It's a funny game cricket.
At 3/15 who would have thunk the aussies would have finished the day at 9/341?
If you were told before the start of play that that would be the score would you have been satisfied that that was a good score?
Is it a good score anyway?
Always hard to tell after a team has batted on a first day pitch (was it a first day pitch....or a third?? maybe the title of another post...)
Ntini bowled exceptionally well, this guy has been around so long it is hard to believe he is only 31! He bowled in perfect areas never distracted or affected by the state of play...he had a job and stuck to it, for mine the player of the day.
Steyn bowled quick, but what does 5 or 6 k's quicker than everyone else mean on a pitch like this? The Aussies have yet to experience him at his best and they wont at the WACA.
Hayden got out to a ball that I would have left (that says alot) Ponting got a peach but he did go a bit hard at it, same with Hussey. Symonds played as he does and didn't show enough respect to the ball that got him. and Clarke had a brain fade...
After so many failures the Aussies have managed to make nearly 350 in a day. Good cricket by anyones standards, but the proof will be in the pudding that can only be tasted once the South Africans have batted once.
To be continued.
Wednesday, 17 December 2008
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
It's elementary dear Watson
How many chances does Andrew Symonds get, or warrant?
After not setting the world on fire playing for Queensland he was brought straight back into the bosom of the 1st 11. The reason given? He was in good form last time he played for Australia...
Never mind that he was averaging in the mid teens with the bat and had only taken 1 wicket in several games.
His batting in the 2 tests against New Zulland were no improvement, neither was his bowling.
Bottom line: He took a couple of nice catches, thats about it.
What was Watson doing during this time?
Other than gnashing his teeth and trying to grow dredlocks?
Most recently he was quietly taking 7/69 against a South Australian side including Younis Khan, (match figures 8/120) and scoring 81 in the 2nd innings.
Nuff said.
It may seem that I am "Symonds bashing" again but I do love to see him play... and reckon that he is one of the top 2 or 3 all-rounders in the world when he is in top form.
Rather, if anything, I am "CA bashing" why?
The Australian side would be a better, more polished, in form, resourceful side with Shane Watson as the All Rounder.
Ponsford.
After not setting the world on fire playing for Queensland he was brought straight back into the bosom of the 1st 11. The reason given? He was in good form last time he played for Australia...
Never mind that he was averaging in the mid teens with the bat and had only taken 1 wicket in several games.
His batting in the 2 tests against New Zulland were no improvement, neither was his bowling.
Bottom line: He took a couple of nice catches, thats about it.
What was Watson doing during this time?
Other than gnashing his teeth and trying to grow dredlocks?
Most recently he was quietly taking 7/69 against a South Australian side including Younis Khan, (match figures 8/120) and scoring 81 in the 2nd innings.
Nuff said.
It may seem that I am "Symonds bashing" again but I do love to see him play... and reckon that he is one of the top 2 or 3 all-rounders in the world when he is in top form.
Rather, if anything, I am "CA bashing" why?
The Australian side would be a better, more polished, in form, resourceful side with Shane Watson as the All Rounder.
Ponsford.
Sunday, 14 December 2008
Pay to Stay and Play
More money for Australian contracted players; plus less commitments. Is the national side getting a bit full of themselves, or are they worth it? What do you think?
Let's look at the pros and cons:
1) The 11 players on the field represent our entire country; so therefore they are our elite. This should entitle them to remuneration that acknowledges them as such.
1a) Many players that pursue cricket show enough talent in other sports to put them in a position of having to choose ultimately which sport will serve them best, (or which one they have the most skill at).
2) Money is now flooding into the game via India, if CA are not prepared to ensure a player can effectively secure his financial future, why wouldn't players choose a career playing hit and giggle for the duration of their playing career?
3) With tour and sponsorship commitments (22 appearances a year- no more than 4 in any given month) on top of away time -up to 10 months a year, players need to capitalise on their money earning years to partially negate the lost time with families.
4) Players already earn incredible sums of money, (M.Clarke was 7 figures last year!). If you are in the national side, and are getting $5100-$12750 (plus OS loadings) in match fees, or nearly $700 a run, be grateful you represent your country and are raking it in... other representative sports-people pay their own way!
5) Cricketers are housed, fed, transported and catered for medically as soon as they are in the national side... no additional expenses.
6) On top of their CA money, cricketers receive huge amounts from sponsorships and endorsements- how dare they request less time doing such work.
I for one think that if they can get more from CA, why not! For top ranked players the draw of a few seasons of T20 in India must always be in the back of their minds; if you could earn a yearly income with only three months away, why wouldn't you? The privaledge of having played for your country won't pay the bills when you are too old to earn money from cricket!
stoph verismo
downthewicket
Let's look at the pros and cons:
1) The 11 players on the field represent our entire country; so therefore they are our elite. This should entitle them to remuneration that acknowledges them as such.
1a) Many players that pursue cricket show enough talent in other sports to put them in a position of having to choose ultimately which sport will serve them best, (or which one they have the most skill at).
2) Money is now flooding into the game via India, if CA are not prepared to ensure a player can effectively secure his financial future, why wouldn't players choose a career playing hit and giggle for the duration of their playing career?
3) With tour and sponsorship commitments (22 appearances a year- no more than 4 in any given month) on top of away time -up to 10 months a year, players need to capitalise on their money earning years to partially negate the lost time with families.
4) Players already earn incredible sums of money, (M.Clarke was 7 figures last year!). If you are in the national side, and are getting $5100-$12750 (plus OS loadings) in match fees, or nearly $700 a run, be grateful you represent your country and are raking it in... other representative sports-people pay their own way!
5) Cricketers are housed, fed, transported and catered for medically as soon as they are in the national side... no additional expenses.
6) On top of their CA money, cricketers receive huge amounts from sponsorships and endorsements- how dare they request less time doing such work.
I for one think that if they can get more from CA, why not! For top ranked players the draw of a few seasons of T20 in India must always be in the back of their minds; if you could earn a yearly income with only three months away, why wouldn't you? The privaledge of having played for your country won't pay the bills when you are too old to earn money from cricket!
stoph verismo
downthewicket
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)