*Official* Fifth Test at the SCG

[vicleggie]

Right, but that's it - sport is cyclical. Unless you're seriously suggesting picking players from the U19 squad

We've made some rubbish decisions, sure, but have a look at some of the players that are being cried out for? Ferguson, with an FC average of 36-odd? Marsh, with not much better? And people are honestly saying that our cricketers are as good as ten years ago (=/= not as talented)?

Give me a break.

which sport are you referring to that's cyclical? afl? yes, the draft/salary cap tends to do that.

how about an example- pieteresen said "we would have not gotten close to winning this series if peter moores and I had been in charge"
-have you ever suggested the possibility that leadership, preparation and planning can be integral to success?

maybe (well not maybe. absolutely.) thats where australia went wrong...

 

[Neil Pickup]

My thoughts on the day:

It was very much a passage of play for the purists - long grind, hard work and discipline were required rather than flash shots and impetuosness. On a very long (and poorly navigated) walk to the ground, I couldn't decide whether I would be batting or bowling first on winning the toss: something just seemed to be missing in terms of swing that had been present a week before in Melbourne. I settled on bowling first, on the grounds that I am by nature tactically conservative, and the prospect of 3/30 is never an appetising one: I wasn't disappointed to see Clarke take first use.

Hughes looks technically sounder than 18 months ago: his back foot seems to be doing more of what it ought to be doing, and less running away - his intent was good in terms of capitalising on the few loose balls that England offered, and it was a farily good nut from Tremlett that got him off balance and following the ball. I think that he has a future at the top of the innings on this showing: things weren't easy first up, but he and Watson rode the storm well. As for Watto himself, well, I still can't get my head around how he can get to 40/50, leave the ball well, be selective with what he's doing, and then get out, but it keeps on happening, and no one in the SCG looked surprised when he nicked off.

About 30 seconds before Clarke got himself out, I turned to one of my mates and said "I think Clarke's still giving us a good chance here - he's going hard at the ball, and playing away from his body" - cue smug mode as he played some flash/waft thing that can only loosely be termed a shot. Khawaja looked pretty solid: he defended well and pulled majestically, however I'm unconvinced about him on the front foot on the off side. He hit a few drives that rather skewed to mid-off as the bat turned in his hands, and then slashed uppishly through backward point: it felt as if he was rather overly keen to get on with proceedings at times... as showed by what was very much a debutant's dismissal.

Otherwise, Hussey was Hussey and I'm not surprised to see Haddin coming in ahead of Schofield Smith. England fielded well as per usual (how good does it feel to write that?) and caught everything that came their way: I do feel as if we were just a fraction short on too regular a basis - beating the edge or allowing a batsman to leave, Hilfenhaus-style, rather than asking the probing questions, though this was much improved as the day wore on. Another thought was that there really wasn't much pace in the wicket - the ball died on the slips several times, and a number short balls sat up to be pulled, hard. When the clouds go - and they have to, don't they? - I can see this being a very good batting track for a couple of days.

If we can split the two best batsmen in the Aussie side early on tomorrow, I think it's very much the box seats.

 

[Burgey]

so? who gives a ****

he was an alpha male who played good attacking cricket.
pietersen is a ***** too.
so was Border. so is harbhajan. so is steyn. so is graeme smith. so was dennis lillee. so was thompson. so were the chappell brothers. so was botham. so was waqar younis. so was viv richards. so was hadlee.

when u start to try and contain men too much, and regulate their behaviour, u get the current bunch of punces who are conservative and weak in every way possible.

Please, don't put Border, Richards, Hadlee, G Chappell and Lillee in the category of those other ****s. They're not fit to shine their shoes as cricketers.

 

[vicleggie]

Please, don't put Border in the category of those other ****s. They're not fit to shine his shoes as cricketers.

yeh, lillee, botham, viv richards and waqar sucked.

 

[Ruckus]

If we were in a position to win that test then it was purely due to Hilfy's new ball spell in the 2nd innings. As I said there are rough areas in the consistentcy of every Australian player atm, but you gotta back a few blokes who can carry this team forward out of this tough phase and Hilfy is one of them.
The team management too obviously realises that, and that's probably the reason he is playing ahead of Bollinger. Dougie is a great bloke but I think there are some question marks over his physical and mental fitness to bowl long spells in tough conditions.

You can't just look at one side of the coin. The way I see it is the second innings spell of Hilf merely made up for his abysmal returns in the first. You have to look at the overall performance in the match.

Dont get me wrong though, I think Hilf is a useful player, but, like Johnson, only if he is managed properly. Hilf's strength is clearly maintaining a consistent line/length and building up pressure. He is not the greatest wicket taker, and with the erratic Johnson (and Siddle to some extent) in the team that becomes a problem - because who takes the wickets if those bowlers have an off-day? Hilf would be of better valuable to the team if we had a bowler who can consistently take wickets. Bollinger is pretty good in that regard, and I'm hoping someone like Copeland can adopt that role in the future.

