Tons in Asia stats

[Victor Ian]

Cook takes responsibility and leads from the front, AB hid in the middle order, funny how both AB's do that.

There is no hiding anywhere in a team when you are it's one shining star. The middle order is where MEN play. Pussies* play up front where the repercussions of their failures fall to others to rectify and where a good start is counted towards them as if idiots forget that ALL games are won at the end.

Cook is a great player. But give up this delusion that he will ever be better than Border. Cook inherited a team that had beaten, perhaps, the greatest Aussie team ever assembled and then led it to a 5-0 loss against one of the worst. Border kind of did the reverse against, perhaps, the greatest ever ANY team ever assembled. Who is leading from the front?

*Not all openers are pussies, nor is Cook. Just debunking the 'leading from front' delusion.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Cook is a great player. But give up this delusion that he will ever be better than Border. Cook inherited a team that had beaten, perhaps, the greatest Aussie team ever assembled and then led it to a 5-0 loss against one of the worst. Border kind of did the reverse against, perhaps, the greatest ever ANY team ever assembled. Who is leading from the front?

Rewriting history there pal. Cook didn't inherit a team who beat the greatest Aussie side ever as that happened before Cook even started playing unless you are calling the 2010/11 or 2013 sides as great? Conveniently ignoring the fact we picked 3 other captains inbetween times but there go. Don't let the facts get in the way of your bullcrap.

 

[Victor Ian]

Fair enough, I confused Cooks captaincy with his debut, where he played with Strauss, Bell, Pietersen, Flintoff, Jones, Hoggard, Harmison. The 5-0 is all his though. Cook doesn't 'lead from the front' - he just leads by way of an asterisk next to his name. Border molded men in his vein. Think Waugh, Boonie, Jones and even McDermott.

 

[Stace]

There is no hiding anywhere in a team when you are it's one shining star. The middle order is where MEN play. Pussies* play up front where the repercussions of their failures fall to others to rectify and where a good start is counted towards them as if idiots forget that ALL games are won at the end. .

So why have Australia been big on having their best batsman bat at no.3? From 3 you can soak up the pressure and take the attack to the opposition which can calm everyone else down coming in after, of course as well as seeing off the new ball as well as the opening bowlers. Instead he batted at 4/5/6, do you think Steve Smith should go down and bat at 6 because as you say "ALL games are won at the end."?.

Cant believe you really think men play in the middle order. Joe Root was averaging 63 batting at 4/5 and saving England from terrible positions but the Australian coach pushed him to bat at 3. But clearly your right and Bayliss is wrong.

 

[Victor Ian]

If the best batsman plays at 3 why doesn't Cook play there? Perhaps it is all to do with playing people where they are most useful to a team. That is not always 3. Waugh also batted later. Why? Because the guy you want to be your rock needs to be able to play early if the early wickets fall, be there to ram home the advantage if the top order gives you a platform and also be able to lock down an end when full on collapse is happening. Border was MOST USEFUL to the team somewhere in the middle. That is all that matters.

Understand, I am not belittling Cook, just responding to idiotic taunts from those who think it fashionable to knock AB. Grow up dickheads!

Honest question. You are manager of the Australian team right now, but replace Smith with Marsh and Warner with Marsh. Do you bring in Cook or Border? Would you bat either of them at 3 in this scenario?

 

[Kirkut]

Cook is easily the best non Asian batsman in the subcontinent. I'd rate him even above Matthew Hayden on Asian pitches.

 

[Victor Ian]

Easily the best? Go have a look at Lara again, and Kallis too.

Asking from ignorance here, but how does the first day work in the subcontinent? If spin gets more difficult as the pitch wears, and the subcontinent don't produce decent quicks, aside from Pakistan who are not allowed to play there, does that mean that day 1 is the best day for batting?

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Andy Flower is the best overseas batsman in India

 

[Stace]

Easily the best? Go have a look at Lara again, and Kallis too.

Asking from ignorance here, but how does the first day work in the subcontinent? If spin gets more difficult as the pitch wears, and the subcontinent don't produce decent quicks, aside from Pakistan who are not allowed to play there, does that mean that day 1 is the best day for batting?

None of Cook's 100's in India came in the 1st innings of the match, 3 in the 3rd innings and 2 in the 2nd. So there goes your theory he gets easy runs...

 

[smash84]

None of Cook's 100's in India came in the 1st innings of the match, 3 in the 3rd innings and 2 in the 2nd. So there goes your theory he gets easy runs...

He is asking, not coming up with a theory

 

[smash84]

Easily the best? Go have a look at Lara again, and Kallis too.

Asking from ignorance here, but how does the first day work in the subcontinent? If spin gets more difficult as the pitch wears, and the subcontinent don't produce decent quicks, aside from Pakistan who are not allowed to play there, does that mean that day 1 is the best day for batting?

generally, at least in pakistan and the UAE (pak being flatter) you want to get out the first session of play on the first day. After that post lunch with the sun baking the wicket it starts to get better until around the end of day 2. From day 3 onwards it starts getting a bit of wear and tear that can be helpful to the bowlers.

 

[Stace]

He is asking, not coming up with a theory

Its clear what his motive for asking is.

 

[Blocky]

Stephen Fleming in Asia

18 tests, 3 100s, average 65.45 (owned the greatest bowler of all time - 2 daddy 100s vs Murali)

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo


Stephen Fleming in NZ

54 tests, 2 100s, average 33.87!

All-round records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

This was also the era that we were throwing up green seamers that both sides were being rolled for under 200 on.

 

[Blocky]

Fleming would probably have averaged mid to high forties had we been turning out the wickets we have in recent years, take a look at his statistics

Averaged 33.87 at home, with 2 centuries in 54 Matches
Averaged 45.92 away from home, with 7 centuries in 57 Matches

 

[Burgey]

So why have Australia been big on having their best batsman bat at no.3?

one fer bugger all often isn't a big deal. Two fer always is.

I suspect a big part of Australia's having its best batsman play at three stems from Bradman batting there.

 

[Blocky]

#3 and #4 can be interchangeable - but in essence you want people who can recover from the loss of early wickets, or dominate post a good opening partnership.

My query though is why more successful #3s don't move up to opening when almost every side at the moment in World Cricket has ineffective opening batsmen that are on a revolving cycle.

If you can bat #3, you can open. It's just a mindset thing.

 

[91Jmay]

He is asking, not coming up with a theory

He was clearly attempting to draw a line between the 2.

 

[Burgey]

#3 and #4 can be interchangeable - but in essence you want people who can recover from the loss of early wickets, or dominate post a good opening partnership.

My query though is why more successful #3s don't move up to opening when almost every side at the moment in World Cricket has ineffective opening batsmen that are on a revolving cycle.

If you can bat #3, you can open. It's just a mindset thing.

Sure, but your mindset is a pretty big part of batting.

 

[Blocky]

Sure, but your mindset is a pretty big part of batting.

The differences between #3 and #1 aren't a big mindset shift though. It just seems to be in this era that we protect our best players from the perceived "worst" positions.

A strong opening combination has usually been the hallmark of properly dominant teams.

 

[Burgey]

It is, for sure. I'm trying to think of how many blokes have excelled moving up to open from other positions in the order. Langer, obviously. Boonie did it in the dark days. I suppose Sehwag played a few games in the middle order before he moved, or maybe I've got that wrong. Can't think of too many tbh