Cricket fred

[Digby]

Geoff Boycott said the same, both he and Ponting (? I think)thought that Vince should have changed his guard, and been playing back towards the bowler, whilst admitting he'd still have been out, but might have nicked it. It was a jaffa

Boycs was happier than most not scoring and simply being there. Sometimes I feel they cheat a little at test level and frankly are playing across the line, this wasn't one of them. So you could play straight to balls pitching there, but your strike rate would be dropping to 15 or so and on modern pitches that's never going to leave time to take 20 wickets so it's not really fair (imo) to say that delivery should have been played back down the V

I didn't have the sound on earlier so didn't know I was agreeing in part with Geoff and Ricky (Spanish).

I know, grew up on a diet of Geoffrey, who was dropped after scoring 246 not out for England, for scoring too slowly. He was a great batsman though, not exactly a team player....but then again, cricket is quite unique as a team sport that is very much about the individual's stats.

I don't understand your point really- surely its better to not get out not that, that ball was playable, even Boycott said that had he played it perfectly, he'd still likely have gone; his point was he didn't give himself the best chance of playing that delivery, by not being set up to play Starc's angle of attack in this spell.

I think when the ball is coming from that wide and pitches there you're free to play through the on side. Oftentimes I feel there's actually a strong case for telling a batsman he's played across the line and should have simply played straight, but whether that would have worked in this instance or not I don't think he was wrong to look to score where he did, that's just a freak ball

And I've seen video of Geoff, he certainly had ability, if not many scoring shots, very light on his feet up against some quality bowling

[Banquo]

Boycs was happier than most not scoring and simply being there. Sometimes I feel they cheat a little at test level and frankly are playing across the line, this wasn't one of them. So you could play straight to balls pitching there, but your strike rate would be dropping to 15 or so and on modern pitches that's never going to leave time to take 20 wickets so it's not really fair (imo) to say that delivery should have been played back down the V

I didn't have the sound on earlier so didn't know I was agreeing in part with Geoff and Ricky (Spanish).

I know, grew up on a diet of Geoffrey, who was dropped after scoring 246 not out for England, for scoring too slowly. He was a great batsman though, not exactly a team player....but then again, cricket is quite unique as a team sport that is very much about the individual's stats.

I don't understand your point really- surely its better to not get out not that, that ball was playable, even Boycott said that had he played it perfectly, he'd still likely have gone; his point was he didn't give himself the best chance of playing that delivery, by not being set up to play Starc's angle of attack in this spell.

I think when the ball is coming from that wide and pitches there you're free to play through the on side. Oftentimes I feel there's actually a strong case for telling a batsman he's played across the line and should have simply played straight, but whether that would have worked in this instance or not I don't think he was wrong to look to score where he did, that's just a freak ball

And I've seen video of Geoff, he certainly had ability, if not many scoring shots, very light on his feet up against some quality bowling

I'll take their analysis I think .

He had all the shots, just chose not to play them . His weakness was hooking. His back foot drives and on drive were things of beauty.

[Mellsblue]

Not sure anyone would’ve survived the ball that got Vince.

Just seen Cook’s wicket. Pretty unlucky. 99/100 that just rolls towards mid-on. Still, he needs a big couple of matches in the next two tests.

I just found Cook's wicket too, not sure about unlucky, just badly timed

It was definately poorly timed but he’s still unlucky - great catch by the bowler.

[Digby]

I know, grew up on a diet of Geoffrey, who was dropped after scoring 246 not out for England, for scoring too slowly. He was a great batsman though, not exactly a team player....but then again, cricket is quite unique as a team sport that is very much about the individual's stats.

I don't understand your point really- surely its better to not get out not that, that ball was playable, even Boycott said that had he played it perfectly, he'd still likely have gone; his point was he didn't give himself the best chance of playing that delivery, by not being set up to play Starc's angle of attack in this spell.

