Black day for Australia despite Warner’s century
Columnist By Kersi Meher-Homji, 13 Dec 2011 Kersi Meher-Homji is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, New Zealand cricket, Peter Siddle
Australia appeared certain to win the Hobart Test at stumps on day-3, being 0 for 72 chasing 241 for a victory. A 2-0 series triumph over New Zealand would have given Michael Clarke’s men confidence to face the stronger Indian challenge in the traditional Boxing Day on the MCG.
But it was not to be as Australian batsmen, apart from David Warner, collapsed in a heap yesterday.
At one stage they lost seven wickets for 40 runs.
Even worse, from 2-159, Australia plunged to 5-159, losing three wickets for no runs as the world-class batsmen Ricky Ponting, skipper Clarke and Mike Hussey perished in 14 delivers without adding a run.
Full credit should go to New Zealand’s medium pacer Doug Bracewell, 21 and playing only his third Test match. He captured 6-40 in the second innings and 9- 60 in the match to enable the visitors to win the thriller by seven runs and draw the series 1-1.
He, and not Warner, deserved to be the Man of the Match.
Warner, playing in only his second Test, propped up the Australian batting with his spirited 123 runs off 170 balls and studded with 14 fours.
But he could have done better.
When he was seeing the ball so well, he should have dominated the strike by taking a single off the last or second last ball of the over to save the tail-enders.
Last man in, Nathan Lyon, survived for 27 balls and 43 minutes to add 34 precious runs for the tenth wicket and brought Australia to within eight runs of victory. Judicious running between wickets could have changed the outcome of the thrilling Test but well-set Warner went for singles even at the beginning of the over.
How the Test fluctuated every day, every session, every over!
Sent in to bat, New Zealand lost 6-60 but recovered to 150. Australian quickie James Pattinson captured 5-51, his second 5-fer in his second Test.
Australian batsmen did worse, being bowled out for 136 to trail by 14 runs. Pattinson and Peter Siddle bowled superbly to dismiss the Kiwis for 226.
The win target of 241 was daunting with the ball moving about, but Warner and Phil Hughes took them to 72 without loss as the exciting third day ended.
But Hughes fell early yesterday and the rest, apart from Warner who carried the bat, fell to bad shots and to some superb seam bowling.
This was the third exciting Test within a month, following heart-stoppers in Johannesburg (Australia beating South Africa by two wickets) and in Mumbai (almost a tie between India and the West Indies).
Who are certainties for the Boxing Day Test against India?
Only five, according to me: Warner, Man of the Series Pattinson, opening bowler Peter Siddle, Captain Clarke and spinner Lyon.
One hopes all-rounder Shane Watson, Shaun Marsh (who can open or go in at no.3) and fast-medium Ryan Harris are fit.
Will Ponting and Hussey call it a day or will they be pushed?
Worrying times ahead.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Australian Cricket, Cricket, New Zealand cricket, Peter Siddle
December 13th 2011 @ 8:32am
mds1970 said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:32am | Report comment
The collapses in the Australian middle order have been alarming. The innings of 47 was the low point, but the way virtually every Australian innings in recent times has included a quick procession of middle order batsmen shows that what’s happening isn’t working.
Ponting and Hussey have been great players, but it’s time for them to hang up their bats. And in this day and age, there’s no place for a keeper who can’t bat; and Brad Haddin’s shot selection lately has been appalling. He must surely be on borrowed time.
December 13th 2011 @ 8:37am
Harry said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:37am | Report comment
I am a long long way from Haddin’s biggest fan however he has scored two fine and pivotal half centuries in 2 of the 3 last tests, however infuriating those shots to get out in the 2nd dig in Cape town and Hobart were. And his keeping has been good. If Payne was fit yes I’d change but he deserves to hang on … just.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:31am
jameswm said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:31am | Report comment
Haddin’s been getting out to infuriating and inappropriate shots for years. He has no self-control.
And frankly he’s not a great gloveman. Paine is better.
December 13th 2011 @ 8:50am
Silvio said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:50am | Report comment
More runs are scored in a 1 day 50 overs game ……. Please! Channel nine must feel peeved off!
