Summer of Cricket 2013/14

 
  bowralcommuter Chief Commissioner

Location: Asleep on a Manly Ferry
My predictions for the ashes:
Warner-will get lucky with 1 hundred in the series but struggle in between
Rogers-man of the series
Watson-won't play test cricket again after this series, whether he gets injured or not
Clarke-will get about the same amount of runs as in England with captaincy pressures weighing him down a bit
Smith-will cement his spot at 5 with about 400 runs in the series
Bailey-century on debut but struggle thereafter and dropped for next test series
Haddin-will struggle with bat and gloves and retire after the series
Johnson-will never play test cricket again after this series

Siddle-will get 20+ wickets and continue his improving abilities with the bat
Harris-will start well but get injured half way through
Lyon-won't bowl brilliantly but well enough to keep the critics at bay.

England 2-1 with rain intervening in 1 test and another being a tight draw where our bowlers again can't get last 1-2 wickets to win the test.
bowralcommuter

Laughing

Sponsored advertisement

  Jajb94 Deputy Commissioner

Location: In a BAM
I reckon you were right about Smith!
  alstom_888m Chief Commissioner

Location:
Never could I have ever thought that we would have the same XI the whole series. I thought Rogers and Bailey would be dropped quickly, Haddin to dummy spit and retire mid-series, and Harris and Johnson to break down.

I got it right but got the teams mixed up. Razz

Root and Prior were dropped, Swann did the dummy spit, and while Broad and Rankin were casualties, they seemed to managed to mostly get over it.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
I think it's high time we cremate some more bails (and Carberry's test team contract) for the POMs to take home...
  MC3801 Train Controller

Australia 2 wickets away from winning the series 5-0.
  MC3801 Train Controller

Aussies have won 5-0.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Poms are doing the pants down lap of the ground now I presume. Time to cremate some bails and Carberry's test contract and send them a new urn.
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
England were a real "Pop-gun side" this series, could not believe how bad their batting was. they just meekly surrendered throughout the Series, Man of the Match went to Ryan Harris , he took 22 wickets throughout the Summer, Whilst man of the Series went to Mitchell Johnson for his superb bowling, 37 Wickets, at an average of 14.00 thank you very much

Kind Regards
  SAR520SMBH Train Controller

Might as well throw Carberrys busted bat in and cremate that as well.
  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
My mate in London was paying out on me for Australia's poor performance in the UK while I was there. Thus at the conclusion of each match in this series he has received a gloating e-mail from me. Immediately this match was over I sent one that said in part: "England should have sent out their first XI after all..." Smile
  Fireman Dave Chief Commissioner

Location: Shh, I'm hiding
My mate in London was paying out on me for Australia's poor performance in the UK while I was there. Thus at the conclusion of each match in this series he has received a gloating e-mail from me. Immediately this match was over I sent one that said in part: "England should have sent out their first XI after all..." Smile
"Graham4405"


You should also point out that our blokes at least had a go over there, unlike their lot here.
  greasyrhys Chief Commissioner

Location: MacDonald Park, SA
Who would've thought we would win this series 5-0 after that disastrous England tour?

Great stuff. Very Happy
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
A great series win, over the worst-performing England team I have seen in 60 years of watching test matches.
I love giving the Poms a thrashing - Australia v England are the Tests for me.

However, let's keep our feet on the ground. Our top order batting has been fragile starting with the first innings in Brisbane, and, but for Haddin, we would have been in terrible trouble. Now we have to face Steyn, Philander and Morkel - a far more formidable pace attack than anything that England could put up. Rogers has done well, Warner is either feast or famine, Watson again demonstrated that he's not even close to being a Test-standard number three, Clarke faded as the series went on, Smith was a big improver, and Bailey is living proof that one-day form is completely irrelevant when selecting batsmen for test cricket.
Our bowling will be our big asset providing everyone remains fit.