I think when the ball is coming from that wide and pitches there you're free to play through the on side. Oftentimes I feel there's actually a strong case for telling a batsman he's played across the line and should have simply played straight, but whether that would have worked in this instance or not I don't think he was wrong to look to score where he did, that's just a freak ball

And I've seen video of Geoff, he certainly had ability, if not many scoring shots, very light on his feet up against some quality bowling

I'll take their analysis I think .

He had all the shots, just chose not to play them . His weakness was hooking. His back foot drives and on drive were things of beauty.

Starc went so wide, I've not seen a ball tracking clip but at a guess that ball on it's natural line is missing leg stump. So if batsman are going to play straight to those deliveries we'll be scoring around 180 runs a day, and I just don't see how that helps even if we lose fewer wickets. I'm happy that delivery is a straight up chance to score on the leg side and it's just done plenty off the pitch. Maybe if the pitch was playing worse I'd consider you'd have to look to play straighter, but the on drive is a bloody hard shot to get right so for me working that squarer is just fine

[Mellsblue]

I think when the ball is coming from that wide and pitches there you're free to play through the on side. Oftentimes I feel there's actually a strong case for telling a batsman he's played across the line and should have simply played straight, but whether that would have worked in this instance or not I don't think he was wrong to look to score where he did, that's just a freak ball

And I've seen video of Geoff, he certainly had ability, if not many scoring shots, very light on his feet up against some quality bowling

I'll take their analysis I think .

He had all the shots, just chose not to play them . His weakness was hooking. His back foot drives and on drive were things of beauty.

Starc went so wide, I've not seen a ball tracking clip but at a guess that ball on it's natural line is missing leg stump. So if batsman are going to play straight to those deliveries we'll be scoring around 180 runs a day, and I just don't see how that helps even if we lose fewer wickets. I'm happy that delivery is a straight up chance to score on the leg side and it's just done plenty off the pitch. Maybe if the pitch was playing worse I'd consider you'd have to look to play straighter, but the on drive is a bloody hard shot to get right so for me working that squarer is just fine

Ball tracking has it missing leg by quite a margin but it hits the inside half of off stump. If I remember correctly, it moved 42cm off line.

[Banquo]

I think when the ball is coming from that wide and pitches there you're free to play through the on side. Oftentimes I feel there's actually a strong case for telling a batsman he's played across the line and should have simply played straight, but whether that would have worked in this instance or not I don't think he was wrong to look to score where he did, that's just a freak ball

And I've seen video of Geoff, he certainly had ability, if not many scoring shots, very light on his feet up against some quality bowling

I'll take their analysis I think .

He had all the shots, just chose not to play them . His weakness was hooking. His back foot drives and on drive were things of beauty.

Starc went so wide, I've not seen a ball tracking clip but at a guess that ball on it's natural line is missing leg stump. So if batsman are going to play straight to those deliveries we'll be scoring around 180 runs a day, and I just don't see how that helps even if we lose fewer wickets. I'm happy that delivery is a straight up chance to score on the leg side and it's just done plenty off the pitch. Maybe if the pitch was playing worse I'd consider you'd have to look to play straighter, but the on drive is a bloody hard shot to get right so for me working that squarer is just fine

If you think about the angle its coming across from that method from Starc, playing right across the line to mid on, which is where Vince was aiming, was lengthening his odds of hitting it, square leg would have been less across the line, but thats not what he did. And it was a nigh unplayable ball, but his set up and attempted shot made it even more so. I'd also say that Starc has been seen to be able to bowl leg cutters from around the wicket before, so its not like it was a surprise, and the surprise from the commentators was that Vince didn't change his guard.

Your strike rate argument is based on the fallacy that Starc would always bowl the same line and length and always be played the same way; one of the skills of (test) batting is to frustrate the bowler from their plan, by keeping them out....forcing them to change line/length/approach, then take the scoring opposrtunities.

[Banquo]

Not sure anyone would’ve survived the ball that got Vince.

Just seen Cook’s wicket. Pretty unlucky. 99/100 that just rolls towards mid-on. Still, he needs a big couple of matches in the next two tests.

