Our Test attack is world class, our T20 attack pathetic. How can anyone justify picking Tye and Coulter-Nile when they will never have an economy rate under 7. If you can’t find replacements and the big 3 are reserved for Test cricket pick 3 or 4 spinners. They could not do worse.

Keith Hurst

I have watched the last 7 T 20 games played by Australia and are amazed at the lack of tactical awareness shown by the players and coaches. We went through “must hit out in the power play” to “don’t throw away your wicket”. Of course neither is the solution.

T 20 prolonged batting success comes not from everyone hitting 4’s and 6’s but from the whole team moving the score along. Have they forgotten the humble single and the turning over the strike. Yes they have.

Their bowling is not bad but the emphasis should not be on wickets but economy. Both Tye and Coulter-Nile take wickets but go at over 8 an over. Not good enough. Our lack of emphasis on spin bowling is killing us. Let’s blast them out only work on a fast wicket. How may of those are served up in T20 games. The top T 20 bowlers are spinners. We need at least 3 full time spinners.

Wake up Justin

Hi Paul

Thanks for your comment.

Most Player agent contracts are for a term say 3 years, although I heard about an 11 year term the other day. For a good player say at $300K per year most agents have quite a lot to lose by letting their client walk.

keith

Wow! Welcome to “heads must roll in Rugby”
I am also fed up with the steadily decreasing performances from our Rugby teams.

Firing everybody is the dumbest of dumb ideas. Out goes the baby, the dog and the whole family with the bathwater. I would start with the board resigning and being replaced with a new body. That body would then review our current malaise and take advice from rugby notables past and present. They would then issue a white paper or a current review of the future of rugby in Australia and the appointment of a new coach. Sorry: next years world cup isn’t as high priority as putting the Rugby train on the rails .

Keith Hurst

I know that this is not a popular position but I find it hard to believe that Australian cricket is on its last legs. Reading all of these comments makes me depressed at the short term thinking that seems the standard position. Australian cricket is strong essentially. Not now! How can it be with three regulars not allowed to play? But our cricket fortunes always fluctuate. The solution is not to throw out the baby with the bath water but to calmly pick the players in form. Mark my words! In the next 6 months a new player will arise that will shut up the pessimists and when Warner and Smith come back will make Australian cricket great again (sorry Donald).

Keith Hurst – sports fanatic

Travis Head has had his chance. Handscomb is more reliable and plays spin better. he must bat at 6.

Sorry about the spelling:

I like Paul’s point. The only way to advance the standards in sport is for players and administrators to work together. When they are at each other’s throats there is no wonder that we can’t get anywhere. Militancy on either side breeds bad vibes and stifles development.
Why can’t the parties see this?

Keith

As a long time cricket tragic I am depressed not excited

And now Mark Taylor jumps ship. The search is on for a calm intelligent even handed leader who engenders confidence in both the public and the stakeholders.

Keith

We have another contender. Running a minority football code in Australia cannot be fun. We have had a number of CEO’s who do not seem to have advanced Australian rugby. In fact our international reputation seems at an all time low and financially we seem dependant on a successful Wallaby team. There’s the problem. With Test crowds in Australia under 20,000 the future looks grim. The Western Force was a great idea. Shame it was ditched for political reasons.

Keith

I agree completely with you. Who decides the tactics?

Having watched the entire game I felt that we never at any time had control. 147 was a good score for Australia and was gettable BUT the power play Oh Dear. It was as if they were told “don’ give away your wicket”. So they crawled for 5 overs

Keith Hurst

Dem

I am sure that a fit Pattinson (will this ever happen?) would certainly help the Australian tail, but until a batsman has scored a number of first class hundreds he shouldn’t be considered as a Test batsman.

The headline is certainly misleading and it you are drawing a long bow to crown him as the solution to our woes.

We need to develop first class batsmen with solid technique and defense to be able to win Test matches throughout the world.

Keith Hurst – sports fanatic

The test should be that the punishment should be fair and reasonable.
It is useful to compare the ICC’s approach, but it does indicate they are clearly not as shocked as we were.
Why the Australian public reacted as they did is a sociological question that most of us can’t figure.
But on a natural justice standpoint these sanctions were way over the top.
Although I can’t see them being relaxed it would be only fair if they were.
Keith Hurst Sports Fanatic

Great idea, thanks

Rubbish solution. The toss has been the same since the start of Test cricket. Why would changing it explain or even solve the problem?

Keith Hurst

David

I appreciate your sentiments and also look forward to better days.
It is easy to bag losing teams. In Asia we always lose, but what seems to get lost is an analsys of our cricket selectors.
in 2018 the selection processes should be transparent. A press conference for the selectors after a team is selected and after a test series should be automatic. No more hiding behind closed doors.
Then maybe we can find out what possesses them to keep picking the Marshes and why Renshaw was not given a spot in the second test when he seemed fit. Not enough cricket seems a puerile excuse when the batters fall like dominoes.
Cricket Australia new CEO listen !

