*Official* VB Series - Australia, India & Zimbabwe

[Andre]

So what do you do when there's runs to get and no time to get them? Singles aren't gonna do it all the way, buddy. Leaving them to the last minute just creates more pressure. He was trying to relieve that pressure and as I said he had well placed faith in the lower order. The situation called for a slog and slog is what he did. The idea with the aussies is that if you get out going for it there's another one behind you to do it. No point in bunting it around.

So throwing wickets away to genuinely poor cricket is they way to go in a chase, leaving it to tailenders to hit the winning runs is the way to go? Whats the point of throwing wickets away when the situation was hardly impossible?

After all, the best way to slow the run rate is by taking wickets - the game would have been over far quicker for the Australians had Clarke not run out Harvery and played a poor, poor stroke from a friendly deliverly. The asking rate was hardly out of the question.

All well and good that it's frantic, but there is simply no excuse for stupidity like the running out of Harvery from a poor throw attempting the impossible second.

IMO a more experianced cricketer would not have gone for a suicidal second run.

 

[Andre]

However, once Watson gets recalled, he will have to be as he was a replacement. It may take a while, but it's got to happen sooner or later.

What kind of logic is that? Dropping Harvery because he was Watson's replacement a year ago?

Come off it. are you taking the mickey?

 

[Mister Wright]

So throwing wickets away to genuinely poor cricket is they way to go in a chase, leaving it to tailenders to hit the winning runs is the way to go? Whats the point of throwing wickets away when the situation was hardly impossible?

After all, the best way to slow the run rate is by taking wickets - the game would have been over far quicker for the Australians had Clarke not run out Harvery and played a poor, poor stroke from a friendly deliverly. The asking rate was hardly out of the question.

All well and good that it's frantic, but there is simply no excuse for stupidity like the running out of Harvery from a poor throw attempting the impossible second.

IMO a more experianced cricketer would not have gone for a suicidal second run.

Agreed. Add to that it was the last ball of the over and he should have got a single which would have:

a) given Australia a run instead of a dot-ball.
b) given Clarke the strike the next over.

The situation called for a slog and slog is what he did. The idea with the aussies is that if you get out going for it there's another one behind you to do it. No point in bunting it around.

The situation did not call for a slog, rather intelligent batting.

 

[Tim]

Defending Clarke regardless of what the situation was, is kind of stupid really.
Going for that 2nd run was WAY riskier than going for a boundary shot.

 

[age_master]

After all, the best way to slow the run rate is by taking wickets - the game would have been over far quicker for the Australians had Clarke not run out Harvery and played a poor, poor stroke from a friendly deliverly. The asking rate was hardly out of the question.

harvey should have got home - the runs were always there...

as for the shot, well as said in commentary thats probably not where he was origionally aiming but the ball was angled in... not the best shot, but if it had gone a little farther and gone for 6 would you be complaining?

 

[Gaijin-san]

The situation did not call for a slog, rather intelligent batting.

So why did it turn out that Brett Lee needed to win the match with a slog?

As I said, Harvey has his own legs and his own mouth. He ran himself out. I didn't see Clarke make him go for it. The reason Harvey ran was because they needed to get that gap down. As it turns out he was too slow and was run out. Sh*t happens.

The delivery was not exactly friendly. Clarke was charging the bowler and the bowler knew that and dropped it shorter. If Clarke had received that ball without charging then he probably would have put it away, but it was an intelligent adjustment from the bowler.

Finally, Andre, I am dead serious about Watson as a replacement for Harvey. Watson's batting his improved over the year as he couldn't bowl, and apparently he has come back with a better and stronger bowling action. If recent results are any indicator, than he is better than he was, which is very promising.

 

[age_master]

Be fair on Harvey - he's performed brilliantly with the ball during and since the WC, and these days he's in the ODI squad on bowling alone.

And besides, his coach, mentor and close friend died on Monday - how do you expect someone to come out and perform at their best 3 days later?

harvey wont get dropped hes been bowling way to well for that, watson wont get picked again till next summer, i think they will be extra careful not to bring him back to early.

 

[age_master]

on another note i think Gangulys tactics last night were poor, he wasted so much time intentionally... just poor sportsmanship for mine.


on another note again i saw footage on the news of Lehmann arriving back in SA today and i think it will be a while beofre hes back, he really didn't look in good shape at all

 

[Gaijin-san]

And besides, his coach, mentor and close friend died on Monday - how do you expect someone to come out and perform at their best 3 days later?

If he can't perform at his best then he shouldn't be there. That is so very basic.

 

[Mister Wright]

So why did it turn out that Brett Lee needed to win the match with a slog?

Um...because Clarke got out. If he had of stayed in he could have won the game for Australia by farming the strike and hitting the boundries, because after all the battting should be left to the batsman. Perhaps it could be that when the real pressure is on Clarke isn't up to it, yet.

 

[Andre]

So why did it turn out that Brett Lee needed to win the match with a slog?

As I said, Harvey has his own legs and his own mouth. He ran himself out. I didn't see Clarke make him go for it. The reason Harvey ran was because they needed to get that gap down. As it turns out he was too slow and was run out. Sh*t happens.

The delivery was not exactly friendly. Clarke was charging the bowler and the bowler knew that and dropped it shorter. If Clarke had received that ball without charging then he probably would have put it away, but it was an intelligent adjustment from the bowler.

Finally, Andre, I am dead serious about Watson as a replacement for Harvey. Watson's batting his improved over the year as he couldn't bowl, and apparently he has come back with a better and stronger bowling action. If recent results are any indicator, than he is better than he was, which is very promising.

Yes, Clarke clearly called him through for the second - and even Harvey knew, if he was speedy gonzalez he was going to struggle to make it.

