Australian Cricket Season 2018-2019

[CaptJCool]

 

[casanovawa]

Another bullshit batting collapse from these bunch of second raters... Meeting the PM would have been a bigger highlight than any of these try hards we are saddled with...

 

[cosi]

 

[rock86]

Another bullshit batting collapse from these bunch of second raters... Meeting the PM would have been a bigger highlight than any of these try hards we are saddled with...

That is what happens when selectors don't pick the best options and go on 'the good bloke method'.

 

[rock86]

Channel 7 commentators tow the company line just like their predecessors at Channel 9.

In no way has Khawaja set the world amd fire amd deserves some critiscm, but he was the only batsmen who stood up in UAE and as such still has a littl goodwill.

SMarsh however has now averaged something like 9 in his past 10 test matches.

Yet the commentators are harsher on UK, saying SMarsn had looked good and have him pencilled in for England. What are they smoking!!

 

[Pushka]

That is what happens when selectors don't pick the best options and go on 'the good bloke method'.

Yes but if they pick Warner then we know that’s all an excuse. For not picking someone they just don’t want but don’t have the guts to say it.

 

[casanovawa]

Well something needs to be done at some point because Australian cricket is looking pretty average at the moment, whether that's at school, grade cricket, state or national level... Its hard to figure out how so many highly paid administrators and players can have the sport end up in such a hole...

Or can we petition to bring back some of the 40-50 year old champs we had a decade or two ago??

 

[QF WP]

Damn, missed the whole days play because I was doing a planning meeting with the President of the kids AFL club.

The only two batsmen that can holds up their heads are Harris (in his third Test) and Labuschagne (in his second Test).

Handscomb and coughmins look they are grinding.

Have to go and have a look at the dismissals.

 

[rock86]

Yes but if they pick Warner then we know that’s all an excuse. For not picking someone they just don’t want but don’t have the guts to say it.

I'm talking solely for this series, the 3 banned players is a different discussion.

Like in Gideon Haighs article, he called BS on Langers comment and suggested that if you don't have a secret knock on the 'door', then you're somehow judged on completely different criteria then those who've been given a continual free pass through the door without even knocking and are constantly rewarded for poor performances.

 

[rock86]

Here is that article by Gideon Haigh I was talking about, spot on.

Australian cricket has a new obsession. “The line” has been replaced by “the door”, on which selectors have for some time been bemoaning the absence of insistent pounding.

“Try being a selector at the moment,” coach Justin Langer complained after the Boxing Day Test’s contribution to the #nationalbattingcrisis.

“We’ve got to be careful not to reward poor performances but … it’s not as if the guys are absolutely banging the door down. Most of our batters knocking on the door are averaging in the 30s (in the Sheffield Shield).”

Langer is an appealingly frank sort of fellow, and probably unused as yet to having his every word parsed.

Yet this hardly stood up to scrutiny. For a start, there is no “door” of first-class cricket for anyone even to scrabble at at the moment; there is the five-bar gate of the Big Bash League, on which is being scribbled graffiti such as “Darcy Short 4 Me” and “I Heart Marcus Stoinis”.

Also, as my colleague Peter Lalor noted yesterday, Langer’s remarks lack empirical support.

Since moving back to Tasmania after losing his Test spot, for example, Matthew Wade has made 1225 runs at 51. Maybe that’s not banging from the golden age of doors, but it deserves respect.

Over the same period Queensland’s Joe Burns has ground out 1197 runs at 52, Victoria’s Glenn Maxwell 833 at 49, NSW’s Daniel Hughes 1123 at 43.2 and Kurtis Patterson 1110 at 40.7.

Again, not perhaps comparable to those imagined glory days when every batsman in the Shield averaged 50 and every bowler 15, but still solid performances sustained over extended periods despite being compromised, as is the modern way, with ceaseless interruption.

After all, it’s hardly possible to talk about a “first-class season” in Australia since the Shield was cleft in twain by the BBL.

Historically a huge advantage of home countries staging Test matches has been their wider pool of active talent available for selection. A touring team in practice has only its own ranks to draw on; a host has in theory the whole of its first-class competition as a field of candidates.

We decided we were so good seven years ago that we could safely forfeit this edge. Now we’re stuck discussing piecemeal remedies such as more second XI games and shadow squads, or musing sagaciously about “rapid format changes” as though this is somehow a skill rather than simply a necessity.

Under these circumstances, the selectors deserve a measure of sympathy, as they are frequently relying on form with a time decay element. Yet they do not help their own cause by their seeming lurchings from one theory to the next. Just what are the criteria for Australian selection at present? Character? Cover drives? Heredity? Horses-for-courses? Mentions in Ponting’s commentary or on Warnie’s Twitter?