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:05am
Boris said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Regardless of the result, if you’re seriously saying that wasn’t a good Test match then you’re obviously not much of a cricket fan… Maybe your short attention span and lack of appreciation for the game is better suited to the twenty-20 crap…
December 13th 2011 @ 8:52am
Chris said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:52am | Report comment
It’s interesting that Warner’s selection as Man of the Match has garnered such criticism, with many commentators claiming that Bracewell was the obvious choice. I disagree.
While Bracewell bowled well, was he significantly better than Pattinson (who took 8 wickets for the match vs Bracewell’s 9)? I’m not so sure. Warner on the other hand, was the only batsman of either team to score a century (his score was more than double that of any other batsman of either team). On a bowler friendly pitch he managed to carry his bat in the second innings – a rare occurance, let alone for someone playing in his first Test. To me he was the clear and appropriate winner of the Man of the Match award.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:11am
Brett McKay said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:11am | Report comment
Chris, I get your argument, but I keep coming back to the same point: only Bracewell’s performance truly turned the game on its head. Warner batted exceptionally well, and had Australia won, it probably would’ve been appropriate for him to win MotM, but Bracewell took 6/24 in 9 overs either side of lunch to snatch victory from the jaws of likely defeat..
December 13th 2011 @ 9:33am
jameswm said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:33am | Report comment
I disagree Brett – Warner’s performance turned the game on its head too. Without it, the Aussies wouldn’t have got close.
I don’t think those 8 runs should decide who should have been MOTM. Arguments can be made for both.
And it’s absurd that the viewers judge on it anyway.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:51am
Brett McKay said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:51am | Report comment
James, that’s true Warner carried Australia’s innings, but when Ponting was out (3/159), Warner was already 84no; he was already carrying the innings. It wouldn’t have mattered if Australia were 1, 8, or 80 runs short, Warner had already got them to where they would finish.
But Bracewell’s spell swung the match back in NZ’s favour. He got the key wickets of Ponting, Clarke and Hussey in consecutive overs before lunch, Siddle and Pattinson soon after lunch, and then Lyon at the end.
It’s all academic now of course, we can’t change history…
December 13th 2011 @ 10:03am
jameswm said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Brett – I don’t see your point. On your logic, only a bowler can swing a match.
Warner was a legitimate call as MOTM – it was a terrific knock and very nearly won the match for his team against the odds.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:18am
Brett McKay said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:18am | Report comment
No James, that’s not the logic at all, I’m just saying that Bracewell had the bigger impact on this game. Either way, it doesn’t matter now..
December 13th 2011 @ 11:16am
Bayman said | December 13th 2011 @ 11:16am | Report comment
James,
I’m afraid I agree with Brett on this one. Warner very nearly won the match for his team but Bracewell actually DID win the match for his.
As the old saying goes, james, batsmen save matches but bowlers win them.
Warner’s was a great knock in the context of this match and, in particular, the Australian second innings. Bracewell, however, backed up his three first innings wickets with another six to allow Australia to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
At the end of that innings, by the way, Warner might better have protected his tail support. As the key man, and the only batsman, it was his job to get the team home. It might be showing faith in your mate to give him so much of the strike but the priority was to win first and worry about the mate’s feelings second.
As for Warner almost getting his team home “against the odds” I’d have been pretty happy to take Australia’s odds at 2/159. At that point they were dead set certainties. Hardly backs to the wall at that stage.
He played well, no question, and the innings will be the making of him so it was important – very important. But Man of the Match was clearly Bracewell for anybody but the one-eyed Aussie supporter.
December 13th 2011 @ 11:22am
TomC said | December 13th 2011 @ 11:22am | Report comment
Bracewell was the best bowler of the match, but his performance was only marginally better than Pattinson.
Warner was comfortably the best batsman of the match. Brownlie is the only one who could claim to even be in the same ballpark.
On a pitch that was (apparently) so difficult to bat on it makes total sense to give it to a batsman.
Given the final margin was only seven runs, it should be just about irrelevant whether it was the performance of Bracewell or Warner who actually decided the match.
December 13th 2011 @ 12:06pm
Riccardo said | December 13th 2011 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
Hogwash James.
Why can’t you guys just admit you were outplayed? I know this is your National sport and that you are going through a rebuilding phase but seriously, some of the posting here is self-indulgent tripe. Don’t panic; Australia will be great again & sooner rather than later.
Bracewell’s spell, which is what Brett’s referring to, was immensely influential at a critical time in this match for his team… who WON!
