SA Footy

Lightning McQueen wrote:I'm not so sure on that, we have no genuine bunnies and bat down to 11, Cummins (22), Pattinson (27) and Starc (28) are just below all-rounder status IMO, if we had a keeper with better batting capabilities we could squeeze in another bowler.

Starc used to be up near 30, but he's dropped well off in the last few years. Career average is down to 22 now and only 18 over the past 4 years.

Very tired today after staying up to watch and starting work very early today, but so glad I did. Was the best cricket I can recall seeing, that finish had everything!

No doubt we blew it, and Stokes rode his luck by the quick singles and his sixes clearing the boundary by the smallest of margins, but it was a truly remarkable innings.

Feel a bit un Australian, but was sort of hoping he got them over the line, was incredible to watch. Instead of the Ashes being over already, it is now well and truly alive and cant wait for last two Tests.

Personally, I don't think we will recover from this and think we are screwed mentally now.

Dutchy wrote:

Magellan wrote:No fireworks, rock music, and razzle-dazzle bullshit required, just 100% pure cricket (I’m looking at you, T20 cricket).

But you know what, I think it was Stokes T20 experience that got them over the line, he knew when to go and had the ability to hit the shots needed, he wasn't going to be able to hit 4's with 8 on the boundary so he had to go upstairs. In many ways T20 has enhanced test cricket.

If it wasn’t for T20 cricket our guys might be able to bat for longer than 20 minutes though

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:True all-rounders are a great part of cricket partly because of their rarity, but let's just hope our media don't get back on the "we need an all-rounder" bandwagon. Or worse still, our selectors do the same and try to manufacture something.

The reality is that Australia desparately needs a quality allrounder.

I disagree. Four specialist bowlers is enough. I'd frequently give specialist batsmen like Labuschagne a couple of overs, just for something different, but no way would I pick someone at 6 who wasn't capable of averaging in the 40s with the bat.

Of course if out of our six best batsmen, one can bowl OK, then obviously we have an all rounder on our hands. But I would never go in without six specialist batsmen. I feel that looking for all rounders is looking for short cuts or silver bullets, hence my skepticism.

Also we haven't had a genuine red ball all rounder who's earned his keep since Benaud IMO.

If our batting improves, we'll be the world number 1 test side.

RB wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:True all-rounders are a great part of cricket partly because of their rarity, but let's just hope our media don't get back on the "we need an all-rounder" bandwagon. Or worse still, our selectors do the same and try to manufacture something.

The reality is that Australia desparately needs a quality allrounder.

I disagree. Four specialist bowlers is enough. I'd frequently give specialist batsmen like Labuschagne a couple of overs, just for something different, but no way would I pick someone at 6 who wasn't capable of averaging in the 40s with the bat.

Of course if out of our six best batsmen, one can bowl OK, then obviously we have an all rounder on our hands. But I would never go in without six specialist batsmen. I feel that looking for all rounders is looking for short cuts or silver bullets, hence my skepticism.

Also we haven't had a genuine red ball all rounder who's earned his keep since Benaud IMO.
If our batting improves, we'll be the world number 1 test side.

The only reason England won this test match was because they have a decent all rounder. Someone who is a genuine batsman who can contribute with the ball. He bowled a third of England's overs in Australia's second innings and took 3 wickets. Bowling Smith, Labuschagne, Head or Wade isn't going to have any impact. We saw the problem with having only 4 bowlers in this test. England batted time and when the game was thete to be won the quicks were cooked and failed to penetrate. It is complicated by the fact our keeper can't make runs. Find a keeper who can bat and a bat that can contribute with the ball and we'll be pushing for No. 1, but until then we'll get more of what we have seen this test series.

cokadonkeytoo wrote:Hopefully this begins the discussion around the review system. Either review every decision or review none. The review system was brought in to stop the howlers. They can check for a front foot no ball on every decision if they want.

I agree
The current DRS system is better than the old days not having it at all but as with all things , the process can always be improved upon over time.

Surely what we want from technology is to get the most correct decisions as possible and by restricting reviews to only 2 per team per 80 overs, that simply will not be achieved.
The process needs to be taken out of the hands of the players and have an umpire review all decisions whether they be caught, LBW and No Balls along with Run Outs / Stumpings as they are now .
Who gives a shit if a bit of extra time is taken to get a correct decision?
Theres so much bloody time wasted now with other things its not surprising they never get their quota of overs bowled even allowing for overtime
Time delays that are common place now are -
Boundary reviews
Concussion / Helmet tests after EVERY head hit
Change of gloves
Drinks
Someone in Section F Row 8 Seat 14 that is standing up and not sitting down that is 15 metres to the left of the sightscreen but is still apparently a distraction to the batsman facing a spinner bowling 80 kmh
Sightscreen MALfunctions

And any other number of pathetic excuses

So is it really a big deal if for the sake of getting the most correct decisions possible if we lose another few minutes throughtout the day ??

