Australian Domestic Season 2015/16

[SeamUp]

Can anyone touch the Blues ?

The Vics, while have some biggish names don't really scare anyone but you probably have to go with them - Finch, Handscomb, Maxwell, Pattinson etc

Thought WA being reinforced with their 4 best batsmen would be good but they go and crash pathetically v 2-man batting line in the Redbacks even with gun Joel Paris.

QLD batting line-up without Lynn & Khawaja also hurt them. Wonder if Labuschagne can step up.

 

[adub]

Early days yet. NSW deserve to be favourites, especially if Warner and Haze do come in near the end, but too early to tell if who are going to go best. Even SA did well in the field today, just had their top order knocked off by Starc but he won us a World Cup with that sort of stuff so I'm not sure that's too indicative of how they'll go for the rest of the games.

 

[Top_Cat]

< 300 score at Nth Sydney is cause for optimism in the SA bowling ranks, tbh. Also heartening to hear of good work in the field, something the SACA's have traditionally not been great at. They were then just blown away by the best OD bowler in the world.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, that really was the difference today.

Still maintain NSW batted poorly more than SA bowling well -- they just kept losing wickets, in soft manners, at inopportune times that forced Smitteh to bat well within himself because he knew he had to go deep. The 'Backs were awesome in the field though, Raphael is something special out there.

 

[Dan]

Thought Putland bowled well though -- nailed his yorkers at the death more often than not. Richardson was average by his usual standards, Mennie looked nondescript but hey, can't really argue with his figures. Zampa bowled **** and was flattered by 2/64, and Andrews was the beneficiary of NSW batting silliness so got milked rather than belted.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's why I like hearing about the fielding. Best way to narrow the gap when you don't have the personnel to really compete is to up the fielding. It's why Zimbabwe won anything in the 90's.

 

[Riggins]

I reckon Head completely screwed up his calculations. Mennie bowling the last, constantly having to swap bowlers from end to end, breaking up Putland's spell about four times and being forced to get another Zampa over in the final 10. Not ideal.

That would be surprising...

 

[Dan]

Oh?

If he didn't, the tactics seemed a bit weird. Neither went for the kill when he got them 7 down by bowling out Richardson/Putland, nor kept them for right at the death. It struck me as a bit weird that Putland got Smith, then was immediately pulled to make sure Zampa got his last over in cheaply (admittedly Starc vs. spin is very much rocks-or-diamonds, so tactically it's not bad), before Putland came back from the same end.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I know this immature but I honestly cant enjoy watching Abbott play anymore

it's not "immature"

it's ****ing weird though

 

[adub]

I think SA bowled pretty well, but the pitch was obviously a bit sticky with the ball not coming on. SAs lines and lengths were generally pretty good. I was actually really impressed with Andrews. He darted em, but that was perfect middle over bowling. On another day on another faster NSO pitch he might have gone the distance, but so would just about anyone. I certainly think he's a keeper for the OD stuff and a good foil for Zamps. And Zamps didn't bowl ****, he just bowled his share of **** balls which happens to leggies not named Warne. Tossed it up and got some good turn. Seen many worse performances from leggies in one dayers. Generally SA were really good in the field, and Raphael was awesome. No one will be taking risky singles to point from here on.

I think even without Starc NSW probably would have won (Dougeh would have been a handful), but it is very nice to go out and know you're probably going to have the opposition 1fer sfa pretty soon. Guru is coming along nicely too I thought. Perhaps the biggest surprise is that SOK looks like he might be bringing his tightness with the red ball to the ODs. Too early to tell yet, but his legion of fans will be pleased if he has a great Matador.

 

[Dan]

Agree to disagree on Zampa, I suppose. I don't think he beat anybody in the air his entire spell (maybe excluding the Cowan dismissal, was hard to tell if it dropped on him), I was picking his change of pace from the deep third man fence. If Cowan and Watson weren't such ****s in playing the shots they did, then I reckon the middle order would have gone after him harder and he concedes 85, not 64.

It's a little "if you ignore when he bowls well, he bowls ****", I know, but I reckon Andrews out-bowled him. And Andrews flighted about two balls the entire day (which, incidentally enough, appeared to cause problems from where I was sitting).

 

[adub]

Yeah, I'm not saying he was bossing it or anything, and I agree Andrews was better on the day. I do think that Zamps and Andrews complement each other though. If Andrew can continue to keep it tight Zampa will pick up wickets.

I'd also give Zampa the Cowan dismissal. Don't know if it was a toppy or a wrong'un but it was tossed up and didn't turn into him, so beaten in flight and I don't think the variation was picked either. Definite win to the bowler. Watson, well it was Watto.

I'm not sure he would have gone worse if the batsmen had gone harder at him though. He was getting a bit of turn. A leggy who is getting turn loves nothing better than to see batsmen going after them. He could have just as easily ended up with 4 or 5 wickets as going for 85 I reckon. The pitch looked like it was just holding it up a little all day and that would have equalled lots of catches.

