• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Australia's Mental State

Senile Sentry

International Debutant
I see good points on both sides of the argument but can see why smudge49 will feel this way - Green did not make big runs and a 5th bowler could have won you the game ultimately.
To be fair, the 5th bowler never got any wicket in the previous series as well. And I think Green was pretty good on his own as a specialist batsman this series, finishing third in the list of run aggregates for Aus. I.think he was used not well by Paine, especially on the fifth day when he was probably needed the most, when Starc was getting pummelled. He would have bowled a few tight overs at least and chained the momentum or even could've taken a wicket or two.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
That's the point mate, Australian think tank can pick a batsman who can bowl over a pure batsman even if it further compromises a brittle top 6 but they can't take a risk with an extra bowler in a must win game.

My opinion of Paine aside, he was Australia's 3rd best batsman through the series, he should have taken the extra responsibility of batting at 6 and giving his bowlers a bit more of wiggle room.
They pick them because they think they can score runs and extend the bowling. Yet of the players you've mentioned it only really worked with Watson. Compromising the batting to obtain some relief overs hasn't been a successful policy. If you play Neser you're not going to maker Starc any fresher. If he's the problem why drop a batsman to accommodate him? Just pick Neser and continue to have Green (and Marnus) bowl relief overs.
 

Smudge49

U19 12th Man
They pick them because they think they can score runs and extend the bowling. Yet of the players you've mentioned it only really worked with Watson. Compromising the batting to obtain some relief overs hasn't been a successful policy. If you play Neser you're not going to maker Starc any fresher. If he's the problem why drop a batsman to accommodate him? Just pick Neser and continue to have Green (and Marnus) bowl relief overs.
The hard fact is even a half fit Starc when on song, is a better bowler than either Neser or Abbott. Neser would have been just an insurance or cushion to come and bowl meaningful overs when the team needed it.

India throughout the series benefited from that cushion of having an extra bowler, even in Brisbane Saini was literally a traveler after doing his hamstring, but Thakur more than covered up for him.

My only issue with weakening the batting for guys who are in the team as batters who can bowl those relief overs is, that the trade-off is just not worth it.

Watson who was the most successful among players who did that job still only averaged 35 with the bat and arguably kept a batsman like Rogers, out of the team for a considerable amount of time.
 

the big bambino

International Captain
The hard fact is even a half fit Starc when on song, is a better bowler than either Neser or Abbott. Neser would have been just an insurance or cushion to come and bowl meaningful overs when the team needed it.

India throughout the series benefited from that cushion of having an extra bowler, even in Brisbane Saini was literally a traveler after doing his hamstring, but Thakur more than covered up for him.

My only issue with weakening the batting for guys who are in the team as batters who can bowl those relief overs is, that the trade-off is just not worth it.

Watson who was the most successful among players who did that job still only averaged 35 with the bat and arguably kept a batsman like Rogers, out of the team for a considerable amount of time.
No one's going to play Neser and Green on top of Starc, Cummins, Haze and Lyon. Someone is going to be under employed and that is a waste of resources. You talk about the importance of taking 20 wickets but all this does is make it easier for the opposition to achieve their quota instead. I see Brisbane differently. Saini was injured during the match. Whereas Starc was cooked before it. The situation probably better lines up with Bumrah. That is don't play a man injured or fatigued just because you wish he was fit. So Thakur came in for Bumrah - not as insurance for him. And if Thakur, Sundar and nattu took their opportunities perhaps Neser could have excelled as an emergency replacement for Starc. Being fit he'd have bowled better then him I'm sure.

Watson didn't keep Rogers out of the side. The selectors hated him for whatever reason. Besides i don't believe the implication of your criticism. We both know you'd pick Watson over Neser if the choice was available.
 
Last edited:

Flem274*

123/5
not sure why the 5th bowler is an argument when green is one of the best batsmen in australia anyway, so he plays regardless.
 

