**Official** Tour Matches

[Uppercut]

Personally I'd play the same team that will start the first test. There's no worse way to prepare for a series than to use the warm-ups as selection trials IMO.

 

[pasag]

Don't think that's the last time we'll have trouble bowling out a side on the final day on this tour after doing well for the majority of the match. Happened in India, in the West Indies and vs SA at home. Regardless of the oppo, I'd never be fully confident bowling out a side after declaring with 100 or so overs left with this attack.

 

[pup11]

Don't agree on Manou playing the next warm up game. Would prefer Haddin to have another game behind the stumps and more chance to have some time in the middle with the bat.

Haddin was in good touch with the bat against Sussex, but his keeping wasn't quite up to scratch. Missed a stumping, 15 byes against his name too.

I agree it is important to get game time into Manou for the off-chance Haddin may go down injured, but the chance of a Haddin injury over the 1st and 2nd Test is small. Play Manou against Northamptonshire after the 2nd Test.

Haddin has played in every Australian game for the last 12 months, everybody in the Australian team have taken their breaks to counter fatigue at some time or the other, but Haddin never had that luxury, so before such a big series, I think its only fair enough, if he's allowed some time to cool his heels.

 

[Top_Cat]

Haddin has played in every Australian game for the last 12 months, everybody in the Australian team have taken their breaks to counter fatigue at some time or the other, but Haddin never had that luxury, so before such a big series, I think its only fair enough, if he's allowed some time to cool his heels.

Unless he actually says he needs a break, would be reluctant to rest him. Seems to be hitting them alright without being fatigued by a big knock yet. Would be very surprised if he doesn't have a reasonable series with the bat. Tip for a ton and a couple of handy 50's.

 

[Albion]

Looking forward to the Lions game - it's a really strange team England have selected.

It looks weak in batting but very strong in bowling. I think of those selected for the Lions batting wise, Bell looks like the only player who could realistically feature in the Ashes whereas any of Harmison (ugh!), Onions, Mahmood or Rashid could be in contention

 

[social]

Personally I'd play the same team that will start the first test. There's no worse way to prepare for a series than to use the warm-ups as selection trials IMO.

Usually I'd agree but Oz is unsure about its lineup so:

a. Siddle should be rested;

b. Lee and Clark need to prove that they can back up before thay can be cosidered for selection;

c. Hauritz needs to prove that he can bowl in Eng conditions before a spinner is considered as mandatory;

d. Watson needs to prove his fitness or else call for a replacement; and

e. McDonald should be given a chance because the bowlers in game 1 were pretty ordinary

 

[Nate]

Doesn't Johnson need a hit-out aswell though?

Katich
North
Ponting
Hussey
Watson
McDonald
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Hauritz
Clark

?

 

[Malleeboy]

So for McDonald skeptics out there, what would he need to acheive in the practice match for you to think he deserves a place in the Test XI? (Given Lee, Hilf. and Hauritz have not been imprssive so far)

 

[Uppercut]

So for McDonald skeptics out there, what would he need to acheive in the practice match for you to think he deserves a place in the Test XI? (Given Lee, Hilf. and Hauritz have not been imprssive so far)

Lee wasn't unimpressive, 4/104 is pretty good figures, especially in a drawn game. Nothing McDonald does in a warm-up game would convince me he deserves a place in the side, because I already know what he can do and what he can't. I'm extremely opposed to using warm-ups as selection trials, because performances in them usually have no bearing on how someone will perform in the tests.

I'd play McDonald if one of Lee, Clark, Johnson and Siddle is injured.

 

[social]

Lee wasn't unimpressive, 4/104 is pretty good figures, especially in a drawn game. Nothing McDonald does in a warm-up game would convince me he deserves a place in the side, because I already know what he can do and what he can't. I'm extremely opposed to using warm-ups as selection trials, because performances in them usually have no bearing on how someone will perform in the tests.

I'd play McDonald if one of Lee, Clark, Johnson and Siddle is injured.

Siddle is a lock for the first test and there's a tough schedule ahead so it's pointless risking him against the Lions

 

[AlanJLegend]

Doesn't Johnson need a hit-out aswell though?

Katich
North
Ponting
Hussey
Watson
McDonald
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Hauritz
Clark

?

Are you suggesting that we replace Hughes, the most exciting cricketing prospect in recent memory with North, a guy that has been in awful batting form and isn't even an open batsman (as far as I know)?

 

[Uppercut]

Siddle is a lock for the first test and there's a tough schedule ahead so it's pointless risking him against the Lions

Yeah you could say that, or you could say that because he hasn't bowled at all since the tests against SA he needs the extra game to regain some sharpness. In truth, only those in and around the squad will be able to judge which is the case.

 

[Pup Clarke]

Geez if Hauritz actually used his left arm when bowling he could turn out half decent.

 

[andyc]

Are you suggesting that we replace Hughes, the most exciting cricketing prospect in recent memory with North, a guy that has been in awful batting form and isn't even an open batsman (as far as I know)?

I think you'll find he was just talking about the next tour match. As it is, Hughes is a dead cert, in form and has clearly gotten used to English conditions, as his Middlesex stint shows. There's not really much to be gained from playing him in the next tour match, especially as it means that someone like North or Watson who needs to prove themselves would miss out. That said, if they weren't going to play Hughes, they'd probably be more likely to open with Hussey.

 

[inbox24]

He's an limited overs specialist to be honest. No point picking him in the longer form, can't hold up an end, can't take wickets. The only thing going for him is his batting. A spin bowler should not be considered for a place in the team by comparing his bowling abilities to ONLY the other spin bowlers in the country, but rather to all the other BOWLERS in the country.

