Australian Cricket - Crisis, What Crisis ??

[LP]

Warner's failures seem worse because he and Smith are the only blokes in the team who can hold a bat.

They can hold a bat there is no doubt about that, when they are on they a spectacular, but even then it is often cross bat!

Slogging isn't good cricket, unconventional is OK in small doses and a team can carry one or two, but we now have a large portion of our batting list that plays like Rodney Marsh played! I'd rather some Boof Leahman type batsmen, more traditional guys who can grind an innings out and not worry about scoring at a strike rate of 150, hopefully some with a straight bat!

What's the problem with Warner, Smith and others like them, after all they score heaps of runs? The main problem is they don't turn the strike over, they absorb heaps of deliveries punctuated by spectacular boundaries and leave their batting partner stranded at the other end starved for strike for extended periods, then if the boundaries do not come they often run themselves or their partner out!

Turning over the strike is key to keeping the bowlers off balance, it's the tactic that works in any conditions not just on flat track batting strips!

[LP]

LP, you obviously don't like Warner.
Who would you put in his place?

It's not that I don't like Warner, but we seem to be obsessed with picking blokes who on their day belt the pill out of the park. But that is almost irrelevant for test cricket. Proponents of Warner and Smith will argue they score so quickly they take the games away from the opponent in a session or a day, yet our recent record suggests otherwise despite both of them having periods of heavy run scoring. That is because tests go for five days, and no matter how many runs you score quickly if you leave the opponent time and overs they will generally get  the better of you!

For traditional followers of cricket, no matter how many runs players like Smith and Warner make, it stabs at your heart because they often throw away their wicket and that has an effect on the team! We need blokes who will occupy the crease, I'd be looking at younger types who don't throw their wicket away like Handscomb, Harris and Dean.

[laj]

It's not that I don't like Warner, but we seem to be obsessed with picking blokes who on their day belt the pill out of the park. But that is almost irrelevant for test cricket. Proponents of Warner and Smith will argue they score so quickly they take the games away from the opponent in a session or a day, yet our recent record suggests otherwise despite both of them having periods of heavy run scoring. That is because tests go for five days, and no matter how many runs you score quickly if you leave the opponent time and overs they will generally get  the better of you!

For traditional followers of cricket, no matter how many runs players like Smith and Warner make, it stabs at your heart because they often throw away their wicket and that has an effect on the team! We need blokes who will occupy the crease, I'd be looking at younger types who don't throw their wicket away like Handscomb, Harris and Dean.

The think is Warner and Smith average 50ish, 56 in Smith's case. They get them often when needed too. You need blokes who can score quickly, like Gilchrist, and others who like to occupy the crease. It balances a line up out. We do need more of the latter though. Funnily enough it's where Gillespie was valuable with the bat at no 9. He averaged facing 80 balls an innings, averaging about 19. Those 80 balls though allowed the likes of Gilchrist to tear an attack apart while Gillespie held up an end. Like to see that in more established batsmen so the like of Warner can attack with support with the fear of a collapse.

[northernblue]

The think is Warner and Smith average 50ish, 56 in Smith's case. They get them often when needed too. You need blokes who can score quickly, like Gilchrist, and others who like to occupy the crease. It balances a line up out. We do need more of the latter though. Funnily enough it's where Gillespie was valuable with the bat at no 9. He averaged facing 80 balls an innings, averaging about 19. Those 80 balls though allowed the likes of Gilchrist to tear an attack apart while Gillespie held up an end. Like to see that in more established batsmen so the like of Warner can attack with support with the fear of a collapse.

Are they real numbers Jim ? Or did you pull them out of your arse ? ????
80 balls faced is very impressive if true...

You're right though, it's all good when your seeing it like a footy and watching it fly to the boundary, but on anything that's not a drop in the odds start looking flakey at best.

[LP]

The think is Warner and Smith average 50ish, 56 in Smith's case. They get them often when needed too. You need blokes who can score quickly, like Gilchrist, and others who like to occupy the crease. It balances a line up out. We do need more of the latter though. Funnily enough it's where Gillespie was valuable with the bat at no 9. He averaged facing 80 balls an innings, averaging about 19. Those 80 balls though allowed the likes of Gilchrist to tear an attack apart while Gillespie held up an end. Like to see that in more established batsmen so the like of Warner can attack with support with the fear of a collapse.

I agree LAJ, that is exactly what I was getting at when I said too many of one type!

[Bear]

I don't think you can seriously suggest that Smith and Warner are the problem.

We do have a problem of course... but there would be 8 other players in the team who will go before those two. Plus the coach.

There is a fair bit riding on our 2nd innings!

[LP]

I don't think you can seriously suggest that Smith and Warner are the problem.

How do get the rest of the team to knuckle down and grind it out when you have the two potential captains regularly playing cross bat and getting out. Don't tell me it's all been fixed by Smith's last innings, or if Warner makes 100 next innings, leaders have to lead every time they head out on the field, they are the standards bearers!

[Pratty]

So what's our 'next best' team look like? Changes need to be made ASAP surely!!

Warner
Khawaja
Smith
Patterson
Handscomb
Wade (wk)
Stoinis
Agar
Faulkner
Starc
Bird

Dunno, we've got to get some new blokes in for sure. Who they are the what the make-up of the team looks like, is anyone's guess!

[LP]

So what's our 'next best' team look like? Changes need to be made ASAP surely!!

Warner
Khawaja
Smith
Patterson
Handscomb
Wade (wk)
Stoinis
Agar
Faulkner
Starc
Bird

Dunno, we've got to get some new blokes in for sure. Who they are the what the make-up of the team looks like, is anyone's guess!

You obviously think the bowling is the problem, you changed almost every bowler but left three of the batsmen in a team that was bowled out for 85 against opposition missing it's major front line bowlers!

I think Marsh as a bowling all-rounder is OK, have Mitch Mitch coming at 7 and he's good value but not as a batting all-rounder. Nevile at 8 and Stoinis at 6.

I think if you go Handscomb then Khawaja should open, Shaun Marsh out and Stoinis in for Voges.

Tough one, the current selectors have really kicked some of those blokes around which leaves them without any support. Oddly enough, I think Neville has to stay now, Wade might make things worse because he is not a gritty batsmen.

[Pratty]

You obviously think the bowling is the problem, you changed almost every bowler but left three of the batsmen in a team that was bowled out for 85!

I think Marsh as an all-rounder is OK, have Mitch Mitch marsh coming at 7 and he's good value. Nevile at 8 and Stoinis at 6.

I think if you go Handscomb then  Khawaja should open, Shaun MArsh out, and Stoinis in for Voges.

Tough one, the current selectors have really kicked some of those blokes around which leaves them without any support. Oddly enough, I think Neville has to stay now, Wade might make things worse because he is not a gritty batsmen.

I like Nevill's temperament.

I was really just throwing some names out there for debate.

I see our bowling as incredibly weak.

Batsmen too.

Fielding also.

Think Smith is better to come in at no.3 Just my opinion.

Warner and Khawaja to open I think would work.

I think bottom line, Handscomb and Stoinis need to come in.

I really like Faulkner as a player, Agar too. Faulkner has the grit.

Funny with Wade, I think some debate for him to come in is based on his 'grit'.

Don;t mind Mitch Marsh at 7. Stoinis and him in the team together I think is handy.

Starc plus who as opening bowler? Could Mitch Marsh do the job?

Lyon I'm just not sold on. Same for Josh Hazlewood. They're not the worst though and Lyon's 200+ Test wickets is a a good effort. Who else comes in? Steve O'Keefe maybe?