Yeah, I realise I got a dodgy Indian news source saying he’d been retained by Punjab but you’re right he was released. Still a chance of getting an injury replacement gig. The more he can be working in the nets and games against quality spinners, the better.

He’s the second best T20 allrounder in WA and third place is a long way behind him.

The best is Mitch Marsh and he’s an irregular bowler these days.

Green’s T20 bowling is not up to international standards yet, he can’t be relied upon for more than 1 or 2 overs – can’t bowl at the death and needs favourable conditions in the Powerplay.

Hardie also is an underdeveloped T20 bowler who needs favourable conditions to succeed. And he can’t play spin very well – got found out against Roston Chase in the West Indies series and has very ordinary T20 numbers against spin.

I can only assume Hilton Cartwright has been mentioned as a joke. His bowling is not much better than Virat Kohli’s. He’s not even trusted to bowl for the Melbourne Stars let alone as an international bowler. And he is a fairly pedestrian T20 batter too, with a strike rate of 125.

On pacy pitches I think that’s a reasonable assessment. Hopefully he can have a better IPL tournament this time around and show he’s learned how to bat on slow pitches and against spin. He won’t be much use in the West Indies if he keeps averaging single digits against spin.

I think the pitch standards they have are fine, it’s more that the penalties need to be better – and the ICC needs to stop softening pitch ratings when home boards complain. The Indore pitch in the last Border Gavaskar Trophy series was marked poor, then re-rated to below average after the BCCI protested.

The punishment for a below average pitch is a slap on the wrist – you need to accumulate 6 demerit points over a 5 year period to be suspended for 12 months. A ground in India is not going to host 6 test matches over a 5 year period, so in reality a single demerit point is no punishment at all – you could roll out below average pitches every test match without consequence.

Instead of this, there should be a World Test Championship points deduction for sub-standard pitches, as there is for over rate penalties. Part of the reason for the growth in below par pitches is home boards trying to create more extreme pitches to guarantee results.

Aside from that, I think the pitch standards as written are fit for purpose – the problem is in the enforcement of them and the penalties.

That said, I think overall the pitches in this series have been quite good and even this one has produced a compelling contest even if it isn’t really a test-standard pitch due to the extreme uneven bounce.

Maxwell and Marsh were batting in the final when the winning runs were scored. You might be thinking of the semi-final when Stoinis and Wade rescued us from 5/96, still needing 81 off 46.

I think part of the issue for them is that after Bairstow got out they had Foakes batting with the tail, which is when the real go-slow happened. Prior to that they were scoring around 3.6 runs per over (still slow by Bazball standards but an acceptable rate).

Foakes is much better suited to batting with a recognised batter, when he can play defensive and knock the ball around. Hartley and Robinson got out pretty quickly and then they got stuck. It was certainly possible to score with the right mindset, but India made it tough with some really good bowling leading up to and after tea. The question mark is whether the inexperienced England spinners can match that and back up Bashir’s efforts on Day 2 – they certainly didn’t yesterday.

Agree 100% about the England batting lineup. They are batting the way they are because of the shortcomings of their lineup. No point playing percentage cricket for most of them bar Root when their flawed techniques will be found out sooner or later. It means they are able to put in some outstanding performances when they get a few things going their way but eventually the law of averages catches up with you.

Ollie Pope’s 196 in the first test is a perfect illustration of this. It was an incredible innings which relied on an extraordinary amount of luck. He had 76 false shots in 278 balls in that innings, so more than a quarter of his shots were plays and misses or edges. An average rate of dismissal is in the range of one wicket per 12-14 false shots. For the rest of the series he’s scored 89 runs for 7 dismissals and played something like 35 false shots – so he’s been unlucky since then, but it has just brought his dismissals per false shot back into a normal range of just under 14 false shots per dismissal for the series so far.

It seems that Bazball perhaps introduces greater variability in performances, which means otherwise ordinary cricketers (by test cricket standards – obviously they are still fantastic compared to mere mortals) can have match-turning impacts on games. In other words, the sort of impact Ben Stokes has had throughout his career – brilliant but very inconsistent.

What a nonsense comparison. Short is opening and Stoinis is batting in the middle order, of course Short is going to have a higher average. Same goes for Hardie.

Middle order batting in T20 cricket is a specialist position, Australia for years made the error of putting opening bats in there rather than developing specialists, and we underperformed in T20 cricket for a long time as a result.

