Ashes Discussion

Bull Shark said:
This aged well …
embarrassing GIF
Click to expand...
Starc has taken it up a level .
Since he had to lead the attack he has bowled better than he has in a long time . And that cutter he is now bowling gives him another weapon in the middle / late overs if the ball is not reversing .
 
Sproj said:
And kudos to Boland, shame his career is on the wind down and he's come through in one of the best Aussie pace bowling eras, clearly he should have played more tests, just like Steketee, Sayers, Copeland, Mennie, et al.
Click to expand...
Tour of Pakistan coming up ?
Might be a horse for the course ??
 
Big Del said:
Tour of Pakistan coming up ?
Might be a horse for the course ??
Click to expand...

He might make the squad yep but I'm not sure he'd get picked ahead of Neser, Richardson and the big three of course anywhere other than Melbourne and injuries. This is not saying he isn't good enough at all, I've rated him for a long time, he's just around in a truly great era of fast bowlers.
 
Sproj said:
He might make the squad yep but I'm not sure he'd get picked ahead of Neser, Richardson and the big three of course anywhere other than Melbourne and injuries. This is not saying he isn't good enough at all, I've rated him for a long time, he's just around in a truly great era of fast bowlers.
Click to expand...
I think the thing that will be in Boland's favour is that he's an "MCG specialist" ie. a bloke that can take wickets on a road.

If you're expecting a dead road, like say India, you could look to play a guy that will run in all day and hit stump to stump.

I think Neser looks similar, but Boland might be a bit more of a hit the pitch brute... which can be successful when not much is happening.

Thing that impressed me the most with Boland was his actual pace. Pretty sure the speed gun was clocking him at 135-138 most of the time.... I always thought he was one of those 132 kind of bowlers that just happened to get wickets ie. Kane Richardson

I think Green will be a huge point of difference moving forward... his pace and bounce brings that something different.

We seem to have a lot of variety across the seamers at the moment, which is great.
 
BroncsFan said:
I think the thing that will be in Boland's favour is that he's an "MCG specialist" ie. a bloke that can take wickets on a road.

If you're expecting a dead road, like say India, you could look to play a guy that will run in all day and hit stump to stump.

I think Neser looks similar, but Boland might be a bit more of a hit the pitch brute... which can be successful when not much is happening.

Thing that impressed me the most with Boland was his actual pace. Pretty sure the speed gun was clocking him at 135-138 most of the time.... I always thought he was one of those 132 kind of bowlers that just happened to get wickets ie. Kane Richardson

I think Green will be a huge point of difference moving forward... his pace and bounce brings that something different.

We seem to have a lot of variety across the seamers at the moment, which is great.
Click to expand...

Well said and of the things of Green we've all been swooning about, what I have taken from the last two tests is his action has venom again. He's bowling fast and he's putting his back in which means he's starting to feel more confident in his body.

And for his cracking ball to be the one that won the Ashes will do wonders for him. I don't think many proper batsmen would have kept that ball out, let alone Anderson.
 
Sproj said:
Well said and of the things of Green we've all been swooning about, what I have taken from the last two tests is his action has venom again. He's bowling fast and he's putting his back in which means he's starting to feel more confident in his body.

And for his cracking ball to be the one that won the Ashes will do wonders for him. I don't think many proper batsmen would have kept that ball out, let alone Anderson.
Click to expand...
Yeah if that wicket occurs halfway through a normal day the commentators would mention that it basically takes out a lot of top order batsmen.

Fucking beautiful ball to take out the top of off stump... when you get bowled and only one of the stumps is rattled, it's a beautiful thing. So precise to move it enough to miss the bat but just enough that it is kissing the top of off.
 
I have a theory that England need to be aggressive and perhaps even recklessly aggressive if need be. They have nothing to lose now, the stakes are gone but what they need to do is try something radically different. It worked for their limited overs teams after all.

I actually think this is something South Africa and the West Indies also need to do and the reason is, their batting line ups are not good enough to scrap, graft and grind out a score or weather really good bowling, so they need a different method and for me, that is to go aggressive, even ultra aggressive perhaps. Now I know this is not the purpose of test cricket but going ultra conservative results in getting bowled out for under 100 anyway, so what is the risk if it doesn't come off? This is the reality for batting line ups that are as bad as some of these sides are these days.
 
Sproj said:
I have a theory that England need to be aggressive and perhaps even recklessly aggressive if need be. They have nothing to lose now, the stakes are gone but what they need to do is try something radically different. It worked for their limited overs teams after all.

I actually think this is something South Africa and the West Indies also need to do and the reason is, their batting line ups are not good enough to scrap, graft and grind out a score or weather really good bowling, so they need a different method and for me, that is to go aggressive, even ultra aggressive perhaps. Now I know this is not the purpose of test cricket but going ultra conservative results in getting bowled out for under 100 anyway, so what is the risk if it doesn't come off? This is the reality for batting line ups that are as bad as some of these sides are these days.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking that is along the lines of thinking that if an ODI team can score 350-400 runs in 50 overs than why does it matter if you try and graft out the same score over 2 days??

