06/07 Cricket thread

Madden · Post by **Madden** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:05 am

Lee out of the World Cup.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... ?from=news

You would assume that Stuart Clark will be the replacement.

Thoughts?

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:28 am

Clark bleeds too many runs...bring back Gillespie whose experience, not only in World Cups but also the Windies, would be invaluable

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:51 pm

Feeling is Stuart Clark will be selected, logic tells me you need to replace an experienced bowler in Lee with an experienced bowler like Dizzy.

As much as I dislike Lee as a Test bowler, the damage he has/can cause in limited overs is invaluable. In a short space of time he can grab early wickets and put the opposition's innings under extreme pressure from the outset. Who else can perform that duty?

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:18 pm

BenDoolan wrote:Feeling is Stuart Clark will be selected, logic tells me you need to replace an experienced bowler in Lee with an experienced bowler like Dizzy.

As much as I dislike Lee as a Test bowler, the damage he has/can cause in limited overs is invaluable. In a short space of time he can grab early wickets and put the opposition's innings under extreme pressure from the outset. Who else can perform that duty?

Liam Plunkett

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:27 pm

bomberdonnie wrote:
BenDoolan wrote:Feeling is Stuart Clark will be selected, logic tells me you need to replace an experienced bowler in Lee with an experienced bowler like Dizzy.

As much as I dislike Lee as a Test bowler, the damage he has/can cause in limited overs is invaluable. In a short space of time he can grab early wickets and put the opposition's innings under extreme pressure from the outset. Who else can perform that duty?
Liam Plunkett

True!

rama_fan · Post by **rama_fan** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:35 pm

Out: Lee
In: Warne

http://www.theage.com.au/news/cricket/y ... 50689.html
Oh how I wish!

swoodley · Post by **swoodley** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:53 pm

And the winner is....Clark

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:05 pm

No surprise there really. I think we'll struggle in the cup....our attack isn't anywhere as potent and economical as it was 4 years ago. The stats are starting to show that. Unless we score 500+, we'll struggle to defend totals.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:12 pm

BenDoolan wrote:No surprise there really. I think we'll struggle in the cup....our attack isn't anywhere as potent and economical as it was 4 years ago. The stats are starting to show that. Unless we score 500+, we'll struggle to defend totals.

I think most teams on those grounds will struggle to defend 350. You have to remember that the pitches in NZ were flat as a tack and short boundaries. On those sort of wickets, its easier to chase as you know what your benchmark is and you have nothing to lose, really.

I think we will be fine in the WI. I get the feeling that these players will be burning from what everybody is saying and they will fire up.

Tait will bowl the middle overs and end up taking the couple of wickets we require in the middle overs.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 9:21 pm

Rossoneri wrote:
BenDoolan wrote:No surprise there really. I think we'll struggle in the cup....our attack isn't anywhere as potent and economical as it was 4 years ago. The stats are starting to show that. Unless we score 500+, we'll struggle to defend totals.
I think most teams on those grounds will struggle to defend 350. You have to remember that the pitches in NZ were flat as a tack and short boundaries. On those sort of wickets, its easier to chase as you know what your benchmark is and you have nothing to lose, really.

I think we will be fine in the WI. I get the feeling that these players will be burning from what everybody is saying and they will fire up.

Tait will bowl the middle overs and end up taking the couple of wickets we require in the middle overs.

Yeah, I don't have any other explanation other than a "gut" feeling about our chances with the attack we have. I'm not saying it's bad, but I believe other teams will have a better balanced attack than ours. Time will tell, obviously....

Ramanama · Post by **Ramanama** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:30 am

Lee is now out, Clark is in.

Clark or Lee?? which one would you choose?for me it would be Clark, to McGraths in the team should cause alot of trouble.

bomberdonnie · Post by **bomberdonnie** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:49 am

Ramanama wrote:Lee is now out, Clark is in.

Clark or Lee?? which one would you choose?for me it would be Clark, to McGraths in the team should cause alot of trouble.

