*Official* Australia Tour of West Indies 2021 (WhiteBall)

[Nintendo]

Have to consider that it was starc bowling, and his reputation is literally all about demolishing tail ender's stumps. If Russell had rotated the strike would Walsh have been able to do the same without getting bowled? From what I read starc nailed 4 Yorkers in a row.

Understand that the Dhoni style of finishing is ungainly when it doesn't work, and in this situation feel like it was the best call. If anything Russell deserves critism for not hitting that high full toss starc bowled second last ball for 4 minimum to get a super over, not for his handelling of the strike.

 

[Prince EWS]

From what I read starc nailed 4 Yorkers in a row.

This definitely isn't actually true haha.

 

[honestbharani]

He was in a very good form. Had actually scored 115 on 61 balls before that. But still it was a very wrong decision by him and was strongly criticised after the match.

Especially after Morris hit a last ball six to win their next game...

 

[Spikey]

If it goes to the fence, it's a half volley, if it gets a wicket or dot ball its a Yorker, and I'm seeing 5 dot balls.

 

[Nintendo]

This definitely isn't actually true haha.

Really? Match report described it as him nailing 4 leg stump Yorkers in a row or something to that effect.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Slippy has a point here, why don't we bring marsh back to the test team as captain when pain retires? He's making white ball runs, clearly good for a few in the test stuff!

This but unironically

 

[SteveNZ]

Mixed on Russell strategy - I think its one of those things where if Russell gets a single, then Walsh doesn't get off strike for 2 or 3 balls and doesn't hit a boundary - the strategy isn't questioned at worst Walsh is blamed. Very few people consider what might have happened if Russell had 6 straight balls to hit two 6s or a 6 and a 4 for a Super Over. If Russell retains the strike and fails to get the two 6s the strategy is absolutely questioned. Is it that different to a team jogging a 1 to have the established batsman on strike late in an innings when they could get a 2 if they really wanted to and ran hard - I'd be interested what the numbers look like in these situations with these 2 approaches when you consider an elite death overs batsman with a bowler who can bat who hasn't yet faced a delivery.

What would be the messaging to Walsh? If its get a single best case scenario is 11 of 6 becomes 9 off 4. In such a case the question becomes 11 off 5 or 9 off 4 - both with Russell on strike.

If the messaging is more back yourself and use your best judgement it becomes a case of 10 off 5 with Walsh Jr on strike rather than 11 off 5 with Russell on strike - I'm not sure if Australia would be too upset if they were defending one fewer run with 5 balls to go but bowling to Walsh Jr instead of Russell.


11 is an inbetween sort of target, I think if it was 8 I'd be more for running the single, if it was 15/16 I would be more firmly in Russell's camp but I don't think the call is the calamity made out.

I think it was insane to not take the singles. You take 2-3 singles, it means you have 3 balls to hit two boundaries - whether that's Russell or Walsh. Starc's not exactly flush with confidence, yet you want to hold back and allow him to bowl dot balls?

I know it was the Dhoni approach and it feels like the alpha way to do it...but jeepers unless it's Chris Martin at the other end or some otherwise completely unsuitable option, you can't turn down runs like that. If Walsh can't get off strike, then so be it - you'd have to back him to do so. He can wear the criticism if he can't.

 

[GotSpin]

They weren't yorkers but they were great deliveries for a batsmen looking to give themselves some room and clear the leg

Someone standing their ground would have just guided them down to fineleg for 4

 

[andruid]

Really? Match report described it as him nailing 4 leg stump Yorkers in a row or something to that effect.

ESPNCricinfo melodramatic writing for you...

 

[Starfighter]

I don't think Starc was capable of nailing that many in a row back when he was actually good.

 

[Spark]

Yeah it wasn't really nailing yorkers which made Starc unhittable at his peak. It was pace + reverse swing meaning he had a huge margin of error, batsmen just couldn't get anywhere near most of what he was bowling.

From what I could see, most of the deliveries in that last over were simply too fast and delivered at too weird an angle for Russell to really get hold of.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Last watching a couple highlights, thinking Oshane Thomas is possibly the worst fielder I've ever seen. Not easy to move around when you're that size though

 

[StephenZA]

Does this mean Mitch Marsh is still thing?

 

[Spark]

Does this mean Mitch Marsh is still thing?

In limited overs, absolutely. Should never have stopped being a thing, frankly.

 

[Spikey]

as smart people said in 2019 when the dumb people were gagging for Stoinis.

Marsh being picked for the Ashes but not the WC is possibly the weirdest, non Nathan Hauritz related selection in recent aus history

 

[Shady Slim]

Last watching a couple highlights, thinking Oshane Thomas is possibly the worst fielder I've ever seen. Not easy to move around when you're that size though

 

[Shady Slim]

In limited overs, absolutely. Should never have stopped being a thing, frankly.

exemplary take

the guy's always been a useful LO fifth bowler or sixth bowler, and while the batting record isn't ATG like levels i must note that he played a LOT of games during that period australia kept drilling other sides five-zip or three-zip at home and he always came in at like 280/3 (45), and was told to just have a big hack. one innings of his that really sticks out to me is vs nz in nz where he and THE DUKE john hastings took us to a win with the bat

 

[Burgey]

From what I could see, most of the deliveries in that last over were simply too fast and delivered at too weird an angle for Russell to really get hold of.

He did bowl some serious heat today. Regularly into the high 140s.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He was tried as the legit ODI no. 3 a few years back and did ok, think it started in a tri-series in Zimbabwe. Can't recall why it ended but I can only assume given it's Mitch Marsh that he got injured.

I'm sure MMarsh the gun limited-overs player wouldn't have "stopped being a thing" if not for his repeated injuries

 

[Spikey]

an interesting thing about the Russell thing is that it's the opposite of the Euro Finals. Like, Southgate is getting grief for giving two penalties to two players who hadn't really stepped onto the field, despite their well known talent and class (however, their terrible choice in teams does raise questions about their decision making skills). But here Russell is getting grief for not giving the strike to a person who hadn't faced a ball in the innings and in the series, hasn't scored a run in International T20 cricket for 2 years, has a batting strike rate of under 100 in all formats of the game & has hit 13 sixes in his entire professional career (Russell hit 13 sixes in a game once) and the attitude seems to be that when one of the biggest hitters in the game is at the crease in a situation when his teams needs sixes and fours, he oughta hand over the strike and if Walsh doesn't do the job, well **** happens. Among all those things, which we can argue about, I think that last thing is complete bullshit and not up for argument. In this hypothetical, if Walsh had been given the strike and failed and ensured the game wasn't won, Russell should have had to take more of the responsibility than Walsh. He's one of the biggest hitters in the game and when his team needed big hits he gives the strike to some guy and and the some guy has to take responsibility while Russell sneaks off into the night?!

Having watched the over now, the appropriate criticism is on Russell for simply not hitting the balls to the face. Most of them weren't exactly unplayable for a man of his ability.