Incidentally, I believe that Haddin is the first Australian batsman to score a half century or better in the first innings of each of the five Tests since Keith Stackpole did it in 1972. He would have been a shoe-in for Man of the Series except for Johnson who kept on vanishing into a phone box, taking off his mild-mannered reporter's suit,  and emerging in his Superman uniform.
  bowralcommuter Chief Commissioner

Location: Asleep on a Manly Ferry


Warner-8/10 Brilliant in first 3 tests, has taken his foot off the pedal since although.
Rogers-7/10-Found form after we won the ashes, hopefully onto South Africa too.
Watson-5/10-Only made runs after we are 200 runs in front, not good enough. His bowling is handy but not worth his smeg batting.
Clarke-7/10-Made great hundreds when it mattered but his 8 other innings this series are failures, more consistency needed.
Smith-7/10-Has improved remarkably in 2013, further improvement needed though as like Clarke when he didn't get a hundred he disappointed.

Bailey-3/10-pathetic.
Haddin-9.5/10-Australia's superman
Johnson-9.5/10-Australia's version of Harold Larwood without the controversy!
Siddle-8/10-Consistent and economical without brilliant
Harris-8.5/10-Same as Siddle but extra half mark for his batting
Lyon-8/10-Disapointed in Adelaide but has bowled well in between.

We'll never be the number 1 team with our inconsistent batting. The only consistent batter we've had is Haddin, who's 36 now. Bowling good though.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Warner-8/10 Brilliant in first 3 tests, has taken his foot off the pedal since although.

Rogers-7/10-Found form after we won the ashes, hopefully onto South Africa too.

Watson-5/10-Only made runs after we are 200 runs in front, not good enough. His bowling is handy but not worth his smeg batting.

Clarke-7/10-Made great hundreds when it mattered but his 8 other innings this series are failures, more consistency needed.

Smith-7/10-Has improved remarkably in 2013, further improvement needed though as like Clarke when he didn't get a hundred he disappointed.
Bailey-3/10-pathetic.

Haddin-9.5/10-Australia's superman

Johnson-9.5/10-Australia's version of Harold Larwood without the controversy!

Siddle-8/10-Consistent and economical without brilliant

Harris-8.5/10-Same as Siddle but extra half mark for his batting

Lyon-8/10-Disapointed in Adelaide but has bowled well in between.
We'll never be the number 1 team with our inconsistent batting. The only consistent batter we've had is Haddin, who's 36 now. Bowling good though.
Laughing
bowralcommuter


Roger's did his job in the most difficult batting conditions, and he made important runs at other times in the series.  Having some starch at the top of the order helped Clarke pile on the runs early in the series, even if Roger's didn't make a huge number of runs himself.

I'd like to see Clarke's average when he comes in during the first session.  Extremely poor is my bet, and this has a lot to do with Australia's batting fragility.  If we lose 2 wickets in the first session - and that's even money even when the sides are evenly matched - then we can be 3 or 4 down very quickly.  If we get a good start - or more importantly a long start, Clarke can bat after lunch where he's as good as anyone.

I wasn't a fan of Bailey's selection - still arn't - but I think I've figured out why they picked him: so they could replace Clarke with Bailey as captain after we lost this Ashes series.

ATM the next two cabs off the rank to replace Bailey for the SA tour are/should be Marcus North then Phil Hughes.  Though Alex Doolan was selected as cover for Shane Watson for the Sydney test, showing the selector's thinking.

I don't know that we've necessarily picked out best 4 bowlers, but I certainly think we've picked a great attack that complemented each other beautifully.  At no stage did the Aussie bowlers really release the pressure on the poms.  A lot of this is down to how well Harris bowled, but also how many overs he was able to bowl.  Johnson was able to bowl in short fast bursts, and this meant most of his loose rubbish was quick loose rubbish, and gratefully left alone by the poms, or of not took wickets anyway.  None of this bowling him for 8 over spells and complaining about his inability to inswing the old ball BS.  He was able to bowl to his strengths.