One inference that can be drawn from Langer’s remarks is that the door has a secret knock which you need to know. For the problem appears to be not that nobody is making runs, but that it’s not the people the selectors want.

Wade is 31, Maxwell is 30, Burns is 29. They’ve been tried; they’ve, apparently, been found wanting. There’s already a specialist batsman in the Australian team, Shaun Marsh, with an average less than his age. The selectors seem to dream of a wunderkind, who would not only alleviate the pressures on the Australian team but also vindicate the cricket system — a new Ponting, a tyro Gilchrist, a kid Clarke.

One suspects that these are the “batters knocking on the door” to which Langer refers. Unfortunately this generation are actually not averaging 30 this season; they’re averaging 20.

That’s your Hilton Cartwright, Jake Weatherald, Sam Heazlett, Josh Philippe, Ben McDermott, Jason Sangha, Jack Edwards et al, into whom years of coaching and managerial resources have been ploughed, and for whom enormous futures have been prophesied, almost mandated.

Cricket Australia’s high-performance empire has hardly had a better day than in early November when teenagers Sangha and Edwards put on 180 for the sixth NSW wicket against Tasmania. But that memorable occasion aside, the pair have 286 first-class runs at 17.9 to show for this season.

For his club Manly-Warringah, meanwhile, tall right-hander Edwards has actually never made a century, from fifths to firsts; at first-grade level he has just two fifties.

Strip these from his first-grade record, in fact, and it contracts to 121 runs at 8.64. Yet in some eyes, Edwards will be closer to Australian selection than Wade, Maxwell and Burns.

It’s unkind to single Edwards out: he’s hardly picked himself. He may yet succeed; one hopes he does. But so far he’s been offered opportunities well in advance of his performances. What door has he banged on? Or has he simply tapped politely on an open one?

Anecdotally, too, there’s quite a bit of this going on, since the advent of a pathways system that encourages subjective analysis and rather deprecates mere performance. If you’ve an idle few hours, drill down into MyCricket and check out some pathways cricket averages. Some kids sure seem to get a great run. Just sayin’ …

So perhaps there’s fewer issues with the banging than with the doors themselves, traditional measures of merit having been so thoroughly subverted — often with good intentions, it needs be said, but subverted just the same. To this has lately been added an additional layer, post-Cape Town. The search for “good people as well as good cricketers” is laudable; but what if those the search overlooks end up being regarded as in some ways personally deficient and those who benefit court scorn for being part of the in-crowd?

This is actually unfair to both groups. Perception can be hard to shift; it can even be self-reinforcing, and damaging of the culture it seeks to build. Because doors bear heavily on the rooms into which they open.

 

[Pushka]

I'm talking solely for this series, the 3 banned players is a different discussion.

Like in Gideon Haighs article, he called BS on Langers comment and suggested that if you don't have a secret knock on the 'door', then you're somehow judged on completely different criteria then those who've been given a continual free pass through the door without even knocking and are constantly rewarded for poor performances.

Not at all. We are in this situation largely because of absence of two of them, an inexperienced although more mature captain, and the gaping loss of confidence.

 

[casanovawa]

Warner was sometimes a bit of a knobhead who played stupid rash shots at inopportune times.... But at least he put some decent innings together...

Yes Steve Smith should come right back in asap and can he get off whatever advert I see on tv where he's coughping on like he's giving an interview to Oprah Winfrey... Enough of the remorse and the rest of the nonsense... If those saffers were dissing my wife i probably would have smacked one straight in the mouth rather than this sand paper BS but few countries have completely clean records in ball tampering/match fixing... The stupid amateurish way it was done in a foreign country with 20 cameras on every player was the most ridiculous part of it all...

But enough of the mea culpa tripe and just get on with it....

 

[rock86]

Not at all. We are in this situation largely because of absence of two of them, an inexperienced although more mature captain, and the gaping loss of confidence.

Sorry I completely misread your original reply and I agree with it.

 

[rock86]

And now Geoff Lawson is on the action, it would seem the general punters are not only upset, but the state associations as well.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sp...tter-options-on-sideline-20190105-p50pq8.html

Coach and selectors have questions to answer with better options on sideline

Tim Paine’s brow furrowed and his heart sank when Virat Kohli called correctly on Wednesday morning. I was taught by the doyen of Australian coaching, Greg Shipperd, that you should not assign emotion to the result of the coin toss.