I think their records speak for themselves Rama

Lee is going to be a massive loss especially with our recent inability to bowl out the most ordinary of batting line ups!!

Ramanama · Post by **Ramanama** » Sat Feb 24, 2007 9:51 am

bomberdonnie wrote:
Ramanama wrote:Lee is now out, Clark is in.

Clark or Lee?? which one would you choose?for me it would be Clark, to McGraths in the team should cause alot of trouble.
I think their records speak for themselves Rama

Lee is going to be a massive loss especially with our recent inability to bowl out the most ordinary of batting line ups!!

Yes i no, but Clark is in great form. hard to leave him out.

Rossoneri · Post by **Rossoneri** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:49 pm

Vics require 275 to win the final, looks to be a good batting wicket. Provided we dont lose early wickets we should do it.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 7:00 pm

Someone better tell Rob Quiney and David Hussey this is a limited overs game and not a 4 day match.......talk about snails pace...C'MON!!!!! Either get on with it or get out......get Cam White in there and take control....

rama_fan · Post by **rama_fan** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:37 pm

Fall 20 runs short with 1 wicket in hand.

Disappointing effort.

Cameron White would be hurting only making 1 with the bat.

BenDoolan · Post by **BenDoolan** » Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:47 pm

Oh well, not good enough in the end. Andrew McDonald can hold his head high - has had a fine season in both forms of the game, and so to, Hussey.

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:59 am

Ramanama wrote:Lee is now out, Clark is in.

Clark or Lee?? which one would you choose?for me it would be Clark, to McGraths in the team should cause alot of trouble.

I'm not so sure about that. In theory it sounds good, but the reality is that when you have too much of the same thing it gets pretty easy to hit when you start seeing it enough, unless there's plenty of movement off the deck or someone is taking the ball both ways, mixing it up.

Lee is going to be a massive loss. While he can bleed runs at times, he can also intimidate the opposition into submission and take a cluster of wickets in a short space of time. He's one of the most potent ODI bowlers going. Even Pigeon has lost a lot of his ODI bite. I think Tait could be the replacement for Lee. Very quick, has that surprise impact value and can get the ball to move a bit (or a lot in some cases). We're going to need that.

I think the big question is going to be... should we win the toss, do we bat or bowl? All this talk of the chasing team being at an advantage, yet the first instinct on a good wicket (which most of them will be flat tracks) is to bat, bat and bat.

Boyler_Room · Post by **Boyler_Room** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:53 am

Not sure how many of you have read this but Bob Simpson is saying what everyone else is thinking... pity noone will really listen.

Simpson, who emphasised fielding practice during his time as Australia's coach in the 1980s, also said Shane Watson's struggle to develop himself could have been managed better by Australia's support staff. "While Watson is a competent, bustling cricketer, I have doubts if he has the skills or flexibility to cope with cricket at the highest level," Simpson said.

"To me, he looks like an over-coached player, lacking in natural skills and movements. Perhaps this is one reason why he has had so many injuries."

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/austral ... 81489.html

jimmyc1985 · Post by **jimmyc1985** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:59 am

Boyler_Room wrote:Not sure how many of you have read this but Bob Simpson is saying what everyone else is thinking... pity noone will really listen.

Simpson, who emphasised fielding practice during his time as Australia's coach in the 1980s, also said Shane Watson's struggle to develop himself could have been managed better by Australia's support staff. "While Watson is a competent, bustling cricketer, I have doubts if he has the skills or flexibility to cope with cricket at the highest level," Simpson said.

"To me, he looks like an over-coached player, lacking in natural skills and movements. Perhaps this is one reason why he has had so many injuries."
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/austral ... 81489.html

Looks as though ol' Bobby Simpson's been reading my stuff! Plagiariser!!!

jimmyc1985 wrote:That's what i think he really lacks: innate cricketing smarts. He doesn't know what to bowl or when to bowl it and, particularly in his bowling, he just seems such a 'manufactured' cricketer. You can teach them all the technique in the world and they can practice their skills endlessly, but there's also a large element of cricketing instinct required to become a successful bowler, and Watson has absolutely zilch.