+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Around The Grounds (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-7.html)
+--- Forum: The Sports Desk (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-27.html)
+--- Thread: Shaun Marsh - a ton. (/thread-3562.html)
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - LP - 12-06-2017
(12-06-2017, 04:06 AM)JonHenry link Wrote:I think you have made that star up.
I have not spoken to anyone since or before that thought it was the way to go.
Dumbest thing he has done as captain and almost as dumb as Root choosing to bowl
I've played and captained plenty of 3 and 4 day cricket, I cannot think of a captain I respect that would have enforced the follow on. Australia had made 442 on that pitch, and tired Aussie bowlers could have just as easily seen England bat through that initial night session and start the next day in warm conditions with very little movement and half the deficit lost. To enforce the follow-on you have to assume the pitch won't degrade into day 5, because you are going to be batting on it in the last day.
During the match it was clear the pitch seemed to be getting harder to bat on as each day past. Nobody has a crystal ball, you have to act on what you know has happened so far.
The critics will flip now we have won, the problem wasn't Smith's decision, it was a our crap 2nd Innings batting.
How lucky are we that we had Hazlewood, how lucky is Starc that we had Hazlewood?
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - laj - 12-06-2017
(12-06-2017, 05:41 AM)LP link Wrote:I've played and captained plenty of 3 and 4 day cricket, I cannot think of a captain I respect that would have enforced the follow on. Australia had made 442 on that pitch, and tired Aussie bowlers could have just as easily seen England bat through that initial night session and start the next day in warm conditions with very little movement and half the deficit lost. To enforce the follow-on you have to assume the pitch won't degrade into day 5, because you are going to be batting on it in the last day.
During the match it was clear the pitch seemed to be getting harder to bat on as each day past. Nobody has a crystal ball, you have to act on what you know has happened so far.
The critics will flip now we have won, the problem wasn't Smith's decision, it was a our crap 2nd Innings batting.
How lucky are we that we had Hazlewood, how lucky is Starc that we had Hazlewood?
I'm scared, we agree! Haha!
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - LP - 12-06-2017
(12-06-2017, 05:53 AM)laj link Wrote:I'm scared, we agree! Haha!
All the experts are now saying we need an extra bowler for Perth to take 20 wickets, it's because they know we couldn't have enforced the follow on and Smith had to give them a break as part of a five test series. If we try to take 20 wickets in Perth with 3 pace bowlers and Lyon we'll be cooked for the last two tests.
IMHO, they are hypocrites, and they didn't mention the 2nd innings collapse once. Yet all of them struck it to Handscomb who's batting is probably better suited to Perth than any other wicket in the country.
I'd bring a pure bowler into replace Lyon, as the Perth pitch looks like it's dead for spinners, and let Cummins be the kickar5e All-Rounder. But the "experts" are calling for Mitch Marsh to replace Handscomb which I think is a big mistake.
I have no idea why Holland and Ahmed knocked over WA. I'm assuming spud batting is most likely the reason because in the end the Vics couldn't bowl them out a second time. In that shield match, 5 batsmen made 500 runs, batting isn't going to be a problem if the other pitches are like that one, but bowling a team out might be!
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - ElwoodBlues1 - 12-06-2017
(12-06-2017, 02:49 AM)JonHenry link Wrote:Hazlewood has bowled a number of balls mid 140s and bowls the best bouncer of all of them.
Starc needs to pull his finger out. More natural talent than all of them but just lumbers in half the time.
Starc is quite possibly dumber than Mitchell Johnson
Two captains have made terrible decisions.
I love smith but that decision will haunt him forever if we lose this test.
Hopefully he made the decision, if not he should resign
Dont agree on the bouncer, reckon Starc bowls the best short stuff and is the more intimidating bowler, reckon Starc is just laconic in his approach.
Dumber than Mitch Johnson...probably not possible, Starc can land most of his deliveries...
Agree on the captains, probably not the two smartest going around....got a bit of sympathy for Root though as he has a poor batting lineup, maybe even the worst English team
batting lineup ever..No 3 is meant to be your best batsman but Vince averages 22 at test level and you can sort of understand why Root wouldnt be backing that lineup to make runs and think about bowling first...
Root will begging the selectors to get Stokes across from NZ...wouldnt be surprised to see another quick on the way either, maybe Overton's twin brother if his back is better..
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - JonHenry - 12-06-2017
(12-06-2017, 05:26 AM)laj link Wrote:As far as the follow-on went, bowlers are tired, injury prone, it's a 5 Tests series so you don't want to kill them. Never would've been fresh enough to do what England did. If they got 400 because our bowlers were tired then we'd have an unnecessary tricky chase. We were 215 in front so even a crape score was putting the game out of their reach, as we saw. No good killing our best assets. Me, i've always been anti- follow on anyway. I just think it's giving a sucker an even break.
Agree on Starc but reckon Cummins bowls our best bouncer but, yes, Hazelwood's a gun.
It was 21deg and they hadn't bowled a heap of overs.
Just far too good an opportunity to pass up.
