01-19-2021, 09:49 AM
Congratulations to India. They deserved to win with their concentration and effort.
Now, Australia: where do I start? I think I said a lot the other day.
[1] Coaching Staff and technology:
I have no idea what our coaching staff do, except that Langer is the boss. Fair enough: I'm not going to bag him as he has worked hard turning us around after we imploded a COUPLE of years back. He also has a reputation for success.
However:
(a) We never seem to have done enough homework on opposition players. Our field placings looks nice and standard, but the ball generally doesn't go to our players.
(b) If there is a crack or ridge in the pitch, we can never seem to find it. Not even with GPS and pitch radar. Not for the first time, our bowlers have come up short on the last day. The Indians found the cracks and the worn patches. We did not. We didn't even appear to be bowling towards them.
© I do not know how much technology we employ, or use in team meetings and training. But we need to do more, so we can actually bowl to where opponents might be vulnerable. We don't do that enough.
Note this test, where we had no idea where to bowl to Pant, Washington Sundar, Shadoul Thakur or Pujara. We have improved against Pujara, as he didn't dominate this series, but we still struggle to get him out. Pant loves playing us as we bowl to his strengths, not his weaknesses. Against other countries, he can't get a game.
(d) Our bowlers do not appear to have a plan, especially when they aren't getting wickets. That is not just the bowlers' fault, but something we need to train to improve.
[2] Selectors:
It has been said that it is harder to get out of the Australian side than it is to get into it. There is a little too much truth in this for my tastes, particularly if the player comes from NSW.
(a) To put it simply, our selection techniques look old fashioned. We do not appear to select players on form. We do not manage our players, so they don't play themselves into oblivion. We do not select horses for courses. It might be good that players do not want to give their spot up, but that allows us to blood players and play the guys who are in the best form.
For example, Mitch Starc is a very up and down player who has injury issues. he is also very much a confidence player and, at the moment, his confidence is low. His pace has been fine, but where are his yorkers, one of his best weapons? Where is the movement through the air?
By identifying when he is in a down patch, we do not let him go back to the Sheffield Shield and find form. Instead we keep playing him and lowering his confidence.
If we went into the game with a stable of 4 - 6 past bowlers and select the ones that are going the best, we would be playing fewer guys who are out of form. And we do have some guys who are worth looking at.
Similarly with the batting. Guys fear losing their spot because they believe someone else who gets a chance might do better. If they were in a squad of 7 - 8 batsmen, they could be easily replaced and not have fear, as they are still in the squad. But it would allow us to mix and match and to play fit players in form.
[3] Sheffield Shield:
I quite like the Big Bash. It is quite entertaining and does help blood Australian players against the best going around. However, our test batsmen never play in it. Nor can our player easily come in or out of the test side when everybody else is playing limited overs cricket.
We should be having shield game going while at least 3 of the 5 usual summer tests are being played. That would give the selectors a much better opportunity to select the best in-form players available. The Big bash does not.
Also the Sheffield Shield is not getting the support it needs. We can only get test quality players by having guys playing under test-like conditions, and for their performances in that form meaning a lot more than it does now. At the moment, the Shield is sort of placed in wherever there is a gap in scheduling something else.
Mind you, one day cricket is also suffering from poor scheduling. It doesn't even get onto free-to-air TV, neither international or otherwise. Scheduling needs a lot of work, and maybe less international cricket. There is almost no time now between tests, which makes players struggle to back up. There is certainly no opportunity to find form during a test series for someone not travelling so well.
[4] Pitches:
This is also a problem in scheduling as much as anything. Putting a test in Brisbane at this time of year is not smart, as there is often considerable wet weather. The Brisbane test should held in November or early December, when conditions are at their best.
Similarly, Perth, best suited as the 2nd test in a series, when the temperature is not 41ºC every day.
Which brings me back to a topic I discussed a few days ago. Other teams generally prepare pitches that suit their team. Even England tries. So, why don't we?
India did not face a single fast, bouncy pitch on their entire tour, something supposedly in our favour. Instead there were games where the pitches suited India more than us. Note this one, which lacked the normal bounce. I've already brought up our inability to move the ball in the air and off the pitch, so I won't go there.
India no longer has the excuse to produce the poor pitches they did: they have lots of money, resources and ground staff. There is no good reason why they should not produce pitches up to our standard. But they don't, even though they actually have a decent number of quicker bowlers available. What do we get? Rolled mud that spins on the first day and never bounces higher than the stumps. Other countries do not have the money the BCCI has. I can understand why some of their pitches may be less than perfect. However, India has no excuse.
New Zealand generally produces pitches conducive to their attacks, no matter what that attack may be. We do not. That is little short of stupidity.
