On my way out(-worma)
I got hold of this mini report card of the World XI players from down under. Do go have a look. Its not complete in all sense...a bit extra harsh on the Pak players when you compare their poor performance with that of some SA players, and no mention of Sehwag...still gives a good idea.
What it does confirm, though, is what many of us had read, thought and discussed....that there was nothing at stake...and with no accountability...its really difficult to get 100% out of each of them.
Oh...and btw...what's with the Aus selectors...how can they think of dropping McGill now? Sure its been done in the past, but then they had excellent pace replacements. So, despite dropping him, they could still abide by the 'pick the best bowlers' policy. But what now?
What it does confirm, though, is what many of us had read, thought and discussed....that there was nothing at stake...and with no accountability...its really difficult to get 100% out of each of them.
Oh...and btw...what's with the Aus selectors...how can they think of dropping McGill now? Sure its been done in the past, but then they had excellent pace replacements. So, despite dropping him, they could still abide by the 'pick the best bowlers' policy. But what now?
posted by worma at
5:10 PM
18 Comments:
more than being out of form i do think ppl like inzy lara kallis etal were simply out of touch - they hadnt played competitive cricket for over 4-5 months. it is very difficult to come out straight into the pressure arena and start performing
By
Gaurav, at 23:07
I think people are being a bit too harsh on the World XI. The fact is that after the first day, Wickets fell on both sides. But much as I like the concept to begin with, I now have my doubts about the same.
The Aussies finally got their bowling selection right going with five bowlers (something I have been saying all along was the reason they lost the Ashes).
But once again, they have show over reliance on Hayden, Gilchrist and Warne who won't be around for too long...
By
Saurabh Wahi, at 03:44
saurabh: Yes ofcourse the Aussies also lost wickets cheaply in second innings....but I think this is how most test matches go..dont they? had Aus scored 50 more runs in their second innings, it would have been a perfect match for them.
While the WXI never really got into the game..except that small phase of Murali Flintoff bowling in tandem.
I think the criticism, esp in this report, is more about the approach and attitude of WXI stars...which showed that they didnt care enough for the concept(atleast not all of them)
Btw, did Aus playing 5 bowlers help them at all? Didn't Warne come in to bowl the 3rd over of the second innings? Wouldnt Sehwag(the only good score for WXI) have found it difficult to score in the first innings had he been made to play Warne/McGill earlier in his innings?
Yes Aus rely on Hayden, Gilchrist(and Ponting) too much. Which is why I think it was a mistake to throw out Martyn..if that means end of his test career. He was becoming their 4th repliable batsman(since last season). Clarke is not there yet. Katich, I think, may never get there(?)
And now, with Buchanan also being retained...it seems all the more cruel that the only casualty of the Ashes loss was Martyn's test career! (Gilleslie, Kasper not being counted...since they never managed to retain their place towards the end)
By
worma, at 04:18
Raag...the concept was fine...the execution was flawed.Why blame Sunny for that.Not sure what commercial interests he had in this??
And Santanu De is right. Why 100 runs...try scoring a fluent 20 in club cricket and one will tend to appreciate the acheivements of all these people who we criticize, sitting in the nice atmosphere of our air conditioned offices / homes
By
RR, at 05:26
Worma,
I think the Aussies will err in not bringing back Martyn. As you mentioned, Clarke's batting seems to be going in reverse. He now averages 38 in Tests (30 in the last 15 tests). And Katich looks out of sorts at this level. Wonder why they don't try Hussey in Tests.
As for how having 5 bowlers helped the Aussies?
It's simple; McGill would not have been in the team without Watson. I don't think the Aussies would go with two spinners in a Four-bowler attack.
It's all about having options, and Watson gave them exactly that.
By
Saurabh Wahi, at 06:21
Flintoff is not a great bowler as he is made out to be. He pales in comparison with Harmison and Hoggard. Remember how SG tore into him in the Natwest final.Flintoff did not know what hit him then.He may have improved since then,but so have the batsmen who face him
By
RR, at 07:08
rajesh, donno where you coming from regarding Flintoff, especially in Tests?
He took 7 wickets on a pitch that was suited for Spinners!!!
Agreed Gilchrist went after him, but when he is on song, he will slay anyone...
By
Saurabh Wahi, at 07:59
Ravi010, you may have a point about Flintoff when it comes to ODI's but in Tests I don't agree with you....
