The Roar
The Roar

Michael Mills

Roar Rookie

Joined February 2013

3k

Views

3

Published

25

Comments

Michael Mills is a cricket fanatic and passionate follower of the Wests Tigers. Otherwise, he supports Everton in the EPL, Sydney in the A-League and has been known to get on the Swans bandwagon.

Published

Comments

I think Brandon O’Neill has been fantastic this season. He and Brillante allow Ninkovic so much freedom to focus on the front third.

The defensive arrangement of O’Neill, Brillante, Wilkinson, Jurman and Vuckovic has been excellent. Hopefully Jordy will fit in seamlessly for Jurman now. Sydney are the fittest team in the comp and, in my opinion, the best in transition.

Victory, last night notwithstanding, have probably been in better form over the past few rounds.Hopefully Perth can do us a favour and take more points off them. I’m very much looking forward to the Big Blue on Australia Day.

The key to breaking down Sydney FC's remarkable defence

This is one of those situations where I wouldn’t mind the FFA stepping in to use the bulk of this ‘warchest’ on one signing. I’m a Sydney fan, but I would have no problem if the FFA gave 60% (for example) of the marquee fund to a rival club to get a player of his stature. Ultimately, his presence would benefit the whole league.

Bastian Schweinsteiger: An A-League marquee from the dream factory

Hartley has played for Australia A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_A_cricket_team_in_Pakistan_in_2005%E2%80%9306

He was also called up to play in a tour match on the 2009 Ashes tour and act as a backup to Graham Manou after Haddin broke his finger.

Up until the last two-to-three seasons, his performances had really demanded selection ahead guys like Haddin, Manou, Ronchi or Paine.

However, he would be my pick as backup keeper at the moment. In fact, if there were a few more experienced players in the Test team, I’d have him as the first-choice keeper.

Wade gives Ashes chance to Paine, Hartley

There’s no doubt England are the better team and were always going to win the series. While there certainly are some positives Australia can take home with them, I actually think we’ve been flattered by the ‘closeness’ of some of the matches.

Overall, England dropped down a little closer to our level thanks to the under-performance of their top order and the mostly excellent bowling from our fast bowlers. Broad, Anderson and Swann were a little inconsistent overall, but they all stood up when they needed to. They are outstanding.

Our fragile batting performances, essentially made it very difficult to both get into match-winning positions or take the opportunity.

At Trent Bridge we edged much closer than we should have by some outstanding batting from the tail in both innings – and a once-in-a-lifetime effort from Ashton Agar. At Chester-le-Street we gave ourselves too much to chase by bowling poorly to the English tail and not getting a large enough first-innings lead. We should – not would – have won at Old Trafford had the rain not intervened. Lord’s was an embarrassment.

Fortunately, we may well have happened upon a proper top-five. Now we just need to pick a number six and stick with the team throughout the series.

On Cook, I think it would be fair to say that his off-field leadership appears to be much stronger and secure than Clarke’s. On the field, I’d much rather watch a match of cricket with Clarke’s tactics than Cooks though. Good captains are generally good at one of these two elements. Great ones master both.

I do actually find it frustrating that some people are decrying the fact that England were denied the chance at victory by the playing conditions – however stupid they are. It seems fairly hypocritical to say that the fans at the ground deserve better in those circumstances, but then defend a team’s tactics when they make no attempt to win the match on day three. Surely, all teams should be encouraged to play as much entertaining cricket as possible.

That’s not to say tough, grinding cricket cannot be enthralling and exciting in certain conditions.

Don't sugar coat it: England won 3-0

He essentially has said he would play for England if he was selected for them and has declined offers to play in the Shield because he then no longer be able to play for Middlesex as a ‘homegrown’ player. He would have to play as an overseas guest player and the eligibility conditions for these players are a lot tighter, I believe.

However, he hasn’t explicitly said I would turn down the opportunity to play for Australia if it emerged. If he was called up for the next Test for instance, he’d be brave to turn down the chance. Being a Test player would also make it easier to play for a county team in the off season as well.

At the moment, I would reckon that Division one of the County Championship is a higher standard than the Shield (how it has fallen in recent years), so any performances at this level should curry more favour than they used to.

This reminds me of Phil Jaques’s situation in 2003. He was a fringe player for NSW at that stage and then, that winter, he scored a mountain of runs for Northamptonshire, which then got him a regular start in the NSW team that went on to win the Shield that following Summer.

While he was scoring those County runs in 2003, there was talk of him playing for England due to his English parents and British passport. He didn’t rule it out until he became a regular for NSW and a regular back-up for the Australian side.

