First Test- Australia v South Africa

[Danoz Direct]

Mitch Marsh has to be dropped for the next test.

 

[Sproj]

Disgraceful! The batsmen have no heart outside of one or two. The going started getting a little tough, a LITTLE in that they just had to gring out ten to fifteen overs but nope, too hard as it always is. Yes the SA bowling was good but they lost their spearhead and had a debutant in the attack who was getting smashed to all parts. Admittedly the Smith wicket was a what the moment from the ump and Neville was not out but that is the price of a stupid Watsonesque referral by Marsh. Just stupid cricket by guys who just have no sense of picking moments or showing fight. Bunch of high paid Prima donnas they are.

I feel sorry for our bowlers. They bowled brilliantly against SA to get a massive advantage that our middle order decided to throw away for nothing. If I were the four front line bowlers, I would be tearing strips off that middle order. And I'm a huge MMarsh fan but if you are going to keep dishing up that rubbish with the bat in your hand, get out of the team and come back as a front line bowler because right now, you are a waste of space.

Who comes in? Henriques is pretty much the same thing as MMarsh but with more mediocre batting. I'd be going with Head/Maxwell for no other reason than we have jack all pace all rounders at present since Faulkner has gone backwards in FC as well. And I'm sorry but Khawaja, if you want to have a go at selectors, at least come out and make a statement. I'm so grumpy now.

Rant over!!

 

[Broncoman]

Did you ever see Maxwell play test cricket?

He was completely out of his depth

 

[Mister Wright]

I don't see why we need an allrounder. Pick your best 6 batsmen. We rarely had collapses when Ponting was at 6, then Clarke. It's only since we've tried to manufacture an allrounder that the collapses have been ridiculous. If we're going to stick with Nevill who should be batting below Starc, we really need a proper batsman at 6.

 

[1910]

Disgraceful! The batsmen have no heart outside of one or two. The going started getting a little tough, a LITTLE in that they just had to gring out ten to fifteen overs but nope, too hard as it always is. Yes the SA bowling was good but they lost their spearhead and had a debutant in the attack who was getting smashed to all parts. Admittedly the Smith wicket was a what the moment from the ump and Neville was not out but that is the price of a stupid Watsonesque referral by Marsh. Just stupid cricket by guys who just have no sense of picking moments or showing fight. Bunch of high paid Prima donnas they are.

I feel sorry for our bowlers. They bowled brilliantly against SA to get a massive advantage that our middle order decided to throw away for nothing. If I were the four front line bowlers, I would be tearing strips off that middle order. And I'm a huge MMarsh fan but if you are going to keep dishing up that rubbish with the bat in your hand, get out of the team and come back as a front line bowler because right now, you are a waste of space.

Who comes in? Henriques is pretty much the same thing as MMarsh but with more mediocre batting. I'd be going with Head/Maxwell for no other reason than we have jack all pace all rounders at present since Faulkner has gone backwards in FC as well. And I'm sorry but Khawaja, if you want to have a go at selectors, at least come out and make a statement. I'm so grumpy now.

Rant over!!

Maxwell is on three at the moment with his side 5/153. The week after being dropped and playing club cricket. He's on the nose badly at Victoria. Huge day today for him.

 

[1910]

That Smith decision was absolutely ridiculous. He was way too far down the pitch to be adjudged LBW.

The rules say nothing about steps down the pitch saving you. It was out.

 

[Socnorb]

Benefit of doubt goes with the batsman. You're saying there was no doubt? That's why that would rarely be given. Even ball tracking was with the margin of error.

 

[1910]

Benefit of doubt goes with the batsman. You're saying there was no doubt? That's why that would rarely be given. Even ball tracking was with the margin of error.

The benifit of the doubt is getting smaller and smaller. They'll fire you out then look to the proof.

 

[Socnorb]

The benifit of the doubt is getting smaller and smaller. They'll fire you out then look to the proof.

Batsmen have built their technique around getting forward to the spinners for 100 years. I'm fine with it as long as it's consistent, which I doubt it will be. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the rule " can't be out if it pitches outside leg" It's pure discrimination against leggies.

 

[Broncoman]

Really enjoying KP and Clarke's commentary, hope they stay around in the box.

 

[tommy]

Batsmen have built their technique around getting forward to the spinners for 100 years. I'm fine with it as long as it's consistent, which I doubt it will be. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the rule " can't be out if it pitches outside leg" It's pure discrimination against leggies.

Way too easy for the fast bowlers if they change that rule.

 

[1910]

Batsmen have built their technique around getting forward to the spinners for 100 years. I'm fine with it as long as it's consistent, which I doubt it will be. And while we're at it, let's get rid of the rule " can't be out if it pitches outside leg" It's pure discrimination against leggies.

If we want to use the technology we can't then abandon it when it gives a call we just don't like. People are complaining but his call yesterday was shown to be correct using the technology it would have hit the stumps.

That's out and should be out every time.

 

[tommy]

Does anyone know what the purpose of the dark green line running parallel to the crease?

 

[Socnorb]

If we want to use the technology we can't then abandon it when it gives a call we just don't like. People are complaining but his call yesterday was shown to be correct using the technology it would have hit the stumps.

That's out and should be out every time.

Should never have been "given out" , and rarely would be historically, as there was too much doubt because of the distance the ball had to travel.

 

[Ghibli]

[video]https://youtu.be/z2n7SXUM9m0[/video]

 

[Bull Shark]

Only this Australian team could go from the position they were in yesterday at 0-155 (& Steyn gone) to where they are now - bound for certain defeat.

The past few years are littered with the types of "1 out all out" collapses we saw yesterday. Warner and Smith aside, we just don't have any batsmen who can put a price on their wicket and grind out innings when the going gets even remotely tough in test cricket.

Going to be an extremely long & dry next few summers watching these guys

 

[Sproj]

Completely agree, though as much as I just can't stand golden boys who have done jack all, plus the fact he did a ridiculous review yesterday, SMarsh did show fight in his innings yesterday. He never looked good but kept fighting. Look at the scores of 3-7 and you get the idea of who is to blame, as usual.

Obviously these should be our locks:

1. Warner
2. Marsh
3.
4. Smith
5.
6.
7.
8. Starc
9.
10. Hazlewood
11.

Fill in around that.

One other thing, this stupid obsession with blokes must bowl 140. Starc can and does. When Pattinson and Cummins are fit, they would no doubt be in the squad rightly. Outside of that, obviously Philander, McGrath and Anderson must suck because they barely reach 130 at times. Just give Sayers or Bird a shot, at least they give variety.

 

[Sproj]

I'd be going:

1. Warner
2. SMarsh
3. Khawaja
4. Head
5. Smith
6. Patterson
7. Handscomb
8. Starc
9. Hazlewood
10. Siddle/Sayers
11. Lyon

12. Lehmann

Track the development of Cartwright, Swepson, Renshaw as well