Line and Length

International Regular
Green's bowling is most effective when he pitches the ball up and swings the ball. Why then was he bowling short of length and only using an old ball? The way he was used was primarily to give the 3 pacemen a break while replicating the length that they used. Poor captaincy/coaching.
 

Starfighter

Hall of Fame Member
I've had a thought about the fact that we've got the next cycle of subcontinental tours coming up next year. While I think considering the batting and spin bowling we'd have a 5% chance at best of winning the series, things like Langer's 'India's big population' comments are going to mentally resign the team to defeat from the get-go. I wouldn't be surprised if we get blanked 4-0 like in 2013 again.

The fact the team is performing so far below potential in the main area of strength - pace bowling - is concerning, as are the tactics. India and SL are places where you want to bowl at the stumps, yet the team brains trust certainly don't seem to put any value in it.

I find it funny where people will talk about India's leg side bowling strategy. Yet in the last two test it was less in evidence, least of all in Brisbane, yet wickets were still taken. Many Indian posters here very pessimistic about Shardul. Yes, he was expensive and bowled enough half volleys. He bowled to his strengths and made the batsmen play at something. The Indians at least had some variety in their attack.

In comparison the Australian bowling was easy to defend by batsmen who were mainly looking to defend. It felt like aeons between deliveries where the batsmen played forward. Crucial new ball spells were negotiated almost entirely off the back foot. There was no variation from either short-of-a-length or short. Economical yes, but especially as Haze and Starc aren't the most suited to that style, where was the attempt to mix lengths? While we were burned a bit by the lack of wear in the pitches - hardly a secret in recent years - there was was simply plan A: bowl short and plan Aa: bowl shorter. Where was plan B? Sure Haze's spell to Pujara was fearsome, but where were the full balls?

While I don't expect public admissions of wrongdoing, it bugs me that everything indicates that Langer and Co. seem to think the bowling has done its best when they only tried one thing in the last two tests, it didn't work, and they showed no inclination to do anything else.
 
Last edited:

Senile Sentry

International Debutant
I've had a thought about the fact that we've got the next cycle of subcontinental tours coming up next year. While I think considering the batting and spin bowling we'd have a 5% chance at best of winning the series, things like Langer's 'India's big population' comments are going to mentally resign the team to defeat from the get-go. I wouldn't be surprised if we get blanked 4-0 like in 2013 again.

The fact the team is performing so far below potential in the main area of strength - pace bowling - is concerning, as are the tactics. India and SL are places where you want to bowl at the stumps, yet the team brains trust certainly don't seem to put any value in it.

I find it funny where people will talk about India's leg side bowling strategy. Yet in the last two test it was less in evidence, least of all in Brisbane, yet wickets were still taken. Many Indian posters here very pessimistic about Shardul. Yes, he was expensive and bowled enough half volleys. He made the batsmen play at something. The Indians at least had some variety in their attack.

In comparison the Australian bowling was easy to defend by batsmen who were mainly looking to defend. It felt like aeons between deliveries where the batsmen played forward. Crucial new ball spells were negotiated almost entirely off the back foot. There was no variation from either short-of-a-length or short. Economical yes, but especially as Haze and Starc aren't the most suited to that style, where was the attempt to mix lengths? While we were burned a bit by the lack of wear in the pitches - hardly a secret in recent years - there was was simply plan A: bowl short and plan Aa: bowl shorter. Where was plan B? Sure Haze's spell to Pujara was fearsome, but where were the full balls?

While I don't expect public admissions of wrongdoing, it bugs me that everything indicates that Langer and Co. seem to think the bowling has done its best when they only tried one thing in the last two tests, it didn't work, and they showed no inclination to do anything else.
India didn't employ the leg side theory that much after Melbourne. Especially at Brisbane where they barring Siraj had a raw attack and the bowlers weren't confident. Hence Shastri had asked them to bowl according to their strengths than overcoach.
 

Top