Now, Australia: where do I start? I think I said a lot the other day.
[1] Coaching Staff and technology:
I have no idea what our coaching staff do, except that Langer is the boss. Fair enough: I'm not going to bag him as he has worked hard turning us around after we imploded a COUPLE of years back. He also has a reputation for success.
However:
(a) We never seem to have done enough homework on opposition players. Our field placings looks nice and standard, but the ball generally doesn't go to our players.
(b) If there is a crack or ridge in the pitch, we can never seem to find it. Not even with GPS and pitch radar. Not for the first time, our bowlers have come up short on the last day. The Indians found the cracks and the worn patches. We did not. We didn't even appear to be bowling towards them.
© I do not know how much technology we employ, or use in team meetings and training. But we need to do more, so we can actually bowl to where opponents might be vulnerable. We don't do that enough.
Note this test, where we had no idea where to bowl to Pant, Washington Sundar, Shadoul Thakur or Pujara. We have improved against Pujara, as he didn't dominate this series, but we still struggle to get him out. Pant loves playing us as we bowl to his strengths, not his weaknesses. Against other countries, he can't get a game.
(d) Our bowlers do not appear to have a plan, especially when they aren't getting wickets. That is not just the bowlers' fault, but something we need to train to improve.
[2] Selectors:
It has been said that it is harder to get out of the Australian side than it is to get into it. There is a little too much truth in this for my tastes, particularly if the player comes from NSW.
(a) To put it simply, our selection techniques look old fashioned. We do not appear to select players on form. We do not manage our players, so they don't play themselves into oblivion. We do not select horses for courses. It might be good that players do not want to give their spot up, but that allows us to blood players and play the guys who are in the best form.
For example, Mitch Starc is a very up and down player who has injury issues. he is also very much a confidence player and, at the moment, his confidence is low. His pace has been fine, but where are his yorkers, one of his best weapons? Where is the movement through the air?
By identifying when he is in a down patch, we do not let him go back to the Sheffield Shield and find form. Instead we keep playing him and lowering his confidence.
If we went into the game with a stable of 4 - 6 past bowlers and select the ones that are going the best, we would be playing fewer guys who are out of form. And we do have some guys who are worth looking at.
Similarly with the batting. Guys fear losing their spot because they believe someone else who gets a chance might do better. If they were in a squad of 7 - 8 batsmen, they could be easily replaced and not have fear, as they are still in the squad. But it would allow us to mix and match and to play fit players in form.
[3] Sheffield Shield:
I quite like the Big Bash. It is quite entertaining and does help blood Australian players against the best going around. However, our test batsmen never play in it. Nor can our player easily come in or out of the test side when everybody else is playing limited overs cricket.
We should be having shield game going while at least 3 of the 5 usual summer tests are being played. That would give the selectors a much better opportunity to select the best in-form players available. The Big bash does not.
Also the Sheffield Shield is not getting the support it needs. We can only get test quality players by having guys playing under test-like conditions, and for their performances in that form meaning a lot more than it does now. At the moment, the Shield is sort of placed in wherever there is a gap in scheduling something else.
Mind you, one day cricket is also suffering from poor scheduling. It doesn't even get onto free-to-air TV, neither international or otherwise. Scheduling needs a lot of work, and maybe less international cricket. There is almost no time now between tests, which makes players struggle to back up. There is certainly no opportunity to find form during a test series for someone not travelling so well.
[4] Pitches:
This is also a problem in scheduling as much as anything. Putting a test in Brisbane at this time of year is not smart, as there is often considerable wet weather. The Brisbane test should held in November or early December, when conditions are at their best.
Similarly, Perth, best suited as the 2nd test in a series, when the temperature is not 41ºC every day.
Which brings me back to a topic I discussed a few days ago. Other teams generally prepare pitches that suit their team. Even England tries. So, why don't we?
India did not face a single fast, bouncy pitch on their entire tour, something supposedly in our favour. Instead there were games where the pitches suited India more than us. Note this one, which lacked the normal bounce. I've already brought up our inability to move the ball in the air and off the pitch, so I won't go there.
India no longer has the excuse to produce the poor pitches they did: they have lots of money, resources and ground staff. There is no good reason why they should not produce pitches up to our standard. But they don't, even though they actually have a decent number of quicker bowlers available. What do we get? Rolled mud that spins on the first day and never bounces higher than the stumps. Other countries do not have the money the BCCI has. I can understand why some of their pitches may be less than perfect. However, India has no excuse.
New Zealand generally produces pitches conducive to their attacks, no matter what that attack may be. We do not. That is little short of stupidity.
Live Long and Prosper!