Aussie Cricket
-
-
@booboo said in Aussie Cricket:
What is this obsession with not enforcing the follow on?
Bloody VVS.
Liked Isa Guha's term "FOFO" (fear of follow on).
@booboo said in Aussie Cricket:
What is this obsession with not enforcing the follow on?
Bloody VVS.
Liked Isa Guha's term "FOFO" (fear of follow on).
Because all the cricket world except you 😉, has worked out that the state and fitness of your bowlers on a road in 30+ degrees is a better indicator of a win than scoreboard appearance after 1 innings.
Seriously Boo, your bowlers have to fire up again, their batters are uber determined, you might have to bat on a day 5 pitch after bossing the whole game, and fucken bowlers love a "well done lad, have a rest". A follow on has romantic history but doesn't stack up logically when " missionary position" cricket will get you a draw minimum and a win likely
Follow on against a poor team IF you rolled them in under 45 overs, otherwise simply bat again, bat them out of the game, and get your bowlers to do their thing.
After 3 days of dominance, you don't give these fucken Aussies (whose entire cricket identity has, for the last 9 months, been living on a wing and a prayer), even a sniff at some folklore resistance shit on boxing day test
No mate, keep the foot down and skin this cat in good time, a follow on is a relief for Australia
-
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
@booboo said in Aussie Cricket:
What is this obsession with not enforcing the follow on?
Bloody VVS.
Liked Isa Guha's term "FOFO" (fear of follow on).
@booboo said in Aussie Cricket:
What is this obsession with not enforcing the follow on?
Bloody VVS.
Liked Isa Guha's term "FOFO" (fear of follow on).
Because all the cricket world except you 😉, has worked out that the state and fitness of your bowlers on a road in 30+ degrees is a better indicator of a win than scoreboard appearance after 1 innings.
Seriously Boo, your bowlers have to fire up again, their batters are uber determined, you might have to bat on a day 5 pitch after bossing the whole game, and fucken bowlers love a "well done lad, have a rest". A follow on has romantic history but doesn't stack up logically when " missionary position" cricket will get you a draw minimum and a win likely
Follow on against a poor team IF you rolled them in under 45 overs, otherwise simply bat again, bat them out of the game, and get your bowlers to do their thing.
After 3 days of dominance, you don't give these fucken Aussies (whose entire cricket identity has, for the last 9 months, been living on a wing and a prayer), even a sniff at some folklore resistance shit on boxing day test
No mate, keep the foot down and skin this cat in good time, a follow on is a relief for Australia
So 54 for 5 is keeping the foot down?
Bullshit.
Whilst theyre still in front they've lost momentum.
You rolled them for one-fitty. They're jumpy. They hate Bumrah. They're desperate to scrape to get 300 to make you bat again. 300! Your bowlers have another 2 hours max to bowl then get a good night's rest.
And "road"? Fuck how many wickets fell today?
VVS has spooked the world unduly. Should have followed on and they'd have won by tea tomorrow.
-
Nice rant.
Completely wrong but.
Your whole argument revolves around Kohli KNOWING they'd be 5 for 54 at the time of their decision. Wholly unlikely prediction at change of innings. Can I play with; Harris a century in a session, 165 for none?
But it fits nicely with your ridiculous voodoo suggestion that every follow on decision involves citing VVS !
Do keep going though... Harry Hindsight 😉
-
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
Nice rant.
Completely wrong but.
Your whole argument revolves around Kohli KNOWING they'd be 5 for 54 at the time of their decision. Wholly unlikely prediction at change of innings. Can I play with; Harris a century in a session, 165 for none?
But it fits nicely with your ridiculous voodoo suggestion that every follow on decision involves citing VVS !
Do keep going though... Harry Hindsight 😉
Not quite.
My whole rant revolves around the fact Bumrah had them running scared and they barely got to one third of their score.
151 plays 443.
I can't believe that you wouldn't back your bowlers to do that again. Especially with a night's rest in the offing .
Pick up a single wicket in the evening session and you're so far ahead of the game it's fucking over.
Say Straya ends at 50 for 1. You still know that you need 242 to make India bat again. Get that? They still expect not to bat again.
And batting again is your fail safe. India do not get to bat again now. They rely on the pitch becoming so shit that Straya can't chase shit.
Scenario: India all out 100. Straya have damn nearly 2 days to chase. All they have to do is not get out. They so not have to score runs.
And back to "the bowlers ate tired" argument. I don't get that. They're professional athletes who have bowled half the number of overs they expect to. And they are super enthused.
The converse of your narrative that that the batsmen are now "uber determined", as opposed to being utterly demoralised and completely daunted by the prospect of scoring more than 200% of what they scraped together in the first innings.
In my opinion India have opened the door.
India will still probably win, but I do think it would have been easier if they enforced.
-
In a vacuum you enforce the follow on there, but with a short turn around before Sydney you have to consider the workload.
Best case - they roll them, maybe knock off a few runs. The quicks get an extra day (or two) rest before Sydney.
Worst case - enforce the follow on, Australia bat most of tomorrow and the quicks put in back to back days in the field before a short turn around in Sydney.
Kohli clearly wants to avoid the worst case scenario rather than peruse the best case.
-
@booboo nice reply mate and I see where you're coming from, but I haven't seen that scenario much since we were both kids.
Enforcing a Follow on really only serves to speed up your result, if all goes to plan, but that's a given consideration.