The MOTM decision is farsical, in spite of Warner’s superb knock. Even the great Channel 9 commentary Team were a little chagrinned by that decision.
The reality is that it doesn’t matter that much. Bracewell will get plenty more opportunities for MOTM as will others in this fledgling Kiwi team.
Once we have the Keeper sorted (Watling maybe?) and with the addition of another quick, Wagner, who is waiting in the wings, and another 18 months of “hard yards” tutelage under Wrighty, this could be a very good side.
Who knows, Australia may even deign to play 3 tests against us…
December 14th 2011 @ 9:13am
Timnaik said | December 14th 2011 @ 9:13am | Report comment
Jameswm, the simple counter to your position is this: would a Kiwi have got the MOTM if they had lost by a few runs but one of their batsman had scored a century?
December 13th 2011 @ 9:35am
sheek said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Brett, well said – right on the money!
The MOTM isn’t always awarded to the guy who performed well over the entire match. Sometimes, quite appropriately, it should go to the guy who turned the match significantly for his team, either with bat or ball.
Here’s a unique example missed by the adjudicators of the day.
Way back in the first WC final of 1975, Clive Lloyd was awarded man of the match for his century (102). Yet Viv Richards directly, or indirectly, ran out 4 of 5 Aussie batsmen. Australia lost by only 17 runs, & it’s a fair bet Richards’ regular interventions in the field cost the Aussies much more than those 17 runs.
But the purists gave the gong to Lloyd. Nothing wrong with that, except that they didn’t decide with a great deal of perception. They simply went with the obvious.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:05am
Matt F said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:05am | Report comment
Yes Brett, Bracewell won them that game. Warner got us close but not close enough. Also Bracewell performed over both innings whilst Warner only performed in one. They say a 5-for is the bowling equivalent of a century to Bracewells 9 wickets must be worth a fair bit!
The real issue is why are the viewers deciding the MOM award? Not only were we asked to do so 1/2 hr before the game ended, with the game in the balance, but it’s only natural that the predominantly Australian “voting panel” will have some bias towards an Australian player. There’s also the other isssues with fans maybe voting for their favourite players rather than the best players and the fact that most of us can’t watch every single session for various reasons so can only judge it based on the bits we’ve seen. Then again it makes CA and Ch9 money and gives Vodafone more publicity which is most important thing really!
December 13th 2011 @ 7:43pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
Another question $utherland should be facing up to.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:12am
Justin said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:12am | Report comment
No – the game was turned on more than one occasion – it just so happens that Bracewell did it on the final day.
As has been said Warners batting performance in comparison to all the other batsmen was far superior on a bowling wicket. The bowlers dominated with Bracewell getting 9 Pattinson 8, Siddle 6 (Ithink) and so on.
Not only did Warner carry his bat he did it in very good time.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:29am
clipper said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:29am | Report comment
I concur Brett – it is Man of the Match, not man of the 4th innings. Bracewell got Clarke, Haddin and Siddle out in the first innings, and chipped in with 12. Warner only managed 15 runs in the first innings, so it really should be no contest.
Obviously a money making idea, but you won’t get an impartial view doing it this way, no matter which country it was in.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:38am
Brendon said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:38am | Report comment
If Warner had done better in the 1st innings then I would agree. Player of the match award should be awarded to the BEST player of the match regardless of who wins. Bracewell took 3-20 in the first innings which should have put him ahead of Warner. Plus he scored a handy 12 in the first innings.
Same deal with Clarke not getting player of the match in the 1st test.
The public voting on player of the match award is idiotic.
December 13th 2011 @ 12:53pm
jameswm said | December 13th 2011 @ 12:53pm | Report comment
Geez I can’t believe how vicious some of the comments on a meaningless MOTM decision and how this has snowballed.
For the umpteenth time, i did not say Warner should have won it. What I said was he was a legitimate call for it. He was by far the superior batsman on a bowler’s wicket, and a good argument could be made for him.
Bayman, at 9 for 195 or whatever, the odds were sufficiently against Warner.
As others have said – the vote was done before the end of the game, so at that stage, Warner might have been on track to win us the match.
December 13th 2011 @ 7:44pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 7:44pm | Report comment
I couldn’t care less about any MOTM award.
December 14th 2011 @ 9:14am
Bayman said | December 14th 2011 @ 9:14am | Report comment
james,
Yes, at 9/195 the odds were against Warner…..and he failed to change that situation. The odds, incidentally, were only against him because the middle order failed to live up to their reputations because at 2/159 New Zealand were on toast.