The object is inanimate, the probability of either result is 50:50 and, after all, someone has to bat first. India did. Paine’s emotion was palpable and it was not joy.

Aaron Finch and Marnus Labuschagne were taken to India for some "A" games. Finch primarily for the 50-over matches rather than the longer form. Labuschagne made 0, 0, 60 and 37 and bowled seven overs in two four-day games and didn’t take a wicket.

On such credentials you get to play Test cricket against Pakistan in the UAE where he made 81 runs at an average of 20.25 and then he is recalled for the SCG Test as the second spinner. He replaced Matthew Renshaw against Pakistan, who was left out of the Test side for reasons undisclosed by the coach.

Finch, who doesn’t open for his state was given the Test debut and made one half-century in the first innings on a flat wicket and was retained until the Sydney Test, thus stopping the progression of Joe Burns or Dan Hughes or Kurtis Patterson (who was adjudged the best batsman in the four-day games in India) or Alex Doolan or Nick Larkin.

And that’s just the top three.

There is a world of difference between top-order, red-ball batting and top-order, white-ball cricket. Finch is very good against the white ball and has a poor record in the longer forms.

Why was he given the spot? Why did he retain his spot when it was clear he lacked the technique and temperament?

The selectors are paid handsomely for their expertise and, like players, when they make blunders they need to be accountable. Yet, at the moment, it is Paine who has to front the media and explain performances and justify bizarre selections.

Justin Langer needs to realise that he is not now running his personal empire in a small pond. His primary job is as the batting advisor – the area in which he built a reputation as a player. Psycho babble and "they’re all good blokes" has become as ineffective as it has become self-delusional.

He is accountable for the results of the national team, especially as he is a selector. Instead of objective assessments of performances based on runs made, we now have fake news. The ruckus earlier this week about "no one averaging above 30" is a symptom of the delusion. Maybe it’s time we went back to the tried and tested formula of coach and selectors being separate.

There is a serious groundswell of discontent around the states with the selectors and the coach’s actions.

During Langer's domestic reign, the Warriors failed to win a first-class title, even though they had a serious home-ground advantage and were benefited by the introduction of bonus points on the quickest outfield in the nation.

The process of his ascension to the job of Australian coach needs to be re-examined. It should be noted that his appointment was made by the former Cricket Australia management in a time of panic. Due diligence was not their forte.

He was never challenged while he was at the Warriors about those lack of results and now he has charge of the national team. It is time he was challenged – along with national batting coach Graeme Hick.

Labuschagne is averaging 28 in Shield cricket this season, so he doesn’t even make the Langer benchmark of 30, yet he is now Australia’s first wicket down, once considered the spot where your best batsmen comes in – one who has technique to handle the new ball and footwork to handle the spinners.

Lengthy, productive experience used to be a prerequisite for this premier batting spot. There is no progression, no graduation of standard or performance, just subjective announcements often based on character rather than performance.

At least Usman Khawaja is in the correct position.

Yet, better-performed middle-order batsmen, such as Marcus Stoinis, who also bowls decent stuff; or Glenn Maxwell, a spinning all-rounder; or the best batsman in Australia at the moment, Matthew Wade (I’m only basing that on his 2018-19 performances of 571 runs at 63, more than double the Langer benchmark) are being treated subjectively.

They have earned a chance to prove they are able, rather than be gifted a chance.

Selections based on speculation, favouritism and crossed fingers have characterised Australian teams recently. State players are becoming disillusioned with the lack of clarity.

There are better options out there in first-class cricket. Yes, Steve Smith will be back, David Warner probably as well. Cameron Bancroft is back to square one, but with heavy run-making he too can be resurrected.

But right now there has not been one jot of progression in the Australian team batting since Langer took over and serious questions need to be asked – and answered.

 

[cjd600]

I'm happy to come in and bat at 4.
Or even 5, if they find someone better.

 

[JohnK]

Rain, rain, please stay....

 

[Pushka]

Rain, rain, please stay....

India still wins the series. They won’t care if it rains all week.

 

[Cossie]

Dean Jones had a good article in the SMH/Age on Friday as well.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricke...-of-australian-selection-20190103-p50pcp.html

I like Malcolm Knox's article as well, "Everyone gets a gold star".

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricke...ning-lots-by-playing-men-20190105-p50psc.html


....

 

[Cossie]

Pity there isn't a "mercy' rule" in cricket!

From the ABC website "the first time since 1988 that they have had to follow-on at home"

 

[love_the_life]

Pity there isn't a "mercy' rule" in cricket!

From the ABC website "the first time since 1988 that they have had to follow-on at home"

To put them out of their misery?