The Cricket Thread
Dec 17th 2014, 10:02 pm
#47
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Posts: 15,109
Dec 18th 2014, 12:08 am
#49
Proudly Deplorable
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The Cricket Thread
Why are Australia's young fast bowlers always breaking down? This has been a theme for them over the last few years and has not affected other teams as much
Dec 18th 2014, 12:11 am
#50
Proudly Deplorable
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The Cricket Thread
A storming day of test cricket yesterday
Why oh why did the WI elect to bowl on that wicket?
AB and Hash have put on 283 for the 4th, have both scored centuries and are still there
Having a team 57/3 and then that team finishing the day on 340/3 shows that the 57/3 meant jack shit!
Why oh why did the WI elect to bowl on that wicket?
AB and Hash have put on 283 for the 4th, have both scored centuries and are still there
Having a team 57/3 and then that team finishing the day on 340/3 shows that the 57/3 meant jack shit!
Dec 18th 2014, 12:13 am
#51
Proudly Deplorable
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The Cricket Thread
Waaarnniieeee
SHANE Warne hasn’t held back when discussing Mitchell Starc this morning, slamming the Aussie paceman for his lack of presence.
“His body language has to be tougher. He just looks a bit nonchalant. A bit hunched shoulders. He just looks a bit soft,” said Warne during Channel 9’s commentary.
“He has to really stick his chest out and really follow through and give good strong body language.
“... in his follow through, he’s just like, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve bowled a ball I’ll just go back and bowl again.’
“There’s no real presence with Starc. He needs to let the batsmen know he’s here.
“I’d like to see him really own the batsmen and let them know he’s around. He doesn’t have to say anything, it’s just in his presence and his body language.”
SHANE Warne hasn’t held back when discussing Mitchell Starc this morning, slamming the Aussie paceman for his lack of presence.
“His body language has to be tougher. He just looks a bit nonchalant. A bit hunched shoulders. He just looks a bit soft,” said Warne during Channel 9’s commentary.
“He has to really stick his chest out and really follow through and give good strong body language.
“... in his follow through, he’s just like, ‘Oh yeah, I’ve bowled a ball I’ll just go back and bowl again.’
“There’s no real presence with Starc. He needs to let the batsmen know he’s here.
“I’d like to see him really own the batsmen and let them know he’s around. He doesn’t have to say anything, it’s just in his presence and his body language.”
Dec 18th 2014, 12:17 am
#52
Mostly Harmless
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Semi-rural wonderworld, Brisbane
Posts: 15,109
Re: The Cricket Thread
Mere showers and The Gabba drains well, should get a result. 
Yup, it's a worry given all the time spent on supposedly managing workloads and whatnot. Not just the fast guys either ...
India looking on track for 450+ with Dhoni motoring ... They'll need 'em ...
India looking on track for 450+ with Dhoni motoring ... They'll need 'em ...
Dec 18th 2014, 12:19 am
#53
Proudly Deplorable
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The Cricket Thread
Since when are actual batting averages rankings the same sense as subjective test rankings? 
(teaching granny how to suck eggs mode) They take the number of runs scored and divide by the number of times out and that gives the actual average for a batsman. I gave you the top 10 batsmen in order of averages. Interestingly the guy who is #1 recently made his debut and has played 12 tests; as said, Smith in his last 14 tests has a similar average.
As I've pointed out before, SA are #1 and they play barely more than half the test matches Australia, England and India do. You also seem to have a greater propensity for avoiding the top test nations but then again playing SA isn't a cash cow like playing other nations so it's understandable.
(teaching granny how to suck eggs mode) They take the number of runs scored and divide by the number of times out and that gives the actual average for a batsman. I gave you the top 10 batsmen in order of averages. Interestingly the guy who is #1 recently made his debut and has played 12 tests; as said, Smith in his last 14 tests has a similar average. As I've pointed out before, SA are #1 and they play barely more than half the test matches Australia, England and India do. You also seem to have a greater propensity for avoiding the top test nations but then again playing SA isn't a cash cow like playing other nations so it's understandable.
I don't care how the rankings are calculated. I was referring to the fact that you accept the test batsmen rankings as totally accurate but not those for test teams
Bizarre
SA have played all those teams in recent years so I don't know where you're coming from on this. Who plays who was decided many years ago under the FTP. You can download a copy from cricinfo
Dec 18th 2014, 7:55 am
#54
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: The Cricket Thread
I don't care how the rankings are calculated. I was referring to the fact that you accept the test batsmen rankings as totally accurate but not those for test teams
Bizarre
SA have played all those teams in recent years so I don't know where you're coming from on this. Who plays who was decided many years ago under the FTP. You can download a copy from cricinfo
Oh ye of little faith - Test almost turned around in a day as well. See posts above - Smith this, Smith that, Smith one test captain, India set for huge total ......
Batting averages ARE accurate; until SA play Australia, England and Sri Lanka a sufficient number of times I don't think the current rankings system is accurate whereas batting stats are.
Dec 18th 2014, 7:59 am
#55
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: The Cricket Thread
I don't care how the rankings are calculated. I was referring to the fact that you accept the test batsmen rankings as totally accurate but not those for test teams
Bizarre
SA have played all those teams in recent years so I don't know where you're coming from on this. Who plays who was decided many years ago under the FTP. You can download a copy from cricinfo
Dec 18th 2014, 8:30 am
#56
Proudly Deplorable
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The Cricket Thread
It is a 4 year cycle
SA have played England and Australia according to the FTP
Under the system that they all play to, SA are No.1 and deservedly so
End of
Dec 18th 2014, 8:32 am
#57
Proudly Deplorable
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: The Cricket Thread
I notice you are not saying you were wrong - that Smith isn't a journeyman and hasn't just hit a little bit of form. Is that nearly 300 not out in 3 innings?
Oh ye of little faith - Test almost turned around in a day as well. See posts above - Smith this, Smith that, Smith one test captain, India set for huge total ......
Batting averages ARE accurate; until SA play Australia, England and Sri Lanka a sufficient number of times I don't think the current rankings system is accurate whereas batting stats are.
Oh ye of little faith - Test almost turned around in a day as well. See posts above - Smith this, Smith that, Smith one test captain, India set for huge total ......
Batting averages ARE accurate; until SA play Australia, England and Sri Lanka a sufficient number of times I don't think the current rankings system is accurate whereas batting stats are.
We have played Australia recently - won one, lost one
We beat England in England just before that
Test rankings are accurate - unless you are a bitter Aussie fan
Dec 18th 2014, 12:16 pm
#60
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 7,949
Re: The Cricket Thread
You are putting absolute faith in these rankings and liken batting averages to test rankings for some reason. A person says it is a certain maximum temperature today (which can be proven or otherwise) and Melbourne is the world's most liveable city (which it is according to certain criteria). Batting averages = temperature; test rankings = most liveable city.
SA are deservedly 1 under the system they use, that's true. I'm saying its a fallible system they use.
And still no comment on Smith, just harping on about 1.