Finch and Bailey answer their critics

I'm not convinced Aaron Finch will ever lose his critics (neither should he) because of the player he is. He is a genuine slogger! Even in this series, he's looked incapable of scoring runs when the Indian's maintain good line and length. He is just be fortunate that they've not been able to maintain any type of back to back pressure. Not to mention the Indian's continually giving him life's when he's batting. When you have Technically sound and incredibly inform players like Shaun Marsh & Usman Khawaja not always getting picked in front of guys like Finch who can barely average 30 in FC Cricket there will always be Critics.

To be honest, jameswm, Smith looked pretty average in his 46. I've never seen him look so out of sorts when going for the big shots- I didn't see him middle a single one... Shaun Marsh was far from fluent as well, the best two were definitely Finch & Bailey.

Warner's are based around slogging minnows and England. Against everyone else, his record is quite ordinary.

Smith's average away from home is over 50. Not sure what you qualify as a decent away average though. And I've never once commented on the ALF/NRL forums.

Shaun marsh looking good too ronan . . .

The criticism of George Bailey was well-deserved - since that 2013-14 Ashes series, after which he was dropped, he hadn't done much of note and had it not been for this BBL05 form, I would have been surprised he got selected for this ODI series. He has done his bit to answer his critics, no doubt. What I also like about Bailey is that he adds character to the game - absolutely loved the way he brought on the DRS issue without being offensive after the first game. Hats off. And talking of hats... Aaron Finch, his critique surprised me. Can understand Usman Khawaja's good form, but equally important is keep backing those in the team. The trouble with dropping players as soon as they lose even bit of form is the effect it has on the rest of the team - sparks a culture that pushes players into playing for self than the team.

Cross posted from the Dhoni article a few days ago: "Dhoni’s opposition to DRS being predicated on it giving the umpire the benefit of the doubt is peculiar. The original implementation of DRS did not work this way, and yet Dhoni was still against it. I think Dhoni is just toeing the line, and is inclined to find fault with it even if it contradicts a previously held opinion. On the matter of a DRS reviewed dismissal being out, or not out, dependent on what the on-field umpire originally ruled it; this is precisely the way DRS is meant to work on an academic level. It is there only to reverse the howler. The difference between a correct decision and a howler has been determined to be half a ball width. For the grey area in between that is half a ball width wide, the outcome is not considered to be a howler and is therefore up to the on-field umpire. Another way of saying it, is that DRS doesn’t provide reliable enough accuracy inside a half a ball width, to reverse a decision. This isn’t a flaw. It’s simple recognition of design tolerance within an engineered system. Not using DRS to reverse a howler, on the basis that the technology is imperfect because it has a grey area between correct and howler, is actually pretty dumb. The grey area decisions remain regardless of DRS or not. But you’re accepting the howlers for what? Fun?" To add to this further - the change to DRS to give the umpire the benefit of the doubt for the grey area, has actually put the onus back on the umpire to adjudicate as they see it and not "guess", as they will be stuck with those decisions in the grey area. I would think then, that they are quite afraid to get it wrong! If you can accept that ALL engineered systems have a design tolerance and therefore a grey area that will fall back on human decision making, then to be honest, the current implementation of DRS is, actually, perfect. (The only issue might be the number of reviews, but that is not a matter related to the technology...)

Yeah it's tough to drop Finch now, but I do agree with the 2nd paragraph. He struggled to get the ball way in great conditions.

To be fair to Finch most Aussie batsmen would struggle in those conditions.

What's not to like is when he is stuck in a rut and looking out of his depth. It happens often enough.

Finch was looking horrible at stages and the run chase was stagnating. Finch hit out and got the run rate back up, but if he'd got out at that point, he'd have put a lof of pressure on the lower order and would have done a poor job. Someone like Smith would not have let the innings stagnate like that, even when he was finding hard to get it away. He would have kept it going at 5 an over, even when struggling, by knocking it around. Our openers did OK in the end, but it could easily have gone badly for them. They certainly enjoyed some luck. It's subjective I know and contrary to the stats (to an extent), but Finch has not convinced me he's our best option. As I said last night, he's a bit 2-speed - block or slog, with no in between. I worry how he'll go on less benign tracks against less benign attacks.

If it's 38 to 35 it's better, but not a lot better. It's subjective. He can look horribly out of touch, but can certainly belt it around.

The problem with the DRS is India refuse to use it, nothing to do with umpires or the system. Also the umpires are not afraid to get it wrong, because the system is designed to give the umpires the benefit of the doubt and inflate the figures, to make them look good. The occasional overturned decision is nothing compared to all the orange lights that go the umpires way. The players should have nothing to do with the DRS. We've seen shocking decisions because players waste their reviews, we've seen players convinced they are right and ask for a review and it's not even close. The players are busy trying to play the game, we have two on field umpires, a third umpire and match referee, if those four can't call for reviews when needed then no review system is worth having.

Bailey answered his critics, with a big thank you. He listened to the critics and radically altered his style. Finch is am impressive slogger, shown by the use of T20 stats in an article about one dayers. And yes, he has some good performances in ODI's as well. But ODI's show Finch is a class below, not above, the pack. Finch would have to go through a Baileyesque transformation to make it to test level, and that is why so many people criticise him, especially in one dayers. Sloggers get lucky, batsmen can be relied upon. Currently we can carry Finch as a partner for Warner, but if we struggle we really can't afford both of them, and Warner has proven he is an actual batsman, not just a slogger. For all his efforts, Finch is yet to achieve that milestone. A small slump in form, for either Finch or the team, will see the selectors looking for a classier opening batsman the rest of the side can bat around.

How is Boland making the XI?? Replace Richardson (rubbish, nees hair cut) Replace Boland (with someone faster and more smarter) Keep Paris (the future) Replace Wade (moves too slow) Bring in Uzzy, Lynn and Tom Piper! Thoughts?

He was simply stating that Steve Smith should not be criticised for being a poor away batsman as his record away is vastly superior to that of Root and Williamson; he mentioned in that article all 3 are very good batsman and all will improve away. Weren't you the guy trying to convince everyone Chapelli invented sledging and the AFL is heaps better than NRL due to teams winning 2 or 3 premierships in a row?

I knew he had had a really solid shield season, but wasn't aware it was that good

More tarmac than usual, with little or no noticeable camber. Smoother than the Riverside Expressway and a credit to the local council...

Even pace, a bit less bounce than a GABBA test wicket but still more than most -- but very consistent, and a little bit in it for the spinners.