I think this series really does show the value of a stable selection policy.  The Aussie players could concentrate on contributing doing what they can do, rather that having to constantly worry about what they can't.  And everyone contributed what they could in their own styles.  That the same 11 would have been retained had they the temerity to draw a game is another matter!
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
A great series win, over the worst-performing England team I have seen in 60 years of watching test matches.
I love giving the Poms a thrashing - Australia v England are the Tests for me.
"Valvegear"
The Poms were equally pathetic in '06/07.
  bowralcommuter Chief Commissioner

Location: Asleep on a Manly Ferry
Roger's did his job in the most difficult batting conditions, and he made important runs at other times in the series. Having some starch at the top of the order helped Clarke pile on the runs early in the series, even if Roger's didn't make a huge number of runs himself.

I'd like to see Clarke's average when he comes in during the first session. Extremely poor is my bet, and this has a lot to do with Australia's batting fragility. If we lose 2 wickets in the first session - and that's even money even when the sides are evenly matched - then we can be 3 or 4 down very quickly. If we get a good start - or more importantly a long start, Clarke can bat after lunch where he's as good as anyone.

I wasn't a fan of Bailey's selection - still arn't - but I think I've figured out why they picked him: so they could replace Clarke with Bailey as captain after we lost this Ashes series.

ATM the next two cabs off the rank to replace Bailey for the SA tour are/should be Marcus North then Phil Hughes. Though Alex Doolan was selected as cover for Shane Watson for the Sydney test, showing the selector's thinking.

I don't know that we've necessarily picked out best 4 bowlers, but I certainly think we've picked a great attack that complemented each other beautifully. At no stage did the Aussie bowlers really release the pressure on the poms. A lot of this is down to how well Harris bowled, but also how many overs he was able to bowl. Johnson was able to bowl in short fast bursts, and this meant most of his loose rubbish was quick loose rubbish, and gratefully left alone by the poms, or of not took wickets anyway. None of this bowling him for 8 over spells and complaining about his inability to inswing the old ball BS. He was able to bowl to his strengths.

I think this series really does show the value of a stable selection policy. The Aussie players could concentrate on contributing doing what they can do, rather that having to constantly worry about what they can't. And everyone contributed what they could in their own styles. That the same 11 would have been retained had they the temerity to draw a game is another matter!
djf01

Rogers problem is he takes a while to get into his groove, he took until the 4th test in the England ashes series as well. Dale Steyn has the same problem but he will only take 1 test to get his act together, not 4. As I said, hopefully he's got a formula now so he can hit the ground running in South Africa. To be a smart smeg, Johnson (188.4) actually bowled more overs than Siddle (156.4), Harris (166.2), or even Lyon (176.2) only Anderson (190.3) bowled more overs than Johnson Smile. Johnson was definitely used the right way though, his aim was to either bowl full in the corridor or bowl throat balls, he often did both in the same over with great menace and accuracy which did for England's batsmen. This also helped out Harris, Lyon and Siddle, thinking if they survived Johnson then they'd be a piece of pie, which they aren't! Very Happy

I'm sorry but Hughes has had his chances and each time the opposition have knocked him over with ease, time to move on. Every time he gets runs in first class and comes back to test cricket he gets found out a different way. Lets use Faulkner and Doolan. It'll be interesting to see if they keep Bailey for South Africa or give him the kick for Doolan or Faulkner. Technically he was pathetic and South Africa will toy with him no doubt if he does stay. Watson deserves to go too but his Gilly like innings at Perth and Melbourne has saved his smeg for now.

The Poms were equally pathetic in '06/07.

In '06/07 England were up against a team which included Langer,Hayden, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, Martyn/Symonds, Gilchrist, Warne, Lee, Clark and McGrath. At the start of the series would you say that Warner, Rogers, Watson, Clarke, Smith, Bailey, Haddin, Johnson, Siddle, Harris, Lyon is a better side? I doubt it! The Aussies were favourites going into the 06/07 series, they weren't this series, which makes the English more pathetic than in 06/07 IMO.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
The Poms were equally pathetic in '06/07.
Aaron

Sure, they lost 5-nil, but they were considerably better performed than this team. In 06-07, the Poms made over 500 in Adelaide; this team couldn't get close. In 06-07, England failed to make 200 in an innings on three occasions; this time it was six occasions. Also; as others have pointed out, they were up against a much more powerful Australian batting line-up in 06-07.
  djf01 Chief Commissioner

