I think Aus should play Warne and Macgill in tandem as of now?

[marc71178]

Except that good batsmen don't feel any pressure in Tests just because the scoring's slow.

So how come they've almost all been got out after being tied down then?

How come they've all mentioned pressure, but you deny it exists?

 

[vic_orthdox]

No, slow scoring doesn't make good batsmen feel under pressure.

But it allows the bowler to bowl better - therefore putting the batsman under pressure.

 

[Richard]

a 5 to one ratio hardly makes an event exceptionally rare does it

It'd probably be far more than that anyhow.

 

[Richard]

but the skipper has been charged with the ultimate responsibilty..he will take the flak..and so all players should go with what he says

No, they shouldn't.
They should go with what they believe best.
The captain will take more flack if he does something that goes pear-shaped than gets overruled by his bowler and things go right.
The bowler is the one bowling the ball and he is generally positioned to know best.

 

[Richard]

So how come they've almost all been got out after being tied down then?

How come they've far, far, far, far more often than not not been out after being tied-down then?

How come they've all mentioned pressure, but you deny it exists?

Repeating "you deny it exists" won't change the fact that I've said it exists countless times.
All I've said is that good batsmen don't feel it just because of a slow scoring-rate.

 

[Richard]

But it allows the bowler to bowl better - therefore putting the batsman under pressure.

Ah, now that's a totally different thing.
The better the bowler bowls, the more physical and technical pressure the batsman is under, first and foremost.
The point I've made time and again is that a slow scoring-rate in itself doesn't cause good Test-match batsmen to feel undue mental pressure.

 

[Shane Warne]

Shame they didn't take my advice.

 

[luckyeddie]

Shame they didn't take my advice.

Who gets dropped, then? I suppose it'd have to be Katich. Surely you wouldn't advocate going in with just two (chuckle) seamers?

I must confess that I'd love to see it - I was brought up on spinners operating in tandem.

 

[aussie]

If McGrath doesn't play Macgill should play simpe has that....

 

[Shane Warne]

Who gets dropped, then? I suppose it'd have to be Katich. Surely you wouldn't advocate going in with just two (chuckle) seamers?

I must confess that I'd love to see it - I was brought up on spinners operating in tandem.

I'd drop any of the three seamers for Macgill.

It may not conform to the unwritten 3 seamer rule, but I think he will be a more effective bowler than them against this England team.

So I don't see the point in persisting with pretty much ineffectual, unthreatening seamers just "because" if it's to the detriment of the team.

 

[marc71178]

If McGrath doesn't play Macgill should play simpe has that....

So because they're missing the bowler with better control than anyone else in International Cricket you want them to pick a bowler whose success only seems to come when the other 3 bowlers exert supreme control?

 

[aussie]

So because they're missing the bowler with better control than anyone else in International Cricket you want them to pick a bowler whose success only seems to come when the other 3 bowlers exert supreme control?

well u would love that eh marc , if Australia play 2 seamers in Gillespie or Kasper/Lee with Warne & Macgill it would be risky now that Australia wont have Pigoens great accuracy to fall back on per/say Macgill goes around the park, plus the fact that neither of those 3 seamers give me much confidence so that would be playing into england's hands which you surely want....