***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2013/14

[Prince EWS]

Good on you for not rating Doolan, but you have to put up your hand and admit you were proven brutally wrong after the Centurion match, which you have not done so.

But but but..

So we're judging a guys ability on the basis of one innings?

Fact is, we'd both formed opinions on the guy after watching him extensively in domestic cricket, and those opinions are unlikely to change on the basis of one innings, be that one good innings or one bad innings.

As I said, I wasn't trying to be a dick and go on a big "I was right and you were wrong" tirade as we have more than enough of those on here already. I'm not sure if you went back through the thread to read last night's live comments but you may have noticed that I didn't partake in the mass excitement that went on about you tasting it; I don't really care about that. I'm much more interested in discussing aspects of cricket moving forward than chalking up a notch on the e-scoreboard because Rogers tonned up and Marsha and Doolan failed.

But my post wasn't about any of that. I genuinely thought that the innings was so bad that it was basically essential viewing for anyone who wanted to put forward a opinion on selection, much as his 80 odd in the first Test and Marsh's ton were. If you watched most of it and it didn't change your mind, that's fine, I wasn't looking for an argument; I was just pointing out that if it was a must watch for context really.

 

[Second Spitter]

No rain today by the looks of things....in case anybody was wondering.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Sorry pal but a team with a winning culture, or an attitude to win, doesn't worry about trying to draw a match.

Nothing wrong with draws. New Zealand has now gone 7 tests without defeat - I'd take that every day of the week. Every other team has lost at least one game recently.

 

[benchmark00]

But but but..



Fact is, we'd both formed opinions on the guy after watching him extensively in domestic cricket, and those opinions are unlikely to change on the basis of one innings, be that one good innings or one bad innings.

As I said, I wasn't trying to be a dick and go on a big "I was right and you were wrong" tirade as we have more than enough of those on here already. I'm not sure if you went back through the thread to read last night's live comments but you may have noticed that I didn't partake in the mass excitement that went on about you tasting it; I don't really care about that. I'm much more interested in discussing aspects of cricket moving forward than chalking up a notch on the e-scoreboard because Rogers tonned up and Marsha and Doolan failed.

But my post wasn't about any of that. I genuinely thought that the innings was so bad that it was basically essential viewing for anyone who wanted to put forward a opinion on selection, much as his 80 odd in the first Test and Marsh's ton were. If you watched most of it and it didn't change your mind, that's fine, I wasn't looking for an argument; I was just pointing out that if it was a must watch for context really.

That's the point, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that last night innings is mind changing but fail to say that his excellent innings and a half in the first test wasn't mind changing. It's just a nothing point. Neither of them are mind changing, and not once do I care if other peoples minds change. Over the course of the journey we will see.

I will say that on the balance of selection fairness, it has to be Doolan to make way for Watson. That's why Rogers making a hundred last night and everyone else (including Doolan) failing is bad for the medium to long term health of Australian cricket.

 

[benchmark00]

Nothing wrong with draws. New Zealand has now gone 7 tests without defeat - I'd take that every day of the week. Every other team has lost at least one game recently.

I would rather one win and six losses over seven draws. Sport is about winning, it's not about not losing.

 

[Prince EWS]

That's the point, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that last night innings is mind changing but fail to say that his excellent innings and a half in the first test wasn't mind changing. It's just a nothing point. Neither of them are mind changing, and not once do I care if other peoples minds change. Over the course of the journey we will see.

I just said it was potentially mind-changing, and it was. So was his knock in the first Test. You're not wrong or overly stubborn for not changing your mind in either situation as far as I'm concerned, but if you were a bit on the fence they could definitely sway you either way and that wouldn't be wrong to do so. It was a good example of Doolan gone wrong, which is important for context. We've both watched a lot of him in domestic cricket to get to where we are in our thoughts now, but his innings in international cricket are obviously going to count for more. Neither of us have changed our minds and that's fine; I wasn't having a go at you for that, I was just saying that it was important to see that innings for context. Much as I'd say it to someone who claimed Doolan was absolutely terrible but hadn't seen the first Test.

I think we agree in the end; you just took my original post as being far more critical of you than it was. It'd absolutely be ridiculous to demand you change your mind after one bad innings after I didn't change my mind after one good one, but I wasn't doing that, I just wasn't sure if you'd actually seen it or not.

 

[Prince EWS]

I would rather one win and six losses over seven draws. Sport is about winning, it's not about not losing.

Thing is though, even if I agreed with this, which I don't, drawing single matches can help you win series. If the next game is rained off or played on a complete 500-plays-500 road, then drawing the second Test would've meant Australia won the series. That's winning.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

thing is though, even if i agreed with this, which i don't, drawing single matches can help you win series. If the next game is rained off or played on a complete 500-plays-500 road, then drawing the second test would've meant australia won the series. That's winning.

awta

 

[sreeku7]

No rain today by the looks of things....in case anybody was wondering.

Thanks m8 .The most relevant info atm

 

[Flem274*]

I would rather one win and six losses over seven draws. Sport is about winning, it's not about not losing.

This is just Ian Chappellesque fundamentalism at it's most extreme. In cricket if you can't win, you better damn well not lose. The team with one win and six losses is probably just a **** team who got lucky on a minefield or has a good attack but no batting. The second can bat but might lack a strike bowler or two. The first team needs to find more test standard players than the second.

A team with a winning culture or attitude or whatever starts thinking about draws when they're in deep deep ****. Any team from 50/5 chasing 300 or whatever on the last day goes for the draw if they're 1-0 ahead in the series.

 

[benchmark00]

Thing is though, even if I agreed with this, which I don't, drawing single matches can help you win series. If the next game is rained off or played on a complete 500-plays-500 road, then drawing the second Test would've meant Australia won the series. That's winning.

This is very much circular logic. Winning matches wins series iirc.

 

[Zinzan]

Cracking series this & a wonderful response from the Africans. So all down to Newlands eh. Anyone know what type if track they're expecting?

 

[artvandalay]

Any highlights of yesterdays play?

 

[benchmark00]

Any highlights of yesterdays play?

Probably the brass band.

 

[smash84]

This is very much circular logic. Winning matches wins series iirc.

Yeah, but weren't you referring to playing for a win every single time in which case you incur 6 losses?

In that case 1 win and 6 draws is a clearly better outcome

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah, but weren't you referring to playing for a win every single time in which case you incur 6 losses?

In that case 1 win and 6 draws is a clearly better outcome

What? Of course 1 win and 6 draws is better than seven losses or 1 win and six losses. Who said anything different?

 

[Ruckus]

This is very much circular logic. Winning matches wins series iirc.

And losing matches loses series'. His point was completely valid, and actually if you believe it's all about winning, it's frankly a point that should be compatible with your view - i.e. getting draws as opposed to loses obviously increases the chance of a series win.

The all-out 'must win every game' mentality is frankly just a poor decision by any team. If there's a situation where a win is, for all intents and purposes, impossible then a draw is obviously preferable isn't it? It's suicide otherwise. It's about striking the right balance, and it's a reason why I think players like Rogers are actually very valuable to team atm because we have very few batsman capable of grinding out an innings to save a game.

 

[Athlai]

What is all the talk against Rogers? He has been a solid Test contributor since his return to the side and it's against the two teams out there that trouble openers the most with their attack.

I'm struggling to come up with too many names in world cricket let alone Australian cricket who can do a better job at the top of the order.

He is offering you a chance to establish your #3 in the team for a year or two before retiring. I reckon he offers a hell of a lot to Australia and balances the the top order quite well.

Your bigger issues are with 3-6 frankly. Aside from Clarke and Smith there hasn't been a great deal of consistent success in the Australian middle order.

 

[benchmark00]

What is all the talk against Rogers? He has been a solid Test contributor since his return to the side and it's against the two teams out there that trouble openers the most with their attack.

I'm struggling to come up with too many names in world cricket let alone Australian cricket who can do a better job at the top of the order.

He is offering you a chance to establish your #3 in the team for a year or two before retiring. I reckon he offers a hell of a lot to Australia and balances the the top order quite well.

Your bigger issues are with 3-6 frankly. Aside from Clarke and Smith there hasn't been a great deal of consistent success in the Australian middle order.

If exposing him to a brand new ball 75% of the time is helping him get established then no doubt, he's doing a fantastic job.

 

[sreeku7]

Well, I mean, he scored 1 and then decided to give Faf catching practice. Draw your own conclusions, I guess.

quote from a previous post

tbh Watson and Clarke hardly looked secure at the crease in India or in England recently.I think Clarke's supporters are often blinded by his brilliance when he is on song and are pron to forget those numerous occasions when he got out after getting in