Rogers problem is he takes a while to get into his groove, he took until the 4th test in the England ashes series as well. Dale Steyn has the same problem but he will only take 1 test to get his act together, not 4. As I said, hopefully he's got a formula now so he can hit the ground running in South Africa. To be a smart smeg, Johnson (188.4) actually bowled more overs than Siddle (156.4), Harris (166.2), or even Lyon (176.2) only Anderson (190.3) bowled more overs than Johnson Smile. Johnson was definitely used the right way though, his aim was to either bowl full in the corridor or bowl throat balls, he often did both in the same over with great menace and accuracy which did for England's batsmen. This also helped out Harris, Lyon and Siddle, thinking if they survived Johnson then they'd be a piece of pie, which they aren't! Very Happy
bowralcommuter


That's an amazing stat about Johnson bowling the most overs.  I guess he did bowl a few longer spells towards the end of the innings when he was terrorising the tail.  I still think Johnson bowled a fair bit of loose stuff as always has, it just wasn't anywhere near as costly as it has been in the past.  It helps when some of the English top order hit the long hops straight down fine leg's throat I suppose Smile.


I'm sorry but Hughes has had his chances and each time the opposition have knocked him over with ease, time to move on. Every time he gets runs in first class and comes back to test cricket he gets found out a different way. Lets use Faulkner and Doolan. It'll be interesting to see if they keep Bailey for South Africa or give him the kick for Doolan or Faulkner. Technically he was pathetic and South Africa will toy with him no doubt if he does stay. Watson deserves to go too but his Gilly like innings at Perth and Melbourne has saved his smeg for now.
bowralcommuter

Well I for one don't think Hughes *has* been given enough chances.  Well, he's been given plenty of chances, just none of them long enough for him to find his feet.  There were, and still are, technical problems with his game and limitations.  But he's never been allowed 2 bad games in a row.  It was ridiculous the way he was shielded from the South Africans last season, but he made runs against Sri Lanka.  He's not a good player of spin and was inadequately prepared for India last year - hardly Robinson C there - and he got 2 tests in England, the first he made important runs but he had the one bad game (batting out of position - again) and was dropped.  It's a similar story with the other times he was dropped: someone finds a way to get him out, and he's dropped before he gets the chance to fix it - or show that's he's fixed it.

I think Hughes has suffered from too greater expectations.  He's clearly a talent, but he's unorthodox and people will find ways to exploit that.  For mine, I think he's needed the opportunity to develop into a test cricketer at the top of the order - the way Warner (eventually) has, or Smith (still a work in progress, but getting there) has recently.  He's already too good for state cricket - even with his "known" problems.

Marcus North is the finished article.  He's made hundreds at test level, is still churning out big runs at state level and would slot into the side nicely.  He'd probably be a reliable if not outstanding performer, but if our objective is to tighten up the batting then I think he's a reasonable choice.

As for Alex Doolan, 6 FC hundreds from 50 games at 37 are not stats demanding Test inclusion.  Plus he's 28 - already older than Hughes.  He is not a candidate to be a development player in the side.  But he is well on the way to being the Mike Hussey style 30yo rookie.  But for that he needs more FC runs behind him, pref with lots of hundreds, for that.

As for Rogers being "slow to get going": Alan Border took 3 tests to get his first test century.  Most players do.  Rogers now has 3 hundreds from 10 tests, which is good going by anyone's standards.  I think his low backlift, late playing technique makes him more suited to grinding out tough runs in difficult conditions.  This has had more to do with where he has made his runs than the scheduling.

The problem we have with our batting is largely a result of the rotation policy with selections.  No-one really gets the chance to establish themselves, so the line up is full of development players waiting for the next Bradman to emerge.  It doesn't work like that, at least not for most players.  Smith has almost established himself in the side, but he's only been back in for a year and at some stage he's going to have a poor - or less than stellar - series.  In this team he is the development player, and probably needs to be for a bit longer yet.