Sam Robson must play for Aussies next Ashes

The bowlers can’t have been tired. They’d only bowled 12 overs when Agar came out to bat. We only batted 40-odd overs on the second day – hardly a taxing workload for a professional bowler.

I strongly believe that Agar will find himself in the middle order within a couple of years. Of all the great tail-end batsmen of recent years – Vettori, Warne, Johnson, Vaas, Kumble, Streak to name a few – none has actually looked as convincing as Agar did last night. Whenever those guys played well, you could still tell they were bowlers. Agar looked like a genuine batsman. The on drive where he flicked his leg up was pure class and the late cut through backward point to give Australia a lead was exceptional.

When the TV showed his wagon wheel when he was in the 60s, there was not one run behind square on the offside – meaning he did not score any runs through edges. That a number 11 could reach a half century without a single nicked run is incredible.

Phil Hughes was exceptional. This series will either make or break his career. It’s great to see him start to repay the faith.

The rest of the batsmen must hang their heads in shame. We lost nine wickets within 34 overs. These guys have to realise that if you can get through the tough periods when the conditions are in the bowlers’ favour, it will get easier to bat. If they took it easy for one session, they could have punished the England bowling for the rest of the day and given us a 150-run lead or more. They have a lot of work to do.

ASHES: The big talking points from Day Two

To be fair to Hinds, he did mention Khawaja in his article:

“Usman Khawaja misses out. Not because he doesn’t deserve a chance, but because if the selectors have not given him a game in a batting line-up with more vacancies than a beachside caravan park in mid-July, I assume they never will.”

Make of that what you will.

A squad to win back the Ashes

I wouldn’t have a problem with that. As I said, though, I don’t know if Cowan is the one who should get the chop given he was one of the ‘better’ players in India — and I say that fully aware of the standard of his performance.

Time for action not words for Australian cricket

I don’t there is an issue with the way Cowan plays, but more a problem with the results he is achieving. It is absolutely fine for an opener to occupy the crease and leave a lot of balls. It’s not fine to get a start and then get out in the 30s. An opener like that needs to bat for most of the day and score at least 70 in the vast majority of his innings — if a good chunk of these are converted to 100s, then that’s great. Cowan’s 86 in Mohali was a great example. It’s just not happening enough.

We have to remember that, in November 2011, we were bemoaning the fact that our opening combinations (Watson, Warner and Hughes at that stage) were not handling the swinging ball and had poor techniques for opening. Australia had just been bowled out for 47 against South Africa and lost a Test match at home to NZ. We were crying out for a technically sound opener. Cowan was the form opener in Australia at that time and an Australia A representative.

If we are going to persist with Warner as an opener, then it is especially important that the other opener is more conventional and circumspect — a Cowan-style opener. If Cowan is not up to the job, then we should find someone else who is capable of doing it. Who that is, though, is a tough question.

However, for now, it’s very hard to drop a player with the second-highest run aggregate and one of the few to average above 30 in your team’s last Test series. He has to sort this out in the Ashes or he won’t be in the team next summer.

Time for action not words for Australian cricket

Completely agree about McDonald, Timmuh. If Watson cannot regain his form as a number-six all rounder, then McDonald is the ONLY other all rounder in Australia I’d consider in the team and only if we play two spinners. Butterworth could be a number-seven bowling all rounder, but I’ve got concerns about pushing our keeper up to six.

If Watson is cooked for good, then for all normal circumstances we must play six batsmen, keeper and four bowlers.

Huge changes needed before the Ashes

Yeah, I’d be getting Harris in as often as I could as well — I wish he decided to bowl faster when he was 23, not 28, he could have been a great, 200-wicket Test bowler.

I guess the logical position would be to switch him with Siddle. However, I’m a huge fan of what Siddle brings to the team. He would always be one of the first players I picked. He has done very well in home conditions the last three summers and I think he’s going to have a great series in England, particularly if he pitches it up and doesn’t try to bang it in too much.

He’s also tough. We need players like that in the team.

So, for me, it would be a very tough decision between Harris, Bird and Pattinson. Perhaps I’d rotate him with Pattinson, as he and Harris are reasonably similar in style. I’m talking about ‘smart’ rotation as well by the way — such as the way England managed their squad of quicks in the 2010/11 Ashes series — not the craziness we’ve adopted.

Huge changes needed before the Ashes

By and large I agree with the squad you’ve selected, although if it was me I’d have Hartley and Paine (in that order) as the squad’s wicketkeepers and I probably would have Watson in the squad as an all rounder batting at six instead of Doolan. He mustn’t be selected as a batsman. I’m undecided on Starc v Hilfenhaus for the reasons you’ve given, but I feel Starc is a more likely match winner.

