Page 23 of 240 FirstFirst ... 1321222324253373123 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 3591
Like Tree308Likes

Thread: *Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

  1. #331
    International Coach GotSpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stranger leering through a pair of binoculars
    Posts
    12,806
    Sigh
    Mark Waugh
    "He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
    RIP Craigos

  2. #332
    International 12th Man Tangles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Polar Vortex
    Posts
    1,608
    Un****ing believable. Now every member of the squad has played a test. Thus vindicating the squad selection. Fu CA.

  3. #333
    Eyes not spreadsheets marc71178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    57,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangles View Post
    Un****ing believable. Now every member of the squad has played a test. Thus vindicating the squad selection. Fu CA.
    Wade hasn't, late call up for Haddin after a pre-toss ankle twist during the warm-up?
    marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

    Anyone want to join the Society?

    Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.

  4. #334
    International Vice-Captain BeeGee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by dermo View Post
    i just hope we don't try anything funky, like faulkner at 7
    Nice call.


  5. #335
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,451
    Watson at 3 eh

  6. #336
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,890
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Watson at 3 eh
    Apparently so. If we actually do some damage with the new ball,this could get very ugly indeed.

  7. #337
    International Vice-Captain BeeGee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    The Faulkner selection seems to be drawing attention away from how badly Starc has been ****ed around with. Plays the first, third and fifth Tests of a series despite doing no more or less than was expected of him.
    Australian selections on this tour have been ludicrous. This latest debacle is just the crowning turd in the swimming pool. The Aus top order batting has been woeful, so you replace your no.3 bat with a bowling all-rounder and bat him at 7. Jesus ****ing Christ.

  8. #338
    International Vice-Captain BeeGee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,766
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Watson at 3 eh
    So in this series Watson will have batted at 1-2, 3, 4 and 6.

    Nice to see Aus are working hard to get a settled top 6.

  9. #339
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,945
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Watson at 3 eh
    In fairness Watson's average of 28 batting at number 3 makes it his best position in the last 3 years.

    I can't believe a bloke who averages less than 25 in his last 18 Tests, and who's made 5 50s in that time isn't having his place more seriously questioned.

  10. #340
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,502
    If Chris Woakes was Australian, he'd have played 25 tests by now.

    It's pretty damming on Hughes that, despite batting being Australia's weak point, they chose to bring an all-rounder in to replace a batsman, instead of bringing in a different batsman.

    I'm hoping that Australia bat first tomorrow and don't lose more than four wickets, because it will ruin my day out at the Oval if I see Faulkner participate with bat or ball.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    This English top three are cornflakes. They're not the most exciting thing out but they're pretty effective. Then the middle order are the sugar. Would be too much on their own but added to the cornflakes they add some much needed interest

    When KP returns he will be the banana..

  11. #341
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,514
    Quote Originally Posted by Cabinet96 View Post
    It's pretty damming on Hughes that, despite batting being Australia's weak point, they chose to bring an all-rounder in to replace a batsman, instead of bringing in a different batsman.
    I've said it a few times now, but I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with the fact that Watson's bowling fitness is up in the air at the moment. If he was fully fit to bowl then I don't think Faulkner would be playing, so it's not as simple as "replacing a batsman with an allrounder." Sure that's what's happened but I think an allrounder is being replaced with a batsman as well - Watson replacing Watson.

    If Watson bowls a stack of overs come the Test anyway you will see me really let rip with a rant though. I'm already pretty angry because I just don't rate Faulkner but if Watson can bowl then I'll join the chorus of CW members angry about the team balance thing as well.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  12. #342
    International Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,156
    Thing is though, surely Watson's overs can be spread around the seamers/Lyon without much of an impact? He has bowled well so far in this series, no doubt but there is no reason why the Aussies 4 man attack can't handle 90 overs in a day.

  13. #343
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,514
    Quote Originally Posted by 91Jmay View Post
    Thing is though, surely Watson's overs can be spread around the seamers/Lyon without much of an impact? He has bowled well so far in this series, no doubt but there is no reason why the Aussies 4 man attack can't handle 90 overs in a day.
    Oh yeah I agree, especially since it looks like a dry surface so more overs from Lyon and maybe some from Smith seems like a better option than four seamers anyway. It's a really crap selection no matter which way you look at it.

    I just think people are making a bit of a straw man with their arguments though. Australia haven't done this to strengthen the bowling at the expense of the batting IMO; they've done it to maintain the same team balance they've had all series in light of Watson's groin tweak. We should probably look at it more as Faulkner replacing Watson's role and then Watson replacing Khawaja than just straight up Faulkner in for Khawaja. It's the wrong call on team balance (I'd be wanting six specialist bats even if Watson was completely injured) and it's the wrong call on quality (Faulkner is dire) but the way people are summing up the situation is annoying me slightly.

  14. #344
    Cricketer Of The Year Cabinet96's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    9,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    I've said it a few times now, but I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with the fact that Watson's bowling fitness is up in the air at the moment. If he was fully fit to bowl then I don't think Faulkner would be playing, so it's not as simple as "replacing a batsman with an allrounder." Sure that's what's happened but I think an allrounder is being replaced with a batsman as well - Watson replacing Watson.

    If Watson bowls a stack of overs come the Test anyway you will see me really let rip with a rant though. I'm already pretty angry because I just don't rate Faulkner but if Watson can bowl then I'll join the chorus of CW members angry about the team balance thing as well.
    I realise, but I still think four bowlers are better than five and two, technically, all-rounders in the top 6. I know Watson might not bowl, but his batting returns are still one of an all-rounder (I fail to believe his place would never be in question if he couldn't bowl, considering his batting returns these last few years). The fourth seamer is especially unnecessary on a ground like the Oval, which will likely be a lot more profitable to the spinners than the seamers, particularly later on in the game, so any Watson overs can be made up by a higher workload for Lyon.

    It's pretty weird for me given when I got into cricket it was Australia who went for the simple four bowlers and a strong and long batting line up, whereas England looked for the fifth bowler and often left their batting resources weak as a result. What's weird is that in both instances the weaker batting line up used five bowlers, which leads me to think half the reason the all-rounders are used is because the selectors think they won't do that much worse than a specialist batsman anyway, which is why I made my point about it being damming on Hughes.

    Edit: Made the post before seeing your last one FTR.
    Last edited by Cabinet96; 20-08-2013 at 10:24 AM.

  15. #345
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,451
    He's a bowling all rounder though so it's not the same team balance. Ultimately I think you're being too pedantic about it Cribbage.
    BeeGee likes this.



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. *Official* Fourth Test at The Oval
    By Spark in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 1214
    Last Post: 22-08-2011, 11:37 PM
  2. *Official* Fifth Test at the SCG
    By Craig in forum Ashes 2010-2011
    Replies: 3603
    Last Post: 15-01-2011, 01:07 PM
  3. *Official* Second Test at the Adelaide Oval
    By James in forum Ashes 2010-2011
    Replies: 3905
    Last Post: 13-01-2011, 03:25 PM
  4. *Official* Fifth Test at The Oval
    By GIMH in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 2955
    Last Post: 28-08-2009, 12:38 PM
  5. ***Official*** 2nd Test at the Adelaide Oval
    By James in forum Ashes 2006/07
    Replies: 1596
    Last Post: 07-12-2006, 05:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •