Pakistan vs Australia 1st Test: Day 3 live scores, blog

What's the point of having day 5? They can shake hands and take a day off.

Play enough matches and the batter-friendly v bowler-friendly conditions level out. These are test runs. The two Pakistani batters made big tons. Our guys failed to do the same. Head failed. Carey likewise. Why do we feel the need to under or over-value these runs? And, surely it gets tiring bashing NSW cricketers at some point. Selectors select. None are from NSW. Dodemaide and Bailey have no reason to favour a NSW player, on the contrary.

I've some adjectives I might consider for this cricket but mesmerising isn't one of them

Yep, it is an attempt to put proper statistical parameters around a problem but it still uses assumptions and subjective choices at time like any analysis. He also checks that the results “look right “, which leads to tweaking assumptions to get the answer you want. But it’s still a fine, detailed effort. This guy has been at this for over 20 years and his top innings analysis was used by Wisden to rank their greatest ever innings.

That's it. The verdict is pronounced. The only way you can get out in this match is if you get yourself out.

I work in the media world and I've gotta say that these " in program " ads with the crowd on Pakistan tv are so charming I find myself waiting to see the next one. And the cricket is still mesmerising waiting to see Steve Smith come out of his funk.

Can we have a sensible conversation about Afridi's action. He definitely straightens his elbow when he snaps his wrist. The replay of the ball that Khawaja was dropped from from side on is absolutely damning. Do we have to wait until he gets some more wickets before he gets sent off for remedial work? Come on, it's a joke.

Mate...........the response to "Finally, you’ve then made a series of excuses for his either decent (first series against India) performances or failures by comparing him to others. This is false argument a “whataboutthem” argument." this.............is about applying some level of context. That's what the test rankings tries to do. I simply point out that Harris - on the back of the most current sample of 2 tests was stiff. He was doing his job in seeing out the new ball. The sad thing in Australia is that he's so clearly the 'next best' based on the level below. The other sad thing is - how easy it is to expose Travis Head (if you target his....head). If Pakistan put some life in the pitches - then even their youthful bowling attack would scythe through the Australian batting.

Not a bad read. It's difficult when you don't have the time or patience to try and understand the parameters of what was being done. For example, the limiting of it 0.9 and 1.1 - why was this done?

Context is important, but your problem is that you're trying too hard to find meaning in such a small sample size. Yes, his 76 in the context of the match was good. But, it's still one score. Furthermore, the pitch was one of those pitches that was obviously so difficult to bat on, that it's almost luck of the draw when someone scores a few more runs than anyone else. That's not to mention the fact that it was still just 76 - it was hardly Kim Hughes at the MCG scoring a century out of a total of 212 or whatever. As for his performances in the fourth test, again, you're looking for something that just isn't there; he didn't even score a fifty in either of those innings either. Yes he did score more runs that Smith, Marnus or Warner across those two games. But go back another test and he falls drastically behind. Why not include that test - because you say the wick wasn't as difficult? It was a live test... And you've also gone and discounted the importance of his failure in Brisbane. That was a toughish wicket, as evidenced by England's failure and the fact that we were 5/195 - if Head's fabulous ton doesn't happen then, could have been a very different game. I actually think a 76 by Harris in the first test would have put him in good stead to survive the series. Finally, you've then made a series of excuses for his either decent (first series against India) performances or failures by comparing him to others. This is false argument a "whataboutthem" argument. The facts are that he didn't score against Sri Lanka, when others did, he didn't score in England or in his one opportunity that summer. In fact, the reality is, he's scored three fifties in 14 tests/26 innings. He's never scored a century. You can compare his performances in England to Warner and Khawaja all you want, but they have proven track records to fall back on, he does not. I'm not sold on Khawaja and Warner as openers and it's certainly not a long term solution to the problem, but unfortunately for Harris he has failed to show basically anything at test level that suggests he should be persisted with (plus he's a bogg average fielder, probably not really test standard in this area at all).

Now they're over in 3 days!

50% of tests in Australia during the 1980s were draws, 70% in Adelaide. Take out the two won by the mighty windies, then nearly 90% of tests in Adelaide that decade were drawn.

Thanks Matth.

It was also 76 when the next best score was 50 from one of the best 3-4 bats in the world and the next best was a 38. Across the tough conditions at the MCG and SCG - and Harris produced 141 runs from 3 hits over 9 hours; compared to Warner with just 71 around 3 hours and Marnus 59 from 200 mins batting. Even S.Smith had just 106 from just under 5 hours. So - of the top 4 - Harris was the clear club house leader. Had the 1st/2nd tests and the 3rd/4th tests been swapped - then Harris deserves dropping. At that point in time though -after the 3rd/4th - he didn't. And Khawaja - get's elevated from #5 to open; scores 6 and 11.................and holds his spot!?!?! So - - the selectors have now been painted into a corner - and Khawaja will now get all 3 tests irrespective - because he got a score on this featherbed. England's batting was horrid. Their bowling at various times was very good. The MCG was arguably their best chance to work back into the series - Harris and Boland destroyed that flicker of hope. re Harris outside of that - - remember his debut series was at home against an India line up that totally out bowled Australia. Harris topped our averages (ignore Marnus' single hit 38). Which included out stripping Khawaja in that series too. Frustratingly he didn't put Sri Lanka to the sword in that 2 test series and he failed in England (58 from 6) but then so did opening partner Warner (95 from 10 hits!) and when Bancroft came in he only managed 44 from 4 hits. And even Uzzie over there only delivered 122 from 6 hits. Context is important. However it's very frustrating that he's got a start quite often without going on with it. He DOES though continue to demand selection from Shield form and it's head if not shoulders above the other aspirants on that basis.

So how do we judge these runs?? Oh how Marcus Harris must wish he’d had a hit out there. The problem for Harris is that while that 'ugly' 76 at the MCG was a good knock, it's one of only three fifties out of 26 innings, twenty of which have been at home, and his first fifty since 3 Jan 2019, 15 odd innings prior. Also, let's not get carried away with it, it was a fifty scored against a pathetic England team, who were already two nil down and lost the test by an inning... I have concerns around both of these guys opening for us over the next whatever period of time and those concerns are compounded by the fact that they could retire at the exact same time. However, it's hard to see how Harris is the answer, based on his performances to date.

Do you really think another spinner would have made much difference on this deck? Not exactly a bungled selection if the pitch is offering nothing for any bowlers - seems they rightly surmised that it wouldn't assist the spinners either. The bowlers we picked did a great job in restricting Pakistan's scoring and ensuring they declared at 476 rather than closer to 600 (significantly reducing the pressure on our batting lineup). Cummins and Hazlewood were the best two bowlers in Pakistan's first innings. Contrast that to Pakistan, whose bowlers have been going for nearly 4 rpo, with two spinners who also haven't posed much threat.

Its all a big NSW conspiracy Don

I’m not across either, but judging the Paki selections, I’d bank on the deck crumbling, and the match having a late twist. Please send some of this rain their way.

Hey Once, you should have a read of this. Haven’t read it yet, but I think you will find it interesting: https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1301130/the-real-value-of-runs-where-joe-root-brian-lara-and-vvs-laxman-shine

How do we judge these runs? The sliding doors thought of course - had Buttler/Root managed to grasp the snick in Sydney and Khawaja sent on his way in the 20s.....he arguably wouldn't have been in Rawalpindi; let alone profiting from an even simpler catch put down in gully. Khawaja could have reached triple figures - - but I'd take Marcus Harris's 'ugly' 76 at the MCG over this any day. This pitch currently DOES sadly remind of Faisalabad around 1980. Perhaps it breaks up over the next couple of days?? But seriously - - 6 wickets for 747 after 3 days. What the ?!?!?!? So how do we judge these runs?? Oh how Marcus Harris must wish he'd had a hit out there. That too - perhaps - that Scotty Boland might look on thinking he's better off NOT being out there despite having been dropped when the "Khawaja principle" dictated that he NOT be dropped. Selectors? Or Cummins for his own mates?