I just found Cook's wicket too, not sure about unlucky, just badly timed

It was definately poorly timed but he’s still unlucky - great catch by the bowler.

Not sure what luck had to do with it...play the shot well, you don't get out?

[Mellsblue]

I just found Cook's wicket too, not sure about unlucky, just badly timed

It was definately poorly timed but he’s still unlucky - great catch by the bowler.

Not sure what luck had to do with it...play the shot well, you don't get out?

Plenty of great innings where people have played poor shots and got away with it. Very rare anybody plays a chanceless innings.

[Banquo]

It was definately poorly timed but he’s still unlucky - great catch by the bowler.

Not sure what luck had to do with it...play the shot well, you don't get out?

Plenty of great innings where people have played poor shots and got away with it. Very rare anybody plays a chanceless innings.

That makes them lucky . I don't think it was bad luck, unless every dismissal is!

[Digby]

Your strike rate argument is based on the fallacy that Starc would always bowl the same line and length and always be played the same way; one of the skills of (test) batting is to frustrate the bowler from their plan, by keeping them out....forcing them to change line/length/approach, then take the scoring opposrtunities.

My point is that was a scoring opportunity. I don't think you can approach batting assuming a ball is going to move anything like that much, the ball could've moved either way off the pitch which would give you an extra metre or so to defend.

I don't have a problem either with how he tried to score given the opportunity, others may have higher standards than me though

[Banquo]

Your strike rate argument is based on the fallacy that Starc would always bowl the same line and length and always be played the same way; one of the skills of (test) batting is to frustrate the bowler from their plan, by keeping them out....forcing them to change line/length/approach, then take the scoring opposrtunities.

My point is that was a scoring opportunity. I don't think you can approach batting assuming a ball is going to move anything like that much, the ball could've moved either way off the pitch which would give you an extra metre or so to defend.

I don't have a problem either with how he tried to score given the opportunity, others may have higher standards than me though

Opprtunity to score against a bowler who doesnt habitually bowl leg cutters from that angle, which Starc does; setting yourself up to play across the line, even if it carries on straight doesnt seem that cool. He could aim to be playing back towards the bowler, and still adjust late to glide to square leg. The difficult shot was the one he was playing for; I think you have missed the key point about adjusting his guard as well.
That said, neither of have a clue about facing a 90 mph bowler at the waca, left arm round. But I'm with the analysts on this one.

[Digby]

Your strike rate argument is based on the fallacy that Starc would always bowl the same line and length and always be played the same way; one of the skills of (test) batting is to frustrate the bowler from their plan, by keeping them out....forcing them to change line/length/approach, then take the scoring opposrtunities.

My point is that was a scoring opportunity. I don't think you can approach batting assuming a ball is going to move anything like that much, the ball could've moved either way off the pitch which would give you an extra metre or so to defend.

I don't have a problem either with how he tried to score given the opportunity, others may have higher standards than me though

Opprtunity to score against a bowler who doesnt habitually bowl leg cutters from that angle, which Starc does; setting yourself up to play across the line, even if it carries on straight doesnt seem that cool. He could aim to be playing back towards the bowler, and still adjust late to glide to square leg. The difficult shot was the one he was playing for; I think you have missed the key point about adjusting his guard as well.
That said, neither of have a clue about facing a 90 mph bowler at the waca, left arm round. But I'm with the analysts on this one.

In just about every ball ever he gets runs for that shot and the only analysis is the bowler has ballsed up sending a loose one down the leg side. And even if the ball does do something dramatic off the pitch you're probably seeing the ball miss the stumps. I get the point the analysts are making, but to me that's after the fact, and if you get a delivery missing leg stump you're fully entitled to play square on the leg side.

I accept Starc can move the ball a bit, but I'd want to see more swing/seam action more often before I'd think it a mistake not to play much straighter. Actually what I'd want to see from the analysts is every other ball missing leg stump by such a margin and what shots were played, 'cause I can't believe in those other shots they'd have been contending the batter should've played straighter, indeed I bet even Boycott played such deliveries in such fashion

[Banquo]

My point is that was a scoring opportunity. I don't think you can approach batting assuming a ball is going to move anything like that much, the ball could've moved either way off the pitch which would give you an extra metre or so to defend.

