Because he can take wickets without it where as others need to new ball to help their wicket taking prospects. It’s a reasonably simple and common premise.
Not sure how many test 180s you have made but it was a great innings. The ball was doing something early and we lost 3 wickets down the other end - yet Burns toughed it out and cashed in later in the day. You can only score runs against what was served up and he delivered.
2 Likes
I thinks it’s a completely flawed premise. Give Cummins the new rock and he might blast through the top order. Then the middle to lower order are exposed a lot sooner. The other bowlers can then work their magic on them.
1 Like
sorry oh wise one.
Lel
That old chestnut…
So is “Great” a downgrade on “Awesome”? Keep going a few more steps and we’ll get there.
You asked the question, I told you why they do it.
Well we knew it was a flat wicket when Paine managed to get to 25.
1 Like
We scored at over 4 an over for basically the entirety of the 1st day. That tells you about some of the garbage the Lankan’s were bowling.
I’m happy for all our blokes that got runs, especially Head and Patterson who I think have the most to gain from it in confidence and belief, but you’ve gotta keep them in context. Belting ■■■■ Sri Lankan bowling on a flat wicket isn’t the same as facing Steyn, Rabada, Philander and Morkel on a pacey Newlands pitch in South Africa.
Do you go back to state sides instead of franchises for BBL under this plan?
2 Likes
Not sure how going from 1st Class to T20 every week is going to help our current batting woes either.
There’s no perfect solution to this problem though.
2 Likes
It was an awesome innings. Did you watch it? He batted brilliantly. As I said it’s a test 180 and they don’t happen very often no matter the pitch or the opppsition.
1 Like
Couldn’t care less.
1 Like
Yes I watched it. Nearly every ball. No I don’t think it was awesome. The fact that we had 4 century makers for the match when nobody had made one all summer should tell you how favourable the conditions and attack were for our batsmen.
Yet Burns was the only one who got through the hardest part of the match for batting. The other 3 in the top 4 were gone super early but he survived and prospered. The way he and Head batted was the reason the game truend out how it did. They sucked any momentum out of the Sri Lankan’s bowling attack.
As I said it was an awesome display of batting, especially as you point out how poorly we had batted in the previous 5 tests for the summer.
The logic that you completely discount runs if they’re made in easy batting conditions suggest you should also ignore failures in tough conditions.
3 Likes
I didn’t completely discount it at all. Not even once. I simply said some perspective is needed when considering the quality of the attack it was against and the conditions it was in.
I reckon the ball moved more in the first session in Canberra then it did for the entire summer.
2 Likes
Same.
2 Likes
It swung for about the 1st 10-15 overs then went pretty straight and they bowled short garbage. The pitch was consistently paced and came nicely onto the bat.
You can see here from Burns’ wagon wheel how much short tripe they fed him.
- Painey
- Patty