Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

sussexpob wrote:Aim to bat another half hour, take the lead to 500, declare and give yourself 4.5 sessions.....

3 Sessions more than Pakistan will need

Another good opening partnership 64-0 from 20 overs

OZ get to tea, 0 wickets down, good start!

Target 462...seems unrealistic.

These third innings, where the follow on is not enforced, are incredibly boring. I can't help feeling that if Tests were cut from five days to four, it would force captains to be bolder in enforcing follow-ons.

82-0, nothing in it for the quicks, these two playing the spinners well, however it stafrted this way in the first innings...

OZ collapsed from 87-0 to 87-3

The same old story. Finch and Khawaja get Australia off to a start and then the middle order collapse. Finch went for 49 but the Marsh brothers made nothing. Abbas doing the damage.

Not sure its an same old story mike. Same story yes, but maybe different characters.

Any lingering doubts about the Marsh brothers might have been answered.

One positive from this debacle, Khawaja seems to playing well.

Old is probably the wrong word to use. Same story as the first innings.

Head is making runs this time around though.

Khawaja gets his half century!

Fair play to these 2, thought Australia would fold after those quick 3 wickets. Lets be honest, M Marsh is not a test number 4. Injuries, cheaters and taking to many spin bowlers has meant that Australia had little choice in the matter.

Will be great to see these 2 bat on tomorrow, but i think it will be over by lunch. 5th day of the test, Australia still have 7 wickets left, at the start of this match i would have thought that was a good result.

Good fightback from Head and Khawaja, Khawaja has played really well given his repuation of playing spin....Pakistan didn't get it all their way in that last session

yuppie wrote:Fair play to these 2, thought Australia would fold after those quick 3 wickets. Lets be honest, M Marsh is not a test number 4. Injuries, cheaters and taking to many spin bowlers has meant that Australia had little choice in the matter

I dont know, I think Australia had some choices, and to be frank, I think they made two very bizarre ones. Peter Handscomb might not be the next Tendulkar, and some questions remain on his technique, but quite how Australia can not even pick a guy averaging comfortably over 40 in a decent sample size, is beyond me. He should walk into this team. I also dont see the sense in Renshaw not being there, ok he didnt set the world on fire, but he did ok.... and he's what, 21? He will improve, surely if you have young batters who havent been outclassed in tests, and a team like this, you have to give the guy time ? Hes better than Mitch Marsh on test records, and thats before we factor in the age/improvement potential. Renshaw top scored in the Shield last year too, he had to be there.

I did see some muttering that Renshaw wasnt there because he didnt do brilliantly in the Indian A game recently..... then again, Labuschange played in the A team game, and copped a pair. I think that gives him 3 innings in Asia, all ducks. Telling me Handscomb is that bad? Crazy.

Joe Burns scored a few runs last year too, Id be more inclined to play him over either Marsh. Id play Maxwell over Marsh x 2. Id pretty much play anyone..... has Mitch done literally anything in a live series? Scored two dead rubber hundreds v England on what even his captain said was the worst road he'd ever seen (the exact quote was it would have been a draw even with 10 days playing)....

Like England, Australia seem to be in this idea that they'd rather trawl through the scraps looking for a gold bar, then to accept decent players who maybe arent the next world beaters.

Renshaws in the squad and would have played the first test if not for the concussion he received. He will play the second test.

But i agree with Handscomb and Burns. Australian selection in this series has been to get as many spinners and all rounders into the squad. It is crazy and has been shown to be in the selection of players in this test.

I think the selectors think that Handscomb has been found out. He has some issues with his technique, but they mostly seem to be against the short ball or fast bowling tight in to the body rather than spin. He could have been useful in SL.

That said, he may be averaging over 40, but it's a small sample size based on only 13 tests, and as with a few Australian middle-order batsmen recently, that's largely on the basis of filling his boots in one home series. And in that series, the decks were flat, and he was coming in at 5 after the top 3 had pummelled the Pakistan bowlers, so he had tired attacks to score freely off, plus Australia didn't enforce follow ons allowing him a couple of second innings not-outs to boost his average.

I'm not a fan of the 'well take out a player's good innings, and he's not very good' argument, but I think it applies here - when there's such a disparity between performance in one series and every other series he's played, and the one series massively boosts his average and (as test cricket goes) wasn't particularly difficult to score runs in, you have to ask the question. His overseas record, and his record against decent bowling attacks, is pretty crap, frankly.

I'm not saying he may not be a better alternative than the current line-up, but there are legitimate questions there IMO. An average of 40+ is only part of the story.

I'm not a fan of the 'well take out a player's good innings, and he's not very good' argument, but I think it applies here - when there's such a disparity between performance in one series and every other series he's played, and the one series massively boosts his average and (as test cricket goes) wasn't particularly difficult to score runs in, you have to ask the question. His overseas record, and his record against decent bowling attacks, is pretty crap, frankly.

If Handscomb was unique in your criticism, then you might have a point. But who else in this line up stands up to much of that barrage? The number 4 in this team averages under 30 in FC cricket. The newer guys have inferior FC records. You could make a solid point, other than Khawaja, that Handscomb is a better pick than anyone else in the squad. The fact the selectors didnt even take him on this tour, to me, is verging on catastrophic insanity.

Take away everything, all the stats... are you telling me Labuschange/Mitch/Shaun/Finch and Head are all in unison better players? I seriously doubt that.