Bracewell changed the game dynamic and won the match for his side. He delivered where the Australian batsmen, including Warner, did not. Warner’s innings, great as it was, and important as it was for the future, did not decide the result of the match. Bracewell’s bowling did decide the match.
Warner’s elevation to the MotM was a pure “home town” decision and everyone knows it. I was rapt for Warner and what that innings would mean for him in the future but that decision was actually embarrassing to me if the truth be known.
It will be a great day when we Aussie supporters can all just say, “Well played, we were beaten by a better side on the day” – and give the match award out accordingly.
As for those who think it was all the pitch’s fault there was nothing wrong with that track, as Brownlie and Warner showed. What was wrong was the modern batsman’s inability to develop a proper technique to play on such a pitch. Someone told them is was a minefield so they all believed it.
December 14th 2011 @ 3:17am
Kuruki said | December 14th 2011 @ 3:17am | Report comment
Warner being made man of the match is something that would not have happened in any other country other then here in Australia. What most of the Australian sporting public who voted for the man of the match fail to comprehend is that Bracewells effort actually won the test match. David Warner did not, it’s as simple as that. That makes a huge difference when comparing the two efforts. But this is typical of Australian sport.
Darren Lockyer given man of the match in a loosing World cup side, Same happened in the netball with an Australian player given player of the match after loosing. You can guarantee any sporting event held in Australia the man of the match is going to an Australian 9 times out of 10. It’s always been that way.
December 13th 2011 @ 8:59am
jamesb said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Whats been overlooked are the bowling attacks of Australia and New Zealand.
On a green, grassy wicket, NZ went in with 4 seamers, Australia went in with just 3. Lyon had minimal impact on the match simply because of the conditions.
I reckon Dan Christian should’ve played in this match as part of horse for courses strategy.and have 4 seamers. IWatson would’ve have a field day on this pitch, or at least jagged a couple.
In future, if Australia does come across a wicket that favours fast bowling, at least have 4 options that are seamers.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:33am
jameswm said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:33am | Report comment
Christian isn’t a good enough bowler to be picked as one of the 4 bowlers. He could only be a 5th bowler and bat at 6, and I’m not sure he’s a good enough batsman (sorry, batter) for that.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:48am
Ryan O'Connell said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:48am | Report comment
I didn’t disagree with the logic (ie: seaming wicket, so pick 4 seamers). However, the bowlers did their job – the batsmen simply didn’t do theirs.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:08am
MrKistic said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:08am | Report comment
He could have played instead of oh, say, P. Hughes. I’m sure he could have at least grafted out 24 runs for the match and also provided a bowling option. But then, putting a bloke into the team for a useful purpose instead of just flying him down to Hobart to warm a seat might be getting just a bit too logical for the Australian setup.
December 13th 2011 @ 1:54pm
Tommy said | December 13th 2011 @ 1:54pm | Report comment
Isn’t hindsight great MrKristic. I take it you knew Hughes would only make 24 runs for the match? Blaming the bowlers or selection for this loss is ridiculous. At the end of the day 6/7 highly skilled batsman failed & that is why we lost.
December 13th 2011 @ 2:09pm
MrKistic said | December 13th 2011 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Tommy you only need to ask some of my long suffering friends about me voicing my thoughts on Christian’s selection non/selection last week. To start with, was he in the squad to replace an injured bowler? Or was he in the squad to fill the Watson gap? Turns out neither, which was my point, and nothing to do with how they lost. All I was suggesting was that if he’d played as an all rounder instead of Hughes, that would have made selection sense.
I’ve also been vocal enough here with my annoyance at Hughes continuing to being picked. I don’t think I needed to consult Nostradamus either to have suggested that Hughes would fail. To his credit, he did put his head down for a while there but still, 24 is only slightly more than the 10 I spotted him before the test.
December 13th 2011 @ 4:54pm
Tommy said | December 13th 2011 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
I would agree adding Christian to replace Cutting was curious. They would have looked silly if a bowler was injured an hour before the game started. However, in the case of Huges, I think we need to listen to Steve Waugh when he says identify the young guns, pick em & stick with em. It would be hard to argue that Hughes is not one of the young guns. In saying that, I think it has got to the point where he will need a spell in the Shield (which doesn’t start again until Feb 4 but that is a whole nother gripe…).
