Strangely, you start with the thesis “All that talk of Bazball revolutionizing global test cricket is hyperbole”, but by the end you conclude “For all we know, the whole Test cricketing world will be Bazballing in the next few years.” So which is it?

(1) It’s incorrect to write “this tournament could be the last chance for a player like Rohit to claim an ICC trophy” … he was in the Indian side that won in 2007. (2) “India having the most explosive batting unit among the 10 nations chasing the trophy” also isn’t true … Jarrod Kimber is always quoting these stats, but I’m pretty sure that England has the fastest ODI scoring rate over the most recent 4-year cycle, with at least one of Australia and South Africa (if not both) ahead of India. What really sets India apart is that they have more bases covered than any other team when bowling is also considered. (3) Also, I don’t buy the argument that cricket is a leveler because it is only 11 against 11 … any sport is x against x in the final analysis. What is vital is which group of x copes better with pressure and unexpected developments on match day, and that has been India’s big problem. (4) Lastly, the analogy with the All Blacks is indeed stretched, as explained by The Bush. But it does have some legs in that NZ failed to win the RWC from 1987 through to 2011, even though they went into most tournaments with the no. 1 team in the world. (5) How does one do a carriage return (i.e., start a new line) with this comment editor?

Congratulations on this article. The points about kicking being underappreciated, laxity with foul play, and penalties due to lazy inaccuracy are all spot on and very important. But I fear these messages will fall on deaf ears (e.g. I am only the 4th person to comment on this article), and Australian rugby will continue it’s 20-year slide. Maybe losing to Georgia or Fiji at the RWC, on the back of going into the tournament with a 0-5 season record (as now seems likely), will shift the needle?

“Out of interest, typically penalties conceded is not a very good indicator of success.” Could you elaborate on the details behind this stat? Firstly it is highly counter-intuitive, in that quite obviously penalties often deliver points either directly (3) or indirectly (via field position leading to points). On top of that, there’s the fact that the Ireland were the least penalized team in this year’s 6N, which they won.

I don’t understand why this article ignores Petaia. His performances at 15 for the Reds this year made clear that he brings the best of both worlds: the reliability of Kellaway and the flair of Wright. The way he moves in the backfield in anticipation of kicks is quite reminiscent of Dylan Edwards in NRL. It’s evidence of Petaia being a 5-star athlete with tremendous natural instincts. And like Wright he has a massive boot, although both of them can occasionally spray it.

I guess the downsides of Petaia are (1) he’s injury prone, so Kellaway and Wright would definitely have to be in the squad as cover (and options for 23), and (2) like Kellaway he doesn’t offer a second-playmaker capacity. But hey, if there’s one thing we know for sure by now it’s that any Wallaby side is going to have shortcomings.

Well said. I also scratched my head over this until I realized that the author had confused Surrey with Sussex. Ironically, the name Suttor is a similar variation on that theme!

I’m not sure how you could have left Aaron Hardie out of your SS and Marsh Cup teams for WA given the way he finished last season, how he played for Aust A in Sri Lanka over the winter, and his obviously incredible talent.

(1) If you admit you might be wrong, then doesn’t that show you may not be right, and yet you want to base a punishment on your psychoanalysis being right? (2) If you’ve “read closely all you could”, then you will know that Warner’s punishment is completely disproportionate with his crime. There are hundreds of other cricketers in the world who have been found guilty of ball tampering, and yet not one of them has been punished like Warner – that is a certain fact.

Apologies for the error, but it doesn’t change anything about the argument, in fact if anything it adds to it because Greg has been more a part of the Australian cricket establishment (whose ban it is) than has Ian.
It’s amazing how many people writing comments here seem to know exactly what was said and done in the Newlands dressing room, in fact they seem to know better than many of those who demonstrably were in that dressing room!

“He obviously had a central role in what happened but he was not the only one that was involved and I don’t know why he should be treated any differently,”
Those in favor of the Warner ban seem to be in the majority, but not one of you addresses this fundamental point made by Ian Chappell.
And please, let’s not have any statements that Warner coerced the others into doing this against their will, because there is absolutely no evidence for that – CA has made no documentation relating to Sandpapergate publicly available.