 

[Uppercut]

He's an limited overs specialist to be honest. No point picking him in the longer form, can't hold up an end, can't take wickets. The only thing going for him is his batting. A spin bowler should not be considered for a place in the team by comparing his bowling abilities to ONLY the other spin bowlers in the country, but rather to all the other BOWLERS in the country.

Not that his record holds up particularly well against the other spin bowlers in the country, with a worse FC average than such wonder-bowlers as Bryce McGain, Marcus North and, incredibly, Cameron White.

 

[Richard]

Absolute rubbish.

Actually it isn't.

wat

Sorry Richard, but this is one of the biggest pieces of garbage I've ever read.

Actually it isn't.

I'm not weighing in on the argument at all because basically, I don't care. But that is just so far from the truth it's ridiculous.

Haha, we've all tried to tell him that mate. You'd like to think he might accept it coming from you, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Why would you "like" to think that?

Yeah, real life's not quite like Battrick. I know of a number of players just at my club alone who looked a million dollars in the nets and yet had trouble producing that form in the middle. You can spend hours and hours 'practicing' with bowling machines and the like but the best way of improving your game is spending time in the middle against quality bowlers or bowling against quality bats in a match situation. The net sessions provide you with time to hone your technique, but it's the application you learn in the game that is vital.

Correct.

I could spend hours practicing in the nets against spinners, practicing shots like the Dilshan scoop over my head etc. so that I'd have all sorts of innovative ways to score off spinners, no matter what they bowl me and what field they set.

All that practice means absolutely **** all if I can't reproduce it in the middle, during a match situation.

Something you seem to overlook is that your chances of producing it in the middle, during a match is dependent on how much you've practised doing it.

If anyone seriously believes that you can get better at cricket just by playing a high level, they're woefully mistaken. The only way you get better at batting or bowling is to bat or bowl. In a game, your aim is to bowl or play the next ball and contribute to trying to win that present game, and if you look too far beyond that you're in trouble.

So you need lots and lots of time bowling, or lots of time batting. The only way to get that is in a non-match situation.

If you're not good enough to play at a certain level, you must improve before you earn the right to do so. Not the other way around.

 

[Richard]

No! No! No!

Ambrose was a Sussex first team regular at the age of 19. He kept wicket for us in our championship-winning year 2003, and also batted at 5 ahead of Prior who played as a specialist batsman at 7. He was anything but a late developer.

He certainly had great potential, we agree about that. But Prior overtook him and Ambrose would have been forced to play the Andy Hodd role at Sussex. Ie not getting any games; playing as Prior's understudy and occasionally getting a game but not getting the keeping job. He moved to Warwickshire where he is now guaranteed a first-team place, as a result of which he forced his way into the England reckoning. To pretend that his career hasn't been advanced by his move to Warwickshire is to defy common sense, and the evidence.

Ambrose was always, in my view, potentially a better wicketkeeper-batsman than Prior. He may have hinted at his promise in his early Sussex years, but the fact that he fell behind Prior at all says it all. Had he developed earlier, he'd have beaten Prior to a first-team place and kept it. As it was, though, he was never a first-team regular after his dreadful 2004, despite having not a few opportunities to force his way back in (10 games in 2004, 7 in 2005, 9 in 2006). And it was only in 2007 that he begun to fulfull his potential - after moving to Warwickshire.

 

[Richard]

Not sure what the attitude of the former county has to do with it.

Everything. If it's a player who moves through his own choice (ie, who two or more counties want) then that's just personal choice, whether the reasons are wanting to be involved with a more successful, richer, more harmonious, or whatever, side. But if it's a player released because he's not been good enough to get into the first-team, well, as I say, that's different.

As to the attitude of the player, yes Hamilton-Brown wanted to move, but so did Wright, so I don't understand what distinction you're trying to draw.

As far as Wright is concerned, the move south has patently been a success. Do you think he would have played for England in any form of the game if he had stayed at Leicester? Come to think of it, do you think he'd even have played much first class cricket had he stayed at Leicester along with the Kolpaks? And do you think he would have won 2 county championships at Leicester? Unless you can answer yes to all 3 of those questions, it seems to me that his decision has been richly vindicated.

The answer to all of them is "who knows?" There is absolutely no way anyone can be certain whether Wright's career would've turned-out better, worse or exactly the same had he stayed where he was. You cannot say his decision has been a mistake, certainly not, but nor can you say it was essential.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Actually it isn't.


Actually it isn't.


Why would you "like" to think that?


Something you seem to overlook is that your chances of producing it in the middle, during a match is dependent on how much you've practised doing it.

If anyone seriously believes that you can get better at cricket just by playing a high level, they're woefully mistaken. The only way you get better at batting or bowling is to bat or bowl. In a game, your aim is to bowl or play the next ball and contribute to trying to win that present game, and if you look too far beyond that you're in trouble.

So you need lots and lots of time bowling, or lots of time batting. The only way to get that is in a non-match situation.

If you're not good enough to play at a certain level, you must improve before you earn the right to do so. Not the other way around.

You do have to practice in the nets, but match practice is also invaluable. They're not mutually exclusive, but the most valuable lessons you learn in cricket are those learned while you are in the middle. You can get lots of time bowling and batting in the middle too, possibly more than you'll get in the nets if you're having a good day. What's important in my opinion is what you do with your time. Mentally you'll learn a lot more in the middle than you will in training, as it's hard to replicate a match situation fully in the nets.