General Cricket Discussion
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
P
pcfan123
Guest
and the warm up match is probably the most anticipated one too, even though 3 internationals are being played 
It's all pretty phonetic. I suppose you're asking about how to pronounce 'ts' at the start of a word? But it's just like pronouncing it anywhere else in the word. Depending on how you pronounce Lonwabo, the whole name will sound like Lon-wa-boats-otsobe or Lonwa-boots-otsobe
(sounds funny but it's true). I prefer the latter. You have to imagine yourself saying it with Desmond Tutu's accent (not Nelson Mandela's because he seems to be from too different a language group). The West Indian accent is quite similar actually.You know it makes sense...
I have a couple of rule changes that seem to me worth thinking about/discussing. They are very different from one another, so they hardly belong in the same thread, let alone the same post, but anyway here goes.
1. How was it decided that the number 10 (or is it 9?) for 'top-flight' cricketing nations was to be set in stone? I'm a dinosaur of course but I remember the mid-70's when Australia and possibly the West Indies were just about the only teams that weren't easybeats. India seemed to be just getting their feathers, while New Zealand and Sri Lanka had barely hatched. No doubt they had to jump through various hoops to get to where they are today, but there was no formalized structure to make that happen. More importantly, their qualification did not have to be at someone else's expense. Now (as I understand it), Kenya or Scotland or the Netherlands will only qualify for the Big League by ousting Bangladesh or Zimbabwe to the outer darkness. Why can't we all just get along?
2. I understand how it happened, but in my opinion upon reflection, it seems just a trifle on the bizarre side of wrong that misfields and overthrows count against a bowler, whereas leg byes do not. I realize that leg byes usually have an element of the unintentional about them. But the vast majority of scoring shots don't go exactly as intended. I think it's time this situation was reversed. Normally I would avoid anything that makes my beloved game any more like its poor New World relation (don't make me say the 'b' word). But this just makes sense. It is an idea whose time has come, pure and simple.
I have a couple of rule changes that seem to me worth thinking about/discussing. They are very different from one another, so they hardly belong in the same thread, let alone the same post, but anyway here goes.
1. How was it decided that the number 10 (or is it 9?) for 'top-flight' cricketing nations was to be set in stone? I'm a dinosaur of course but I remember the mid-70's when Australia and possibly the West Indies were just about the only teams that weren't easybeats. India seemed to be just getting their feathers, while New Zealand and Sri Lanka had barely hatched. No doubt they had to jump through various hoops to get to where they are today, but there was no formalized structure to make that happen. More importantly, their qualification did not have to be at someone else's expense. Now (as I understand it), Kenya or Scotland or the Netherlands will only qualify for the Big League by ousting Bangladesh or Zimbabwe to the outer darkness. Why can't we all just get along?
2. I understand how it happened, but in my opinion upon reflection, it seems just a trifle on the bizarre side of wrong that misfields and overthrows count against a bowler, whereas leg byes do not. I realize that leg byes usually have an element of the unintentional about them. But the vast majority of scoring shots don't go exactly as intended. I think it's time this situation was reversed. Normally I would avoid anything that makes my beloved game any more like its poor New World relation (don't make me say the 'b' word). But this just makes sense. It is an idea whose time has come, pure and simple.
Cricketman
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2005
- Location
- USA
Stars, stripes and stumps | Cricket Blogs | Cricinfo.com Very interesting!
I think this is a blog I will be following regularly now.
I think this is a blog I will be following regularly now.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Australia's best T20 XI
No T20 WC for another couple years, so the importance of this is squad is not a major issue ATS. But i was thinking about this squad just now looking back & how they performanced in the recent T20 WC this year. Enough players are around AUS to make this team lethal IMO. So something like this:
Warner
Finch
Watson
Haddin
D Hussey
White
M Hussey
Johnson
Harris
Nannes
Tait
Ferguson
Smith
Bollinger
Hastings/Wade (If it was a tournament year i'd pick Wade for sure)
In the T20 WC i thought AUS got away up until te final/semi with not having enough bowling depth. Given that Nannes/Tait/Johnson went through the opposition top-orders all the time. The T20 WC this year overall showed us that T20 is one format having alot of quality bowling options is imperitve. You cant hide bowlers in T20s like ODIs, partimers in that format will go the distance againts good batsmen. Thus the 4 strong seamers backed up by D Hussey & Watto is the best bowling combo.
Finch: Man he was super impressive for Victoria in the CL. Him & Warner opening with Watto @ 3 would make such a destructive top order. Before the CL i'd open with Marsh, but i dunno something about Marsh seems to be lacking of late. He isn't the same shotgun opener currrently that was on fire in the 2008 IPL.