If that is the case then I would say that in test cricket you need that score for two straight innings to be successful in a single match, which could be very rare... but maybe in some tests getting that score in 1 innings is enough.

The other issue to me would be that test cricket field placements are completely different to ODI field placements... and I know that's not what you're suggesting, but I think test cricket is just a completely different beast.

To me the intent of test cricket is to take 20 wickets... the intent of limited overs games is to limit runs.

In test cricket they will figure out what gets you out and stack the field and bowl the lines to do it.... Steve Smith knows that 2 slips, a gully, a leg slip, short leg, long square leg & deep fine leg means that the ball is coming at his rib cage. He could try to hook it for 6 every ball, but one of them is going to have his name on it and he would end up becoming a walking wicket with a 20 avg.

On the flip side of all that is the Dave Warner / Sehwag type player who can be ultra aggressive against the opponent's aggressive fields and still be successful... which I think is along the lines of what you're suggesting ie. stack the team with 5-6 aggresive Warner style players... but those players are rare and teams will be happy to concede 20-30 runs if you're going to give them multiple chances every innings, because at the end of the day test cricket is about getting 20 wickets.

England already have Bairstow and Buttler in the batting lineup, and Malan (a previous no. 1 T20 batsmen)... and I believe they've had Vince and Roy in their teams as well... so they've kind of already tried that path, although perhaps they havent said go out there with a license to score however you want as long as it's keeping the game moving forward.

I guess an example of a team that have been given that license as a collective is the Brisbane Heat who fail far far more than they succeed and also make losing winnable games an art form
 
BroncsFan said:
I'm thinking that is along the lines of thinking that if an ODI team can score 350-400 runs in 50 overs than why does it matter if you try and graft out the same score over 2 days??

If that is the case then I would say that in test cricket you need that score for two straight innings to be successful in a single match, which could be very rare... but maybe in some tests getting that score in 1 innings is enough.

The other issue to me would be that test cricket field placements are completely different to ODI field placements... and I know that's not what you're suggesting, but I think test cricket is just a completely different beast.

To me the intent of test cricket is to take 20 wickets... the intent of limited overs games is to limit runs.

In test cricket they will figure out what gets you out and stack the field and bowl the lines to do it.... Steve Smith knows that 2 slips, a gully, a leg slip, short leg, long square leg & deep fine leg means that the ball is coming at his rib cage. He could try to hook it for 6 every ball, but one of them is going to have his name on it and he would end up becoming a walking wicket with a 20 avg.

On the flip side of all that is the Dave Warner / Sehwag type player who can be ultra aggressive against the opponent's aggressive fields and still be successful... which I think is along the lines of what you're suggesting ie. stack the team with 5-6 aggresive Warner style players... but those players are rare and teams will be happy to concede 20-30 runs if you're going to give them multiple chances every innings, because at the end of the day test cricket is about getting 20 wickets.

England already have Bairstow and Buttler in the batting lineup, and Malan (a previous no. 1 T20 batsmen)... and I believe they've had Vince and Roy in their teams as well... so they've kind of already tried that path, although perhaps they havent said go out there with a license to score however you want as long as it's keeping the game moving forward.

I guess an example of a team that have been given that license as a collective is the Brisbane Heat who fail far far more than they succeed and also make losing winnable games an art form
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right but this is where England is at, they have to try something radical. I’m aware it has al the hallmarks of a bad idea and especially with no fielding restrictions but if they get an extra 50–100 runs as a result, they need to take it. And the purpose would be that hopefully by trial and error they stumble across a balance somehow.
 
BooKhaki said:
I'd imagine in Asia we will only play 2 quicks rotating H'Wood and Starc and using Green as our 3rd seamer. Then play either Swepson/Agar/Maxwell as 2nd spinner + Marnus.
Click to expand...

They go to Pakistan , Sri Lanka and India next year .
Middle order batsmen who play spin well and medium pacers who are economical will be valuable .

Although I agree he is well down the pecking order .
 
Sproj said:
I have a theory that England need to be aggressive and perhaps even recklessly aggressive if need be. They have nothing to lose now, the stakes are gone but what they need to do is try something radically different. It worked for their limited overs teams after all.

I actually think this is something South Africa and the West Indies also need to do and the reason is, their batting line ups are not good enough to scrap, graft and grind out a score or weather really good bowling, so they need a different method and for me, that is to go aggressive, even ultra aggressive perhaps. Now I know this is not the purpose of test cricket but going ultra conservative results in getting bowled out for under 100 anyway, so what is the risk if it doesn't come off? This is the reality for batting line ups that are as bad as some of these sides are these days.
Click to expand...

Remember ; No field restrictions , the pitches are greener , no wides outside leg and bowlers can bowl as many overs as they wish .
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 695
1:34:37
NRL Round 13, 2000 - Brisbane Broncos vs Parramatta Eels
View full media list »

Active Now

Total: 114 (members: 18, guests: 96)
Robots: 460
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.