The Roar
The Roar

Glenn Mitchell

Expert

Joined October 2012

1.04m

Views

388

Published

1.6k

Comments

Glenn spent over two decades as a sports broadcaster on both radio and television with the ABC, commentating at four Olympic, four Commonwealth and two Paralympic Games. He called over 200 international cricket matches, covering 13 overseas tours, and has commentated over 1100 games of AFL & WAFL football, along with myriad other sports. Since mid-2011, Glenn has been freelancing in both the electronic and written media. He tweets from @mitchellglenn and can also be found on his website - glennmitchell.com.au

Published

Comments

Rowdy, that is a fascinating comment about Cummins … 13 wickets in two Tests in this series at 16.3 … 107 career wickets at 21.3 … ranked number one in the world … what more does he need to do to win you over??

England's captain is the Root of their problems

He has been.

England's captain is the Root of their problems

Root does not have the likes of Gower, Gooch, Amiss, Greig, Boycott & Botham around him.

England's captain is the Root of their problems

Paine was not identified as his team’s key player entering the series.

England's captain is the Root of their problems

That is a nice disrespectful post when you consider that indigenous Australians have been inhabiting the country for over 50,000 years. The history of this country didn’t start with the arrival of white settlement!

Lord's set to be a happy hunting ground again for Australia

Odd though given that Hazlewood has come in when he has done a lot less red ball bowling than Pattinson this year. If anything, Pattinson is more long form conditioned than Hazlewood in the past 7-8 months.

Pattinson left out of second Test squad with Starc, Hazlewood included

I wouldn’t say that a 4-2 win-loss record at Lords since 2000 is a poor one. There wouldn’t be too many overseas grounds where Australia boasts a better record.

Lord's set to be a happy hunting ground again for Australia

I really don’t see dropping a batsman as a viable option. If it wasn’t for some individual brilliance by Steve Smith in the first Test, 8-122 could have easily become 150 all out. Thinning out the batting order would be a huge risk.

Lord's set to be a happy hunting ground again for Australia

Agreed James. Seems an odd choice to schedule a Test where days four and five are on the weekend.

Lord's set to be a happy hunting ground again for Australia

One would expect that pace and hostility to knock over the tail qwetzen. It would indicate that his control may have been wanting. Against a team that is sitting ninth out of ten teams in division two and was missing seven of its top nine run-scorers this season I wouldn’t say his figures were overly impressive. The fact his first four overs in Worcestershire’s first innings conceded 27 runs is also a concern.

Lord's set to be a happy hunting ground again for Australia

Yes, they always bring whoever they want into the squad qwetzen but I took Adsa’s comment to mean that one of either Burns or Harris should be brought in for Lord’s. I don’t see that as being Burns – if they went that way – as he is not currently in the squad.

Australia needs to take the same XI to Lord's

All ears Brendon as to how you think can improve it.

Personally, as I have outlined above, I feel the team that won by 251 runs at Edgbaston does not need to be changed, even more so from a bowling perspective, given Langer’s comments re the team game plan for this series.

Australia needs to take the same XI to Lord's

Sheek, given Cummins, Pattinson and Siddle are being rested from the three-day game v Worcestershire and there is an eight-day break between the first and second Tests I don’t see why there needs to be a quick rotated out for Lord’s.
There is a three-day turnaround after that Test which I could see as a reason for perhaps making a change.
Not sure about the need to rotate batsmen though. I cannot see the need for rotating a batsman unless he is out of form which actually means he is being dropped.

Australia needs to take the same XI to Lord's

Will be difficult to bring Burns in Adsa as he is not in the squad.

As I said earlier, dropping batsmen after the opening Test of the series is not the way to go about picking a team. More than one match is needed for an assessment. Bancroft’s innings immediately before neinh picked in the squad was 93no on a bowler friendly pitch against Cummins, Starc, Siddle and Hazlewood. Dropping after the next match would be ridiculously harsh.

Also, on your philosophy, what is Harris is chosen and happens to fail in both innings? Where do you go then?