It seems your objection to Stoinis is based on a hunch or personal bias rather than facts. The fact is that Stoinis has an excellent T20 record (not ODI, which I suspect at least some of your misguided perception is based on). This is best illustrated by your claim that Stoinis is poor against spin. Stoinis averages 38 at a strike rate of 146 against spin in T20I cricket – elite numbers. In all T20 cricket he averages 32 at a strike rate of 134 – not as good but still decent.

Matt Short averages 20 at a strike rate of 120 in all T20 cricket against spin and that plummets to 4.5 at a 62 strike rate at international level. Aaron Hardie averages 29.2 at a strike rate of 125 against spin and 23.5 at a 107 strike rate in T20Is. Bear in mind both of these players have played most of their T20 cricket in the BBL on pitches which do not spin much against some fairly ordinary spinners. Stoinis has played far more IPL against good spin on dusty tracks (his home ground at Lucknow is one of the most spin-friendly pitches in India).

Short and Hardie are basically only useful as top 3 options at this stage of their development and we have a top 3 set in stone. Putting either at number 5 would be a ridiculous call – we saw how badly Hardie stalled the innings against spin in Perth a couple of weeks ago.

The choice isn’t between Head and Smith, Head’s place is already secure. It’s between Smith and other potential reserve players, including Matt Short. Short advanced his case here but I still have doubts over his ability against spin (he averages less than 5 against spin in both T20Is and the IPL), which will be important in the Caribbean.

Smith hasn’t seized his chances and so can have no complaints if he is left out of the squad. I think he would be unlikely to play a major part in the campaign even if selected in the squad.

An amazing fightback from India yesterday. England are still in the game given the state of the pitch, but they’ve given India a pretty nice head start with some dreadful bowling in the 8 overs to close of play yesterday. The pitch doesn’t really help if you are bowling floaty full tosses and half volleys.

It seems that Bazball is undergoing an identity crisis at the moment, with England scoring 25 runs in 21 overs after tea to close their innings. One test we have Joe Root reverse ramping Bumrah to second slip, then he scores one of his slowest ever hundreds in this test and the editor of Wisden, Lawrence Booth, is claiming on Twitter that it was a typical Bazball innings – that absorbing pressure and attacking when the situation suits is what Bazball is all about.

Sounds like that is in fact just what good test batting is (and not really how England bat most of the time), yet England seem to be convinced they are saving test cricket and reinventing the game. In reality, we’ve seen them clam up and succumb to the pressure in both the last test and this one when the game was on the line.

England may well get out of this test with a win (though they are no longer favourites to do that), but we’re starting to see some doubt and confusion coming into their approach when put under pressure.

Yes, it felt like Australia were under par given their start, but in the end the start was the anomaly in the game. And if you look back – there were a lot of top edges that went for 4 or 6 and near misses when Australia got off to its flyer.

The Kiwis also had a very thin batting lineup compared to Australia even before the Conway injury, with Santner at 7 and Milne at 8. Australia’s greater depth came in handy with Cummins’ 28 at no.8.

I guess the fans who showed up to the game with giant posters of Smith and Warner crying, were deservedly sent home crying themselves.

It’s been an intriguing test series to be sure. The cricket fan in me wouldn’t mind seeing it go into the fifth test tied up at 2-2. But the Australian in me wouldn’t mind seeing England getting a dose of humility in the last couple of test matches.

From what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think this test match is going into the fifth day either way, and probably not the fourth!

Crawley should have been out for single digits too, bowled off a no-ball.

The pitch is doing a bit, so it’s not disastrous territory yet for England, but you’d think they’d at least want to get to 250+ to get in the game which looks a long way away still. Bowling last could be a big advantage on this pitch given all the cracks so you’d think India would want to build a decent first innings lead (as they did in the first three tests).

Good start to Akash Deep on test debut, despite his no-ball wicket. There is some incredible depth in Indian cricket!

Yeah, Stoinis was not great in the Windies series (with the bat), but apart from that he’s been one of our better T20I players over the last few years. His bowling has been pretty important too.

I never want to see him play another ODI, but I think he’s still got something to offer in the T20I side.