December 13th 2011 @ 7:47pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 7:47pm | Report comment
Most people predicted Hughes would fail in this match. It’s not exactly a risky bet.
December 13th 2011 @ 7:45pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 7:45pm | Report comment
Yeah, come on, get with the Clarke-era lingo!
December 13th 2011 @ 10:04am
The Bush said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Lyon took three (3) weeks when given his chance in the second innings – I think it is hardly fair to say he had “minimal impact”. The player who had minimal impact on a fast bowling wicking was Starc…
December 13th 2011 @ 10:21am
Matt F said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:21am | Report comment
Lyon had more of an impact with the ball then Starc did so I can’t agree with you there jamesb. Besides it was the batting that lost us the test, not the bowling
December 13th 2011 @ 7:49pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
Starc bowled better than Johnson usually does.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:27am
sheek said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Well Kersi,
I’ve been proved wrong 3 times now.
1. I considered Warner’s mindset-wise & skills set-wise to be entirely predisposed to T20 cricket.
2. I considered NZ to be ordinary to the point of useless as a cricket team.
3. I thought Australia would romp in on the final day of the test (contest).
Warner showed a lot of emotion on reaching his century, proof scoring his maiden test 100 was a very big deal to him.
The Kiwis showed tons of character & grit to win this test, proof they mightn’t be quite as bad as Bangladesh or Zimbabwe!
December 13th 2011 @ 9:34am
jameswm said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:34am | Report comment
Well Sheek, they say things happen in threes.
That should be it, now.
December 13th 2011 @ 11:22am
Bayman said | December 13th 2011 @ 11:22am | Report comment
James,
When you’re right, you’re right. I guess that would be Ponting, Clarke, Hussey!
December 13th 2011 @ 9:58am
Matt F said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:58am | Report comment
You might still be right about point 2. You just need to add in a Point B which says “and so are Australia!”
December 13th 2011 @ 12:11pm
Riccardo said | December 13th 2011 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
Thanks Sheek.
At last some kudos and humility.
Great knock by Warner and awesome display from Bracewell.
Feel for Ponting. One of the greatest and IOM you guys will need him against India.
They are going to be hard to beat; remember 2007?
December 13th 2011 @ 8:03pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
Ponting is now a sub-standard batsman.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:33am
formeropenside said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:33am | Report comment
It would have been nice to have played the Indians on these greentops…well done Cricket Australia, scheduling tests to maximise revenue and not results.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:40am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Chris,
Warner deserves high praise for his unbeaten 123 when no other Australia could post a 50 and only two New Zealanders (Dean Brownlie and Ross Taylor) score 56.
But in my opinion Warner could have done more by farming the strike with the tail-enders at the other end. There was no hurry to get runs as this was only day-4. Judicious running between wickets, and not big hits, would have seen Australia reach the target. Lyons did very well but he is a no.11 bat. Warner was seeing the ball bigger than a football. A single off the 5th or 6th ball in an over was not beyond him.
Let me cite a recent example. Scene: the India v. Australia Test in Mohali. Date: 5 October 2010. Needing 216 to win India was on her knees at 8-124. Only one recognised batsman left, VVS Laxman, carrying an injury. He added 81 runs with no.10 bat Ishant Sharma. When Sharma was dismissed by Hilfenhaus, the score was 9-205, still 11 runs needed for victory. But VVS farmed the strike to protect no. 11 bat, spinner Ojha, and India won by one wicket.
Warner should have done what VVS did and Australia would have won the Hobart thriller by one wicket and the series 2-0.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:50am
Red Kev said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:50am | Report comment
He’s young – that’s a judgement thing – I imagine he has learned his lesson from yesterday (or will when Mickey Arthur pulls him aside at training to explain it to him). He’s a good enough cricketer to take the lesson and be better for it in the future.
December 13th 2011 @ 8:05pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:05pm | Report comment
More likely, Clarke will just tell him to play his natural game and ignore what anyone else says.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:16am
mds1970 said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:16am | Report comment
It’s a dilemma. Steve Waugh was another batsman who never farmed the strike when batting with tail enders. His philosophy was to take any run that was there and encourage the tail ender to do the same.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:18am
Justin said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Kersi – I think you are beig ridiculously harsh on a bloke in his 2nd Test.