 

[vicleggie]

oh how convenient , you edited to cater for "those other ****s".....

 

[Jono]

Burgey under fire today. Good to see.

 

[Nate]

My thoughts on the day:

It was very much a passage of play for the purists - long grind, hard work and discipline were required rather than flash shots and impetuosness. On a very long (and poorly navigated) walk to the ground, I couldn't decide whether I would be batting or bowling first on winning the toss: something just seemed to be missing in terms of swing that had been present a week before in Melbourne. I settled on bowling first, on the grounds that I am by nature tactically conservative, and the prospect of 3/30 is never an appetising one: I wasn't disappointed to see Clarke take first use.

Hughes looks technically sounder than 18 months ago: his back foot seems to be doing more of what it ought to be doing, and less running away - his intent was good in terms of capitalising on the few loose balls that England offered, and it was a farily good nut from Tremlett that got him off balance and following the ball. I think that he has a future at the top of the innings on this showing: things weren't easy first up, but he and Watson rode the storm well. As for Watto himself, well, I still can't get my head around how he can get to 40/50, leave the ball well, be selective with what he's doing, and then get out, but it keeps on happening, and no one in the SCG looked surprised when he nicked off.

About 30 seconds before Clarke got himself out, I turned to one of my mates and said "I think Clarke's still giving us a good chance here - he's going hard at the ball, and playing away from his body" - cue smug mode as he played some flash/waft thing that can only loosely be termed a shot. Khawaja looked pretty solid: he defended well and pulled majestically, however I'm unconvinced about him on the front foot on the off side. He hit a few drives that rather skewed to mid-off as the bat turned in his hands, and then slashed uppishly through backward point: it felt as if he was rather overly keen to get on with proceedings at times... as showed by what was very much a debutant's dismissal.

Otherwise, Hussey was Hussey and I'm not surprised to see Haddin coming in ahead of Schofield Smith. England fielded well as per usual (how good does it feel to write that?) and caught everything that came their way: I do feel as if we were just a fraction short on too regular a basis - beating the edge or allowing a batsman to leave, Hilfenhaus-style, rather than asking the probing questions, though this was much improved as the day wore on. Another thought was that there really wasn't much pace in the wicket - the ball died on the slips several times, and a number short balls sat up to be pulled, hard. When the clouds go - and they have to, don't they? - I can see this being a very good batting track for a couple of days.

If we can split the two best batsmen in the Aussie side early on tomorrow, I think it's very much the box seats.

Where'd you sit Neil? I was to the left of the BA, a bit higher up tan AndyC.

I feel like posting my opinion, but everything that needs to be said, you've said.

Can't wait for the next four days.

 

[pup11]

Right, but that's it - sport is cyclical. Unless you're seriously suggesting picking players from the U19 squad

We've made some rubbish decisions, sure, but have a look at some of the players that are being cried out for? Ferguson, with an FC average of 36-odd? Marsh, with not much better? And people are honestly saying that our cricketers are as good as ten years ago (=/= not as talented)?

Give me a break.

Nobody is saying we have a Warne, Bradman or McGrath lurking somewhere in the domestic scene, but still there are plenty of good domestic players who if given some confidence can collectively make Australia a very strong unit.
That's why I'm saying our selections have been a big problem, we just aren't showing any faith in any player and some players that deserve to selected aren't being selected, which isn't really creating the greatest of atmospheres around in Australian cricket.
Cosgrove, Hauritz and Copeland are just the three names that come to mind who should be in this current XI on their present form, but these are probably blokes who might never get a chance.
Instead we're pushing U-19's like Starc, Hazelwood, Smith, George without even giving them time to develop their game at the domestic level. In a way that's not surprising because Hilditch himself admitted he doesn't rate domestic performances.

 

[Burgey]

oh how convenient , you edited to cater for "those other ****s".....

Didn't edit to exclude you from that subset.

 

[pup11]

You can't just look at one side of the coin. The way I see it is the second innings spell of Hilf merely made up for his abysmal returns in the first. You have to look at the overall performance in the match.

Dont get me wrong though, I think Hilf is a useful player, but, like Johnson, only if he is managed properly. Hilf's strength is clearly maintaining a consistent line/length and building up pressure. He is not the greatest wicket taker, and with the erratic Johnson (and Siddle to some extent) in the team that becomes a problem - because who takes the wickets if those bowlers have an off-day? Hilf would be of better valuable to the team if we had a bowler who can consistently take wickets. Bollinger is pretty good in that regard, and I'm hoping someone like Copeland can adopt that role in the future.