This is made obvious by the serve Harvey gave Clarke when walking off - but I suppose you missed that too :rolleyes:

The throw rolled to the bowler, and still ran him out! Reeks of stupidity.

Regarding the charging - just shows that a batsman should play each abll on his merits. Everything Ganguly bowls is friendly by international standards, he's military medium pace.

Regardless of how intellegent the delivery was, it was a stupid shot regardless of what language you speak. Even blind Freddie can see that.

Watson has bowled 1 spell in a year. All well and good his batting has improved, but Harvey is selected as a bowler. Even fully fit, Watson at this stage of his career isn't a patch on Harvey with the ball.

Look, this love-Clarke thing is cute, but please, some reality - he's an excellent potential but at this stage until he proves him self over a long period of time, he's nothing more.

 

[Andre]

If he can't perform at his best then he shouldn't be there. That is so very basic.

Even I am shocked by this comment. A disgrace.

Do you have a compassionate bone in your body? Do you have feelings, or do you live in a buddle?

 

[Gaijin-san]

Yes, Clarke clearly called him through for the second - and even Harvey knew, if he was speedy gonzalez he was going to struggle to make it.

The throw rolled to the bowler, and still ran him out! Reeks of stupidity.

Regarding the charging - just shows that a batsman should play each abll on his merits. Everything Ganguly bowls is friendly by international standards, he's military medium pace.

Regardless of how intellegent the delivery was, it was a stupid shot regardless of what language you speak. Even blind Freddie can see that.

Watson has bowled 1 spell in a year. All well and good his batting has improved, but Harvey is selected as a bowler. Even fully fit, Watson at this stage of his career isn't a patch on Harvey with the ball.

Look, this love-Clarke thing is cute, but please, some reality - he's an excellent potential but at this stage until he proves him self over a long period of time, he's nothing more.

It's called taking on the arm of the fielder. You assess the risk and sometimes you just go and hope for a bad throw (worse than what it was).

If Ganguly is so very friendly then explain to me his 6 wickets in two games, please. That's 5 other batsmen who got out to such pedestrian bowling.

If Harvey knew he was going to struggle then that shows you he knew the risk and went for it anyway. Sounds like some responsibility falls on him after all. According to you, anyway.
Harvey's just not that fast. Maybe this wasn't factored in for some people, and that's his own shortcoming. There are people on the Australian team who would have made that run. If he was Speedy Gonzalez, you bet he would have been home.

Playing a ball on it's merits is what any good batsman will do in any low pressure situation. Charging is what happens when you've gotta make something happen. You can't wait to play a ball on it's merits when you need quick runs, in the hope that it will be something you can smash.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Even I am shocked by this comment. A disgrace.

Do you have a compassionate bone in your body? Do you have feelings, or do you live in a buddle?

Get off me, Andre. All I said was that if he can't perform at his best then he shouldn't be there. There's nothing incompassionate about that. If he needs to recover he should take time to do that, and that's fine. But if he agrees to play then he agrees to give his best. Under the tragic circumstances he couldn't do that.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Even fully fit, Watson at this stage of his career isn't a patch on Harvey with the ball.

And Harvey isn't a patch on a real bowler. 0/68 and he's a good bowler? :rolleyes: Maybe in the world cup, mate, but he's not pulled up any trees lately.

 

[Andre]

And Harvey isn't a patch on a real bowler. 0/68 and he's a good bowler? :rolleyes: Maybe in the world cup, mate, but he's not pulled up any trees lately.

You don't remmeber back to last week when he won Australia the opening VB Series game?

Or when he bowled us home in the TVS Cup final?

Look, I'm not going to try to talk logically with you anymore - it's pretty clear that you are wearing some sort of rose coloured glasses.

It's just not worth it.

 

[Rik]

I don't mind Harvey either, but the fact is Watto is a better bowler than Harvey. So if Harvey is in for his bowling well then Watto should replace him already. But his batting completely eclipses Harvey and that increases the gap.

Harvey is a bowling all-rounder, Watson is a batting all-rounder. Watson hasn't bowled for ages, Harvey is taking wickets cheaply for Australia. Harvey has 79 wickets at 30.13 from 65 ODIs, Watson has 18 at 35.11 from 23 ODIs.

Better bowler? Makes about as much sense as your constant praising of Clarke whatever he does (or doesn't do).

 

[Gaijin-san]

And he very nearly lost it for us yesterday by giving India a truckload of runs (his last over goes for 22 and he's one of the best death bowlers?)

 

[Gaijin-san]

Harvey is a bowling all-rounder, Watson is a batting all-rounder. Watson hasn't bowled for ages, Harvey is taking wickets cheaply for Australia. Harvey has 79 wickets at 30.13 from 65 ODIs, Watson has 18 at 35.11 from 23 ODIs.

Better bowler? Makes about as much sense as your constant praising of Clarke whatever he does (or doesn't do).

Harvey has played 3 times as many ODIs. Watson has barely had enough time to adjust to the international scene. If you look at his first class and list a figures they're not too shabby. Give him the chance to play 65 ODIs and he'll eclipse Harvey. Watson has come back with a better and stronger action. The only way that average is going is down.

Besides, Ricky Ponting has said that Shane Watson is part of his and the selectors long-term plans, so you can take it up with him.

 

[Rik]

And Harvey isn't a patch on a real bowler. 0/68 and he's a good bowler? :rolleyes: Maybe in the world cup, mate, but he's not pulled up any trees lately.

One bad innings does not a bad bowler make.

Did it ever occur to you that the World Cup might be a harder competition with the whole playing in another country thing added to playing different countries every game and playing 10+ games in a short period of time with the added pressure of having to win the World Cup??? So shouldn't performances in the WC be rated accordingly? Really, think before you write, it will help a lot. (Waits for Ged's typical pathetic reply/insult)