Wade: Would say he is best back-up for Haddin in T20s instead of Paine. Seems more of the natural hitter the victorian.
Skipper of this team is a toss up between Haddin & White really.
Discuss...
No T20 WC for another couple years, so the importance of this is squad is not a major issue ATS. But i was thinking about this squad just now looking back & how they performanced in the recent T20 WC this year. Enough players are around AUS to make this team lethal IMO. So something like this:
Warner
Finch
Watson
Haddin
D Hussey
White
M Hussey
Johnson
Harris
Nannes
Tait
Ferguson
Smith
Bollinger
Hastings/Wade (If it was a tournament year i'd pick Wade for sure)
In the T20 WC i thought AUS got away up until te final/semi with not having enough bowling depth. Given that Nannes/Tait/Johnson went through the opposition top-orders all the time. The T20 WC this year overall showed us that T20 is one format having alot of quality bowling options is imperitve. You cant hide bowlers in T20s like ODIs, partimers in that format will go the distance againts good batsmen. Thus the 4 strong seamers backed up by D Hussey & Watto is the best bowling combo.
Finch: Man he was super impressive for Victoria in the CL. Him & Warner opening with Watto @ 3 would make such a destructive top order. Before the CL i'd open with Marsh, but i dunno something about Marsh seems to be lacking of late. He isn't the same shotgun opener currrently that was on fire in the 2008 IPL.
Wade: Would say he is best back-up for Haddin in T20s instead of Paine. Seems more of the natural hitter the victorian.
Skipper of this team is a toss up between Haddin & White really.
Discuss...
Last edited:
AbhishekS
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Location
- Mumbai, India
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Steam PC
What has happened to Shaun Marsh? He was stunning during the first season of IPL. Haven't seen much of him since then.
Looks pretty good mate. If it were up to me I'd leave out Watson, Haddin, M.Hussey, Johnson and Bollinger and replace them with your reserves. I don't like players playing all 3 formats. I think it lessens their focus, and limits the amount of time they can train specifically for T20.
I don't think it would make too big a hole to do that. I'm not sure Johnson makes my first XI at present - he's a wicket taker, but he can't bowl yorkers and he can be hit off his length. Haddin's T20 record is pretty poor. Has all the raw skills, but I think there's just something mentally that doesn't click for him. He wouldn't be missed too much. Hussey's old and Ferguson's his natural replacement. Bollinger's pretty good, but he's not a lock for the first XI as you've shown. Watson's the only one of those 5 I'd be sad to see go, and we can always get him back for a World Cup or something.
Works out well really for your squad though because Smith replaces Watson as your all-rounder, Ferguson for Hussey as your finisher, Hastings for Mitch and Wade for Haddin.
My squad might be:
Warner
Finch
Wade (wk)
D Hussey
White (c)
Ferguson (vc)
Smith
Hastings
Harris
Nannes
Tait
Then for 4 reserves, I'd have:
S.Marsh
Paine (Mitch Marsh if a reserve WK is not needed)
McKay
O'Keefe/Doherty - preferably O'Keefe because he can bat a bit better.
I don't think it would make too big a hole to do that. I'm not sure Johnson makes my first XI at present - he's a wicket taker, but he can't bowl yorkers and he can be hit off his length. Haddin's T20 record is pretty poor. Has all the raw skills, but I think there's just something mentally that doesn't click for him. He wouldn't be missed too much. Hussey's old and Ferguson's his natural replacement. Bollinger's pretty good, but he's not a lock for the first XI as you've shown. Watson's the only one of those 5 I'd be sad to see go, and we can always get him back for a World Cup or something.
Works out well really for your squad though because Smith replaces Watson as your all-rounder, Ferguson for Hussey as your finisher, Hastings for Mitch and Wade for Haddin.
My squad might be:
Warner
Finch
Wade (wk)
D Hussey
White (c)
Ferguson (vc)
Smith
Hastings
Harris
Nannes
Tait
Then for 4 reserves, I'd have:
S.Marsh
Paine (Mitch Marsh if a reserve WK is not needed)
McKay
O'Keefe/Doherty - preferably O'Keefe because he can bat a bit better.
Sifter team is about spot on if we aren't quite looking at the T20 WC. If we are then David Hussey, Nannes would be pushing it to make the side due to age. Maybe they will but assuming they won't then its hard to go past Bollinger. The batting replacement is a bit harder if you are just looking at T20 form as not too many youngsters have put their hand up as its mainly been the old guys.
Ian Chappell on the dilemmas India's and Australia's selectors are facing | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com
Interesting points here about Pujara. Got me thinking about how India plan to phase him in.