I don't have a problem either with how he tried to score given the opportunity, others may have higher standards than me though

Opprtunity to score against a bowler who doesnt habitually bowl leg cutters from that angle, which Starc does; setting yourself up to play across the line, even if it carries on straight doesnt seem that cool. He could aim to be playing back towards the bowler, and still adjust late to glide to square leg. The difficult shot was the one he was playing for; I think you have missed the key point about adjusting his guard as well.
That said, neither of have a clue about facing a 90 mph bowler at the waca, left arm round. But I'm with the analysts on this one.

In just about every ball ever he gets runs for that shot and the only analysis is the bowler has ballsed up sending a loose one down the leg side. And even if the ball does do something dramatic off the pitch you're probably seeing the ball miss the stumps. I get the point the analysts are making, but to me that's after the fact, and if you get a delivery missing leg stump you're fully entitled to play square on the leg side.

I accept Starc can move the ball a bit, but I'd want to see more swing/seam action more often before I'd think it a mistake not to play much straighter. Actually what I'd want to see from the analysts is every other ball missing leg stump by such a margin and what shots were played, 'cause I can't believe in those other shots they'd have been contending the batter should've played straighter, indeed I bet even Boycott played such deliveries in such fashion

...except he wasn't playing it square, he was shaping through mid-on (midwicket at best). I just think, as do the analysts, that he could have given himself a better chance by setting up on middle stump, and playing straighter as a first thought.

No doubt you will continue to argue, so I'll just disagree and move on. Fckin good ball, even if you contend it was a fluke.

[Digby]

Opprtunity to score against a bowler who doesnt habitually bowl leg cutters from that angle, which Starc does; setting yourself up to play across the line, even if it carries on straight doesnt seem that cool. He could aim to be playing back towards the bowler, and still adjust late to glide to square leg. The difficult shot was the one he was playing for; I think you have missed the key point about adjusting his guard as well.
That said, neither of have a clue about facing a 90 mph bowler at the waca, left arm round. But I'm with the analysts on this one.

In just about every ball ever he gets runs for that shot and the only analysis is the bowler has ballsed up sending a loose one down the leg side. And even if the ball does do something dramatic off the pitch you're probably seeing the ball miss the stumps. I get the point the analysts are making, but to me that's after the fact, and if you get a delivery missing leg stump you're fully entitled to play square on the leg side.

I accept Starc can move the ball a bit, but I'd want to see more swing/seam action more often before I'd think it a mistake not to play much straighter. Actually what I'd want to see from the analysts is every other ball missing leg stump by such a margin and what shots were played, 'cause I can't believe in those other shots they'd have been contending the batter should've played straighter, indeed I bet even Boycott played such deliveries in such fashion

...except he wasn't playing it square, he was shaping through mid-on. I just think, as do the analysts, that he could have given himself a better chance by setting up on middle stump, and playing straighter as a first thought.

No doubt you will continue to argue, so I'll just disagree and move on. Fckin good ball, even if you contend it was a fluke.

I don't think it's a fluke, it's not though a natural variation and it is the ball hitting a crack, and bowlers earn the odd ball that does that. I just don't think you can react too much to that as a batter. I remember a Mark Waugh dismissal Vs Angus Fraser a few years back when Gus had one that reared up off a length and cut back, it's going to happen every now and then, and some % of those balls are going to go on to hit the stumps or take an edge

(I didn't mean square btw, only more square than back down the V)

[Banquo]

In just about every ball ever he gets runs for that shot and the only analysis is the bowler has ballsed up sending a loose one down the leg side. And even if the ball does do something dramatic off the pitch you're probably seeing the ball miss the stumps. I get the point the analysts are making, but to me that's after the fact, and if you get a delivery missing leg stump you're fully entitled to play square on the leg side.

