There is no doubt professional sports people have a social responsibility, but should they be prisoners of their profile?
Given the bad press Andrew Symonds has received in the past regarding alcohol, it is probably not the smartest move to go out so soon after getting back in the Australian side. But whether it is smart or not, he is entitled to go out and should be able to do so like anyone else.
Of course with a public profile comes extra responsibilities, expectations and unfortunately chores. It would be nice to think that celebrities and sports stars could go out without having people constantly approaching them for acknowledgement or photos and autographs, but the reality is many people are over-awed in their presence and forget that the person they are admiring sometimes just wants a meal or a drink with their own friends, unmolested.
Many people are grateful for a quick photo or autograph, and promptly leave the "star" alone straight after.
From the various accounts of the night in question, it seems Roy was hassled by one patron- easy to imagine what a pest a half cut big mouth he may have been- that was asked to leave, and that Roy was composed and left early with nothing to answer to.
If this is true, what does it mean? Clearly this is a BIG MEDIA BEAT UP! With headline like, "Symonds under investigation", "Symonds in pub altercation" "Troubled all-rounder..." it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the media thought they could nail him up.
Now with the publican publicly stating that Symonds was provoked and had dealt with the situation admirably, the heat is off Roy.
Except for one big thing; how has this affected his head space and preparation? The media were so quick to attack and judge him it is plain to see they gave no thought to Symonds primary task... playing cricket! If he fails to perform at Adelaide there will be calls to cut him, even though his scorecard at the GABBA was good enough compared to other batsmen. If he does score, will all be forgiven? If he can lift, for mine it shows the mental fortitude Roy possesses and proves he can cop more than most off (and on) the field and still be a champ.
stoph verismo
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Symonds' Says, but can't Do.
Dead Set, are you kidding?
Pretty much my response to what is happening in Andrew Symonds' brain at the moment, or not happening to be more precise.
Does this guy have any idea at all how lucky he is to be playing for his Country?
Does he have any inkling how lucky he was to be in the 11 for the last match (he certainly wasn't picked on form).
Does he know what "last chance" means?
Is he stupid? or just a Queenslander? Is there a difference? What's for breakfast?
Now don't get me wrong, I love a beer as much as the next bloke (more I thought) and I hate media beat-up's.
And while I don't think Roy should be a bradmanesque tee-totaller (it took an average of 99.9whatever to get the rest of the team to tolerate him) or wrap himself in cotton-wool, but he probably should have a good hard think about his situation, or if that is beyond him he could pay someone to do some thinking for him.
Just think to yourself Roy, before going out "is this a good idea? time? company? Could anything bad happen?"
Having a few beers to celebrate a test win, if only against the lamb lovers, is fine. Commiserating with mates who just dropped the world cup, if only playing Rugby League, is fine too.
But probably not in Public you fool.
When oh when are sportsmen going to realise that they don't have to have done anything wrong in particular? Just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's pretty easy guys, but for the dimmer ones out there and oh Roy...I mean oh boy there are a few, here are some tips.
Don't do drugs.
Don't drink to excess.
Don't accept lifts home from bikies after leaving a strip club at 2am.
Don't take your mobile phone on tour in England.
Best not to squeeze that woman's breast.
If on one's last chance best not to be drinking in public less than a fortnight after telling people you are going to be a good boy from now on.
Maybe it IS too hard.
Just pay someone to think for you.
*New POLL Below.
Pretty much my response to what is happening in Andrew Symonds' brain at the moment, or not happening to be more precise.
Does this guy have any idea at all how lucky he is to be playing for his Country?
Does he have any inkling how lucky he was to be in the 11 for the last match (he certainly wasn't picked on form).
Does he know what "last chance" means?
Is he stupid? or just a Queenslander? Is there a difference? What's for breakfast?
Now don't get me wrong, I love a beer as much as the next bloke (more I thought) and I hate media beat-up's.
And while I don't think Roy should be a bradmanesque tee-totaller (it took an average of 99.9whatever to get the rest of the team to tolerate him) or wrap himself in cotton-wool, but he probably should have a good hard think about his situation, or if that is beyond him he could pay someone to do some thinking for him.
Just think to yourself Roy, before going out "is this a good idea? time? company? Could anything bad happen?"
Having a few beers to celebrate a test win, if only against the lamb lovers, is fine. Commiserating with mates who just dropped the world cup, if only playing Rugby League, is fine too.
But probably not in Public you fool.
When oh when are sportsmen going to realise that they don't have to have done anything wrong in particular? Just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It's pretty easy guys, but for the dimmer ones out there and oh Roy...I mean oh boy there are a few, here are some tips.
Don't do drugs.
Don't drink to excess.
Don't accept lifts home from bikies after leaving a strip club at 2am.
Don't take your mobile phone on tour in England.
Best not to squeeze that woman's breast.
If on one's last chance best not to be drinking in public less than a fortnight after telling people you are going to be a good boy from now on.
Maybe it IS too hard.
Just pay someone to think for you.
*New POLL Below.
Monday, 24 November 2008
a FINE performance
Another fine for Ricky Ponting, another problem with over rates.
"We tried really hard in this test..." boo hoo Punter, at least you had a win, that's fulfilling one of your obligations... another (yet to be fulfilled of late) is this over rates issue. It is an obligation because the spectators have paid their hard earned to see 90 overs, and that is what they deserve. "So what, it was only 3 overs" you say, deny people the last 3 minutes of a film and see how they react!
By and large, the ICC are a bunch of spineless twats that would find it hard to impress upon play- dough, let alone press an issue on field. So for once they got it right by riding Ponting hard on this.
It was obvious watching the first test that the Australians were trying to step things up a bit; shorter run ups, quicker turn arounds, cap shuttling, etc, which made the deficit much less than in previous tests, but clearly it was not enough.
Ponting now has the task of shaving more time off field placements and ensuring that batsmen aren't wasting time unduly.
Just maybe, a forceful, positive result in this 1st test might get everyone on their toes and running to position with a sense of purpose and save extra time.
"We tried really hard in this test..." boo hoo Punter, at least you had a win, that's fulfilling one of your obligations... another (yet to be fulfilled of late) is this over rates issue. It is an obligation because the spectators have paid their hard earned to see 90 overs, and that is what they deserve. "So what, it was only 3 overs" you say, deny people the last 3 minutes of a film and see how they react!
By and large, the ICC are a bunch of spineless twats that would find it hard to impress upon play- dough, let alone press an issue on field. So for once they got it right by riding Ponting hard on this.
It was obvious watching the first test that the Australians were trying to step things up a bit; shorter run ups, quicker turn arounds, cap shuttling, etc, which made the deficit much less than in previous tests, but clearly it was not enough.
Ponting now has the task of shaving more time off field placements and ensuring that batsmen aren't wasting time unduly.
Just maybe, a forceful, positive result in this 1st test might get everyone on their toes and running to position with a sense of purpose and save extra time.
Sunday, 23 November 2008
dipstick diversion or taken by the moment
What was Ricky Ponting on about in his ABC Grandstand interview after winning the first test?
For those that didn't hear it, when asked about the make-up of the team for the 2nd test in Adelaide, he (Ponting) said something like this (not verbatim) "...I'll have to get together with Hilditch [chairman of selectors] and see... we could do a few things, maybe look at the inclusion of Siddle as another quick." The Grandstand team were... miffed; for want of a better term.
The line of inquiry was more about how we get a spinner into the side, and at whose expense; the general attitude [of anyone in the cricketing world I'd imagine!] was, which of the all-rounders was going to be rested: Watson or Symonds? When pressed Ponting stated that he felt Roy was more of a number 6 batsman now than an all-rounder. whilst there are no rules about having an all-rounders, or if you do batting at number 6, surely if Symonds is at number 6 and he is called up to bowl either style, he is still an all-rounder.
Admittedly he didn't bowl much this test, he certainly wasn't belted about on a track that only the best spinners in the world get much from (see Vettori in the 2nd innings). It is hard to imagine that if Symonds stays in for Adelaide, he won't get more of the ball there.