The NOCs don’t have to be granted, so I think CA is on safe legal ground – the NOCs are at their discretion. A good example was this year when CA didn’t allow some of their stars to arrive at the IPL until 2 weeks in, thereby forcing them to have a brief rest after the tour of Pakistan. But national cricket contracts are only 1 year at a time, so an organization needs to keep their stars onside if they want them to keep coming back for a new contract each year …

Cricketers contracted to Cricket Australia will not be able to play in South Africa unless they get a “no objection certificate” from CA. I’m 99.9% sure the same applies to cricketers with state contracts. So any Australian who goes to play in South Africa will be consigning himself to life as a mercenary without future prospects in Australia at any professional level. Unless the amounts of money on offer in South Africa are momentous, it’s hard to imagine anything other than end-of-career Aussies chasing these dollars. But in terms of attracting big-name BBL imports, yes this is really going to make things difficult.
The broader picture is an inevitable one: the IPL setting up minor leagues. Given that more than 70% of the entire money in world cricket is generated by the IPL, why should anyone be surprised by proliferation of IPL sub-structures? I don’t think many Australians have twigged to the enormity of the new IPL broadcast deal – it will make the IPL the second most cash-generating sporting competition in the world, behind only the NFL. Australians like to think of the English Premier League (football) as being as big as it gets, but the IPL just left it in the rearview mirror. From now on the IPL is going to impact everything that happens everywhere in professional cricket, as for example the BBL above.

“In history of Tests teams are nearly twice more likely to win by a margin of runs compared to chasing down a total with wickets to spare (1058 wins by runs versus only 617 wins by wickets)” – I would not term this a “coincidence” (see title of article). Rather, it’s definitive evidence that if you bat first you are more likely to win a test, which is common wisdom. Really this is test cricket’s dirty little secret, except that it’s neither secret nor little. In what other respectable sport does an act of pure chance (viz. tossing a coin) have such a major effect on the outcome? In this sense it is an “oddity”.

This is correct, and it’s hard to argue with it – number of wins should trump all else if two teams end up equal on points. I suspect one could call it “the Brumbies rule”, because I’m pretty sure it was introduced about a decade ago after a season in which the Brumbies missed out on the finals because this wasn’t a tie-breaking criterion at the time.

That stats on Inglis’s batting were 100% correct at the time of writing. Now that he’s made 12 in his 14th match, his season numbers are 322 runs at ave 29.27. All 4 of the above players had poor batting matches in last night’s final round. As you can see, I believe stats are important (although not everything). If you know of any reputable stats on “clean gloves”, please provide – I’m happy to peruse. The only wicketkeeping stat provided by ESPNcricinfo is dismissals per innings, and it has Carey at no. 1, Philippe 2 and Inglis 3, which is probably the order in which they are rated by the Australian selectors (judging by selections to date). There is no bonus for coming from Western Australia or even Freo!

BBL batting stats this season:
M Wade: 2 matches, 92 runs, ave 46.0, SR 184
B McDermott: 11 matches, 401 runs, ave 41.1, SR 140
J Philippe: 13 matches, 453 runs, ave 34.8, SR 150
J Inglis: 13 matches, 310 runs, ave 31.0, SR 139
Yes, Inglis is having a good season, but whether one orders by average or strike-rate, he’s no. 4 amongst these 4.

I wonder what the BBL batting stats for this season say? Here’s the answer: https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/highest_career_batting_average.html?id=13692;type=tournament … Inglis has both the lowest average and the lowest strike rate of these four players. So yes, it is a real struggle to understand the claim that he’s “the better batsman”!