I accept Starc can move the ball a bit, but I'd want to see more swing/seam action more often before I'd think it a mistake not to play much straighter. Actually what I'd want to see from the analysts is every other ball missing leg stump by such a margin and what shots were played, 'cause I can't believe in those other shots they'd have been contending the batter should've played straighter, indeed I bet even Boycott played such deliveries in such fashion

...except he wasn't playing it square, he was shaping through mid-on. I just think, as do the analysts, that he could have given himself a better chance by setting up on middle stump, and playing straighter as a first thought.

No doubt you will continue to argue, so I'll just disagree and move on. Fckin good ball, even if you contend it was a fluke.

I don't think it's a fluke, it's not though a natural variation and it is the ball hitting a crack, and bowlers earn the odd ball that does that. I just don't think you can react too much to that as a batter. I remember a Mark Waugh dismissal Vs Angus Fraser a few years back when Gus had one that reared up off a length and cut back, it's going to happen every now and then, and some % of those balls are going to go on to hit the stumps or take an edge

(I didn't mean square btw, only more square than back down the V)

I don't think it was just hitting a crack, he ripped his fingers to bowl a cutter, but got better grip than he imagined. I agree, and have continuously said, the movement he got could not have been reasonably covered, but in my final attempt, it was a ball he tries to bowl, and Vince was not aware of this seemingly. The angle he was bowling from meant the V was shifted to the left as you look at it, and if he had been guarding on middle stump, the glide down to fine leg or even square would have still been on, had the ball not straightened.
Moving on.

[Digby]

I don't think it was just hitting a crack, he ripped his fingers to bowl a cutter, but got better grip than he imagined. I agree, and have continuously said, the movement he got could not have been reasonably covered, but in my final attempt, it was a ball he tries to bowl, and Vince was not aware of this seemingly. The angle he was bowling from meant the V was shifted to the left as you look at it, and if he had been guarding on middle stump, the glide down to fine leg or even square would have still been on, had the ball not straightened.
Moving on.

The ball must have hit something, you can't possibly get movement like that at such pace off the flat.

[Banquo]

I don't think it was just hitting a crack, he ripped his fingers to bowl a cutter, but got better grip than he imagined. I agree, and have continuously said, the movement he got could not have been reasonably covered, but in my final attempt, it was a ball he tries to bowl, and Vince was not aware of this seemingly. The angle he was bowling from meant the V was shifted to the left as you look at it, and if he had been guarding on middle stump, the glide down to fine leg or even square would have still been on, had the ball not straightened.
Moving on.

The ball must have hit something, you can't possibly get movement like that at such pace off the flat.

Hit the pitch ?:) I said not JUST hitting a crack. There was action on it too.

[WaspInWales]

Come on rain, it's your time to shine...erm, well perhaps not shine, but more piss down relentlessly and refuse to dry under the pressure of Aussie leaf blowers.

Aww I miss blowers.

Anyway, I digress...I honestly don't care if we can scrape a result thanks to the conditions, but that would surely be it in terms of get out of jail cards.

We need to sort our shit out and fast.

[Galfon]

fast it is...not long now.

[Mellsblue]

Ffs

[Mellsblue]

Ffs

[WaspInWales]

Useless.

I have more faith in our football team being able to win matches than this shower of shit.

That has to be scathing.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Banquo]

That's an effin disgrace; losing 3 hours of play gave us a great chance of saving the game. Frankly, of the senior players, only Anderson has put his hand up.

Vaughan saying 'its a young team', and the future is bright with the likes of Vince, Stoneman, Malan, and Overton.......is simply laughable.

Grim stuff; an embarrassing three months really. Mentally lacking, and lacking quality as well. 5-0 for sure.

[Mellsblue]

The knives will now sharpen. Broad and Cook will be at the front of the queue.

[fivepointer]

Shades of India - and the last Ashes trip - all over again.

There is an alarming lack of resilience and character about our cricket at times resulting in spectacularly heavy defeats.