Ashes Discussion

[1910]

Do you honestly think a captain should be responsible for the quality of players his state recruits, when he has no say in the matter?

You said he’s been brilliant tactically for SA. They don’t make runs and don’t get wickets. What are the tactics he’s employed for SA?

Then you changed it to winning doesn’t matter. Then he doesn’t pick the team or have any responsibilities.

Which is rubbish, Law, Maher, Khawaja any Bulls captain they’re all consulted on recruits and get the team they want. I am 100% sure Head is the same and if he is told as you claim he has no say he should refuse the job. Any captain told your opinion isn’t wanted should say I’m moving on.

I’m not bagging Head, I wrapped him for the things he does well but to say he’s tactically brilliant for the Redbacks is ridiculous.

 

[BooKhaki]

You said he’s been brilliant tactically for SA. They don’t make runs and don’t get wickets. What are the tactics he’s employed for SA?

Then you changed it to winning doesn’t matter. Then he doesn’t pick the team or have any responsibilities.

Which is rubbish, Law, Maher, Khawaja any Bulls captain they’re all consulted on recruits and get the team they want. I am 100% sure Head is the same and if he is told as you claim he has no say he should refuse the job. Any captain told your opinion isn’t wanted should say I’m moving on.

I’m not bagging Head, I wrapped him for the things he does well but to say he’s tactically brilliant for the Redbacks is ridiculous.

The fact that you can't differentiate between tactics and runs/wickets ends this discussion, I stopped reading then.

 

[1910]

The fact that you can't differentiate between tactics and runs/wickets ends this discussion, I stopped reading then.

Brilliant tactics that don't involve batting, bowling or fielding- that must be a hell of a team meeting at SA.

Maybe the sandwiches are spoken about.

Can you name a game yet?

 

[BooKhaki]

Brilliant tactics that don't involve batting, bowling or fielding- that must be a hell of a team meeting at SA.

Maybe the sandwiches are spoken about.

Can you name a game yet?

You clearly don't understand captaincy, and think you can judge a captain by a scorecard.

 

[Fitzy]

Brilliant tactics that don't involve batting, bowling or fielding- that must be a hell of a team meeting at SA.

Maybe the sandwiches are spoken about.

Can you name a game yet?

Everything is about results and stats with you if those 2 don’t represent it, instantly doesn’t exist.

 

[1910]

Everything is about results and stats with you if those 2 don’t represent it, instantly doesn’t exist.

I watch a lot of cricket and especially Shield cricket, to say SA are brilliant tactically is crazy.

You simply cannot come last four years in a row and lose whole season and be brilliant tactically it just doesn't make sense in any sport. Or in anything for that matter.

"We are leaking money and broke but we have brilliant business minds and great practise."

Even if I had never seen the Redbacks play or cricket in my life, if someone says the team coming last is brilliant tactically I would say how?

 

[Fitzy]

Robert Craddock is reporting that the boss of English cricket has written to CA asking if England can send their young players to play in the Sheffield Shield, in a bid to stop these one sided Ashes series on Australian soil.

he says England have won just 4 matches in Australia this century. and one of 31 against India, Australia and New Zealand away from home since 2013.

Craddocks suggest that instead of trying to inject the English players in the few SS spots we have in this country (we have 6 states, compared to the 18 English counties), England should consider sending an entire team of youngsters to play in the Sheffield Shield instead of just random players.

he also says that if England really want to bridge the gap, then the should copy what was done in Australia by our high performance manager, Pat Howard, introduced the English Duke ball to the Sheffield Shield to help Australian bowlers master it before the 2019 tour of England, in which Australia retained the Ashes.

the question is would they be prepared to swallow their pride and reverse that by introducing the Kookaburra ball into English County Cricket, given they consider the duke to be the superior ball.

Well what the question appears to be is why should they need to come and ruin development opportunities in our comp instead of them innovating there’s for success. If your not even willing to use a Kookaburra ball for a couple county games than they have no right to demand or enquire about letting English players play at the expense of our own.

