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

Making_Splinters wrote:I don't see why this is a particularly perplexing point.

Throughout the Ashes we've seen both sides be very loose out side off stump. It is relatively understandable with an increasingly aggresive domestic game. Young players coming through the ranks will - by and large - be expected to be able to bat in T20 and 50 overs cricket if they are to secure a future in the game.

Yet this seems to acknowledge a problem, and ignore it.

Do you really think test teams will continually pick players who's technique is torn up by the best bowlers? Its seems implausible.If only inadequate players are scoring runs and failing to make the grade against test bowlers, then surely selectors move to players with the technique and inferior records?

Its a temporary hangover from a quick change in culture of the game.

sussexpob wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:I don't see why this is a particularly perplexing point.

Throughout the Ashes we've seen both sides be very loose out side off stump. It is relatively understandable with an increasingly aggresive domestic game. Young players coming through the ranks will - by and large - be expected to be able to bat in T20 and 50 overs cricket if they are to secure a future in the game.

Yet this seems to acknowledge a problem, and ignore it.

Do you really think test teams will continually pick players who's technique is torn up by the best bowlers? Its seems implausible.If only inadequate players are scoring runs and failing to make the grade against test bowlers, then surely selectors move to players with the technique and inferior records?

Its a temporary hangover from a quick change in culture of the game.

Interesting to suggest that players with inferior first class averages might have better techniques than those with superior averages.

It's not really anything to do technique per say, more to do with shot selection and patience.

Making_Splinters wrote:

sussexpob wrote:

Making_Splinters wrote:I don't see why this is a particularly perplexing point.

Throughout the Ashes we've seen both sides be very loose out side off stump. It is relatively understandable with an increasingly aggresive domestic game. Young players coming through the ranks will - by and large - be expected to be able to bat in T20 and 50 overs cricket if they are to secure a future in the game.

Yet this seems to acknowledge a problem, and ignore it.

Do you really think test teams will continually pick players who's technique is torn up by the best bowlers? Its seems implausible.If only inadequate players are scoring runs and failing to make the grade against test bowlers, then surely selectors move to players with the technique and inferior records?

Its a temporary hangover from a quick change in culture of the game.

Interesting to suggest that players with inferior first class averages might have better techniques than those with superior averages.

It's not really anything to do technique per say, more to do with shot selection and patience.

couldn't agree more

we have seen lots of successful players that have less than perfect techniques , what they do have is that patience, discipline and application to find a way to score runs despite the technical faults they do have

Nice work, Sussex, a thorough and thought provoking overview of the series and the state of the game in general. I too share the concern about the future of Test cricket, and this current series has far from been a satisfactory example of our great game. Repercussion wise, there will be changes in the Australian team, allowing the next generation to filter through. James Sutherland has promised a review (again), and Ian Chappell has called for an overhaul of the domestic system in Australia (sigh). Rod Marsh is under the spotlight, with suggestions that Mark Waugh should be elevated to the position of chief selector.

I guess the casualties that do occur during Ashes contests is indicative to how important this contest is to both teams. It's always a bit sad when a warrior falls for the last time in these battles, but unfortunately there can only be one winner, and England have really done themselves proud in a series they were expected to lose. For Michael Clarke, it's a great shame that his Test career will end in defeat, and given what has transpired over the past 12 months, I'm sure he's looking forward to some off.

It is true that the Australians arrived in the UK with high expectations, and that perhaps they were expecting things to happen by magic. The first Test may have been written off as a bad game, especially after the performance at Lord's, but the next 2 Tests are arguably our worst back-to-back performances ever, and really, there's no excuse for it.

The Adam Voges selection has been the topic of much discussion in the light of this defeat. I wasn't surprised that he was selected, although disappointed that Joe Burns wasn't. The Voges selection was with the Ashes in mind, otherwise he might not have been selected at all. The punt didn't pay off, it was worth a shot, but no cigar. I don't see this as a slight on the talent coming through the system, rather the selectors wanted someone in form, and someone with extensive experience playing in England. I do see Voges being dropped after this series however, for a much younger player.

The dropping of Brad Haddin has also caused a stir. For me, it must have been a tough call, but the fact is that Haddin has slowed down and Peter Nevill was a better option. Too much has been made about this, IMHO. Sure, the players support each other, but the reality of cricket is that you have to pick the team that gives you the best chance of winning, and unfortunately for Brad Haddin, he was no longer the first choice.

Darren Lehmann is coping some heat too, and perhaps deservedly so. The lacksadaisical approach to this tour has been worrying, especially with the WAG's in tow, effectively turning the tour into a travelling circus. There's been too much twittering and other such distractions and not enough focus, and that's Lehmann's fault. As for the defeat itself, let me put it this way; in Australian Rules Football, when a team loses by over 100 points, it's sack the coach time. In Test cricket, being bowled out in 18.3 with the Ashes on the line, it should be sack the entire coaching staff, the players, the selectors, and the pilot of the plane who flew the team over to England! Lehmann will keep his job, however, for now, although he won't won't to lose in Bangladesh. I'd love to see Mike Hussey involved in coaching, which I'm sure will happen at some point.

