*Official* Second Test at Lord's

[Spikey]

tbh, not that impressed with Lehmann as a coach at the minute. For a bloke brought in apparently to solve the mental issues of the team, the same cracks still seem to be there. QLD had almost immediate gains under him. A reckoning should be coming and fast if he has anything about him as a man-manager.

no we're batting and bowling just like QLD

 

[NUFAN]

Someone on twitter talked about how Dharmesena continually refers a heap of dismissals regarding no-balls, yet he actually hasn't called one himself. Leads you to believe that he just uses it as a comfort blanket; he's not really watching them closely and that the fast bowler doesn't know that he's over or getting very close.

I wonder if there is a way that a bowling coach could get footage quickly enough of where the bowler is landing and just pass the message on to the bowler that they are continuously landing very close or over the line. Having said that, I think its a big poor from the umpire to never call them and only look when the batsman is out.

 

[Top_Cat]

no we're batting and bowling just like QLD

Difference is QLD the team started winning. You can get away with not being that good if you prevent the oppo from being good too.

 

[Spark]

tbh, not that impressed with Lehmann as a coach at the minute. For a bloke brought in apparently to solve the mental issues of the team, the same cracks still seem to be there. QLD had almost immediate gains under him. A reckoning should be coming and fast if he has anything about him as a man-manager.

Probably a few more self-indulgent brick wall ****s in this team though

 

[Top_Cat]

Have you even been to QLD bro.

 

[Spikey]

It's a shame these highlight packages dont contain a shot of watson's bemused face

 

[fredfertang]

I know I am older than most on here but I still struggle to believe that this Australia team is as bad as this. The teams I grew up watching cannot have become this shambles -- and dont think this England team is anything special, good but especially well drilled and focused.

I agree with this - the 1985 side weren't too good, but they were a lot better than this lot

 

[social]

I knew this would be the line when Lehmann came out and said Rogers was responsible, which is what everyone should have realised was a huge possibility at the time.

I get that people think Watson is a douche etc and it's obvious why. He's not a likeable character and he doesn't fit the role of tough, non-complaining sportsman etc. But seriously. The guy was LBW, he went down the wicket and asked his partner if he should review it like every other batsman on both teams would have done and Rogers said to review it so he did. This thread immediately exploded with like three pages of "****ing selfish Twatto" etc and then every wicket for the rest of the day was his fault for setting the tone etc, and when the coach comes out and says "yeah Rogers kinda bungled that one, was definitely hitting", it's a conspiricy to protect Watson from criticism.

I feel like he's just a cartoon villain for people on this forum. This is obviously how it went down:
Watson: What do you think? Review? Maybe slipping down leg?
Rogers: Nah mate, you're absolutely 100% plumb.
Watson: I think I'm a pretty amazing sort of dude and I play a nice cover drive. Are you sure I could possibly be dismissed by these mere humans on the other team?
Rogers: I'm just a humble deserving sportsman who earned my place in the team on the back of quietly accumulating first class runs so I can't say for sure, but I think it's possible.
Watson: Yeah? Well **** you, I'm reviewing it anyway just because I can. Grab me a latte while they make the decision.

And then 15 minutes later:
Watson: So I kinda wasted a review out there and I'm worried the media will be mean to me. Think you could cover for me?
Lehmann: Sure thing buddy. Let's throw Rogers under the bus in his third test match for absolutely no reason. I'm a great communicator.

I don't doubt that you are 100% correct

My view on Watto is simple

I used to be his biggest fan but I have just about had enough as he does not appear to have learned a thing about batting in the 8 years since his debut

If I were the team management, he would be in the last chance saloon in the second innings and unless he produced an innings of significance (i.e. not 30/40 but big), he'd be gone and would not play another match on tour

He would also be told that he wasn't going to be selected again unless he scored such a mountain of runs in the shield that it was impossible to leave him out

Anyway, desperate times call for desperate measures and I think some tough love is called for

 

[wpdavid]

Pietersen's reaction to Watson reviewing was brilliant

What did he do?

There's an interesting interview with Swann in the paper today. Apparently the latest thing for the close catchers is to encourage the Aus batsmen to review 'out' decisions, although he didn't know if they did that with Watson as he was fetching the ball from fine leg. One or two other little gems as well.

 

[burr]

Amidst the batting horror, not much has been said of Haddin's stand-and-watch-the-ball-fly-past wicket keeping. Seriously, twice yesterday. Unacceptable. And what's so irritating, is despite such shoddy performances, that you know aren't going to improve because the guy is average and 35 or whatever, there's no one to replace him - not even close - so he's made vice captain instead. The problem is what was once our strength. Shield cricket. So depressing.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

If I were the team management, he would be in the last chance saloon in the second innings and unless he produced an innings of significance (i.e. not 30/40 but big), he'd be gone and would not play another match on tour

If Australia were a great batting lineup I'd agree, but I'd take 30-40 from Watson each time over the performances offered by the rest of the order. Only Agar has scored more runs than Watson for Australia this series and he did it all in one innings. He's also bowled okay, at least when you consider it an addition to his batting. Watson definitely has some big flaws as a test cricketer but targeting him for dropping at this point is silly. He at least looks able to face the England bowlers and has gotten a start each time.