Ashes happens on our soil once every 4 years what about developing our players for every other fucken series ever. I don’t really rate any of the players in their domestic competitions anyway there cricketing depth is through there white ball not red ball. Some of there Test players would be questionable selections in QLD and WA for Christ sakes. Let alone a full strength NSW (which to be fair they almost never have).

I saw a suggestion about allowing 2 players in for each team. Like that’s not bad but I can’t really see any English player being worthwhile for QLD, WA (maybe a spin bowler). Victoria is filled with youngsters so it would just halt development. NSW could go with some players whilst internationals are being played but yet again youngsters. SA and TAS are the only teams that need it and well there currently sort of options for young players to go make the side. Seen with McSweeney and Brendan Doggett at SA and TAS you get all sorts of players trying to resurrect careers e.g Siddle.

England need to make some sacrifices and re-align there priorities before asking us to neglect our talent for there’s. Last time I checked we can perform in England and they can’t perform in Australia. Well first of all our sides aren’t comparable to begin with and secondly if we can succeed there without significantly abusing there county system (you get the odd player or two go over there) Why should they need ours to succeed here.

 

[Fitzy]

I watch a lot of cricket and especially Shield cricket, to say SA are brilliant tactically is crazy.

You simply cannot come last four years in a row and lose whole season and be brilliant tactically it just doesn't make sense in any sport. Or in anything for that matter.

"We are leaking money and broke but we have brilliant business minds and great practise."

Even if I had never seen the Redbacks play or cricket in my life, if someone says the team coming last is brilliant tactically I would say how?

I can comfortably say that Head is in the conversation for best tactician in Australian cricket specifically red ball with well Smith and probably Warner. If you want to say otherwise cause his batters can’t make 300 which has nothing to do with his captaincy may I add and his bowling attack is genuinely atrocious than fine you do that. But the evidence is there last year when Australia were flogging the fucken shit out of India in the Australia A game when he was captain with a talented and respectable side unlike SA.

 

[1910]

We haven't won a series in England since 2001 so we have our own problems- and we benefit greatly from our players playing County cricket so you need to be careful about how you handle this- just saying bad luck England might result in them saying your guys aren't playing County cricket.

To be honest overseas players playing Shield has been great over the years, Khan, Richards, Hick, Botham, Hall and Sobers and they have been great for gate and cricket watching.

It's dried up since cricket became all year every year but there is worth in it but not sure how England can do it well. Just farming guys to Australia and using the Kookaburra ball won't achieve much as far as improving England results. They need to get less teams in County cricket and not dilute their talent and need to get rid of the 45 types of white ball cricket they play- that's where I would start.

England don't really have a Viv at the moment as well that Queensland would want.

 

[1910]

But the evidence is there last year when Australia were flogging the fucken shit out of India in the Australia A game when he was captain with a talented and respectable side unlike SA.

Can't judge a captain on results.

The irony.

 

[1910]

Well what the question appears to be is why should they need to come and ruin development opportunities in our comp instead of them innovating there’s for success. If your not even willing to use a Kookaburra ball for a couple county games than they have no right to demand or enquire about letting English players play at the expense of our own.

Ashes happens on our soil once every 4 years what about developing our players for every other fucken series ever. I don’t really rate any of the players in their domestic competitions anyway there cricketing depth is through there white ball not red ball. Some of there Test players would be questionable selections in QLD and WA for Christ sakes. Let alone a full strength NSW (which to be fair they almost never have).

I saw a suggestion about allowing 2 players in for each team. Like that’s not bad but I can’t really see any English player being worthwhile for QLD, WA (maybe a spin bowler). Victoria is filled with youngsters so it would just halt development. NSW could go with some players whilst internationals are being played but yet again youngsters. SA and TAS are the only teams that need it and well there currently sort of options for young players to go make the side. Seen with McSweeney and Brendan Doggett at SA and TAS you get all sorts of players trying to resurrect careers e.g Siddle.

England need to make some sacrifices and re-align there priorities before asking us to neglect our talent for there’s. Last time I checked we can perform in England and they can’t perform in Australia. Well first of all our sides aren’t comparable to begin with and secondly if we can succeed there without significantly abusing there county system (you get the odd player or two go over there) Why should they need ours to succeed here.