So what is Ponting banging on about when talking about an extra quick? If it is a diversionary mind game thing it is just embarrassing, for him. It is one thing to say he wants an extra fast bowler, except he is asking for it one test late, [a bit like Krejza being picked 2 tests late!] it would have made sense to have Siddle play this first test at the Gabba, but at whose expense? Watsons batting was much the same as most of the team, rank; but he bowled well enough. Symonds didn't bowl much, but without him in the side we would have been short 46 runs, [the third highest aggregate in the team for the match], so he would feel a bit stiffed to be stood down for a spinner, let alone another quick.
It is plain to all [except maybe Punter!] that Krejza will be back for Adelaide, most likely at the expense of Watson. When Lee is clearly in the ascension with his confidence and technique improving, Johnson has over 40 (45, 2 behind Lee)wickets for the calender year, Clark's fitness is back and he continues to hit the spot for cheap wickets, it looks like this core of the Australian bowling side is sound... none of them will (should) go anywhere.
P.S *** JUST ANNOUNCED***
Watson has been dropped and the side is:
Ricky Ponting (c), Michael Clarke (vc), Stuart Clark, Brad Haddin, Matthew Hayden, Mike Hussey, Mitchell Johnson, Simon Katich, Jason Krejza, Brett Lee, Peter Siddle, Andrew Symonds.
So, if as Ponting has said, that Symonds is a number 6, it looks like Siddle will be 12th man.
stoph verismo downthewicket
For those that didn't hear it, when asked about the make-up of the team for the 2nd test in Adelaide, he (Ponting) said something like this (not verbatim) "...I'll have to get together with Hilditch [chairman of selectors] and see... we could do a few things, maybe look at the inclusion of Siddle as another quick." The Grandstand team were... miffed; for want of a better term.
The line of inquiry was more about how we get a spinner into the side, and at whose expense; the general attitude [of anyone in the cricketing world I'd imagine!] was, which of the all-rounders was going to be rested: Watson or Symonds? When pressed Ponting stated that he felt Roy was more of a number 6 batsman now than an all-rounder. whilst there are no rules about having an all-rounders, or if you do batting at number 6, surely if Symonds is at number 6 and he is called up to bowl either style, he is still an all-rounder.
Admittedly he didn't bowl much this test, he certainly wasn't belted about on a track that only the best spinners in the world get much from (see Vettori in the 2nd innings). It is hard to imagine that if Symonds stays in for Adelaide, he won't get more of the ball there.
So what is Ponting banging on about when talking about an extra quick? If it is a diversionary mind game thing it is just embarrassing, for him. It is one thing to say he wants an extra fast bowler, except he is asking for it one test late, [a bit like Krejza being picked 2 tests late!] it would have made sense to have Siddle play this first test at the Gabba, but at whose expense? Watsons batting was much the same as most of the team, rank; but he bowled well enough. Symonds didn't bowl much, but without him in the side we would have been short 46 runs, [the third highest aggregate in the team for the match], so he would feel a bit stiffed to be stood down for a spinner, let alone another quick.
It is plain to all [except maybe Punter!] that Krejza will be back for Adelaide, most likely at the expense of Watson. When Lee is clearly in the ascension with his confidence and technique improving, Johnson has over 40 (45, 2 behind Lee)wickets for the calender year, Clark's fitness is back and he continues to hit the spot for cheap wickets, it looks like this core of the Australian bowling side is sound... none of them will (should) go anywhere.
P.S *** JUST ANNOUNCED***
Watson has been dropped and the side is:
Ricky Ponting (c), Michael Clarke (vc), Stuart Clark, Brad Haddin, Matthew Hayden, Mike Hussey, Mitchell Johnson, Simon Katich, Jason Krejza, Brett Lee, Peter Siddle, Andrew Symonds.