I actually think one reason not to enforce FO is simply to avoid the possibility of batting on day 5. Bossing the game then orchestrating the possibility of batting last instead of 3rd is a gamble of losing rather than ensuring a draw at least by batting again. Not even worth the risk IMO, with the only reward being a quicker win.
Batting last is not a fail safe position. You save your position in the game long before that, if playing safe is a consideration
Historically the follow on innings is far more productive and determined than the poor innings that preceded it. VVS might shape your memory but being rolled twice by Waqar and Wasim shapes mine and the gulf between batters and bowlers doesn't happen like that so much anymore.
I'm not buying for one second the notion that an under fire Aussie team at 1 all in a series in Melbourne that the batsmen are scared of any bowler. Nonsense.
Another factor, with a comfortable lead is to do what the opposition dont want you to do.
After 170 overs in the field then only 66 in the shed, there is no way that Aus wants to field again. They'd be delighted to have a bat to try to get something from the game on a day 3 pitch. They'd much prefer to bat again than go out and hope for a miracle bowling spell where top 3 wickets are got from leg side deliveries.Actually Aus did better than expected (5-54), yet still got shut out of the game, so India remain on top despite the most dramatic 2 hour Aus performance of the series.
And all the while your team is resting jovially (300+ lead is match winning) while the opposition is bowling again, with no chance of a win. perfect situation.
Kohli has spent the whole test tiring the Aussies out. Shastri mentioned it on day 2 and the surprise declaration was to unsettle Aus. By not enforcing the follow on he continues to make life uncomfortable for them.
But mostly you don't flog your bowlers in 40 degrees after they'd done so brilliantly and a draw wraps up the trophy and best result in Aus.
Apart from speeding the win up ( unnecessarily here imo, but maybe weather in another instance), what use is a follow on?
Why risk losing?
And don't parrot some shit about psychological advantage because that's over emphasised bollocks with highly paid pros playing for their reputations 😀
-
-
I'll accept there are arguments in favour of NOFO.
But you ask the question "why risk losing?"
I think they've risked losing by falling in a batting heap. IMO That's more likely to happen than a batting masterclass starting at minus-200 more wresting the game away from you.
But that may be because as a blackcaps fan a collapse is always imminent ....
-
@booboo cool.
It's funny with test cricket as a 4th innings chase is the ultimate spectating. Everytime your team chases you feel confident they'll pull together a nice 250-320, just like other innings'. I mean, 250 that's not lots eh?
Then you see the dire list of successful run chases and the paltry totals that won and you're reminded that batting last sucks for any target pretty much under 180 runs.
India had this game sussed wwith that 292 lead and their bowlers were great!
Only caught highlights but the pitch didn't seem to get the top order out. More a gulf in bowling consistency, wrist positioning, and technically inferior batsmen.
I wondered how India would combat the buoyant Aussie momentum after Perth and yesterday was their emphatic answer.
Cummins well earned 4 for notwithstanding this has been a notably one sided game
-
-
@rotated said in Aussie Cricket:
@Siam said in Aussie Cricket:
We need some follow on stats from the last 40 years to assess the fruition and prevalence of such decisions.
Not the last 40 years but this has a lot of before and after VVS analysis.
Interesting analysis. I can see more wisdom in not enforcing than I could before.
This particular decision looks right to me. Tire the Aussie bowlers and force them to bat last.
-
-
Finch is shit
They should make changes to the batting lineup for the SCG match. I doubt they will though
Cummins finishes with 27/6. He's putting together a decent record: Test Bowling summary
-
Bumrah gets Shaun Marsh. That’s 19 for the series at 13.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Aussie Cricket:
Bumrah gets Shaun Marsh. That’s 19 for the series at 13.
Post-WWII only two players have played more innings for Australia in the top 6 and averaged less... one is his old man.
Honestly thought this guy would play 100 tests @ 45 at very least when he first came into the ODI team.
-
If I was to pick a combined Australia-New Zealand test team, I would probably pick the whole Australian bowling attack. I think Boult is a better test bowler than Starc but Starc's batting would probably get him in the team.
The problem for Australia, and this has been an issue for a long time, they just can't produce any bloody batsmen. They used to be carried by Ponting, Clarke and Hussey. Then it was Smith and Warner. Some other good players have popped up like Rogers and Voges but thy haven't stuck around.
Australia has lost their two best batsmen and one of their most promising. Their best batsman, and probably the only one of test quality is Khawaja. Yet he only averages 30 away from home. I would probably pick Khawaja at six or to open in a combined New Zealand/Australian team but otherwise I would take our whole top 7. You couldn't say that too often.
I just don't see why Australia can't produce any test quality batsmen given that they used to churn them out. I do note that the Big Bash is taking up the biggest chunk of their summer. I think some players see more of a career in that. If you are a New Zealander and you want to get noticed, your best bet is still to excel in international cricket. Having said that, if one of our top guys go down we are probably back to Brownlie.
It's a shame we aren't playing them this year because I think we would beat them in a three match series, home or away. When we play them next year Smith and Bancroft will be back (probably not Warner though) and I think they will be favourites.
I think Australia should have taken the absence of their top players to blood some more new ones. They have done this with Head but also picked the Marshes and Finch. None of those are long term test players, so why pick them? I think the idea is that they want experience in there but it seems a waste of a year's cricket.
