The Roar
The Roar


Roar Rookie

Joined November 2013







Sports lover, cricket tragic



5 actually used to be a thing around the turn of the 20th century.

Eleven ways to speed up Test cricket - time to cut out the wasted hours

I wouldn’t say they’ve worked him out – good length around off is pretty standard. He’s got a couple of technical faults that he should be able to iron out quickly. I think it’s mostly temperament – he generally doesn’t bat as positively as he does in the Shield. We’ve seen what he can do when he plays his shots. Appreciate the theory of having blokes drop out to work on their craft, but I’m happy enough with what I’ve seen that he can work it out on the job.

Future star or not, this is why Cameron Green should be dropped for Hobart Test

Stokes averages a respectable 41 at #5 (i.e. better than his overall record) and made his 135 v us batting there. Hasn’t set the world on fire this series but remember he’s coming off a long stretch of no cricket. To say he’s poor based on that is extremely harsh.

Uzzy, Bison or someone else? Five players Australia can turn to after losing their Head

That Inglis would have trouble making the test team from that spot. Thought Paine should have been out of the team before the personal stuff came out.

Josh Inglis, Alex Carey and the importance of timing

Called it as soon as Inglis was picked for UAE. Carey’s poor shield batting stats offset it a little. A bit of a shame they won’t be able to run-off in the intra-squad game.

Josh Inglis, Alex Carey and the importance of timing

Found what I think is the dropped catch I was thinking of on YouTube – was actually vs Windies in early 1999. Healy is on record admitting he was out of form on that tour.

Australia flirt with hubris in the face of England instability

That’s why I made the point of singling out Wood as the key piece, who is the one that could trouble Aus in the same way Archer has. If he stays fit, he just needs a supporting act. It’s a credit to them that even missing guys like Archer and Curran (granted, not as penetrative but offers variety), they can still easily roll out an attack with some experience. Right now, we have four. Lose two of them at once and you’re into the unknown.

Australia flirt with hubris in the face of England instability

The title is not in reference to the players; I’m sure they’ll do their best and not take anything for granted. I’d prefer our selectors not be so conservative though – that’s supposedly why Bailey got the gig and yet by selecting Paine he’s sticking close to the status quo.

I mean, you could say over rates specifically cost us. It’s not wrong. Beat India though and you don’t have to worry about it. It’s a sign of internal issues in any case.

Australia flirt with hubris in the face of England instability

You know it can be both right? India still had to get the job done. You can’t say Australia played well in the back end of the series though.

Australia flirt with hubris in the face of England instability

Not wrong. My point is that they’re not as bad as people think and will do enough to be competitive. Australia’s to lose and they easily can if they take England too lately.

Australia flirt with hubris in the face of England instability

Healy – I don’t recall whether it was the SL or Zimbabwe tour but I remember him dropping a sitter and generally wasn’t as clean as normal. Not passing 20 in last 20 innings played a part.

Burns – if he didn’t play 2nd test, result could have been different. Started 1 for not much in both innings.

Neser would bat at 7 under that scenario. It’s a risk, no question, and one that requires a better bat with the gloves. So is going into a big test with a debutant bowler.

Re: 86/87, should say 35 years not 31. I’ll see if I can get it edited. Thanks for spotting.

Australia flirt with hubris in the face of England instability

Yes, I’ll have to check my copy. If I did have maiden in there, I was meant to add against a full-strength Aus.

Australia flirt with hubris in the face of England instability

What pom in exile said. He’s in the Lions squad so he’s always a chance. As much as England has a lack of trust for leggies in tests, they have recent form in throwing them in the deep end at the SCG. Borthwick in 2013/14 wasn’t even with the Lions; they plucked him from Sydney grade cricket after Swann retired. Bess will be cannon fodder on our pitches if he plays – far too inconsistent for an off spinner.

Australia flirt with hubris in the face of England instability

Yes, Inglis is the best keeper of the lot IMO. I’d be very happy for him to get it, just don’t think it will go his way yet, unless they run them off in the Aus v Aus game.

What does the Tim Paine scandal mean for Australia? Five burning questions after captain's bombshell

Good article, but you’ve glossed over Inglis quite a bit, who is an exceptional keeper. The only reason Phillipe has the gloves right now (and you’ve rightly pointed out he’s a work in progress) is because Inglis was in the T20 squad. As for batting form? Phillipe in the Shield this year 373 @ 62 (1×100) vs Inglis last year 585 @ 73 (3×100). Need to be a far more superior batsman if keeping isn’t up to scratch and right now there’s nothing in it. Inglis being named alongside Carey in the A squad is a clear indicator of the selectors’ thinking. I reckon Carey will get it based on international experience, being a more technically correct bat and Inglis missing out on Shield time, but long term I think Inglis will be the better player. These two and Peirson have gone ahead of Paine with the gloves, and losing the captaincy should be the final nail in the coffin.

