• 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* Fourth Test at Chester-le-Street

Maximas

Maximas

Cricketer Of The Year
You can't really blame Australia, our combinations aren't as set or as experienced as England's, selection has been strange, but ultimately it's the players that failed when they did, management not doing too badly I feel. While England are very stable with their system, it's the stubbornness of their on-field plans and combinations that I think they could improve upon, some more creativity needed IMO. At the end of it all though, I'd rather have the stability of England than the mess of Australia.
 
Spark

Spark

Global Moderator
It's weird that we've outbowled England when it comes to bowling a dry, suffocating line with a packed field. A few years ago that was England's MO, they seem to have vaguely forgotten how to do it.
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
GingerFurball said:
No it ****ing isn't. Australia's selection policy has just been to throw a huge pile of **** at a wall and seeing which **** sticks.

So far this series they've:

Called up Steve Smith from outside the initial squad
Dropped the incumbent spinner for a 19 year old.
Moved Watson back up to open
Batted Hughes at 6.
Dropped Cowan after one (admittedly poor) Test where he was ill
Dropped Starc
Batted Hughes at 4
Moved Hughes up to open in a tour game
Dropped him after he made 80 odd in the first Test and 80 odd in the tour game
Dropped Agar and brought back Lyon
Moved Clarke to 4.
Batted Warner at 6
Moved Warner to open
Moved Watson down to 6
Moved Clarke back down to 5 then back up to 4
Dropped Starc again.

How the **** is that a model to admire or follow?
Click to expand...
Pretty much. Most of those aren't even mistakes, but they've only been able to improve their side with each test because they made so many mistakes initially (although tbf only Agar was a big mistake).

That said, it looks like England might be paying for not rotating their quicks. Anderson's looked wrecked in both these tests.
 
Swingpanzee

Swingpanzee

International Regular
GingerFurball said:
No it ****ing isn't. Australia's selection policy has just been to throw a huge pile of **** at a wall and seeing which **** sticks.

So far this series they've:

Called up Steve Smith from outside the initial squad
Dropped the incumbent spinner for a 19 year old.
Moved Watson back up to open
Batted Hughes at 6.
Dropped Cowan after one (admittedly poor) Test where he was ill
Dropped Starc
Batted Hughes at 4
Moved Hughes up to open in a tour game
Dropped him after he made 80 odd in the first Test and 80 odd in the tour game
Dropped Agar and brought back Lyon
Moved Clarke to 4.
Batted Warner at 6
Moved Warner to open
Moved Watson down to 6
Moved Clarke back down to 5 then back up to 4
Dropped Starc again.

How the **** is that a model to admire or follow?
Click to expand...
That comment (and it was not originally written by me, for those who're wondering) was not made in consideration with the entire series, but this one particular match, and one would have to agree that Watson being pushed to six is a good decision, rather than have him get off to a frenetic start and get out as an opener. I'm not a great fan of the Aussie selection policy, and alternatively dropping/selecting Starc and shifting Clarke from 4 to 5 and back makes no sense. What was relevant in that post was that England are still sticking to the same team (which wasn't perfect at Manchester), refusing to make changes or try other players for a change even though the Ashes are retained. I know the series hasn't been won yet, but that doesn't mean that one ought to stick to the same team. Given how Bairstow has performed (and especially in the last test when England were under pressure given Bell was just dismissed and Pietersen needed a strong companion to keep going), his place is up for grabs and I don't see anything wrong to give Taylor a chance. Same goes for Onions with Bresnan; I'm not saying Onions is a match-winner but Bresnan is not in perfect form either and it wouldn't kill England to give Onions a go. You may think I'm writing a load of bull**** but I'm merely stating my opinion

dermo said:
swingpanzee is so gash
Click to expand...
I'm not all-knowing and I realize I can be pretty wrong at times, I've got a lot to learn, so I'm hardly insulted by your mild attack, but was that even necessary?
 
uvelocity

uvelocity

International Coach
watson: 'yeah it was a good partnership with chris, unfortunately not as an opening batsman'

for ****s sake man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top