By
Saurabh Wahi, at 08:01
Saurabh..about the earlier point...Aus using Watson to get McGill in...I have read that opinion(in fact its there in the link in the main post)..and yes its true to some extent. But I am yet to see the 'value' that Watson brings in the team? Ofcourse he needs to be tried further....but then one day Aus might again face the reality when McG or Warne pulls out of a crucial game and Watson is exposed. Even now they can anyday miss the extra batsman they 'loose' in playing Watson rather than the bowler they 'gain' with him. Dunno if I made it sound too confusing :-)
I would think Aus is probably making too much of an effort to sqeeze allrounder life out of Watson...instead of letting him grow into that role well enough in ODIs as a permanent member.
Btw, as i said on the main post, even if Aus revert to a specialist batsman in place of Watson...I would expect them to play McGill...atleast in the more crucial games...where they can afford to 'groom' a newcomer bowler like Tait or Clarke etc
By
worma, at 08:22
oops...it should read "..where they can't afford to groom..." in the last sentence
By
worma, at 08:24
There goes one more talented cricketer...and Zimbabwe goes further down into the dumps
http://content-ind.cricinfo.com/zimbabwe/content/story/222445.html
By
RR, at 08:43
Worma,
You recon they will go with McGrath, Warne, Lee & McGill it Perth!!! Not on you life. But, I repeat, they might do it if they have an allrounder in their side.
Now is Watson that all-rounder? I don't know...
My point is (and has been) that you need 4 bowlers and a 'bowling allrounder' to win Test matches, unless you have 4 great bowlers like the West indies of the 80's and the Aussies till about a year ago.
Look at the fortunes of South Africa since Kallis has become a 'batting all rounder' and England since Flintoff has become a 'bowling all-rounder'.
By
Saurabh Wahi, at 08:49
saurabh...Aus has been winning throughout their domination period with 4 bowlers...and not all four being 'great'. For example...a combination of McG, Lee/Kasper, Warne, Gillespie....has been winning them matches...right?
Now how much is it different from McG, Warne, Lee, McGill? Ofcourse there are surfaces where Warne and McGill would be less than devastating(like there are surfaces where McG, Lee, Gillespie are not their best...as in India)...but still they persisted with their four best bowlers.
What I say is, if their four best bowlers means two spinners..then so be it. When a less-helpful surface did not stop them from playing 3 seamers...why should it stop them from playing 2 spinners?..esp for teams like WI and SA (their next two opponents)
Sure if you 'have' an allrounder definitely it gives an advantage. I am talking about a case when Aus dont have that allrounder yet. For example...if they decide in their 3rd test against WI that their batting is not firing on all cylinders...they need to play an extra specialist batsman instead of Watson....then who should the four bowlers be? I would still want McGill.
By
worma, at 09:09
ravi010, Zimbabwe can't go down any further.
Bad loss nevertheless...
By
Saurabh Wahi, at 09:12
McG, Lee/Kasper, Warne, Gillespie Vs McG, Warne, Lee, McGill.
The big difference is McGrath himself. He is not getting any younger or better, especially after the injuries this summer.
As for going for Warne/McGill + 2 seamers bowlers only, I am all for it if it works and the two seamers are on top of their game, which Lee and McGrath are not...
By
Saurabh Wahi, at 09:24
Sure McG is not getting any younger...but I'm talking what their strategy needs to be as of today...after all they need to win the matches now as well...and right now McG is fine.
About Lee not being on top of his game....firstly..hes much better than what he ever was as a test bowler(yes that doesnt mean hes great or even very good...just good) and secondly...my point earlier also was that Aus, whenever they went with 4 bowlers and succeeded, weren't really going in with 4 great bowlers....more often than not one(or two) of them were just effective as 'fourth bowlers'..nothing more. Lee can do that...if McGill is at the top of his game...as he seems to be.
Aus attack has always been 2 great bowlers...and 2 good/vgood depending on the form.....and it can be thus today as well. Thats my point in nutshell.
Another aspect I touched earlier...Aus may need that extra batsman they are missing by playing Watson....now more than they ever did. Two reasons for that....first that Hayden is probably changed(for ever? let's wait and see)..so the opponents have more chances of getting the top order cheaply as compared to earlier when by the time they 'arrived' in the game Aus was 200/1 or 200/2 with Hayden massacre at the top. And secondly...Gilchrist would bat like he always did(as he showed in Sydney) but he would probably not bail out Aus as often as he used to...that frequency would reduce...means more collapses for Aus lineup
By
worma, at 10:00
Well, another way to look at it is if your batsmen are not firing, make sure you have the bowling power to defend small totals.
Anyway, we can beat this argument to death...
By
Saurabh Wahi, at 10:11
..alas...having Watson may not even help them in this defence of small total either!...not in the short term..
.but agreed...it will go on...and our disagreement on the num of bowlers would also go on...we'll get more chances, I'm sure :-)
By
worma, at 10:16
Post a Comment
<< Home