Ashes 2019
-
@barbarian said in Ashes 2019:
Bancroft is safe for one more game.
Starc has a great record at Lords and will probably come back in. Pattinson might be the one who sits out, just given his injury history and the likelihood he'll be needed later in the series. But they could take the view he'll be right after a week off, and rest Siddle instead.
^ What he said.
Under review: Bancroft, Siddle, Pattinson
Safe because of those Under Review: Warner, SiddleDefinites: Khawaja, Smith, Wade, Paine, Lyon, Cummins
-
@NTA said in Ashes 2019:
@barbarian said in Ashes 2019:
Bancroft is safe for one more game.
Starc has a great record at Lords and will probably come back in. Pattinson might be the one who sits out, just given his injury history and the likelihood he'll be needed later in the series. But they could take the view he'll be right after a week off, and rest Siddle instead.
^ What he said.
Under review: Bancroft, Siddle, Pattinson
Safe because of those Under Review: Warner, SiddleDefinites: Khawaja, Smith, Wade, Paine, Lyon, Cummins
I don't think one bad test is cause for concern for Davey surely.
He's a definite for me.
Also Siddle is mentioned twice, is it too much to ask you to proof read your posts ?
-
-
@Rapido said in Ashes 2019:
But McGrath's solution is just plain stupid. The answer is for each side to have 2 reviews each, or unlimited revues if they dont waste them. As is the actual status quo.
The umpires mistakes only become costly after one of the teams has already made 2 mistakes .
I can't see how it's stupid. The idea is you have the best umpires out there, regardless of where they are from.
The DRS provides a safeguard against any allegations of bias.
You get better umpires making more correct decisions, rather than what we saw at Edgbaston where we had clanger after clanger, ruining the flow of the game and undermining all confidence in the officials.
-
@barbarian said in Ashes 2019:
Yeah Warner is still the third name on the team sheet, behind Smith and Cummins. He could score six straight ducks and he's still getting picked in the fifth test.
Agreed.
I would bet on him to score a big hundred still somewhere in this Ashes series.
I personally don't like him one bit - but he is a bloody good batsman. Short of him taking a chainsaw to the ball or having a physical altercation with anyone, I can't see him being left out. -
It has to be said that it's simply not possible to heap enough superlatives on Steve Smith.
-
@antipodean said in Ashes 2019:
It has to be said that it's simply not possible to heap enough superlatives on Steve Smith.
I think Don Bradman would have crashed a few servers if the interweb was round in his day.
-
@antipodean said in Ashes 2019:
It has to be said that it's simply not possible to heap enough superlatives on Steve Smith.
Tremendersperlerifolic!!
I love watching him bat. It's impossible to do what he does but it's not.
-
@antipodean said in Ashes 2019:
It has to be said that it's simply not possible to heap enough superlatives on Steve Smith.
and also shows how bloody impossible it is to predict success at Test level. Who would have picked that a dirty leggie would go on to be the finest Aussie batsman of the generation? Just bizarre, even with a body of work at Test level when he started.
-
@nzzp said in Ashes 2019:
@antipodean said in Ashes 2019:
It has to be said that it's simply not possible to heap enough superlatives on Steve Smith.
and also shows how bloody impossible it is to predict success at Test level. Who would have picked that a dirty leggie would go on to be the finest Aussie batsman of the generation? Just bizarre, even with a body of work at Test level when he started.
Mark Richardson did that albeit on a "kiwi" scale.
Plenty of guys switch disciplines and become pretty useful at the other but yeah, I can't think of anyone doing it anywhere near as well as Smith has.
As an aside I remember having a yarn on here about a mythical Oz all time XI. Someone said Ricky Ponting walks in. Does he ? I don't think so.
Given there's two openers and Bradman bats at three that means Greg Chappell, Alan Border, Steve Waugh, Ricky Ponting and Steve Smith battle it out for three spots ( or even two if you consider Keith Miller bats six as their all rounder ). Surely Smith gets in so that still leaves two out of four of those legends missing out.
-
@MN5 said in Ashes 2019:
@nzzp said in Ashes 2019:
@antipodean said in Ashes 2019:
It has to be said that it's simply not possible to heap enough superlatives on Steve Smith.
and also shows how bloody impossible it is to predict success at Test level. Who would have picked that a dirty leggie would go on to be the finest Aussie batsman of the generation? Just bizarre, even with a body of work at Test level when he started.
Mark Richardson did that albeit on a "kiwi" scale.
