking in with 1 wicket down, it made him psychologically more determined. Many other players have done well at 4, but not at 3. Steve Waugh and Alan Border both had stints at 3 but discovered they were far more effective down the order. Clarke opening would be interesting, but if he is making runs where he is, leave him there.

In Waugh's case the selectors made that decision for him too. He didn't have the technique for a number 3.

 

[Yoda_]

He'd be competing with Faulkner for that 3rd quick/no8 bat spot. and tbh, i'd still pick Faulkner

Notice Sammy didn't even bowl in the T20 game two nights ago there Jack.

More so he is the skipper and didn't require himself to bowl.

Faulkner > Sammy > Ravi Bopara

 

[Cristiano Ronaldo]

Really random question and probably silly.
Say a fielding side had players who use gel to style their hair. It gets hot and they start sweating. They then use this sweat, which is mixed with the hair product, to start shining the ball. Do you think there would be any advantages in the way the ball might behave when shined this way?

 

[evdo1706]

Really random question and probably silly.
Say a fielding side had players who use gel to style their hair. It gets hot and they start sweating. They then use this sweat, which is mixed with the hair product, to start shining the ball. Do you think there would be any advantages in the way the ball might behave when shined this way?

They already use those techniques I think.

 

[Cristiano Ronaldo]

Oh yeah you're right. Says it in Wiki. Should've googled first

 

[courtjester]

Oh bugger - forgot Grimmett - he's definitely in the argument.

FWIW, after the 1930 tour (when Bradman made 974 runs) - Woodfull said, 'We might have still won without Bradman - we wouldn't have won without Grimmett'.

I put Spofforth in, based on respect from his opponents (the English). They had ABSOLUTELY no doubt he was the best bowler of his era, and probably the best bowler up to the 1900s. Read some of the players from that time.

Davidson had a slow start to his career - but his second half was spectacular. Late 50s-early 60s (to retirement) he was fantastic.

Put a gun to my head - I'll go
1. McGrath
2. Spofforth
3. Warne
4. Lillee
5. Grimmett
6. Davidson.

Ask me tomorrow, and it will probably be different.

Quicks:

Lillee
McGrath
Lindwall
Davidson
Miller

Spinners:

Warne
O'Reilly
Grimmett
Benaud
Mailey


Hard to compare early era players.

 

[southernswannies]

Bailey would do better in the 4 Test series against India than Doolan, Marsh, Khawaja.... and Hughes.

 

[Ashton Agar]

Bailey would do better in the 4 Test series against India than Doolan, Marsh, Khawaja.... and Hughes.

Not Hughes. The others I agree on though.

 

[The_Reaper]

Bailey would do better in the 4 Test series against India than Doolan, Marsh, Khawaja.... and Hughes.

Nah.

Khawaja or Hughes would have no difficulties scoring big against India in Australia.

 

[woofles]

Bailey would do better in the 4 Test series against India than Doolan, Marsh, Khawaja.... and Hughes.

Are we picking batsman who are capable of battering India though, or averaging 45+ over an extended period in test cricket?

 

[eth-dog]

Bailey would do better in the 4 Test series against India than Doolan, Marsh, Khawaja.... and Hughes.

Maxwell would do better than all of the above

 

[SterlingArcher]

Have two negative ones:

-Shane Watson is not a leader, nor should he ever be considered a monty for the test team. I'd have dropped him already or at least placed him on notice (before injury)

-Peter Siddle, time to go mate. True Aussie cricketer, but think as soon as we get some fitness/durability in our pace bowlers Siddle will have to go.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Shane Watson is not a leader, nor should he ever be considered a monty for the test team. I'd have dropped him already or at least placed him on notice (before injury)

Given the vitriol thrown his way at every chance, I'd have said that is a fairly popular opinion.