The biggest problem is that he seems to be a straight swap for Dravid, and both batsmen should probably bat at 3. Which makes fitting them both in the lineup hard unless one of them drops to the middle order.
At the moment it's clear India wants Dravid at 3 for South Africa, which could work out well if he performs and the selectors are lauded for making the right choice and picking the best XI to win instead of rushing to drop Dravid. However, if he doesn't work out, people will be wondering why Pujara wasn't given a chance against NZ and then RSA, that he probably wouldn't have done much worse and has a future for India unlike Dravid who's time is running up.
India's next test assignment, after South Africa, is England in England. Surely tossing Pujara in the deep end there is asking too much, but it might be needed if Dravid has another poor couple of series.
Ofcourse India might trying short-term replacements like Gambhir at 3 (if he manages to retain his spot) and Vijay opening, or sending Laxman up to 3 and getting Kohli/Pujara/Yuvi into the middle order.
And what happens once Dravid is finally dropped? Will he call it a day? He is 38 years old, and surely it would be in India's best interests if their reserve batsmen for the Test side are the Kohli/Pujara/Rahane/Mukund/Sharma sorts - young, talented and with a future. Dravid is already cut out from India's ODI plans, how long till they cut him out all together?
It'll be interesting how the selectors handle this.
And on a separate note, I wonder if we'll start to see more of Pujara in the ODI side after the WC, especially if Sachin retires/announces his retirement.
Interesting points here about Pujara. Got me thinking about how India plan to phase him in.
The biggest problem is that he seems to be a straight swap for Dravid, and both batsmen should probably bat at 3. Which makes fitting them both in the lineup hard unless one of them drops to the middle order.
At the moment it's clear India wants Dravid at 3 for South Africa, which could work out well if he performs and the selectors are lauded for making the right choice and picking the best XI to win instead of rushing to drop Dravid. However, if he doesn't work out, people will be wondering why Pujara wasn't given a chance against NZ and then RSA, that he probably wouldn't have done much worse and has a future for India unlike Dravid who's time is running up.
India's next test assignment, after South Africa, is England in England. Surely tossing Pujara in the deep end there is asking too much, but it might be needed if Dravid has another poor couple of series.
Ofcourse India might trying short-term replacements like Gambhir at 3 (if he manages to retain his spot) and Vijay opening, or sending Laxman up to 3 and getting Kohli/Pujara/Yuvi into the middle order.
And what happens once Dravid is finally dropped? Will he call it a day? He is 38 years old, and surely it would be in India's best interests if their reserve batsmen for the Test side are the Kohli/Pujara/Rahane/Mukund/Sharma sorts - young, talented and with a future. Dravid is already cut out from India's ODI plans, how long till they cut him out all together?
It'll be interesting how the selectors handle this.
And on a separate note, I wonder if we'll start to see more of Pujara in the ODI side after the WC, especially if Sachin retires/announces his retirement.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
I'm with chappell really, dropping Dravid is undoubtedly a hard thing to do after his years of service but australia backed themselves into a corner with their reluctance to change guys around when they were winning.
it's far easier to come into a winning team and learn how to win than to learn how to win in a losing team. look at stuart Clark, you can't say he's a particularly great seamer, but in an attack surrounded by mcgrath and warne he did extremely well, and to be honest, australia could have done with him being a few years younger after the latter two retired. Had it been mitch in that attack, or hilfy or someone like that then the years of winning an playing in a winning team I think would be seeing them perform better right now.
it's far easier to come into a winning team and learn how to win than to learn how to win in a losing team. look at stuart Clark, you can't say he's a particularly great seamer, but in an attack surrounded by mcgrath and warne he did extremely well, and to be honest, australia could have done with him being a few years younger after the latter two retired. Had it been mitch in that attack, or hilfy or someone like that then the years of winning an playing in a winning team I think would be seeing them perform better right now.
P
pcfan123
Guest
Peter is very involved with USACA and he knows the inside scoop. I met him in Florida during the NZ SL series and is a very nice guy.
Will also be following his column
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
As aussie1st said, this side is pretty much on point. I sort of agree also with the idea of not picking Watto currently in T20s, but when the WC comes around then pick him.
On Johnson yea his bowling is not that suited to T20s. But his package as an all-rounder is always tempting, if his batting clicks he be better than Hastings in the best XI or squad. So i dont think regardless of his fragilities, we cant really leave him out of T20 squad all-together.
Hastings is known as a big hitter too and hes more reliable with the bat. His bowling always seems to pick up wickets so in terms of all round packages I would take him. The only thing Johnson has over him is the x-factor through his pace but you don't need that when you have a bowler that continues to be the leading wicket taker.
