• 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.

Sack Langer

Senile Sentry

Senile Sentry

International Debutant
stephen said:
We've passed 300 on a mere 12 occasions out of 37 innings since Langer took over. Ignoring any innings we've lost less than 5 wickets in, we've scored 200 or less 10 times.

Over 1 in 4 innings has been for 200 or less.

Overall, out of the 1519 innings Australia has ever played, 648 have resulted in scores of 300 or more. That's 42%. Langer's record is 32%.

Overall, out of the 1519 innings Australia has ever played, 308 have resulted in scores of 200 or less (min 5 wickets). That's 20%. Langer's record is 27%.

The median score in Australian cricketing history is 268. Under Langer it's 243.

It's clear the team is underperforming under him.
Click to expand...
Does removing India from the Langer mix make it look better ?
 
P

Pup Clarke

Cricketer Of The Year
I think to retain Langer long-term would be a poor move. I don't have the time to go really in-depth but it's obvious he can't be objective about certain players. There are his favourites (Bancroft, Burns, Harris, S Marsh) and those he doesn't rate (Maxwell, Patterson, Renshaw). I'm sure the team harmony is currently ok, but the longer he ostracises certain players for unknown reasons, I can see there being a fractured relationship between Langer and his players, media. In essence, some of his players will buy into his methods while others will be opposed to it or even perplexed. He's that kind of guy
 
Niall

Niall

International Coach
BoyBrumby said:
Smith, Warner and Labuschagne have papered over the cracks in the batting more or less since Langer took over.
Click to expand...

To be fair with most side sides over last few years everyone has relied on a few elite players to score the bulk of the runs and the others to chip in here and their with cameos. Its not ideal but that's the world we live in.
 
GotSpin

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Niall said:
To be fair with most side sides over last few years everyone has relied on a few elite players to score the bulk of the runs and the others to chip in here and their with cameos. Its not ideal but that's the world we live in.
Click to expand...
The catching was really concerning. Although, I don't think Australia dropped any in the first test?
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
GotSpin said:
The catching was really concerning. Although, I don't think Australia dropped any in the first test?
Click to expand...
The catching more than anything made me wonder if they got a little high on their own supply after 36ao and standards slipped a little in their preparation.
 
Son Of Coco

Son Of Coco

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I think the real question that needs to be asked is are we showing 'Elite Intent'? We're showing intent because, as we all know, intent is the number 1 thing when it comes to batting these days. Playing watchfully for a number of overs because the bowlers are simply too good is 'Not Intent'. Having a slash outside off because you've faced 11 balls from the same bowler and not scored is 'Misinterpreting Intent for Playing a Loose Shot When It Wasn't Necessary'. Is the scoreboard constantly moving? Are we displaying 'Placing Enough Pressure on the Bowlers By Getting Ourselves Out Displaying Intent Intent'? Does this grade cricket mentality produce any better results in Test cricket than it does at Wenty Oval on a Saturday afternoon where Bazza grabs some intent by the balls and lustily tries to heave a right-arm nude spinner over square leg for 6 after telling his captain in the mid-wicket conference they've just had preceding his first ball that he'll "see a couple of overs out to get his eye in"? Do half the batsmen in the Australian team misunderstand what is meant by the word 'intent' and simple follow Bazza's lead due to the time they spent on the sidelines in grade cricket in their youth listening to 40 year olds yelling at their own teammates to 'get on with it', despite the fact said teammate is 12 off 20 and has just let one go outside off for the first time all innings, and they're currently 30/5?

I have a feeling Langer would love all the 'intent' talk. He talks in cliches himself, so a word that could be used repetitively with ambiguous meaning would suit him down to the ground.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
BoyBrumby said:
Smith, Warner and Labuschagne have papered over the cracks in the batting more or less since Langer took over.
Click to expand...
I think if you have a line up with three players of that standard in your top six (even allowing for Labushagne not really being a 60 average player and instead being say a 45 average player), you should be in good shape more often than not. A lot of great sides have had three exceptional players mixed with mediocrity and been in good shape. The Windies post-Lloyd carried blokes like Arthurton, Logie and Hooper in their side, and they were cod ordinary tbh. Lucky they played in that amazing team and get mythologized accordingly.

This is just a series where both teams' bowling is loads better than their batting atm. The first two tests were basically mirrors of each other - the side which dropped the catches lost the game. Just as the 36 all out masked the limitations in Australia's batting, the dropped catches here mask India's. It isn't as though they've shipped in Greenidge, Haynes, Lara, Tendulkar and a peak Botham.

They're realistically in every bit as much strife as Aus, batting wise. Their best player isn't here and their 2nd best player has become Cummins' bunny. Aus's best player is in **** form and their second best hasn't been here so far. It makes for compelling cricket, though the true standing of the batting is it's pretty rubbish thus far all round. both sides take their catches and it's still 1-1, but probably the results reversed.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Burgey said:
They're realistically in every bit as much strife as Aus, batting wise. Their best player isn't here and their 2nd best player has become Cummins' bunny. Aus's best player is in **** form and their second best hasn't been here so far. It makes for compelling cricket, though the true standing of the batting is it's pretty rubbish thus far all round. both sides take their catches and it's still 1-1, but probably the results reversed.
Click to expand...
I think the difference could be the changes that both sides make for the next test (and hopefully either the rain stays away or game is not in Sydney). It looks like India will bring in Nattu for Umesh, Rahul for Vihari and Rohit for Mayank and that could be a huge difference coz for starters, you will now have 4 positive batters in the top 6 and they can bat around Pujara and Rahane and even Jadeja at 7. For Australia, it seems they will also go for the more positive batters and Smith has clearly said he wants to go after the spinners now (and that could go either way, but at least will make it fun to watch, even if it lasts all of 2 or 3 balls), so it might well come down to who does not lollapse again but we may well see a min. 3 RPO game now at the very least.
 
cnerd123

cnerd123

likes this
Form is a myth anyways. There was a whole statistical analysis done by someone on CW that proved this a while ago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top