Aussie Cricket
-
But those wickets are proportional to the runs a lot of the time.
Get de Kock out, get the little bloke fined for scratching up the pitch with his boot, and we're into the tail.
Fresh morning in Hobart and we could be looking at a deficit only just over 150.
-
Yeah, SA in the box seat but Aus have clawed their way back into it with 5 wickets. Morning session tomorrow extremely important, if they can restrict the lead below 150 then they will be batting again when the pitch is at its best and could potentially set a decent target.
-
Good toss to win.
Might have been one of those funny cases where the Jaapies have actually bowled Oz out a bit too quickly and they might have been better off conceding another 50 runs and retaining three wickets for tomorrow when the pitch should improve.
Still - they'd take 80-odd runs ahead with five wickets standing at the end of day 1.
A worry to see Lyons bowl one that turned a mile and bounced shoulder height. I'm not sure how much that will settle down.
-
-
-
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/1065894.html
Chappelli having a crack at what is wrong. I like his grump:
While Australia capitulated at the WACA and then collapsed at Bellerive, both India and England prospered in Rajkot.
The implications of these scenarios are many and varied. Australia are in distinct trouble against South Africa, and unless this trend is reversed quickly, the selectors face the prospect of wholesale changes for the upcoming series against an improved Pakistan outfit.
Australia then face a tough tour of India, a playground where they have recently experienced more recriminations than celebrations, followed by a visit from England next summer. To say the next few weeks are crucial to Australian cricket is akin to saying the world awaits Donald Trump's presidency with bated breath.
Most of Australia's recent failures have stemmed from poor batting displays, but the inability to keep fast bowlers fit for duty is shaping to be just as big a problem.
A short while ago it appeared Australia's pace bowling future was bright, with Mitchell Starc, James Pattinson and Pat Cummins all capable of swinging the ball at genuine pace, while Josh Hazlewood and Peter Siddle provided consistently probing spells. In addition, there were other hopefuls with pace and talent at the Shield level who promised adequate back-up in case of the odd injury.
Since then there has been a string of injuries as long as the sartorius muscle, which leaves Starc and Hazlewood as the last men standing. It's a bleak picture that provides skipper Steven Smith with a migraine-style headache and the administrators with many questions to answer.
When a team has lost four Tests in succession - three of them from virtually impregnable positions - there are bound to be questions about the captain's right to retain the job. However, the job of the Australian captain has been made increasingly difficult over the years by some questionable administrative decisions.
In 2011, I told the Argus review: "I don't think the system allows you to captain Australia properly. There are too many people to tell to get stuffed.
At least when I was skipper, you only had to tell the manager to butt out if he wanted to stick his nose into the cricket side of the business."With that said, the Argus review recommended an additional layer of management and even more impediment to good captaincy.
Smith's job has been made infinitely harder than mine ever was. At least I was in control of my own destiny, which is a must when all the wins and losses go against your name. Smith doesn't have that luxury and he's also impeded by a development system that is faltering, bordering on total engine failure.
Cricket Australia held the Argus review and another one into the safety of the game following the tragic death of Phil Hughes. However, it hasn't addressed the failure of a system that should provide selectors with a production line of successful young batsmen from first-class cricket. The current system has been an abject failure for at least a decade, mainly providing a string of journeymen and ageing debutants, and yet, nothing seems to change.
Actually, that's not exactly true. There are more coaches, more theories on how to play spin bowling, and fewer overseas successes. While the failures in India, England and Sri Lanka were treated with an "out of sight, out of mind" approach by the public, the inability to cope with a weakened South African attack on a reasonable WACA surface has shone a fierce spotlight on Australia's batting frailty.
India, on the other hand, have a plentiful supply of talented and technically efficient young batsmen. England, who used to eschew selecting youth as though that would inflict a plague on the side, have blooded two young batting hopefuls on the tour of Bangladesh and India.
Australia are now at the point where the ageing-debutant policy is a proven failure and they will be forced to choose a few younger batsmen on a speculative basis.
With a tour of India and a tough home series against England looming, this is not ideal. It could go one of two ways: either it'll be a triumph for youth or cause the pain often felt in seeking longer-term success.
-
155 in front now, still only 5 down. This de Kock can fucking play.
The Aussies have as much in their team as anyone. Warner averages 50, Smith late 50s, Starc and Hazlewood are as good as anyone. That's 4 very good players to build a side around.
I'm not sure there are guys in domestic cricket who are exactly banging the door down. My take is domestic cricket is now too far removed from international cricket to be a guaranteed barometer of form, and the only way you can know if someone is ready is to play him. 10,000 Sheffield Shield runs on the flat decks of Aus is not the same achievement it was 20 years ago.
-
155 in front now, still only 5 down. This de Kock can fucking play.
The Aussies have as much in their team as anyone. Warner averages 50, Smith late 50s, Starc and Hazlewood are as good as anyone. That's 4 very good players to build a side around.
I'm not sure there are guys in domestic cricket who are exactly banging the door down. My take is domestic cricket is now too far removed from international cricket to be a guaranteed barometer of form, and the only way you can know if someone is ready is to play him. 10,000 Sheffield Shield runs on the flat decks of Aus is not the same achievement it was 20 years ago.
@mariner4life said in Aussie Cricket:
I'm not sure there are guys in domestic cricket who are exactly banging the door down.
Joe Burns was one. But he still hasn't fixed his glaring front-foot gap issue, or hasn't been tested enough.
-
But those wickets are proportional to the runs a lot of the time.
Get de Kock out, get the little bloke fined for scratching up the pitch with his boot, and we're into the tail.
Fresh morning in Hobart and we could be looking at a deficit only just over 150.
@NTA said in Aussie Cricket:
But those wickets are proportional to the runs a lot of the time.
Get de Kock out, get the little bloke fined for scratching up the pitch with his boot, and we're into the tail.
Fresh morning in Hobart and we could be looking at a deficit only just over 150.
Fighting talk, but I'd still have taken South Africa's problems into day two
-
100 for de Kock, and then gooorn. 276/6, 191 in front