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - laj - 12-06-2017
(12-06-2017, 07:35 AM)JonHenry link Wrote:It was 21deg and they hadn't bowled a heap of overs.
Just far too good an opportunity to pass up.
They had bowled enough. Innings went 76.1 overs. Not as if they were fresh.
Why would you do it and risk your bowlers? What if they are tired and all end up bowling over 30 overs. With injury-prone bowlers, not such a good idea and just increases such workloads to such bowlers in a long, 5 Test Series. Never a need to make a side follow-on, especially if there's back to back Tests (this Test was the 2nd of them so no issues). Making them follow-on is giving a sucker an even break, a chance to score 450 against tired bowlers. Then you might end up with a tricky chase possibly under lights. Why would you do it other than to have an extra day playing golf. If you're 215 in front a shite score will even put the game out of reach, as we saw. We won easily, as we were always going to do, and we have bowlers that are alot fresher.
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - DJC - 12-06-2017
Smith conceded that the win took the pressure off his decision not to enforce the follow on. He didn't really explain why he took his foot off the Poms' throat, perhaps because you can't explain the inexplicable. He certainly didn't seem concerned about the bowlers' workload and it doesn't seem to be an issue among the commentators.
The Poms capitulated so quickly I didn't get to see any of today's play ????
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - JonHenry - 12-06-2017
(12-06-2017, 08:31 AM)laj link Wrote:They had bowled enough. Innings went 76.1 overs. Not as if they were fresh.
Why would you do it and risk your bowlers? What if they are tired and all end up bowling over 30 overs. With injury-prone bowlers, not such a good idea and just increases such workloads to such bowlers in a long, 5 Test Series. Never a need to make a side follow-on, especially if there's back to back Tests (this Test was the 2nd of them so no issues). Making them follow-on is giving a sucker an even break, a chance to score 450 against tired bowlers. Then you might end up with a tricky chase possibly under lights. Why would you do it other than to have an extra day playing golf. If you're 215 in front a crape score will even put the game out of reach, as we saw. We won easily, as we were always going to do, and we have bowlers that are alot fresher.
Well based on those "facts" we may as well remove the follow on rule from the game.
A whopping 76 overs in 21 deg.
Oh hang on, around 10 were bowled the night before.
And they had just had a dinner break.
I think they may have managed somehow.
A new ball in those conditions may have just had them pretty fired up I would have thought
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - laj - 12-06-2017
(12-06-2017, 11:09 AM)JonHenry link Wrote:Well based on those "facts" we may as well remove the follow on rule from the game.
A whopping 76 overs in 21 deg.
Oh hang on, around 10 were bowled the night before.
And they had just had a dinner break.
I think they may have managed somehow.
A new ball in those conditions may have just had them pretty fired up I would have thought
Don't take up captaincy, as it won't be a strength.
You'd have no idea how they felt. They bowled 76 overs is pretty significant so they are not going to be that fresh. You think they a robots? What if they were a bit flat and went for 400-450, then they have a tricky chase, possibly under lights. We led by 215 so even a crap score was even going to put the game out of their reach, which happened. Then we had fresh bowlers go out and roll them for 233. Meant we won easily. Your way would be to put possibly England back in the and make us potentially chase, my way we won easily. So why the hell would you want to make them follow-on. There's absolutely no reason for it. Never a reason to make a side follow on. Barring time and weather factor you couldn't find one good reason.
Remember too these bowlers are injury prone, have to play a 5 Test series. What if a few of them had to bowl another 25, even 30 overs, that's suddenly alot in a row. You might want to smash them but others don't.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/hindsight-only-weapon-as-ashes-captains-cop-misplaced-criticism/9233744?section=sport
Re: Shaun Marsh - a ton. - ElwoodBlues1 - 12-07-2017
(12-06-2017, 10:55 PM)laj link Wrote:Don't take up captaincy, as it won't be a strength.
You'd have no idea how they felt. They bowled 76 overs is pretty significant so they are not going to be that fresh. You think they a robots? What if they were a bit flat and went for 400-450, then they have a tricky chase, possibly under lights. We led by 215 so even a crap score was even going to put the game out of their reach, which happened. Then we had fresh bowlers go out and roll them for 233. Meant we won easily. Your way would be to put possibly England back in the and make us potentially chase, my way we won easily. So why the hell would you want to make them follow-on. There's absolutely no reason for it. Never a reason to make a side follow on. Barring time and weather factor you couldn't find one good reason.
Remember too these bowlers are injury prone, have to play a 5 Test series. What if a few of them had to bowl another 25, even 30 overs, that's suddenly alot in a row. You might want to smash them but others don't.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/hindsight-only-weapon-as-ashes-captains-cop-misplaced-criticism/9233744?section=sport
Agree on being injury prone...Cummins has been very injury prone and is now a key part of the team and Starc has also had issues, cant afford to lose either and we would come back to the field
very quickly...Bird and Sayers for example dont replace those two...Poms would be all over us.
I could understand Smith wanting to look after our main weapons/advantage in this series.....