Australia needs to take the same XI to Lord's

Sorry Michael, but I think if we are going to simply jettison players after one Test at the start of a series as you are saying should be the case with Pattinson, Bancroft and Siddle we are setting up a recipe for disaster.

Using your logic if the players that are brought in – Starc, Hazlewood and Harris – fail to impress they too should be dropped straight away.

Chopping and changing the side every single Test by as many as three personnel based on one match as you are suggesting is not the way to select a team.

Australia needs to take the same XI to Lord's

He has certainly been below his best in the past 18 months U … in his last two series against South Africa and India he has picked up 25 wickets at 35 in eight Tests and then missed last summer’s SRL series due to injury.

With the Dukes ball for AUS A he went wicketless in his only first-class game against a weakened Sussex side and claimed one wicket in each innings on the green top in the intra-squad match.

He needs a really solid hit out over the next three days against Worcestershire.

Australia needs to take the same XI to Lord's

I am not sure Chop that reducing the number of batsmen in a team that was 8-122 in its first innings us the way to go.

Australia needs to take the same XI to Lord's

No, he isn’t Bruce. He has played very limited first-class cricket in recent years due to injury. Did not play Shield cricket last summer.

Australia needs to take the same XI to Lord's

Having not seen the Southampton game Ozinsa it is hard to comment really but he faced 242 balls in the match and got out once against Cummins, Siddle, Starc & Hazlewood. Hence, dropping him after one match would be harsh. Having been preferred ahead of Harris for Edgbaston he should be retained for Lord’s. The worry would be if you dropped him after one Test and Harris failed twice at Lord’s where does that leave you? Bancroft needs to be looked at again.

Australia needs to take the same XI to Lord's

And the replacement logically would simply be the 12th man.

New concussion rule will give the ICC a headache

“In other words, Paine would need to replace Lyon with someone from where ever who was first and foremost a bowler.”

Does that mean any bowler … can Lyon be replaced by Starc or does it need to be a spinner? Again, it is up to the referee’s interpretation. Personally, I would be removing any ambiguity by saying the 12th man is the substitute.

Not sure about getting a player from the other side of the country in just four hours … that is how long the flight is perhaps.

Not much good to a team that loses a player at midday on day five whereas the tourists would likely have 5-6 players in the change rooms.

New concussion rule will give the ICC a headache

Or would Labuschagne be allowed to replace Lyon as I queried? The ambiguity, for mine, is too great and open to one person’s interpretation.
And in the example of a Test in Perth you would have a limited choice if the the Sheffield Shield team is playing interstate. You would likely have to source a player locally who may be a long way from ever playing Test cricket otherwise.
Simply say there is a ‘team’ of 12 named and that’s it. No questions, no determinations required. Similar to soccer, you have pre-ordained substitutes on the bench once your team is named. In cricket, it would be the 12th man. No confusion, no questions to be answered and both teams no where they stand from ball one as to what happens should a player need to be substituted.

New concussion rule will give the ICC a headache

I would say the ICC referee’s decision would primarily be based on whether or not a team will receive an advantage with regard to the substitution. There would be none if your top performer was replaced by a player of a lesser quality. There is ambiguity in the rule as to what ‘like for like’ actually means. As it stands it is simply up to the discretion of the match referee and as the ICC has stated it is totally up to him as to whether or not he will approve a replacement.

In regard to more than one concussion case per team I would simply write the rule that the 12th man is the only substitute. If a second player was concussed you would simply have to play one short.

New concussion rule will give the ICC a headache

It is not a case of just recent form, since the start of the RSA tour in March last year Khawaja has played 12 Tests for an average of 35. His lack of exposure to the red ball in the lead-in is a concern to me. He will definitely play however so you can rest easy. It is only my opinion.

Sure things and surprises in my Aussie Ashes team

DaveJ, the point re Dawad Malan is he has the second highest aggregate in division two behind Labuschagne. It was a comparison of runs scored not averages.

Sure things and surprises in my Aussie Ashes team