Cricket Part II

I respected Mark’s bowling too tbh, he bowled 2 disciplines, not many in world cricket have done that.

Not particularly good spin and not particularly good medium pace?

(Warning: I may be a little farked up after an evening including the ladyboy cabaret show in Chiang Mai. But I’m still right, in this case.)

2 Likes

The early signs look good for Pat.

But: Cricket history is littered with bowlers who come on to the scene and look good with the bat only to have their weaknesses discovered and then tail off. Time will tell. Too early to pin any faith on him with the bat imo.

Why? We are pinning faith on the batting skills of Mitch ■■■■■■■ Marsh

4 Likes

I hate this thinking so, so, so much. Leaving aside the fact the wind is often only a factor for one session, you should pick a side to win - not to limit the damage when you’re losing.

2 Likes

Can we stop with this?
Can absolutely,categorically tell you they lose money on day 5, and often on day 4 and 3 (depending how long they play).
Source: mate is in traffic for C9…

He is a bowling all-rounder who wants to be a bat.

I’d probably agree with you if we didn’t have three fast-bowlers who have all had recent injuries and two of them you could label as injury/prone.

I did say at the beginning of the post that I was guessing- just throwing out a few theories as to why the Shield games may have livelier wickets. This was one of five theories.

Makes sense what you are saying. The fifth day is most likely going to ba on a weekday and we very rarely get an exciting and anticipated climax on a fifth day like we did in the last Test. A lot of people tune out if it’s going nowhere. But, those boring draws are pretty rare these days.

I was under the impression that the media were most insistent that test matches go the 5 days due to the cost spent to host the rights?

Yeah, internet rights would have changed the landscape, too. I can imagine a lot of people logging in at work, or wherever, if things are happening. I’d be interested to see the traffic they got last Tuesday when play began.

Look at the great West Indies teams from 1975 to about 1987. They flourished on four “fast” bowlers (one was always a medium pacer) and an off spinner. They weren’t perpetually trying to cut back their bowling stocks to four players.

Admittedly, the selectors have the problem that their preferred spinning option, Nice Gary, can’t bat at all, but if they want a bowling all-rounder, they’ve got Cummins (until he gets injured again).

If they want a batting all-rounder, what’s wrong with giving Captain Sniff a boot up the erse ?
He’s not a bad leggie, and he could be a damned good one if he practised his bowling, instead of indulging his obsession with becoming the world’s No.1 batsman, in spite of his bizarre technique. His batting technique depends on a sharp eye and fast reflexes: as soon as they flag, his technical flaws will cause him problems. It’s high time someone suggested that he work on becoming the new Richie Benaud — in other words a Captain of Australia and middle order batsman who bowls classy legspin as well.

Mediocrity, thy name is Mitchell. Anything to save us from that.

3 Likes

Shaun Marsh and Warner have missed a handful each recently - so I guess we should be picking 7 full time bats just in case either or both break down?

Which one of Walsh, Marshall, Garner, patrick Patterson and Holding would you call medium pace to their face?
they famously did pick sides with 4 full time quicks. Viv Richards was the fifth, part time, bowler, until Carl Hooper came along in the late 80s - slightly less of a part timer.

Their spinners in the 70s were household names Roger Harper and Clyde Butts.

1 Like

I thought Harper was later.
Also, Roberts says hi.

1 Like

83-86 in Tests, lasted to the 90s in one dayers and FC.

They didn’t pick a spinner very much in the 70s, so it’s hard to name one.
Harper was really their only spinner between Gibbs (ret 76) and semi serious part timer Carl Hooper (started 87) - which made the “75-87” time span an odd choice. Who were you thinking of, @percebushby ?

Larry Gomes did some (very) occasional tweaking during that timeframe.

I wouldn’t mind Marsh in the team batting @ 7 if we had a keeper who’s batting was strong enough to bat @ 6, but we don’t and having him there weakens our batting depth for what, fill in for less than 10 overs an innings???

I’m not sure you can make that comparison. You lose a batsman mid-game you can cover him with the six others (I’m including the ‘keeper) but lose a bowler when you have only 4 and you’re pretty much screwed. Besides, it’s not just about the match, it’s also about the series and keeping our best asset - the bowlers - as fresh as possible and on the park. You just can’t compare the rigours of fast-bowling for long periods with batting.

I’m going to say Malcolm Marshall’s 143km/h inswingers and outswingers were medium pace???

I certainly don’t recall a spinner in the late 70s and early 80s for them. They always had a shocking time of getting their 90 overs in a day, luckily for them trams wouldn’t last the whole day facing them.

Carl Hooper was a decent spinner for them when he could be bothered bowling, was very handy.