15 went this summer for County cricket.

 

[BooKhaki]

Can't judge a captain on results.

The irony.

Would England have won this Ashes series with a better captain?

 

[1910]

Would England have won this Ashes series with a better captain?

Won is a big stretch- I think one that isn't on the brink of a nervous break down and scored over 1000 runs more than his nearest mate would have helped the side and Root's batting here too.

Root carries enough burden with his batting and this year England have played more Tests than anyone. I wouldn't be surprised if Root goes home and says he's done being captain.

Root's ability to lead would probably be enhanced too without the captaincy because he wouldn't be ready to snap- like Smith 2019.

He's made errors and has to be accountable for that. They haven't got over 300 and haven't got 20 wickets. When England won in 2010 they got over 500 four times- that's the key to winning here.

500 means you can't lose and takes pressure off your bowlers and let's them leak some runs. Root/England haven't done that or even got close so they're always under pressure.

 

[BroncosFever]

I personally think the captain gets too much pressure piled on him (whoever it is), anyone who thinks he's the bloke making all the decisions has clearly never been apart of any team.

You think JL just sits back as a spectator between breaks? When Cummins declared too late in the last game people were piling it on him, anyone who thinks that decision wasn't made by Langer and co. is deadset kidding themselves.

I believe the captain is the nominated scapegoat and given they've made the most likeable bloke in the squad as the captain, that furthers my view.

 

[broncos4life]

The fact that you can't differentiate between tactics and runs/wickets ends this discussion, I stopped reading then.

You made the claim he was good tactically and so far have been able to name a single tactic he has employed to represent this. With that in mind I think it is a bit silly to get stroppy with 1910 for holding you to account.

 

[Fitzy]

Can't judge a captain on results.

The irony.

They didn’t actually win that game so the result isn’t the point it is the success he attained with a talented arsenal of both batters and bowlers and I watched almost that entire game and his tactics and bowling changes were spot on the entire game.

 

[1910]

I personally think the captain gets too much pressure piled on him (whoever it is), anyone who thinks he's the bloke making all the decisions has clearly never been apart of any team.

You think JL just sits back as a spectator between breaks? When Cummins declared too late in the last game people were piling it on him, anyone who thinks that decision wasn't made by Langer and co. is deadset kidding themselves.

I believe the captain is the nominated scapegoat and given they've made the most likeable bloke in the squad as the captain, that furthers my view.

Cricket is a strange beast; Australia has had seven coaches, but really people don't care- they don't provoke conversation like league coaches or other sports coaching roles.

It's the captain's team. Simpson had the most control but AB wanted it that way because he had too much to do but then Taylor and Waugh took back 100% control.

The role now is to facilitate, advise and organise but Langer has had to learn to leave people alone and let the captain have his control.

When he was micromanaging every aspect the players and staff were ready to revolt.

Cricket coaching is like being a CEO, you're not on the factory floor you're over seeing the team and your assistants but it's the captain who is the manager making the calls and decisions with consultation and advice but the buck stops with the captain.

If a team declares at 400, I assume the captain has consulted taken some advice but 400 is his call and what he wants.

If they don't play a spinner again taken advice consulted but captain's call.

If you start dictating to a captain and not letting him declare when he wants or the bowler he wants then you are down a very dangerous path in cricket. Creates issues with the team and the player- he knows the captain won't bowl him or doesn't want him.

Buck was great at motivating, providing data and analysing but then it was over to Steve. I think that's the perfect blend.

 

[BooKhaki]

You made the claim he was good tactically and so far have been able to name a single tactic he has employed to represent this. With that in mind I think it is a bit silly to get stroppy with 1910 for holding you to account.

And I provided reasons in one of my first few posts on the subject. 1910 hasn't held anything to account, all he has asked about is results and bowling teams out, or not making enough runs. I had a similar argument in this thread when talking about Smith before the series. While results are important for sides, they don't determine a good captain, Graeme Smith and Stephen Fleming are prime examples of great captains with average results, and on the other side of the coin you could see Ponting as an average tactical captain with elite results.