06/07 Cricket thread

temporary stevo · Post by **temporary stevo** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:32 pm

jimmyc1985 wrote:
BenDoolan wrote:And I think McGrath is finished as a cricketer. He timed his retirement from Test cricket to perfection, but I'm not sure of his worth in the World Cup. He's suddenly become a medium pace trundler, who is no longer feared by the opposition. In fact, they appear to look forward to his spells.
Once again BD we find ourselves in total agreement here. My old man and i watched him drop that catch, and after the way he bowled tonight, we almost simultaneously looked at each other and said 'McGrath's finished'. At least he has the humility to recognise this fact and step out of the game now, rather than have to be forcefully pushed like Steve Waugh, Healy and some other past greats have.

i'm not convinced - one bad game in the twilight of his career does not mean that he won't be good value in the World Cup. he has the best figures of any Australian bowler in the current ODI series.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:06 pm

temporary stevo wrote:
jimmyc1985 wrote:
BenDoolan wrote:And I think McGrath is finished as a cricketer. He timed his retirement from Test cricket to perfection, but I'm not sure of his worth in the World Cup. He's suddenly become a medium pace trundler, who is no longer feared by the opposition. In fact, they appear to look forward to his spells.
Once again BD we find ourselves in total agreement here. My old man and i watched him drop that catch, and after the way he bowled tonight, we almost simultaneously looked at each other and said 'McGrath's finished'. At least he has the humility to recognise this fact and step out of the game now, rather than have to be forcefully pushed like Steve Waugh, Healy and some other past greats have.
i'm not convinced - one bad game in the twilight of his career does not mean that he won't be good value in the World Cup. he has the best figures of any Australian bowler in the current ODI series.

Yes, that is statistically correct, however, McGrath is far from the danger strike bowler he used to be. I don't doubt his accurate capabilities, but we are now seeing batsmen on a far more regular basis who are prepared to charge at him and hit him over his head for 6. This is the ultimate insult to his long standing authority he used to have in the game. The sight of Gilchrist standing up to the stumps to McGrath just doesn't look right, and I'm sure McGrath himself is embarrassed by it. All I'm saying is that if Australia are looking to him to be our main bowling weapon in the West Indies, then we are in a lot of trouble. He has, IMO, just become a steady medium pace trundler.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 7:58 pm

Hussey gone, another soft dismissal. Aussies dont like the pressure.

5/63, absolutely spineless.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:17 pm

Pissing down again.
5/79 but 20 overs need to be bowled, only 16.2 overs bowled so far.

Hope it pisses down for 2 hours.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:36 pm

Rossoneri wrote:Pissing down again.
5/79 but 20 overs need to be bowled, only 16.2 overs bowled so far.

Hope it pisses down for 2 hours.

This is gonna sound a little bizarre, but I couldn't care less if England win......in fact I hope they do. Why? Because I think our hierarchy are getting a bit too cocky. Stupid comments from Buchanan, and stupid selections from the selectors.....well, suck on it hard boys!

This ongoing infatuation with Watson as a quality allrounder is perplexing. It's biting us in the arse and pretty hard. He isn't a bowler of international standards (as yet). Look at Plunkett. He bowls at 140+ kms and moves the ball in the air. I haven't seen one ball from Watson deviate off the dead straight in either Test or ODI's at all. Johnson can move it. Clark can move it. Hilfenhaus can move it. Watson?.......he would make a great dart player. I reckon he can bat, but he aint a threatening bowler at all. We would have been better served with White in the side batting lower down the order....someone who can smack a ball when required, and who is in form this season.

If we lose, we deserve to lose. England have batted and bowled better than us in the two matches to date.

84859300 · Post by **84859300** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:54 pm

I still feel that one day cricket is as rigged as the WWE (WWF for you oldies) even today.

You can't tell me that in some of the games this year that where we were 2 for plenty, chasing 199, that we had to bat for over 40 overs to reach the total. The players and fans know that the television $$ rules the game.

Twenty20, as much as a slight on the traditional game it is at the moment, is a more real game than the one day game. It last for two hours, if one team makes the runs or is dismissed early, Eddie doesn't have to find 4 hours of family fued to fill the hole or pay KFC there $100,000 back for lost advertising. It's win win for all involved. Even Bangladesh could last 20 overs versus our lot. Entertainment pays.

Watch the key sponsors jump to the Twenty20 game after the popularity of the new world cup.

rama_fan · Post by **rama_fan** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:08 pm

Such a brilliant catch...

Best catch I've seen for a long time.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:15 pm

Lets see...