I see the logic in dropping Warner, but I’d be very hesitant in removing one of the few players who has demonstrated the ability to play international attacks. In better times I would agree wholeheartedly. The fact he’s not learning from his mistakes is particularly frustrating. But I don’t think we can afford to leave him out when things are so bad.

Furthermore, it could mean you have an entirely new opening partnership (Rogers and Hughes?) in the middle of the Ashes if Cowan’s form doesn’t improve.

Cowan’s dismissal in the first innings was particularly disappointing. He looked like one of the few batsmen who was learning to adapt to the conditions as the tour progressed and had put away the sweep shot in favour of playing straight. To get bowled around your legs on 38 because you haven’t put your front foot in the right place is very poor. I can cop openers getting out for single-figure scores every couple of innings, but to consistently get out in the 30s is not sustainable. In the first two Ashes Tests, he needs to get scores above 70 and form partnerships, hopefully converting some if not all in 100s. If not, that should be it for him.

If I was picking the team, it would be: Warner, Cowan, Hughes, Clarke, Khawaja, Watson, Hartley, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon, Bird, Smith, Paine, Harris, Starc, O’Keefe. If we took 17 people, I’d add Rogers to the squad as a back-up opener.

If they aren’t already, I’d also encourage Doolan, Bailey, Hilfenhaus, Wade and Rogers to get over to England this winter to play either county or league cricket, so they’re there if needed.

Huge changes needed before the Ashes

I made the assumption that you already didn’t like Cowan, Johnno, so I’m wrong on that count. Apologies.

Nevertheless, I still think a lot of the other people criticising him for what he’s saying didn’t like him to begin with. Criticisms of players should be based on performance and certainly this are fair enough with Cowan. A player would have to say something pretty heinous or ridiculous for it to warrant criticism and I don’t think what he said was really that unreasonable. Anyway …

You make a very fair point that the younger players might not take him seriously — his performances have been below par. But that’s the way it is at the moment. There is a serious lack of experience in the team and it appears that the captain and vice captain aren’t always on the same page.

From what I’ve read, Cowan is an extremely hard trainer and worker, so hopefully that rubs off on some of the younger players. If they step up and play to their natural abilities, then maybe they can become senior players.

Leadership questions are distracting from the bigger issues

“When you have to many chiefs, it can undermine leadership. You need centralised leadership.”

But his comments were in support of the team’s leadership. He has also publicly backed Watson as captain. I’m not sure exactly how he has undermined anything. If the suspended players got a bit ticked off by what he said — and there is no indication that they were — then that says more about their own failure to take responsibility for their actions.

As far as I can tell, the only consequence of his comments so far is that it’s spurred on people, such as yourself, who already didn’t like him.

“Keep the public statements to the senior players and captain. Ed Cowan is neither right now.”

Maybe the team does regard him as a senior player. It is a very, very inexperienced team right now. If he is, you and I might not agree with or it — or even like it — and that’s fine, but that doesn’t change anything.

“Yes he can string a sentence too . Bravo Ed, what do you want ? To be rewarded the Noble prize in linguistics ? … If he loves to blab or talk so much and is so ambitious , save that for when he finishes his career, and he can peruse a career in sports administration, but he is employed as pro cricketer for now as a player, not as a manager.”

Me he does, maybe he doesn’t. It doesn’t really have anything to do with it. You’re criticising his character — playing the man, not the ball.

Leadership questions are distracting from the bigger issues

I don’t disagree that he might have been better off keeping that thought to himself, if only because he’s opened himself up to criticism. But the fact is, journalists asked him questions and he answered them as honestly as he could.

You’re also neglecting that, in the same interview, he also said: “But now it feels there is some solidarity behind the team moving forward and we’re excited by that unity and why it has been created … We have been unified by what happened in Mohali and there is no doubt the tough decisions needed to be made if we aspire to be the best team in the world, which we do … It feels as though we have come together behind that and we feel quite buoyed by the concept of moving forward together.”

I can’t see that these comments will cause “gossip, confusion, and mistrust”.

The idea that you need to have a certain batting average or reach a certain status before you can speak your mind is ludicrous. He doesn’t have to earn the right to say something.

Cricket Australia’s communications adviser on tour will work out with the team management who is available to speak to the media and send them out. That they regularly choose Cowan to do this probably speaks to his ability to string a sentence together and avoid clichéd responses.

By the way, I’m not convinced that he should be in the team (although I’m not sure if anyone would do better) and agree that he has to lift his average above 40, but that has nothing to do with what he is and isn’t allowed to say.

Leadership questions are distracting from the bigger issues

So let me get this straight, while you are allowed to have an opinion on the game and team, someone whose livelihood is directly impacted by these issues is not to say a word? Are you really saying that?