With 8 guys on the boundary in that last wicket stand he had to rely somewhat on Lyon facing some of the heat to get us towards the total. Steve Waugh did this all the time in his career (and was never accused of being selfish (when he should have been) at times just to pretect his average rather than what was best for the team.
Warner was outstanding and to apportion any blame on him whatsoever is laughable.
December 13th 2011 @ 12:03pm
Kersi Meher-Homji said | December 13th 2011 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Sorry, Justin, if I sounded as if I was ridiculously harsh on Warner I must apologise. I think I wrote repeatedly that he deserved the highest praise for carrying the bat and score 123 when no one from either side could manage 57 on a bowlers’ pitch.
Matt F, you are also correct that Warner is inexperienced and playing in only his second Test whereas VVS is a veteran of over 100 Tests. But could not Michal Clarke send a message via the 12th man (with fresh pair of gloves or bat!!!) advising him to farm the strike?
Steve Waugh is one of my heroes but he was wrong, in my opinion, not to farm the strike when batting with McGrath or another bunny.
If 10 runs are needed in the final over, would you give bowling to Shane Warne or to Michael Slater, to give an example?
I know batting is different as a tail-ender has to bat but he SHOULD be protected by a partner who is 100 not out.
For all you know, Warner would have been dismissed himself but by not farming the strike judiciously, he erred in his judgement. This is not to blame him because it is easier watching a game on TV or typing comments than to be there where every run counts in a pressure cooker situation.
This is just a debating point and not a criticism of a batsman who played superbly on a seaming surface. I give Warner 9/10 for his heroic batting.
December 13th 2011 @ 8:06pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:06pm | Report comment
You really think Clarke is that cluey?
December 13th 2011 @ 10:20am
Matt F said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Kersi, you’re right that Warner probably should have taken more strike but I can’t criticise him too much. He was in his 2nd test match (and about 13th first class match.) Laxman has played 130 tests and 261 first class matches. It’s no surprise that Laxman played the situation better given that experience. Warner said after the game that Lyon had actually hit the winning runs in a game on the Aus A tour during the year so he obviously had some reason to back Lyon a bit.
December 13th 2011 @ 10:21am
Boris said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:21am | Report comment
On the other hand, Steve Waugh was often celebrated for the way he batted with the tail. He didn’t protect them from the strike and gave them confidence in doing so. Lyon showed he had a good enough defense to handle the bowling for the most part, so what’s the difference with him having to block out one or two balls compared to four or five?
December 13th 2011 @ 10:43am
Chris said | December 13th 2011 @ 10:43am | Report comment
If the tailend is made up of batting bunnies then I would agree that a batsman should try and farm the strike as much as possible. But Australia’s tailend are quite competent with the bat (in fact on a disturbingly high number of occasions recently they have outperformed the batsmen!) and farming is unnecessary.
I guess deciding on a Man of the Match award is dependent on what the criteria is. And I must confess I’m not sure what it was in this case. My personal view is that if there is a performance that is head and shoulders above everything else, then that should be recognised. Warner’s was clearly that. Bracewell’s bowling (while very good) was not significantly better than other bowlers (e.g. Pattinson, who only got one fewer wicket). And in fact, all but one of Pattinson’s victims were top order batsmen, whereas five of Bracewell’s were tailenders – you could almost argue that Pattinson bowled better overall.
December 13th 2011 @ 2:01pm
Tommy said | December 13th 2011 @ 2:01pm | Report comment
Warner was right to back Lyon, that is the Australian way & we have had more success than failure this way. If you go back just 2 tests, Mitch Johnson trusted Cummins with the strike & look at the result. People will sight the fact that Johnson is no Warner with the cue but he is also a very good batsman in his own right, he was set at the time & an experienced player.
December 13th 2011 @ 8:08pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
Johnson averages 18 in Test cricket – would say he’s a “very good” batsman. Cummins may well averaging more than that.
December 13th 2011 @ 8:27pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
*wouldn’t*
December 14th 2011 @ 7:45am
Justin said | December 14th 2011 @ 7:45am | Report comment
All that shows is that Johnson is a wasted talent who cant apply himself. Anyone who has seen him bat knows that he should be averaging 30+
December 14th 2011 @ 9:37am
Fisher Price said | December 14th 2011 @ 9:37am | Report comment
True.