Wade might have been OK with the gloves in the World Cup, but that’s T20. Test cricket is a much bigger test on concentration and temperament; Wade never proved he had those traits with the gloves and last summer he lost them with the bat.

What does the Tim Paine scandal mean for Australia? Five burning questions after captain's bombshell

6-6-6 is fine but largely redundant if the ball isn’t immediately cleared. For whatever benefit the stand rule provides, I find it hard for umpires to adjudicate properly and it tips the scales too far towards the attacking team.

A lot of congestion issues could be sorted by scaling back some or all of the ruck rules. With things like no centre circle, 3rd man up, no recalled bounces and field bounces, stoppages were less predictable (bounces were introduced specifically to clear congestion). Now, with the centre bounce being a small exception, each ball up resembles a basketball tip-off. The nomination process attracts more players to the area, and they all wait in a series of 1-on-1s while the ruckmen often nullify each other, which leads to the ball dropping to one of the many contests, where an immediate tackle ensues and the process is repeated.

The rule that could have changed the AFL grand final

Never considered ground camber before. Certainly would play a part in covering the ground.

The rule that could have changed the AFL grand final

If you google ‘why is lyon called GOAT’, you’ll get the answer.

Tim Paine's time as captain is done as Australia crumble to humiliation against India

Two tests ago I would have agreed with you on Paine. One sloppy test with the gloves can be written off as an outlier; two is a pattern. While his performance was an improvement on Sydney, the signs of degradation in Brisbane were clear – snatching at the ball, hard hands, not watching it closely. At best it’s a sign that captaincy is wearing him down, as it eventually does to most players let alone wicketkeepers, but I sense at 36 it’s more than that. Gilchrist was done at the same age, Healy a year younger. There are two options in the wings – Alex Carey (solid form as understudy), and Josh Inglis (354 runs @ 118 this Shield season) – who I would be quite comfortable giving a baggy green.

I don’t know if it was poor execution, captaincy or coaching, but someone’s head needs to roll for the 20 run over made up entirely of short balls that gave India momentum. I suspect tactics had something to do with it since the attack wasted time peppering a bloke with a FC average of 2. Even if he was following orders, if Starc can’t bowl a yorker or swing a ball you can’t pick him. Rolling paper rankings don’t mean much if you’re failing dramatically in the here and now.

Would love to see Maxwell get a gig, but history says it’s not going to happen.

Not only is the sky not falling, this Australian Test team is really good!

I wrote about many points raised both in the article and the comments last year:
During his century vs NZ it appeared the technical faults had been ironed out, but 12 months on it remains the exception when it should be the norm by now. Fair enough that he has Shield cricket licked so won’t learn much there, but equally he shouldn’t be afforded a long rope in the name of learning because it sends a message that cameos are sufficient.
Michael Clarke is a similar case; being dropped for lack of output rather than ability certainly didn’t harm his career:
Pucovski has earned a crack if fit and Harris is a worthy candidate to open if there’s a vacancy, so assuming two of Warner/Puc/Harris play, an in-form Wade returns to 5 and Head makes way for now. To do any different is to reward mediocrity.

Australia must continue with Head

What you’ve just said is ‘no drop’ holding the ball. This was the rule until 1948, when it was removed because players would try to hang off their opponent to win a free, rather than trying to get the ball (exactly what people are concerned about with the tightened interpretation). The rule was changed to basically what it is now, with additional clauses (e.g. prior op, diving on the ball) added over time to provide a better balance. As Lukey touched on, the rule is fine but congestion has made it more difficult to adjudicate. Requiring players to correctly dispose or keep hold of it will only encourage more congestion and less ball gathering. No one wants that.

Pride before the fall with holding the ball

One more in between. Nick Jewell played a game for Richmond in 1997.

The AFL's cricketing first XI

Yeah I remember the three finals (sometimes Melbourne would have both 2nd and 3rd). Perhaps I’m confusing the ‘if required’ status of the 3rd final with a reserve day.

The organisation of the T20 Women's World Cup is straight out of the 1950s

Not sure about ICC tournaments, but I’m almost certain the Aus tri-series regularly featured reserve days for finals.

The organisation of the T20 Women's World Cup is straight out of the 1950s

“Only two teams – Thailand and Bangladesh – have failed to win a game. That itself is a notable statistic.”

In a two group tournament, it would be quite remarkable to have more than two teams fail to win a game.

The organisation of the T20 Women's World Cup is straight out of the 1950s