Plenty of guys switch disciplines and become pretty useful at the other but yeah, I can't think of anyone doing it anywhere near as well as Smith has.
And the way he does it. None of it should work, but it does. He is a total natural, you can't teach what he does, and the interview I saw with him and Nasser in the nets would suggest he is some kind of batting savant
-
@MN5 said in Ashes 2019:
@NTA said in Ashes 2019:
@barbarian said in Ashes 2019:
Bancroft is safe for one more game.
Starc has a great record at Lords and will probably come back in. Pattinson might be the one who sits out, just given his injury history and the likelihood he'll be needed later in the series. But they could take the view he'll be right after a week off, and rest Siddle instead.
^ What he said.
Under review: Bancroft, Siddle, Pattinson
Safe because of those Under Review: Warner, SiddleDefinites: Khawaja, Smith, Wade, Paine, Lyon, Cummins
I don't think one bad test is cause for concern for Davey surely.
He's a definite for me.
Also Siddle is mentioned twice, is it too much to ask you to proof read your posts ?
Is it too much to ask that you actually read mine at all?
Warner is safe because Bancroft isn't, and you don't fuck around with both openers.
Though it must be said that neither outing was great. Bad review knowledge is sort of understandable, but that "leave" shows he still isn't quite there.
-
@MN5 said in Ashes 2019:
Mark Richardson did that albeit on a "kiwi" scale.
Plenty of guys switch disciplines and become pretty useful at the other but yeah, I can't think of anyone doing it anywhere near as well as Smith has.
To actually play first class cricket as an outright bowler Kevin Pietersen, Shoiab Malik and Sanath Jayasuriya all became top flight test batsmen. Sehwag might have but was more of a tweener when he made first class as was Astle for NZ.
All including Smith have fairly unique techniques.
-
@nzzp said in Ashes 2019:
@antipodean said in Ashes 2019:
It has to be said that it's simply not possible to heap enough superlatives on Steve Smith.
and also shows how bloody impossible it is to predict success at Test level. Who would have picked that a dirty leggie would go on to be the finest Aussie batsman of the generation? Just bizarre, even with a body of work at Test level when he started.
While not quite to the extent of picking him as finest bat of generation, Kerry o'keeffe almost did.
In his daily wrap ups on ABC grandstand podcast, in Smith's debut test (and also last of the ashes series that he was wrapping up), I recall Kerry saying that Smith may have a test future as a batsman , but not as a spinner. Smith scored a 60 odd if I recall correctly in a forlorn 4th innings.
Tbh, what I have subsequently read, Smith was always rated as a promising batsman in NSW cricket circles, so Kerry probably already new a bit. That he was playing as a number 7 all rounder was really just evidence of how mangled selection thought processes can get at the tail end of a 5 test series thrashing. Selectors looking for miracles or hedging bets, maybe both in this case. Debuting a promising player before his core skill is test-ready
Smith more in the Nathan Astle bowler myth territory rather than the genuine transformation a.k.a Mark Richardson, Dipal Patel, Moeen Ali , ,Pietersen etc
That he averages 60, is still the amazing part of his story, though
-
@barbarian said in Ashes 2019:
@Rapido said in Ashes 2019:
But McGrath's solution is just plain stupid. The answer is for each side to have 2 reviews each, or unlimited revues if they dont waste them. As is the actual status quo.
The umpires mistakes only become costly after one of the teams has already made 2 mistakes .
I can't see how it's stupid. The idea is you have the best umpires out there, regardless of where they are from.
The DRS provides a safeguard against any allegations of bias.
You get better umpires making more correct decisions, rather than what we saw at Edgbaston where we had clanger after clanger, ruining the flow of the game and undermining all confidence in the officials.
I'll disagree. And I'll upgrade it to really, really stupid.
1 umpire having a shocking test is all that has happened. Not a failure of the neutral umpire policy. -
@Rapido they stuck with him for a long time with negligible test returns, not common for Aus. For a wee while he looked like a specialist fielder.
Time to invest in a bowling machine company as the message about all the balls he faces in practice filters through the next generation 😉
-
-
@KiwiPie said in Ashes 2019:
He looked to be not good enough at either batting or bowling to deserve a spot early on despite a few 50s.
After 14 tests he had 1 hundred and averaged 33.
After 28 tests he had 9 hundreds and averaged 56. It was a pretty sharp improvement!I have a hunch that in his first 14 tests, averaging 33 was ok compared to his peers. But he was ugly, so stood out as probably not being good enough.
I will look at stats guru.
Never would have thought that early, middling version would average 60 though.