December 14th 2011 @ 9:39am
lolly said | December 14th 2011 @ 9:39am | Report comment
Yes, look at how he batted that last day in SA. Looked every inch a batsman. He’s the biggest waste of talent with bat and ball that I’ve seen from Aus in I don’t know how many years of watching cricket.
December 14th 2011 @ 9:22am
Bayman said | December 14th 2011 @ 9:22am | Report comment
Tommy,
Actually, the “Australian Way” is to have happen exactly what did happen. Go back through the record books since the famous Border/Thomson last wicket stand against England and you’ll see that we never get over th hill. Three runs short, one run short, two runs short and now seven runs short (not forgetting, of course, those lamentable chases against South Africa at the SCG or those even more lamentable failures in England in 1981).
As for guys like Steve Waugh not “farming the strike and giving confidence to the tail” I’d suggest that if you talk to some fellow former players there’s a fair feeling that Steve was a bit selfish and more interested in the red ink. Just a thought.
December 13th 2011 @ 4:25pm
Jay said | December 13th 2011 @ 4:25pm | Report comment
Kersi, that’s rubbish. There were 41 runs to get for the last wicket and they nearly chased them down.
If Warner tried to keep the strike, he might have played a ridiclious shot on the 5th/6th ball of each over.
And Siddle, Pattinson have show enough to provde they have handel the strike.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:45am
Kersi Meher-Homji said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:45am | Report comment
Sheek, Only a great man can say that he was wrong. To say you were wrong on three counts makes you a “Mahatma”, a great soul!
See you tomorrow.
December 13th 2011 @ 9:54am
Ryan O'Connell said | December 13th 2011 @ 9:54am | Report comment
I was more disappointed by the shockingly low score in South Africa than yesterday’s result – though yesterday was still bad.
I think the results of late of the Australian Test team give an accurate indication of where we are.
We’re an OK side that will have patches of good play because there is some talent in the side. Likewise, we’re going to have some rough periods of play because we have some older players who’s skills are eroding away, and some young players that lack experience.
The days of us dominating 15 sessions of cricket (if the game even lasted 5 days) are well gone. The issue we currently face is that our bad sessions are REALLY bad, and can turn the game against us.
December 13th 2011 @ 11:34am
Bayman said | December 13th 2011 @ 11:34am | Report comment
Ryan,
I think you’ve covered it!
December 13th 2011 @ 1:27pm
Rhys said | December 13th 2011 @ 1:27pm | Report comment
Spot on Ryan. I think as Australian fans we were spoiled for a decade or more during the ‘world beating era’, but just as it did for the Windies (just as it does for all champions) the era had to come to an end. I tend to think there are a lot of people out there just not willing to let that go and accept reality.
There is no reason why Australia can’t challenge for No. 1 again in the next 3-5 years but it will take time, and patience. Just as it did when Allan Border took over in the mid 80s. To be honest I think it’s something to look forward to, seeing a new era forged, new players develop into champions – but it will be a bit of a rocky road before we hit the expressway.
December 13th 2011 @ 11:19am
Bec said | December 13th 2011 @ 11:19am | Report comment
Michael Vaughan tweeted this: “I think Australia try and Bat with the positivity of their old great team..They don’t have the players or bowling attack to allow them too..”
I hate to agree but I think he is correct, when it comes to the batting.
December 13th 2011 @ 2:09pm
Tommy said | December 13th 2011 @ 2:09pm | Report comment
Yeah, I just wonder if Justin Langer is the best batting coach given he was part of that great team. The other argument of course is that coaches are redundant & our batsman fail because they are either too old or too inexperienced & no coach in the world can help. A little bit of both i suspect. Either way, it doesn’t look good for JL.
December 13th 2011 @ 2:32pm
Chris said | December 13th 2011 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Yep – there isn’t much evidence that Langer’s input has had any positive effect on the batsmen. You only have to look at Hughes’ ongoing problems with nicking to the slips cordon. If a flaw of that magnitude can’t be fixed then Langer needs to be ditched.
December 13th 2011 @ 8:12pm
Fisher Price said | December 13th 2011 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Langer’s been the batting coach for over 2 years now.
“Australia’s great! Haydos is great. Punter’s great. Oi! Oi! Oi!” nonsense is hardly going to help struggling batsmen, but seemingly there are those who think that’s just the ticket.