Overall I think cricket fans value "going on with it" too much. Yeah, 30 isn't a good score and converting starts is important, but it is better than 2, not somehow magically worse because you "threw it away" or whatever. Our opening partnership has been the biggest stand of the innings in both the last two innings of the series so we can look elsewhere for scapegoats.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

What did he do?

Just let out a huge great belly laughing roar, like a kid at a party seeing someone he dislikes dropping his jelly on the floor. Was very funny.

 

[Spark]

If Australia were a great batting lineup I'd agree, but I'd take 30-40 from Watson each time over the performances offered by the rest of the order. Only Agar has scored more runs than Watson for Australia this series and he did it all in one innings. He's also bowled okay, at least when you consider it an addition to his batting. Watson definitely has some big flaws as a test cricketer but targeting him for dropping at this point is silly. He at least looks able to face the England bowlers and has gotten a start each time.

Overall I think cricket fans value "going on with it" too much. Yeah, 30 isn't a good score and converting starts is important, but it is better than 2, not somehow magically worse because you "threw it away" or whatever. Our opening partnership has been the biggest stand of the innings in both the last two innings of the series so we can look elsewhere for scapegoats.

Nah massively disagree. In an underperforming lineup, it's even more important that you cash in on starts - that's what Clarke and Hussey were able to do last year and in doing so covered up the frailty of the rest of the lineup.

 

[Goughy]

A few years ago the state 2nd XI competition became more youth focused, and there was (I think) only three players over the age of 23 allowed. They've since relaxed it to half the team being over 23, and kept the same "branding", but it's still a massive bastardisation which has had a large effect on the development of players, IMO. Should be a pure 2nd XI competition.

Cheers, thanks for the info. I dont know but I could guess the logic of the Admin. "2nd XI is a strong comp but it is stacked with older guys. We need to get young guys exposure to this level of cricket." Then after the change to a U23 comp "Who would have thought that blocking the older guys participation would have softened the comp and actually reduced tough cricket for the young guys", "How about we compromise and make it half half?"

It sounds like a mess. People shouldnt be ****ing with 2nd tier cricket feeding into the top level.

 

[Spikey]

And thing is, the time they changed it was basically the same time 32yo and older players started evaporating from the shield anyway

 

[Riggins]

probably a contributing factor to why they stopped getting shield games, with not having a second xi comp to knock the door down with performances.

 

[social]

Cheers, thanks for the info. I dont know but I could guess the logic of the Admin. "2nd XI is a strong comp but it is stacked with older guys. We need to get young guys exposure to this level of cricket." Then after the change to a U23 comp "Who would have thought that blocking the older guys participation would have softened the comp and actually reduced tough cricket for the young guys", "How about we compromise and make it half half?"

It sounds like a mess. People shouldnt be ****ing with 2nd tier cricket feeding into the top level.

They have been doing it for years

When I was growing up, you had AW Green Shield (grade under 16s), Poidevin Gray (grade under 21s), State Colts (under 23) and 2nd X1

Then they did away with 2nd X1 and made Colts under 23 plus 2 over-age

Then they introduced under 19s and gave preference in selection to those players over guys who performed in Colts

When that didn't yield immediate results, they did away with Colts and introduced 2nd X1

Then they ****ed around with age restrictions at 2nd X1

And so on ....

 

[NUFAN]

I agree with this - the 1985 side weren't too good, but they were a lot better than this lot

We lost by 14 runs in the first test and if Siddle comes in and takes 9/12 we will be chasing about 275 so will probably only lose by 75 runs or so, so we aren't that bad.

But yeah seriously, its annoying Watson's 35.11 is the second highest batting average from the top 7 which is frankly atrocious.

 

[Adders]

So clearly England would like to bat and bat and bat here, well into tomorrow if they can.......but just another 100 will do I'd reckon.

Will they make a hash of setting this target though?? 31/3 isn't great reading but will it be a repeat of the first innings where we get to a reasonable score or is this going to be an Aussieesque **** up leaving a bit of hope for the cons in the 4th innings???

 

[social]

Nah massively disagree. In an underperforming lineup, it's even more important that you cash in on starts - that's what Clarke and Hussey were able to do last year and in doing so covered up the frailty of the rest of the lineup.

That is my point in a roundabout fashion

Watson is a senior player who should be taking responsibility

The fact that he doesn't/can't means that he is part of the problem and not a solution

That being the case, **** him off