FlyingHigh wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:

FlyingHigh wrote:True all-rounders are a great part of cricket partly because of their rarity, but let's just hope our media don't get back on the "we need an all-rounder" bandwagon. Or worse still, our selectors do the same and try to manufacture something.

The reality is that Australia desparately needs a quality allrounder. They are not getting any runs from their keeper and they need a 5th bowler for some variety. I agree that you don't play an allrounder just for the sake of it .... they have to be good enough.

Every team needs a quality allrounder, just like a quality Centre half forward, but you can play around them if you don't.

Been saying for years we need a gambling medium-pacer to bowl those 2-3 over spells, 6-8 an innings depending on how the game is going - Dougie Walters, Mark Waugh, Greg Blewett, Andrew Symonds, even Shane Watson towards the end of his career. Mitchell Marsh's bowling is perfect for the role, shame his batting isn't.

I tend to agree, but don't sacrifice the position for the sake of a mediocre allrounder like we have over the course of the previous 10-15 years. Truth is, they are rare as rocking horse droppings. What we try and do is manufacture something from that position often at the detriment of the position and the team.

jackpot jim wrote:

cokadonkeytoo wrote:Hopefully this begins the discussion around the review system. Either review every decision or review none. The review system was brought in to stop the howlers. They can check for a front foot no ball on every decision if they want.

I agree
The current DRS system is better than the old days not having it at all but as with all things , the process can always be improved upon over time.

Surely what we want from technology is to get the most correct decisions as possible and by restricting reviews to only 2 per team per 80 overs, that simply will not be achieved.
The process needs to be taken out of the hands of the players and have an umpire review all decisions whether they be caught, LBW and No Balls along with Run Outs / Stumpings as they are now .
Who gives a shit if a bit of extra time is taken to get a correct decision?
Theres so much bloody time wasted now with other things its not surprising they never get their quota of overs bowled even allowing for overtime
Time delays that are common place now are -
Boundary reviews
Concussion / Helmet tests after EVERY head hit
Change of gloves
Drinks
Someone in Section F Row 8 Seat 14 that is standing up and not sitting down that is 15 metres to the left of the sightscreen but is still apparently a distraction to the batsman facing a spinner bowling 80 kmh
Sightscreen MALfunctions

And any other number of pathetic excuses

So is it really a big deal if for the sake of getting the most correct decisions possible if we lose another few minutes throughtout the day ??

Sponsors, TV rights etc. They struggle to get through the 90 overs in a day as it is with all the piss-farting that goes on.

Dutchy wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:Carey was playing T20 in England, so I assume he is still there. Should simply be a case of calling him up, but they will not drop Tim Paine. Only chance for a change is injury.

Carey is on his way home.

I'm currently working on a project in Burra.

carey wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Senor Moto Gadili wrote:Carey was playing T20 in England, so I assume he is still there. Should simply be a case of calling him up, but they will not drop Tim Paine. Only chance for a change is injury.

Carey is on his way home.

I'm currently working on a project in Burra.

Might see you in Burra later in the week, i'm over there either Thursday or Friday.

what's wrong with no restrictions on the amount of DRS's.

whufc wrote:
Might see you in Burra later in the week, i'm over there either Thursday or Friday.

Eat plenty of meat beforehand.

Test Umpires Joel Wilson and Chris Gaffaney have been stood down for the remainder of the Ashes.

PatowalongaPirate wrote:Test Umpires Joel Wilson and Chris Gaffaney have been stood down for the remainder of the Ashes.

And not Aleem Dar?

Wasn't this Wilson's last test for the series anyway?

Surely after the Birmingham test he should've been sacked. Hopefully the ICC looks at their umpire roster system and makes changes, such as not booking in umpires with less than say 30 tests for more than one test at a time.

gazzamagoo wrote:what's wrong with no restrictions on the amount of DRS's.

Could you imagine the amount of referrals the Indians and Pakistanis would have if there was no restrictions. We would be going upstairs every time there was an appeal like Paine's referral that cost us the Test.
We would be lucky to see 60 overs in a day on some occasions on a square turner in Indaia

daysofourlives wrote:

gazzamagoo wrote:what's wrong with no restrictions on the amount of DRS's.

Could you imagine the amount of referrals the Indians and Pakistanis would have if there was no restrictions. We would be going upstairs every time there was an appeal like Paine's referral that cost us the Test.
We would be lucky to see 60 overs in a day on some occasions on a square turner in Indaia

Maybe a 5 or 10 run penalty for each review you get wrong. That should stop the frivolous ones

Just get rid of on-field umpires, a garden stake behind the stumps to hold the bowlers hat

3rd umpire can review every delivery

Armchair expert wrote:Just get rid of on-field umpires, a garden stake behind the stumps to hold the bowlers hat

3rd umpire can review every delivery

It really is the only option isn’t it.

amber_fluid wrote:

Armchair expert wrote:Just get rid of on-field umpires, a garden stake behind the stumps to hold the bowlers hat

3rd umpire can review every delivery

It really is the only option isn’t it.

A siren at the end of the 6th ball so players know it’s over