Hi Ronan, contrary to your proposed squad, I find it very hard to imagine that any of Wade, Tye, Behrendorff and Ashton Agar will miss out on the NZ tour, unless they are injured (Agar?) or in South Africa (Wade?). Wade’s commanding innings at the MCG last night – probably just after you completed this article? – reminds of why he’ll still be in the T20 squad even if he’s dropped from the test squad (but D’Arcy Short is a different matter!). Although I have some time for Inglis, I struggle to see why he would be selected if there are already 2 or 3 glovemen on tour (Philippe, McDermott and possibly Wade). Only rarely do the Australian selectors go for players of really advanced age, so I strongly suspect Sams will be preferred over Christian. Lastly, Jordan Silk’s batting form this BBL season (ave 33.00 at SR 145) and his extraordinary out-fielding must make him an outside chance of selection for NZ. He’s quite literally worth 8-10 runs just through his fielding!

Yes, you’ve nailed it here Ronan: the point is that India’s batsmen have handled Lyon much better than Australia’s have handled India’s spinners.
This was exemplified on the last day we have just witnessed at the SCG, when Lyon unquestionably failed. It’s true that he enjoyed little luck, but as the old saying goes, “The harder I train, the luckier I get”. In other words, there is a sense in which India’s batsmen – Pujara in particular – look lucky against Lyon but actually this is part of their skill in playing him.
When one compares how India has fared on their most recent tours of NZ, South Africa and England with how they have fared in Australia in 2018-9 and 2020-1, one has to honestly ask: what on earth is Australia thinking with the pitches they prepare for India? Really, if you want to host India and beat them, then you just forget about your spinners and prepare pitches for your quicks. It’s what the other SENA countries do, frequently not even bothering to select a spinner for home tests against India. But for some reason Australia continues to think “Hey, we’ll host India at the MCG and SCG, and Lyon can do his schtick.” But guess what – all this does is bring India into the game and make it more difficult for Australia.

I concur completely with Paul. The Australian bowlers pretty much single-handedly won the first test for Australia. Even in the second test the bowlers did enough for Australia to win, and the failure was purely down to poor batting and dropped catches. Normally I find Ronan does his research well and is accurate in his views, but in this case he’s wide of the mark – Lyon has been perfectly acceptable in this series, and his numbers are far superior to Smith’s, whose are awful.

From one who was there at the very beginning with you, congratulations Brett on your amazing career with The Roar, and here’s hoping that everything keeps going tickety-boo for you at the ABC. And I note the irony of your final article being on competitive bidding by rival media partners, given that you are effectively being muzzled because of such a situation. Cheers and all the best, Greg

Pat, I remember many things from the 1972 series (and I still have the ABC’s official posters of Chapelli and the great DKL), but I have no memory of the Ross Edwards pair, or indeed of him opening. However we both know a priest in the Wagga Wagga area who has a perfect memory of the 1970s … I bet he would remember!

Would these imaginary World Cups have had neutral referees? That is the most critical question regarding who would have won them. Let’s put it this way: the combined penalty count of 43-6 to the Lions in their recent home matches against the Rebels, Waratahs and Highlanders was par for the course back in the day, especially in South Africa-NZ series.

Not that I like to be a party-pooper, but it was reported in the NZ media last week that ROG moving to La Rochelle (in France) is a done deal … see https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/112699689/super-rugby-crusaders-set-to-lose-ronan-ogara-to-french-club-la-rochelle–report

Thank-you, Kersi – as soon as I saw the scorecard upon waking (in New Zealand), I thought that this ODI had played out almost identically to the one at the MCG on 18 January. I wonder why so few people are interested in things like this? To some extent it’s because we are train-spotters. But there is more to it than this. It is said that lightning never strikes the same place twice. So when one gets two almost identical matches like this, it’s not a random happening. Rather, it’s because of fundamental forces at work, and these include: (1) With Finch so woefully out of form, Australia has no oomph at the top of the order; (2) Australia has too many reasonable but ultimately pedestrian batsmen in its lineup, and thus it cannot recover to an adequate total; and (3) While Australia can take wickets at the top of the order, ultimately its bowling lacks the wizardry to take middle-overs wickets, and in particular it lacks the spin bowling for this purpose. Australia has a lot of decent (even if not great) cricketers, but while structural problems like this persist, I see no hope for the ODI team to rise above mediocrity. To me the strange thing is that the Australian selectors haven’t really tried to address any of these problems – they won’t try playing two spinners, they won’t try in-form openers like Wade and Short, and so on.