Also, if the media asks him a question, shouldn’t he answer it?

I completely agree that he has a lot of work to do to stay in the team, but I don’t understand why you seem to take offence at him having an opinion.

Leadership questions are distracting from the bigger issues

I hope Khawaja is capable of that, because I enjoy watching him play. I’m just not sure how good some of these players actually are and whether they are capable of significant improvements when they get to international level. Again, they’ll have to get a chance to prove themselves first.

Can the Aussies take any positives at all from this Indian tour?

I know everyone is enjoying the schoolyard/homework motif and it makes for a good laugh, but I don’t think Ed Cowan literally went up to Mickey Arthur and Michael Clarke and said: “These guys haven’t done their homework. You should suspend them.” It’s also extremely — repeat: extremely — hard to believe that Clarke and Arthur were completely unaware of any of this until Cowan piped up.

This is what he actually said, according to the SMH: “Yeah a few little things had crept in. I had a few conversations with the coach and the captain and the manager [Gavin Dovey] about those little things and I’m sure a few other guys did as well”.

What I infer from that is: “We’re not doing everything we can to win the games at the moment and our attitudes are not up to scratch”. As a member of that team, he is absolutely within his rights — and doing the right thing — to go up to the guys in charge of the team and tell them that he has concerns about how things are going. What should he have done, go up to people who are back-chatting and tell them to pull their head in? Tell people to train harder? Maybe, but he might not feel he’s in the right position to do that. So what is he supposed to do?

As I said earlier, in a workplace full of adults — not high school students — employees should tell their superiors when they think there are things going, especially if the overall performance is as bad as the cricket teams is now.

Things aren’t done the way that Ian Chappell used to do things. That was 40 years ago. Times have changed and the players operate in a different environment. We have to accept and understand that. This is worth a read: http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/624696.html

Either way, I completely agree that he shouldn’t have mentioned in public and it should have been left in-house. It hasn’t done anything to enhance the team’s position or his own. It doesn’t sound great, especially as he is battling to convince people he should be in the team.

Can the Aussies take any positives at all from this Indian tour?

It’s not a good look for Ed. I appreciate the way he speaks his mind, but he might have been better advised to keep this one to himself. He already rubs a lot of people the wrong way and this will hardly endear him.

I can understand where he is coming from though. In most workplaces, if you work really hard to perform to the best of your abilities but others are dragging the chain and the performance of your whole business is suffering as a result, it would be perfectly reasonable to approach management with your concerns. You could argue that you have a responsibility to do so.

We don’t really know the full extent or magnitude of these slips in discipline.

Can the Aussies take any positives at all from this Indian tour?

Burns and Khawaja are very talented, there’s no doubting that. But it’s very hard to say whether they will average above 45 at Test level, which has to be the minimum standard for the top teams at the moment. They both have above-average First-class records, but that’s about it.

I will concede that we’ll only find out if they’re given an opportunity. Hopefully they are both given extended runs in the team and they can show they can cut it.

Can the Aussies take any positives at all from this Indian tour?

The Southern Star’s matches have been much more enjoyable than the men’s games. I guess that happens when the matches actually mean something. But that is another topic.

Two Australian cricket teams on the same day? Ridiculous right?

It certainly would have been a tough for them to play a T20 and then fly over to India.

So why was this scheduling conflict that allowed to happen? Either the West Indies series doesn’t happen at all and the whole team leaves together, or the Indian tour starts later so the majority of the squad can get the ideal preparation.

Two Australian cricket teams on the same day? Ridiculous right?

It would have helped Bizza. Unfortunately I noticed the typos after I submitted the article. It’s very difficult to proof your own writing.

I particularly like where I called Geoff Lawson former test fast bowler turned fast bowler.

Never mind.

Two Australian cricket teams on the same day? Ridiculous right?

I don’t mind rotating a few players here and there to prevent injuries and build squad depth.

This is not rotation though. This is a bad situation that Cricket Australia is now trying to make the best of.

Two Australian cricket teams on the same day? Ridiculous right?

That is a fair point. Perhaps it would be better if the T20 team was run like the rugby sevens team. However, at the moment that isn’t the case. David Warner and Shane Watson – and probably Mitchell Starc – are both in the best XI for both formats. They aren’t playing in either match.

The real question is why did Cricket Australia allow this fixture clash to happen at all? In one stroke, they’ve managed to both compromise the preparation of the Test team and pick a substandard team for a home match that people have paid good money for. Meanwhile a chuck of the country’s best players aren’t even playing any cricket at all.

I would suggest that if the West Indies series didn’t happen, the entire Test squad could have been in India last week.

Two Australian cricket teams on the same day? Ridiculous right?

close