So for South Africa I think #6 should be either George Bailey (probably if he makes runs in the ODIs) or Marcus North.  While Bailey hasn't shown much this series, I think conditions in Sth Africa will suit him, but Marcus North being a WACA would probably be suited more.  I think Bailey's game makes him probably well suited to be the #6 against India later this year (certainly more than Hughes).  For the sake of maintaining consistency of selection I'd be taking Bailey for #6 with North as the reserve batter.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Pardon?
TheBlacksmith


Meaning they are not playing like an England side we saw mid 2013.  Smile
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
Graeme Swann on Cricinfo:-

"If you let it get to you, like the garbage about our over-rates… I mean, our over-rate for the whole series was +13; I don't think we've ever played a series where it has been that far ahead, apart from in India where we were operating with two spinners."

Unfortunately, he and others believe that to be an acceptable rate. We had trouble many days in reaching 90 overs ( 540 deliveries ) in 6 hours plus an additional half hour.  It was common to see 700-odd deliveries in a day's play in the late 40"s and the 50's. Australia managed 110 to 120 six-ball overs a day in England in1948, with three fast bowlers ( Lindwall, Miller and Johnston ) plus a medium pacer (Toshack). It could be done then; it could be done now.  All it needs is a runs penalty and suspension of the offending captain for the next Test. It would be cured in no time.
All teams are at fault, but England was the stand out in this series. Cook and his countless committee meetings was one factor. Another was at bowling changes. With the field set, and the batsman ready, the new bowler would roll his arm over three or four times to a nearby fielder. Meanwhile, the game stopped. The public is being robbed blind.
  simont141 Chief Commissioner

Location: Adelaide
With the field set, and the batsman ready, the new bowler would roll his arm over three or four times to a nearby fielder. Meanwhile, the game stopped. The public is being robbed blind.
Valvegear


And then the batsman would pull away at the last second.
  Jajb94 Deputy Commissioner

Location: In a BAM
So what do people think the Test Squad to tour South Africa will be,

If I were selector, I'd go with a 15 man squad as follows

Rogers
Warner
Hughes
Doolan
Smith
Clarke
Watson
Henriques
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Harris
Lyon
Pattinson
Bird

And my tentative selections for the first test in batting order

Rogers
Warner
Watson
Hughes
Clarke
Smith
Haddin
Johnson
Harris
Siddle
Lyon

Doolan (12th Man)
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Graeme Swann on Cricinfo:-

"If you let it get to you, like the garbage about our over-rates… I mean, our over-rate for the whole series was +13; I don't think we've ever played a series where it has been that far ahead, apart from in India where we were operating with two spinners."

Unfortunately, he and others believe that to be an acceptable rate. We had trouble many days in reaching 90 overs ( 540 deliveries ) in 6 hours plus an additional half hour.  It was common to see 700-odd deliveries in a day's play in the late 40"s and the 50's. Australia managed 110 to 120 six-ball overs a day in England in1948, with three fast bowlers ( Lindwall, Miller and Johnston ) plus a medium pacer (Toshack). It could be done then; it could be done now.  All it needs is a runs penalty and suspension of the offending captain for the next Test. It would be cured in no time.
All teams are at fault, but England was the stand out in this series. Cook and his countless committee meetings was one factor. Another was at bowling changes. With the field set, and the batsman ready, the new bowler would roll his arm over three or four times to a nearby fielder. Meanwhile, the game stopped. The public is being robbed blind.
"Valvegear"
It just further demonstrated to me how smeg at cricket England actually is. smeg and bowling, smeg at batting and smeg at maintaining over rate. Who would have thought they'd have conducted a more successful series by simply forfeiting each match and staying home? Not getting to 90 overs in a six and a half hour day is (unless weather, an exceptional wicket count, or an on field injury requiring a large break are involved) simply pathetic. Maybe the ACB need to get 100,000 emails from all the punters around Australia, requesting a partial refund on ticket payments to finally get the requisit gnarlies to go to the ICC and ask something be done about it. Hell, it's not as though England is a subcontinental team, it shouldn't be too hard for the ICC to issue a penalty.
  Graham4405 The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dalby Qld
Well, looks like the Poms can't play the One Day variant of the game either. Their women still have a shot at the Ashes though! Smile

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, Jajb94, Pressman

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.