• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

*Official* India Tour of Australia 2018/19

D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah, I too blame Greg Chappell for a lot of it.

Like, everyone's getting pathway'd now. Guys who averaged 12 with the bat in First Grade just need to average 40 for a couple of seasons against guys who averaged 38 with the ball in their State's First Grade to get in the conversation. We've produced a generation of players who've never been anything other than the best player in their team, and have never scored runs against attacks that are made up of players who are both better and more experienced than them.

Plus there's the massive, massive impact of knowledge loss from not playing Grade/Second XI with experienced guys, because everyone over 25 has given it away because they know they'll never get a Shield call-up over the next shiny 19 year old no matter what they do.
 
A

Arachnodouche

International Captain
trundler said:
Yeah let's not pretend Smith alone wouldn't make a world of difference here. There is a problem with the batsmen but suggesting Smith's presence would be inconsequential is farcical.
Click to expand...
No, what is farcical is assuming that one batsman can carry on in a superlative vein series after series when there are plenty of precedents of previous batting greats reaching stratospheric heights before settling down into a relative mean for the rest of their careers.
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Australia didn't lose to India even with WSC and Rebel Tours. Losing to India now would be utterly disgraceful and very entertaining.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
trundler said:
Yeah let's not pretend Smith alone wouldn't make a world of difference here. There is a problem with the batsmen but suggesting Smith's presence would be inconsequential is farcical.
Click to expand...
Smith would be like Border in the 80s line up, only not as good obviously. If he was playing and scoring as he usually does then it would probably paper over a lot of cracks.

I don’t understand how, for example, how a bloke can get to test level with a technique that has him falling over to cover every second ball a la Finch. Let alone contemplating how Handscomb goes about things.

No coincidence they’re both Victorians, of course. If the team wants to resurrect itself, it needs to bin Finch and Harris and bring in Maxwell plus a non-Victorian. It’s always been the case that if there’s > one Victorian stinking up the test side, we do poorly.
 
D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
honestbharani said:
Serious question here. Can Oz consider playing Behrendorff for Starc or Hazlewood next test?
Click to expand...
No, he's crocked. Gave away FC for the first half of the season to try to get himself right, so is back on a diet of T20 only at the moment. Hopefully he gets through the back-half of the red ball summer unscathed and presses his case for a winter tour (see also: Pattinson, J.).
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Arachnodouche said:
No, what is farcical is assuming that one batsman can carry on in a superlative vein series after series when there are plenty of precedents of previous batting greats reaching stratospheric heights before settling down into a relative mean for the rest of their careers.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it's not just the 40 or 50 runs he'd add. He'd lift the team around him and the team suddenly starts looking completely different.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Arachnodouche said:
No, what is farcical is assuming that one batsman can carry on in a superlative vein series after series when there are plenty of precedents of previous batting greats reaching stratospheric heights before settling down into a relative mean for the rest of their careers.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but why would he have done it now, agains tthis outfit, at home? He’s not yet 30 ffs. Of course he would have scored runs. Players as good as Smith (and Kohli for that matter) will always have a say in a series at some point.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
Arachnodouche said:
No, what is farcical is assuming that one batsman can carry on in a superlative vein series after series when there are plenty of precedents of previous batting greats reaching stratospheric heights before settling down into a relative mean for the rest of their careers.
Click to expand...
I mean even if Smith "only" averages 50, you compare that to the current lot...
 
ankitj

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Clarke reminding in post match show that even with Smith and Warner, Aus were ranked #5. Good point.
 
D

Dan

Hall of Fame Member
trundler said:
Yeah but it's not just the 40 or 50 runs he'd add. He'd lift the team around him and the team suddenly starts looking completely different.
Click to expand...
I don't think he'd even 'lift' the team, as such. It just become significantly easier to bat when a wicket isn't falling every 6 overs because, seemingly, nobody can face more than 35 balls these days.
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Arachnodouche said:
No, what is farcical is assuming that one batsman can carry on in a superlative vein series after series when there are plenty of precedents of previous batting greats reaching stratospheric heights before settling down into a relative mean for the rest of their careers.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no, what trundler said is what is farcical. Not this.

What's dumber, thinking that Smith wouldn't make a difference, or thinking that Smith would have a good (or even average) series?
 
Last edited:
aussie tragic

aussie tragic

International Captain
I'm still blaming Langer.

Harris under Langer in WA was scoring good 20's until he moved to Vic under McDonald and came good. Now back under Langer, same result of good 20's.

Finch under McDonald was moved to middle order and did well. Langer moves him to opener because he knows better

Guess only, but I'm sure the Maxwell constant omission is also a Langer thing
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Dan said:
I don't think he'd even 'lift' the team, as such. It just become significantly easier to bat when a wicket isn't falling every 6 overs because, seemingly, nobody can face more than 35 balls these days.
Click to expand...
That's what I meant by lifting the team though. You've got someone who'd be feared by bowlers and take charge of partnerships, etc.
 
mr_mister

mr_mister

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
aussie tragic said:
I'm still blaming Langer.

Harris under Langer in WA was scoring good 20's until he moved to Vic under McDonald and came good. Now back under Langer, same result of good 20's.

Finch under McDonald was moved to middle order and did well. Langer moves him to opener because he knows better

Guess only, but I'm sure the Maxwell constant omission is also a Langer thing
Click to expand...
Lehmann hardly gave Maxi a fair shake either. But I can't see Langer even giving Maxwell a test. Probably has a secret grudge against successful white ball batsmen
 
trundler

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
mr_mister said:
Lehmann hardly gave Maxi a fair shake either. But I can't see Langer even giving Maxwell a test. Probably has a secret grudge against successful white ball batsmen
Click to expand...
But still has Finch opening. He's a very confused man it seems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top