RB wrote:Shane Warne talking shit.
I thought his made pretty good sense today
by whufc » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:20 pm
RB wrote:Shane Warne talking shit.
by wristwatcher » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:25 pm
whufc wrote:RB wrote:Shane Warne talking shit.
I thought his made pretty good sense today
by Booney » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:41 pm
by wristwatcher » Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:28 pm
Booney wrote:If the Windies are just **** arsing us around here I'd get Nevill in at 3, Marsh at 4 and give them a hit. Nevill hasn't batted this series and Marsh has hardly been needed, let them face some centre wicket stuff I reakon.
by Mr Beefy » Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:33 pm
wristwatcher wrote:Booney wrote:If the Windies are just **** arsing us around here I'd get Nevill in at 3, Marsh at 4 and give them a hit. Nevill hasn't batted this series and Marsh has hardly been needed, let them face some centre wicket stuff I reakon.
I'd send Marsh in next to play at 20/20 innings. Let's get to 350 ASAP and set these muppets 20
by Gozu » Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:48 pm
by Dogwatcher » Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:54 pm
by Grahaml » Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:07 pm
by mal » Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:39 pm
Booney wrote:If the Windies are just **** arsing us around here I'd get Nevill in at 3, Marsh at 4 and give them a hit. Nevill hasn't batted this series and Marsh has hardly been needed, let them face some centre wicket stuff I reakon.
by wristwatcher » Thu Jan 07, 2016 4:40 pm
by mal » Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:56 pm
by wristwatcher » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:00 pm
mal wrote:WI 330
AU 2/176
David Warner 122 not out off only 103 balls
Game called off with an hour to go
If no more delays, or bad light
One hour = maybe about 15-18 overs [depending if spin was used]
Thats maybe about 90-108 balls
Warner to face maybe 50 balls
QUESTIONS
Could he have made 200 if they played the extra time ?
If Warner was about 90 not out with an hour to go , would Australia have played on ?
by gadj1976 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:11 pm
Booney wrote:If the Windies are just **** arsing us around here I'd get Nevill in at 3, Marsh at 4 and give them a hit. Nevill hasn't batted this series and Marsh has hardly been needed, let them face some centre wicket stuff I reakon.
by Grenville » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:32 am
Grahaml wrote:How quickly those who seem to deride the short forms of the game want to change the long form too. Setting the game up under any circumstances, trying to slog the game away, these are not test ideals. All that was ever going to happen has happened.
by Rik E Boy » Fri Jan 08, 2016 1:32 pm
Grahaml wrote:How quickly those who seem to deride the short forms of the game want to change the long form too. Setting the game up under any circumstances, trying to slog the game away, these are not test ideals. All that was ever going to happen has happened.
Marsh in at 3 was a good plan. Goes in with 100 on the board, no pressure on runs or a result. Just bat. Once again puts up the effort of a number 8, not a number 6. He just simply cannot hold that spot for much longer. In fact, I think this is it. NZ will demand a batsman at 6, not a tail starting there. Perhaps if Nevill was batting well enough to hold that spot Marsh could bat 7, but there's no keeper in the country good enough to allow that luxury. For me, Marsh is competing with the bowlers for a spot.
by whufc » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:44 pm
Rik E Boy wrote:Grahaml wrote:How quickly those who seem to deride the short forms of the game want to change the long form too. Setting the game up under any circumstances, trying to slog the game away, these are not test ideals. All that was ever going to happen has happened.
Marsh in at 3 was a good plan. Goes in with 100 on the board, no pressure on runs or a result. Just bat. Once again puts up the effort of a number 8, not a number 6. He just simply cannot hold that spot for much longer. In fact, I think this is it. NZ will demand a batsman at 6, not a tail starting there. Perhaps if Nevill was batting well enough to hold that spot Marsh could bat 7, but there's no keeper in the country good enough to allow that luxury. For me, Marsh is competing with the bowlers for a spot.
Interesting point Graham. On the way the game finished I thought that the West Indies' development as a side would be further enhanced trying to win the game than just bowling at nothing as it turned out in the end. I don't think that should have thrown the game away but the captain should have shown some belief and tried to go for the unlikely result.
I'm not sure that the immediate double declaration was the key though. Australia have been racking up 400 a day against the West Indies this summer so I would have maybe had a hit and added another 50-60 to chase before declaring. An immediate double declaration would have been far too generous considering the lack of effectiveness of the West indian bowling. Declarations work best when the target appears to be just out of reach, that way you maximise your chances of taking wickets.
If things went a bit pear shaped you could still employ more defensive tactics that would be foreign to limited over cricket so I don't believe that setting the game up and slogging away are not necessary test ideals. There are different game conditions which means a shorter innings doesn't necessarily equate to one day cricket or teeball.
regards,
REB
by FlyingHigh » Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:59 pm
by carey » Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:17 pm
RB wrote:Shane Warne talking shit.
by whufc » Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:20 pm
carey wrote:RB wrote:Shane Warne talking shit.
What's new??
by stan » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:08 am
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |