The Roar
The Roar

Paul

Roar Guru

Joined October 2017

77.7k

Views

94

Published

9.9k

Comments

Published

Comments

Roar Guru
Roar Guru

Stuart Broad is right!

I never thought I’d be saying this about Stuart Broad. On the field, he epitomises the term “lion-hearted”, but I didn’t give him a lot of credit for his thinking on the game as a whole.

spot on Joshua. This series has been the perfect example of your point. He got out cheaply a week ago to a typical Maxwell shot and people were jumping all over him. He then got that century and people are trying to outdo each other with platitudes.

As you suggest, he’s the sort of bloke who shouldn’t be judged on one innings. Thankfully Langer and co look at his larger body of work and not just one knock.

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

mate, he was Usain Bolt compared to me.

Combine an ex front rowers knees with a healthy waistline and that’s not exactly a recipe for speed!!

Happy for the name change though, Inzi was a wonderful bat and a terrible judge of a run, just like me. 😊 😊

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

Look forward to the story about openers. As a Mark Taylor wannabe, anything to do with opening the batting intrigues me.

Analysing Australia's Test cricket winners: Adam Gilchrist, Allan Border and Michael Clarke

I think there’s a significant difference between the NFL & NRL though Andrew. In the former, you’ve effectively got at least 3 teams, offence, defence and special teams. They then break that down even further, but at the end of the day there’s not a lot of cross over between the teams.

In League obviously you’ve got one team and even though it’s 17 blokes instead of 13, I’d have thought one coach could still carry the workload, using assistants as sounding boards or calling in specialists as needed.

The more intermediaries there are between coach and player, the greater the likelihood of a key message not being passed on, being passed on incorrectly or being misinterpreted.

Bellamy for example, has assistants but he’s very much a hands on coach by all accounts. He seems to manage the workload okay and I’d reckon the Storms results suggest this is the smart way to go.

It’s the assistant coaches' turn on the merry-go-round

agreed. The only time I’d think about leaving him out is if he was out of form, but with guys like him, its so hard to judge when they’re not batting well. In any case, he’s likely to be only an innings away from being brilliant again.

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

They won 3, lost one series and drew one, so still pretty impressive

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

In a lot of ways, Aubusson is a throw back to “the good old days” where one team players were the rule rather than the exception and players were more than happy to play where the coach told them, rather than having a dummy spit because they could play full back.

The one point worth noting is Aubusson is at least as good a player in his 14th season as he was in his first. He’s probably lost a yard of pace but has more than made up for that with his smarts.

A nice tribute to a hugely impressive career.

A tribute to Mitch Aubusson

mate’ blokes like me can provide hours of entertainment, turning easy two’s into near run out singles.

And having us all in the slips makes the bowlers really bowl to their fields! 😊

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

If that’s the case about Cartwright, it’s not a great selling point if he’s shopping for a new job.

It’s the assistant coaches' turn on the merry-go-round

You make some interesting points in this piece Andrew, but none more interesting than your last paragraph. The rise of full time professional rugby league seems to have coincided with an explosion of support staff, which I frankly find quite bewildering.

There seem to be coaches or assistant coaches or assistants for the assistant coaches for nearly every part of the game these days. I get the need to call in specialists like Darryl Halligan, if someone needs some help with goal kicking for example, or fitness coaches, but I wonder if having so many coaches for attack defence, etc, can dilute what the actual coach is trying to achieve?

I also think it places another unnecessary level of work onto a coach, especially a new one. Using Hook as an example, not only does he have to put together a squad, he then has to come up with a bunch of people to help him that have the skillset he requires, can work with him & can work with the players. In other words, he doesn’t have to bed down one squad, he really has to bed down two.

Coaches will argue they have tons of demands on their time, but that’s not coaching demands, it’s a range of other things, eg the media conferences, pressing the flesh with sponsors etc. Surely that could be better managed so the head coach actually does what they’re paid to do – coach – and the let the rest take care of itself? If that happened, the need for a team of assistants would disappear.

It’s the assistant coaches' turn on the merry-go-round

You’ve been on a serious roll this year with your articles Matt and this one is no exception.

Whats fascinating to me isn’t the numbers (though I’m super impressed by the work you’ve put in), but how the numbers seem to accurately represent the type of cricketer each player was.

The line about Border for example that stood out for me was “That tells a story of consistently significant contributions rather than a series of spectacular performances.” That’s AB in a nutshell.

In similar vein, Gilchrist numbers are very good but not great – until you put them in context of the speed of scoring, which must have helped set up a number of wins that could have been draws.

Ditto for Clarke who is probably not remembered as being a particularly gritty player, but he clearly must have been given how much he contributed to Australian wins.

Very much looking forward to the rest of your series.

Analysing Australia's Test cricket winners: Adam Gilchrist, Allan Border and Michael Clarke

spot on Bob. Finch knows what he has and is prepared to gamble as captain, that Maxwell will deliver the goods often enough that the team will win games.

It shouldn’t be about trying to change Maxwell, it should be ONLY about whether he should be chosen for a particular game or series. If his particular skillset doesn’t fit a particular game, don’t select him.

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

Again though Peter, clearly Finch gets it, based on his recent comments about Maxwell and Langer obviously thinks the same. I just don’t get why the media and public find it so hard to accept his role?

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

I’m a Tubby! What’s wrong with a team of Tubbys? 😊

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

terrific comment and I could not agree more.

Any cricket side is all about balance, regardless of the type of cricket you’re playing. The balance will naturally change depending on the format, but as you suggest, in a 50 over contest, one hitter is probably about right.

I think the situation has also been muddied by England’s success in recent years. By my count, they’ve played 22 ODI series since 2015 and 17 of these have been played in the UK. They set up the pitches to be dead flat, move in the boundary ropes as far as they dare and let loose a bunch of hitters to have a swing. Other countries see the level of success they’ve enjoyed and want to copy it, perhaps not realising these other conditions have to be matched as well

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

Sorry, but I don’t agree at all. Maxwell is just as professional as anyone in the Australian squad, but he has a very different role to play and very different way of going about his game.

There’s also a massive difference between expectations and delivery. I reckon we can expect Maxwell to change his style all we like, but if he did IMO he rapidly lose his explosiveness and effectiveness, because he’s being asked to perform a role he’s not capable of doing on a regular basis.

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

That’s the point though Ben, guys like Maxwell & Roy struggle to do as you suggest which is to bat “normally”. To them batting normally is playing the sorts of high risk shots that we see so often.

When they come off, as they did last game, Maxwell appears in a class of his own. When they don’t, they look terrible.

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

I like your comment about Jhye Richardson. He’d have been a handful if fit, with his ability to swing the ball at pace.

You’re also spot on about MM gaining more variety with his bowling. If we could get a good 10 overs out of him, that number 6 or 7 spot could be his for a very long time

Choker tag’s short stay and the pay-off for patience: Five things we learnt from Australia’s UK tour

First of all Peter, I’m sorry to hear you’ve lost your job. Hopefully that situation is remedied in the very near future.

I love Boxing Day. It’s my favourite day of the year. Hangover or not, I have to surface early to see what the weather’s like in Melbourne. It doesn’t matter what the reporters say the night before, we all know how Melbourne weather can change.

I live up north so we have a much earlier start, so I watch the first session from home then adjourn to the local to catch up with mates. We watch the cricket, the start of the Sydney to Hobart, tell lots of stories drink too man beers and have a great day.

I hope you and the rest of Victoria get a chance to “burn your mouth on a pie at the ground or spilling a trail of overpriced chips” this year. You’ve done it tougher than many in Australia.

I cannot wait for the first ball of the Boxing Day Test

But the technology isn’t going away. I also don’t think it’s created the monster, the NRL did that by not utilising the technology to best effect.

If the NRL ditched the bunker, Channel 9 and Fox will still have slo mo replays and bobbleheads second guessing the refs. In effect we’d be back to where we were 5 years ago, only with more ammunition for the games great destroyers ( Gould and co), because the technology quality has improved.

Farcical scenes as refs opt not to check clear non-try with the bunker

I also think style and reputation come into this, Patrick. Maxwell has the reputation of being a hitter and he can certainly do that, but when he gets out cheaply playing an outrageous shot, he’s chastised.

I wonder if he’d be so polarising if he opened or batted first drop and was given free reign as the other guys you’ve named?

What standards should we judge ultra-high risk batsmen by?

In fairness though, he had three ODI games to show what he could do and on each occasion had a lot of overs to bat. Unfortunately, he didn’t make best use of these.

You’re certainly right about not having a place at the top of the T20 order. I’d reckon we could do worse than open with him and drop Finch down a bit.

Choker tag’s short stay and the pay-off for patience: Five things we learnt from Australia’s UK tour

I’m not so sure I’d be dismissing the term “choke” from Australian cricket so fast, David.

In a nutshell this terms means a side has failed to manage pressure to obtain a good result and that’s exactly what happened to Australia twice on this tour. Yes they were short of a gallop and the pitches were not absolute roads, but they got there with lots of time to practice, the practice matches they did play showed plenty of guys in pretty good form and they had few problems beating England in games that were not close.

There’s no doubt that last game produced three guys who coped well with that pressure, but is that an outlier, given our performances at Headingley last year and in earlier games? I certainly hope not, but one outstanding effort doesn’t give me confidence we’re over the hump just yet.

Choker tag’s short stay and the pay-off for patience: Five things we learnt from Australia’s UK tour

You’re right of course Andrew, but I think the officials thought it was clear cut in favour of Souths.

Bear in mind too, the roasting this poor folks have copped from their own boss in recent times over the Bunker. I reckon if Annersley hadn’t been such a DH
with the media, when he played the blame game earlier in the week, perhaps they might have thought to send it upstairs.

On a separate note, I’d love to see a match official come out and publicly say they hate what Annersely is doing to their confidence & morale. They might not ever referee another NRL game, but his short comings would be out in the open.

Farcical scenes as refs opt not to check clear non-try with the bunker

I’ve said this many times but a screen on the sidelines for the onfield ref to use is the way to go. He’s the decision maker and if he has doubts, he’s perfectly capable of watching a screen and deciding whether to uphold or change his original decision.

Put a 40 second time limit on it and if the ref still isn’t sure, go with his original call. Speeds things up, eliminates the Bunker and keeps control of the game where it belongs – with the onfield official.

By the way, great win to your boys last night. I hope my Dragons learn something about attitude from watching your team give it everything, this late in the season.

Farcical scenes as refs opt not to check clear non-try with the bunker