I think in the end you have to give credit to the Blues for batting reasonably well in the conditions actually. Qld couldn't get to 200 batting first on that deck a few days previous and that was a lovely sunny day. With the cloud cover all day I don't think 300 really was a realistic par. SA bowled well and a few guys (I'm looking at you Mr Maddinson and Mr Watson got themselves out) but all up I don't think 266 was a bad score at all for the conditions.

 

[Gnske]

To Zampa's credit, he did get Watson with his favourite delivery.

 

[Gnske]

Jesus christ, Healy's pronunciation of Labuschagne.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, I'm not saying he was bossing it or anything, and I agree Andrews was better on the day. I do think that Zamps and Andrews complement each other though. If Andrew can continue to keep it tight Zampa will pick up wickets.

I'd also give Zampa the Cowan dismissal. Don't know if it was a toppy or a wrong'un but it was tossed up and didn't turn into him, so beaten in flight and I don't think the variation was picked either. Definite win to the bowler. Watson, well it was Watto.

I'm not sure he would have gone worse if the batsmen had gone harder at him though. He was getting a bit of turn. A leggy who is getting turn loves nothing better than to see batsmen going after them. He could have just as easily ended up with 4 or 5 wickets as going for 85 I reckon. The pitch looked like it was just holding it up a little all day and that would have equalled lots of catches.

I think in the end you have to give credit to the Blues for batting reasonably well in the conditions actually. Qld couldn't get to 200 batting first on that deck a few days previous and that was a lovely sunny day. With the cloud cover all day I don't think 300 really was a realistic par. SA bowled well and a few guys (I'm looking at you Mr Maddinson and Mr Watson got themselves out) but all up I don't think 266 was a bad score at all for the conditions.

Yeah, fair call -- couldn't see the turn from side-on but Ed really struggles attacking spin to begin with and it looked so damned ugly and soft that I put more of it down to him initially. I was chatting with Peter Lalor for a bit and he was less than impressed with the Henriques dismissal, and I'm inclined to agree.

I thought ~300 was par on that, rather than the usual '350 to be competitive' that we get out of NSO, but 266 wasn't an absolutely dire score by any means. I still reckon NSW made 20 more than they should have, though.

 

[Dan]

Ugh Queensland. Dropping Milenko such a bad idea, and not just for my Matador Fantasy team.

 

[Dan]

copypasta of my Facebook chat with Cribb:

Dan: God this pitch is slow
Cribb: Yeah it's seriously ****.
Dan: and Queensland picked Cutting. lol. this requires anti-cricket, not MATADOR MAXIMUMS and attempted 145km/h straight pies
Cribb: Hahaha Picking Neser presents a similar problem really
Dan: This is a pitch you stack with Ian Harveys and Chris Harrises
Cribb: He's not very much of an anti-cricketer either.
Dan: Neser's just not very good at cricket, so he becomes slightly anti-cricket by that route. this really is such a Jon Holland pitch. inb4 he takes 5/34
Cribb: As long as Maxwell doesn't
Dan: Holland's just not going to turn a thing and slide balls onto the pads all day. an LBW as someone works to leg, an inexplicable bowled, one caught behind off an underedged cut (possibly dropped by Wade), another LBW as someone squares up, and a caught in the deep.

 

[Dan]

ok, premeditated reverse paddle sweep wasn't included in the wicket model, because I didn't think anybody was that daft on this pitch.

EDIT: Oh it was actually the 'inexplicable bowled'. Dan Pty Ltd Ltd still in business.

Marnus really is inexplicably bad against spin.

 

[Prince EWS]

copypasta of my Facebook chat with Cribb:

Dan: God this pitch is slow
Cribb: Yeah it's seriously ****.
Dan: and Queensland picked Cutting. lol. this requires anti-cricket, not MATADOR MAXIMUMS and attempted 145km/h straight pies
Cribb: Hahaha Picking Neser presents a similar problem really
Dan: This is a pitch you stack with Ian Harveys and Chris Harrises
Cribb: He's not very much of an anti-cricketer either.
Dan: Neser's just not very good at cricket, so he becomes slightly anti-cricket by that route. this really is such a Jon Holland pitch. inb4 he takes 5/34
Cribb: As long as Maxwell doesn't
Dan: Holland's just not going to turn a thing and slide balls onto the pads all day. an LBW as someone works to leg, an inexplicable bowled, one caught behind off an underedged cut (possibly dropped by Wade), another LBW as someone squares up, and a caught in the deep.

My next message was about how dreadful Marnus looks against spin too. That wicket was all too predictable.

 

[Dan]

The Official Nathan Reardon Checklist:
[ ] Scratchy early
[ ] Massive six
[ ] Out

Quote + update as required