BD spot on this is a real wake up call that we needed maybe not quite so close to the big tourney but we seriously need to get Watson out of the team.... Massive liability

84859300 I agree that this game is as rigged as a rashid latif dismissal and have said so earlier in this thread but Twenty20 is not the answer and will never take off in a big way. I think you will find that most of the top players will not even play in the world cup Gilchrist has already said as much.

ace076 · Post by **ace076** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:15 pm

Brad Hogg must not go the world cup. His bowling has been pushed around easily in the finals, without a wicket either. His batting is no where near White's. Really can't see him playing a role at all. Michael Clarke can do the job he does with the ball.

rama_fan · Post by **rama_fan** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:24 pm

Hodge, Clarke and White can bowl the equivilant of Hogg's ten overs.

He doesnt bowl anything special and 10 overs can easily be sent down economically through the 3 mentioned bowlers.

This allows an extra pace bowler ala Clark or Johnson and the inclusion of White for Watson.

It's just plain common sense.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:46 pm

This may appear to be said in hindsight, but I was saying this at the time. At the fall of Watson's wicket, an obvious decision had to be made and it wasn't. Brett Lee HAD to leap frog Brad Hogg in the batting order because the situation required him to do so. As much as Ricky Ponting has been the cricketer of the last 3 years (or more), he sometimes lacks imagination in a tough situation. Making that decision may not have made one iota of a difference, but it would have demonstrated that Ponting has a real grasp of innovation when it's required. I was surprised and disappointed that he stuck to the normal batting order when we needed guys out there more suited to a twenty20 scenario.....

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:51 am

I think Hussey has avoided criticism here. The last few game he has been going out to very very soft dismissals and at times when he hasnt needed to play such a poor shot. He is going to be captain this friday so he needs to pull his head in a bit.

Granted he has had a sensational career in both forms of the game but soft dismissals are still soft dismissals.

BERT · Post by **BERT** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:25 am

Has Michael Clarke ever made runs when Australia is in trouble? He can get a quick 50 when he come in at 2-150 but if he comes in at 2-20 he always fails.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:22 am

BenDoolan wrote:This may appear to be said in hindsight, but I was saying this at the time. At the fall of Watson's wicket, an obvious decision had to be made and it wasn't. Brett Lee HAD to leap frog Brad Hogg in the batting order because the situation required him to do so. As much as Ricky Ponting has been the cricketer of the last 3 years (or more), he sometimes lacks imagination in a tough situation. Making that decision may not have made one iota of a difference, but it would have demonstrated that Ponting has a real grasp of innovation when it's required. I was surprised and disappointed that he stuck to the normal batting order when we needed guys out there more suited to a twenty20 scenario.....

Mate you are spot on here I was thinking the same thing and even my wife turned to me and said why would Lee not come in now instead of Hogg....

Now my wife is no sporting idiot but I am worried that she had more insight into the situation of the game last night than our captain.

Love Punter as a batsman the the best I have ever seen but man his captaincy just lacks a bit sometimes!!

Sismis · Post by **Sismis** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:37 am

As Bendoolan et al have said, we lost both games at the selection table. To bring in 2 underdone players with the wealth of talent we have in the wings was insanity.

The criticism of some of Ponting's decsisions is valid too, bowling watson instead Bracken threw away our last chance in the first final.

Having whinged about that thoough, Collingwood almost singlehandedly broke our spirit with some of the best one day batting you're likely to see. reminded me of Steve Waugh the way he was batting, hardly even looked like going out.

Australia now has a couple of month to pull their head in.

j-mac31 · Post by **j-mac31** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:40 pm

rama_fan wrote:Hodge, Clarke and White can bowl the equivilant of Hogg's ten overs.

He doesnt bowl anything special and 10 overs can easily be sent down economically through the 3 mentioned bowlers.

This allows an extra pace bowler ala Clark or Johnson and the inclusion of White for Watson.

It's just plain common sense.

I agree with this and ask: why the bloody hell hasn't Hodge had a bowl this summer? He has been more than handy with the ball for Victoria and the commentators all seem to think he should bowl, but then he doesn't get a go. (White didn't have many chances either). Is Ponting not bowling them so he can get his favorites (ie Hogg and Watson) into the team?

BERT wrote:Has Michael Clarke ever made runs when Australia is in trouble? He can get a quick 50 when he come in at 2-150 but if he comes in at 2-20 he always fails.

Probably not. Does this mean he shouldn't be in the team? Tough call to drop him, seeing as he has made runs, but as you say, when needed, he goes missing.

He won't be dropped anyway, as he is VC for the stupid series in NZ.

rama_fan · Post by **rama_fan** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:32 pm

Let's all laugh at Victoria....

From 2/217 to 9/248.

Blink and you would have missed it.

Ramanama · Post by **Ramanama** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:43 pm

rama_fan wrote:Let's all laugh at Victoria....

From 2/217 to 9/248.

Blink and you would have missed it.

good start

Sismis · Post by **Sismis** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:56 pm

Yet they'll still bring it home.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:02 pm

When will Mash potato ever hit a ton? Every time he looks like getting one....BANG!

Jon Moss has dropped off as a cricketer...he used to be reliable AND consistent with both bat & ball.

Vics are still in the game though....