If you were watching that game, Hilfenhaus made likes of Dravid, SRT edge a lot of balls in the 1st innings but there was just one slip in the slip cordon, so rather then getting a wicket he kept on getting edged to the boundary.
The thing is Ponting as a captain is very negative, if Hilfenhaus who is a predominately outswing bowler pitches the ball up and gets driven for a few boundaries, Ponting usually disperses the field cutting out his wicket-taking opportunities.
From what I can see Hilfenhaus' role in the present bowling attack is to tie up one end and bowl a lot of overs, so that his erratic bowling mates can attack with less pressure on their back from the other end.

 

[Spark]

Nobody is saying we have a Warne, Bradman or McGrath lurking somewhere in the domestic scene, but still there are plenty of good domestic players who if given some confidence can collectively make Australia a very strong unit.
That's why I'm saying our selections have been a big problem, we just aren't showing any faith in any player and some players that deserve to selected aren't being selected, which isn't really creating the greatest of atmospheres around in Australian cricket.
Cosgrove, Hauritz and Copeland are just the three names that come to mind who should be in this current XI on their present form, but these are probably blokes who might never get a chance.
Instead we're pushing U-19's like Starc, Hazelwood, Smith, George without even giving them time to develop their game at the domestic level. In a way that's not surprising because Hilditch himself admitted he doesn't rate domestic performances.

Agreed with Hauritz absolutely. I don't know why Copeland has barely got a peep either.

But even if we do pick some of these players, you can't expect them to be anywhere neat as good as some of the players floating around 10, 20 years ago were. They were just bloody good players and that's life.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Where'd you sit Neil? I was to the left of the BA, a bit higher up tan AndyC.

I feel like posting my opinion, but everything that needs to be said, you've said.

Can't wait for the next four days.

Victor Trumper Stand, Bay 314. Same place for the next two days. Check your VMs.

 

[Speersy]

I was there today, very mixed emotions really.
Khwaja looked really good, not too nervous just looked like he belonged there.

Hughes, omg so annoying he was entertaining as usual then looked to stay around with Watto. Then obviously got out caught behind the wicket as per usual, right before lunch too! Don't know how it was for the guys watching on T.V but it was very entertaining cricket, the wicket came out of nowhere really.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Cosgrove, Hauritz and Copeland are just the three names that come to mind who should be in this current XI on their present form, but these are probably blokes who might never get a chance.

Instead we're pushing U-19's like Starc, Hazelwood, Smith, George without even giving them time to develop their game at the domestic level. In a way that's not surprising because Hilditch himself admitted he doesn't rate domestic performances.

Cosgrove? Really?

I think I can probably tell you why Hilditch doesn't rate domestic performances, as well. It's because Nathan Hauritz has scored back-to-back centuries in the Shield. It's like the County Championship, really, which amuses me greatly as it gives the lie to the insistence we've heard down the years that the English game is weak because it has too many county sides in it.

You've got a domestic system in which Sajid Mahmood being signed as an overseas player. I can't think of any greater insult.

 

[Spark]

Hauritz is actually a fair bat though. If Mitchell Johnson can score a Test ton, then I could see Hauritz do it (and he actually came reasonably close once) - he's about as good a batsman, if as destructive.

 

[Redbacks]

Cosgrove? Really?

Fat Chance

 

[Spark]

Fat Chance

boom-tish

 

[Prince EWS]

Hauritz is actually a fair bat though. If Mitchell Johnson can score a Test ton, then I could see Hauritz do it (and he actually came reasonably close once) - he's about as good a batsman, if as destructive.

There's no doubt in my mind that Shield standards have dropped in the last couple of years though. I went to a lot of Shield games two or three seasons ago and the games I've watched on the CA site haven't been quite there. There's a lot of talent but it's far from refined to the standard we'd like it to be, and the standard it was. There are also a few players who just don't look up to it at all. That Nathan Hauritz has scored two hundreds and taken a five wicket haul after spending the best part of ten years being a joke in the competition could suggest that he's improved, but it could also suggest that the opposition isn't as strong. I think it's a bit of both, personally.

That still doesn't really give the selectors an excuse for picking random players who haven't even performed consistently at that standard over those who actually are performing and have done so for their whole career, but I can see why they'd be more likely to stick with the status quo.

 

[Spark]

There's no doubt in my mind that Shield standards have dropped in the last couple of years though. I went to a lot of Shield games two or three seasons ago and the games I've watched on the CA site haven't been quite there. There's a lot of talent but it's far from refined to the standard we'd like it to be, and the standard it was. There are also a few players who just don't look up to it at all. That Nathan Hauritz has scored two hundreds and taken a five wicket haul after spending the best part of ten years being a joke in the competition could suggest that he's improved, but it could also suggest that the opposition isn't as strong. I think it's a bit of both, personally.

Have you not read any of my posts over the last few pages?

'tis a fair point, probably back-to-back hundreds is a bit more than one would reasonably expect from a player of Hauritz's ability.

Oh, that should be "not as..." up there obviously. Looks a bit silly, but it's been quoted so no point editing.