I agree that overall you want to have the best bowlers available, but batting depth is important too – not just for the runs the No.8 or 9 might occasionally score, but for the confidence it gives the top order to play freely and not worry about losing their wickets. If you have a fourth bowler who is a good bat, but a little weaker than another candidate who is a poor bat, I think you go for the one who can bat – especially if you have a few allrounders in the top order. But agree if there is a big gulf in bowling ability you should preference the better bowlers then.

You’re right – it is very hard to tell who our best T20 bowlers are. The second string bowlers are often bowling against second string batting line-ups in bilateral series. We saw Jason Behrendorff bowl like a genius over in India and then get dusted up in the Windies series. Ellis does seem like the most likely candidate to squeeze in – he has done well in the IPL which I think says a lot.

Unfortunately at this stage of his career, Green is another player best suited to batting in the top 3 in T20 cricket. That’s where he had all his success with Mumbai. But there’s already a plethora of options in those positions – so he either needs to wait until Warner has retired, or develop into a No.5 to get a spot I think.

Also, his T20 bowling is still a work in progress, he can’t be relied on for overs like Stoinis and Marsh – he’s probably limited to helpful conditions or a couple of overs through the middle of the innings.

Stoinis has very good T20I numbers and his recent form has been good too – including his bowling. He would seem the favourite at 5 if fit.

Best XI and squad at this stage:

1. Warner
2. Head
3. Marsh
4. Maxwell
5. Stoinis
6. David
7. Wade
8. Cummins
9. Starc
10. Zampa
11. Hazlewood

12. Ellis
13. Inglis
14/15. Two out of Agar/Smith/Johnson/Abbott

I’ve hedged my bets on the last two spots as it depends on the balance/flexibility they want. We’re likely to see a lot of slow wickets which raises the possibility of two spinners – or do they rely on Maxwell and Head in those conditions like in the ODI World Cup (since those conditions also bring fast bowlers into the game with slower balls etc)?

I’m also conscious that apart from Cummins, we don’t really have a good No.8 at T20 level. Starc can hold a bat but he is not as explosive a hitter as Cummins, especially against pace bowling. So does Sean Abbott make the squad as a back-up No.8? Batting depth can be important even if you only use it once in the tournament. Or do you go Johnson who looks a better bowler but offers less with the bat?

Smith makes the squad if we’re having two spare bats, but Inglis is the first reserve batter for me if we choose a 1 bat / 3 bowler bench.

Nathan Ellis is definitely putting pressure on for a spot in the first XI.

Auckland has a smaller population than Perth. Until the Perth Stadium was developed for AFL, cricket was primarily played at the Waca with a capacity of 20,000, but even then some of that capacity is owing to its former use as an AFL ground in the winter.

The Waca is an aging stadium built in simpler times at a much lower cost than if it was built today.

If you are suggesting Auckland could build Waca-level facilities then yes they probably could – have a hill for fans and a couple of smaller stands with no-frills facilities. I believe that’s what they are aiming at – something like the Basin Reserve in Wellington with a capacity of 11,000.

I would hardly describe the Waca or the Basin Reserve as big stadiums though. They are traditional cricket grounds which can host small to medium sized crowds. Big stadiums are the 40,000+ facilities we see in the major Australian capitals. If you mean a traditional cricket ground then yes I agree with you – Auckland needs one. Big white ball games would still likely be played at Eden Park though, much like the situation in Wellington with the Cake Tin/Basin Reserve.

Sorry, by big stadiums I’m referring to the size of the stands/seat numbers rather than ground dimensions. As far as I’m aware, yes the size of the playing areas is not primarily dictated by AFL – especially for grounds like the Gabba and SCG where AFL hosting came very late in their history.

Test cricket doesn’t draw big crowds in New Zealand. I believe their record test crowd ever is around 38,000 (that’s record for the whole 5 days not per day – so under 10,000/day). So you’re looking at a record crowd being maybe 10,000 for Day 1, and mostly far less than that?

It’s not worth playing on a ground which doesn’t have the dimensions of a proper cricket oval when you are barely drawing a crowd. May as well play on grounds with proper dimensions where the fewer spectators fill up more of the capacity and can sit on the hill etc to enjoy the day.

To be fair, that 25 innings runs back more than 4 years to the start of 2020, so I’m not sure how relevant most of it is to his current form.

Since he dominated the BBL in the 2022/23 season he’s played exactly two T20I innings for Australia, one of which was a 50. Those are also the only two T20I innings he’s played as an opener.