Going forward, I reckon Australia have some very exciting prospects in domestic ranks awaiting their chance on the international stage. With some forced changes on the horizon, we might see some of these players blossom into superstars... or not. With Steve Smith at the helm, I'm pretty sure we'll see a competitive Australian side (on home soil at least).

For Michael Clarke, it's a great shame that his Test career will end in defeat, and given what has transpired over the past 12 months, I'm sure he's looking forward to some off.

Do you think Clarke's heart was in cricket after Hughesy passed? He played through it, but it has seemed since the Aussies left Australia for their last few tours, Clarke has discovered a higher plane of mental detachment from the game. Its strange, because in recent years Clarke was beginning to fit into the statesman role for Australian cricket, and was a credit to his nation for his handling of what arguably was the most difficult issue anyone in the history of the game has had to deal with. It just seems that the issue took away all of his remaining energy and passion for playing the game. In time people will remember the fact he was a fine batsman, a batter at the top of his game who put mega numbers on the board, and the man that had the balls to stand infront of the world and put a brave face on through his own personal hell.

The dropping of Brad Haddin has also caused a stir. For me, it must have been a tough call, but the fact is that Haddin has slowed down and Peter Nevill was a better option. Too much has been made about this, IMHO. Sure, the players support each other, but the reality of cricket is that you have to pick the team that gives you the best chance of winning, and unfortunately for Brad Haddin, he was no longer the first choice.

I agree, but why did they bring Haddin if their unshakable faith in him evaporated after one test. Same with Watson. Both had hung around way too long imo, it just seems crazy that Australia didnt farm these two off 1-2 years ago and had come to England with 2 or 3 set young batsman. For the record, for all of Nevill's poor leaving and far from perfect tecnhique, he did at least try to occupy the crease in the middle of the carnage. Get him some good coaching and he might be a good player.

I'd love to see Mike Hussey involved in coaching

Surely there is a mountain of fantastic ex-players that Australia can call on if they want to do it. Id like to see more of those get involved.

I think with Clarke, it was the injury he sustained in the off season last year that was the beginning of the end. The writing was on the wall as far as his body was concerned, and his drop in form reflected that. If anything, the Phil Hughes tragedy possibly gave Clarke that little bit of motivation he needed to make it to the World Cup, which he won. After that, there was really nothing left in the game for Clarke to achieve. I guess once you've scaled every mountain, keeping the same levels of motivation must be hard, especially when the body breaks down as much as Clarke's did. One last tilt in an away Ashes series was always going to be Clarke's swansong. I guess now he'll knock around in the various T20 leagues for a little while, eventually moving into the channel nine commentary box.

With Haddin and Watson, honestly, both should have been tapped on the shoulder after the World Cup. Haddin's numbers (and his form behind the stumps) had been in decline for a little while. As for Watson, his numbers have never lived up to the potential he had early in his career. To an extent, I can't help but think that both were persevered with for as long as they were whilst the selectors mulled over who would actually replace them. Two years ago, Sam Whiteman was being looked at, but seemed to slip off the radar with an average domestic season. And Twatto's replacement, Mitchell Marsh has shown talent, but still seems a year or two away from being the finished article (yes, I know, I've been saying that for a few years). Oz cricket journalist Robert Craddock has gone so far as to call Mitch Marsh (and his brother Shaun) over rated. (I still have faith in him, although for now, I'd like to see James Faulkner given a run as the all rounder.I guess in an Ashes year, the selectors favoured players with experience. As for dumping both so early on in the series, perhaps Twatto shouldn't have played in the first Test, especially given the form of Mitch Marsh going into that first Test. Twatto could have been used as back-up, As for Haddin, he looked done after his missed chance off Joe Root in the first Test, exactly the same way when Gilly dropped a catch in what turned turned out to be his last series.

from_the_stands wrote: After that, there was really nothing left in the game for Clarke to achieve. I guess once you've scaled every mountain, keeping the same levels of motivation must be hard, especially when the body breaks down as much as Clarke's did.

I dunno, Clarke has never won in England. I think he was pretty motivated to try and turn that one around. As it is, his otherwise pretty glittering career will have a major blot on in when histroy looks back on him: four away Ashes losses, five in total. I think I recall reading that that is one of the worst Ashes career records of any Australian player - I don't think there are many if any others who have lost four times in England, given that the last run of four England home wins in a row was in the 1890s.

Michael clarke has lost the most number of Test in England.

Looks like equal most, in England, with Jack Blackham, in the nineteenth century.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

But, home and away quite a distance behind Syd Gregory, at the turn of the twentieth century. Clarke is one ahead of Border and Rod Marsh, of modern players.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine ... pe=batting

Bradman even averages a lot more than everyone else in defeats!

that not including the loss to pakistan in England.

Ah. I usually remember that series, but was just thinking Ashes.

Chris Rogers confirms it will be his last Test match.

braveneutral wrote:Chris Rogers confirms it will be his last Test match.

Surprises me, he has that spot nailed down and hasnt played much test cricket. At this rate, he could go till the next Ashes summer if his form stays the way it is. Would have thought he would at least stick around another year or two.

Aaron Finch on twitter about Rogers;

Congrats Chris Rogers on your retirement. Brilliant bloke who has given hope to every red haired nerd in Australia!