Except for the period when Trevor Bailey and Geoff Boycott tried to bore us into oblivion, Test cricket has always been interesting. As a contest test cricket is unique pitting two teams into a mental and physical confrontation that usually determines a winner. Even the draws are usually worth following.
What T20 and ODI’s have done is produce players whose approach to cricket is more attacking and therefore better to watch.
Test cricket is built into the Australian psyche and something like the ball tampering fiasco made such waves all over the country akin to killing a koala.
Long live Jim Maxwell!

The premise of this article is that Cooper Cronk was a fool to play? Why! because he was injured.
Acts of bravery can be seen as foolhardy or courageous. It is foolhardy if the player plays and lets the team down for example not being able to tackle and letting through the winning try. As most professional footballer are over 18 it is their choice or maybe their coaches whether they should play. In the grand final this decision together with Trent Robinson’s clever coaching resulted in the Roosters winning. As every player wants to win a grand final he or she should be the master of their own destiny.

No-one else should make the decision for them especially not this writer.

Keith Hurst

There are 3 points to be answered:

Playing an unfit Cooper Cronk

I suppose that playing an unfit half back in the grand final was an extraordinary step, but the proof is in the pudding it worked and whatever contribution Cronk made was positive not negative and upset Bellamy’s coaching strategy.

Trading Mitchell Pearce

Pearce is a very good running and tackling half back. His kicking is only OK. His strategic view of game in front of him is not memorable. Cronk is better on all fronts. The fact that he was injured for the grand final seems to me irrelevant.

Sean O’Sullivan

Is potentially a great half back. Not yet. With only 1 first grade game it would have been a huge risk to play him. Robbo would not and did not take that risk. Right call!

Keith Hurst -sports fanatic

Great fun!

It just shows that you can find a common factor everywhere.

Keith Hurst – Sports Fanatic

Tim

No sporting competition in the word has teams that everybody likes. Not all teams draw the most spectators or members. If Melbourne and Sydney are in the lesser categories so what!. Last time I looked the NRL is not a popularity contest. It rewards teams who win, not lovable losers.
Your insinuations about both teams are clearly misconceived. In the case of Melbourne if they are doing something wrong by the rules, they should be penalised off the field. They are not and have not.
The whinges about salary cap rorting by the Roosters is an urban myth. In one of the tightest regulated codes in the country,the Roosters have not stuffed up like the Buldogs, the Eels, Manly and Melbourne to name 4 . When this happens to the Roosters I will accept that your point has merit. Until then do not sensationalise an ordinary article with questionable arguments that have no merit.

Let’s face it both of these teams are winners and perennial grand finalists you are just jealous.

Keith Hurst -Sorts Fanatic

This article proceeds on the wrong premise. That every decision should be fair. Whose fair Melbourne’s or Cronullas. The only way to act is fairly is to follow the rules. If there is manifest support for a change go through the proper channels to change the rules.

If Slater’s actions were in breach of the rules and the penalty is a suspension then that is a shame but the rules must prevail.

Keith Hurst sports fanatic

I am sorry but this article seems to go nowhere. I am sure that a NZ fan is more magnanimouss than say a Wallbies fan whether they win or lose. This is because NZ lose once in a blue moon. They can afford to act reasonably because as we know they will win the next 6 games.

The best argument for you is the NZ cricket team that despite an ordinary international record, under Brendan McCullum their behaviour was exemplary whether they won or lost. How do you explain that?

Basically you can’t stereotype human behaviour.

Keith Hurst sports fanatic

Scott

Great report!

The Roosters attack suffered from rushing the pass. There great advantage that differentiates them from most other teams is the speed of hand and foot in their backs. Latrell’s return will only help this advantage over Melbourne who are no slouches. The 2 big ifs are can they control the ball better than yesterday? And can their forwards break even with the Melbourne forwards. Napa will help but he is not the answer.

Keith hurst sports fanatic

I appreciate your learned discussions of the rules and sub rules of cricket and technically as a fellow legal practitioner I agree with the points that you make.

I cannot agree with your outrage and shock at what the Australians did. It may have been against the rules but international test cricket is a professional sport and in all professional sports the players and their coaches try to do all they can to stretch the rules to gain an advantage. Note that in rugby league a professional that commits a deliberate offence merits a ten minute sin bin not a 12 months ban. The Australian cricket public has a holier than thou attitude and reacted like there had been a capital offence. I believe than the ICC sanctions were appropriate and adequate. This was not a hanging offence or as bad as Andrew Gaff’s punch. What did that get him. 8 weeks not 12 months.

Keith hurst sports fanatic