If you look at his T20I record, he has performed well as an opener and No.3 and terribly in other positions – he averages 35 at a strike rate of 137 in the top 3 (which is not stellar but not terrible). Only two of the eight single digit scores in his poor were batting in the top 3 (neither as opener) – he has mostly been batting at 4 or lower since Marsh established himself at No.3.

At this stage he’s behind Warner, Head and Marsh for a top 3 spot, but he’s probably the next best option still alongside Inglis.

Matt Short doesn’t have an IPL contract because he averaged 4 at a strike rate of 70 against spin in the IPL. He needs to develop his play against spin, which he can get away with against lesser spinners on non-spinning decks in the BBL but won’t cut it at IPL or international level.

Stoinis has an IPL contract because he’s been one of the best performers in that league. He averages 27 at a strike rate of 140 in the IPL, which is great for an allrounder batting in the middle order – his performance last season was even better, averaging 31 at 150 (and Lucknow played on some dreadful pitches at home with 130-140 par scores). Not to mention his handy bowling.

Cameron Green averages 50 at a strike rate of 160 in the IPL, Matt Short 19 at a strike rate of 127 (and as pointed out above has a clear weakness against spin). It should be pretty apparent why Green and Short are in demand in the IPL and Matt Short is not.

We have big cricket stadiums in Australia because they are shared with the AFL. Spending hundreds of millions or billions of dollars on a big cricket stadium, when only a handful of fixtures each year will fill that stadium would be a poor use of public money.

So they generally play white ball fixtures there in rugby grounds like Eden Park and the Cake Tin, where there is was a business case for building those facilities, and test cricket is played in venues like Hagley Park, the Basin Reserve and Mount Maunganui, traditional cricket grounds with limited seating and hills. Auckland hasn’t hosted a test match since 2018.

There is actually a push to develop a test cricket venue in Auckland (most likely converting an existing oval), so they can have a situation similar to Wellington where test matches will be played at this new venue but white ball fixtures which draw large crowds can remain at Eden Park.

I’m sure they have an idea of their most likely 15, but there is still time before the squad needs to be finalised, so it’s good to keep options open. Someone could get injured, have a good or bad run of form at the IPL etc.

I think Smith is probably in the squad but not the first choice XI, depending on the balance they want (e.g., two spare bats vs Inglis as sole batting/keeping cover and three spare bowlers). I think Smith will be the second spare bat if they want two batters in the reserves.

If you look at the other candidates for that second reserve bat, it’s really only Matt Short in the picture. Aaron Hardie maybe as a spare allrounder, but that would be a big call given he hasn’t really done anything at international level yet and has limited experience in the conditions they are likely to see in the West Indies. Short himself has a pretty ordinary record against spin, and hasn’t done much at international level yet.

I don’t think you should interpret a comment that the squad isn’t finalised as being the same as that they have no idea who will be in it. I’m a little surprised people still think the selectors are idiots given the bold selection calls which paid off during the World Cup.

On what basis do you claim ball tracking is dodgy? It’s been pretty well tested and calibrated.

It’s in the “I’m not racist, but…” category of sayings.

On the one hand you are saying the ball tracking technology is dodgy, but on the other hand you are saying we should accept marginal projections as definitely hitting – which one is it?

You are forgetting the reason that DRS exists, which is to overturn incorrect decisions by umpires. There needs to be conclusive proof that a decision is incorrect to overturn it. In this case, the ball tracking showed that the ball may possibly have been hitting the stumps within the margin for error, or it may not have. That is not conclusive proof to overturn either an out or not out decision – that’s why umpire’s call exists.

Changing the rules so that umpires call is always out is a misunderstanding of what umpire’s call represents (it is a possibility of the ball hitting the stumps, not a certainty) and would effectively increase the size of the stumps for the purposes of an lbw by the radius of a cricket ball.

I can’t agree with your claim that Dharmasena got it wrong when ball tracking showed that, within the margin of error, the ball may have been hitting the stumps. That only tells us that Dharmasena may have been correct or he may not have – it was a tight decision that he made a judgment call on. You are making a judgment call that it wasn’t out – that’s just your opinion. I think it’s fair to say it was a marginal decision and that Crawley was a little unlucky, but not that Dharmasena was wrong to give it out. The projected path of the ball seemed reasonable to me – Crawley was on his crease and it was an Indian pitch without a great deal of bounce.