So, if as Ponting has said, that Symonds is a number 6, it looks like Siddle will be 12th man.
stoph verismo downthewicket
adjudicators again control the end
Well done Simon Katich carrying your bat through; the first Aussie since M. Taylor 11 years ago.
it certainly looks like the lateral shuffle was the way to beat getting an outside or top edge in the GABBA conditions. While it has been a feature of his game for a while now, it shows what a little unorthodoxy can achieve. I can't help but think i was right that that would have had an effect on the negative bowling dealt up to the Australians in India. On another note, congratulations to Brett Lee on becoming the 4th Aussie to reach 300 wickets; a fine performance by a bloke that many had written off a few years ago as an uncontrollable tear-away with little future as his pace wound down.
In another "I told you so", it looks like my prediction of a result within 3 to 3 1/2 days will be right; and while it short changes the ticket box, the supporters that attended the first 3 days have got plenty of value for money with the uncertainty of a who might win right up to the last session on day 3... it now looks like a done deal but let's hope the NZ tail enders make something of it.
Once again, ordinary umpiring decisions have turned a potentially great battle into a desperate bid just to survive. Clearly the Kiwis can't bat out 2 days, but the loss of Ryder (NZ's next great hope) and McCullum to decisions that ones again fail to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsmen has put them in a position where they have to back themselves every shot to chase the improbable target. Umpires aren't perfect, granted, but I'm sick to death of them affecting the result!
downthewicket
it certainly looks like the lateral shuffle was the way to beat getting an outside or top edge in the GABBA conditions. While it has been a feature of his game for a while now, it shows what a little unorthodoxy can achieve. I can't help but think i was right that that would have had an effect on the negative bowling dealt up to the Australians in India. On another note, congratulations to Brett Lee on becoming the 4th Aussie to reach 300 wickets; a fine performance by a bloke that many had written off a few years ago as an uncontrollable tear-away with little future as his pace wound down.
In another "I told you so", it looks like my prediction of a result within 3 to 3 1/2 days will be right; and while it short changes the ticket box, the supporters that attended the first 3 days have got plenty of value for money with the uncertainty of a who might win right up to the last session on day 3... it now looks like a done deal but let's hope the NZ tail enders make something of it.
Once again, ordinary umpiring decisions have turned a potentially great battle into a desperate bid just to survive. Clearly the Kiwis can't bat out 2 days, but the loss of Ryder (NZ's next great hope) and McCullum to decisions that ones again fail to give the benefit of the doubt to the batsmen has put them in a position where they have to back themselves every shot to chase the improbable target. Umpires aren't perfect, granted, but I'm sick to death of them affecting the result!
downthewicket
Friday, 21 November 2008
Ball Bounces Back (or is it the Track?)
Who said test cricket was boring? With 16 wickets in a day the crowd at the GABBA certainly have got value for money. Except if they'd turned up to see some of the best batsmen in the world play their shots!
the normally uber cool Mike Hussey showed why umpires are rapidly making themselves redundant (and genuinely hated!). While I'm a dedicated traditionalist, it surely can't be long before the umpires become nothing more than message boys for directing the players in what has been deemed the correct decision by the 3rd umpire. To those that think this is not the way to go, and that decisions are "swings and round-abouts", whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt going with the batsman?
That being said, it is nice to see a match where the ball is dominating... or is it the pitch/conditions? with thunderstorms each night and sunny mornings, the groundskeepers have done a great job at providing entertaining conditions, even if it is over in 3 or 3 1/2 days with the loss of 40 wickets!
Anyway, enough of the platitudes, now for the axe!
with another failure, I'm sad to say that for mine Hayden is finished; if he isn't dropped, i hope he goes on to some really hefty knocks in Perth and Adelaide, but at his age, with this form, it is unfair to the young guns (Marsh, D. Hussey etc) waiting in the wings to hold onto him. He has been awesome, but if Australia is to seriously rebuild, it has to start at the top of the list.
And while we are at the top, when is Ponting going to lift?
123, 17, 5, 2, 87 ,24, 8, 4, 17, is not much of a scorecard for the season so far from such a prolific scorer. If he isn't to be dropped, then why not have a "rest" from the captaincy? Just to allow him time to think about his batting. Tony Jones from WWOS.com cricket seems to think it is only tall poppy syndrome... that must be a euphemism for unaccountability! Why should Ponting be untouchable when his decision making is... dubious at best. Jones also states that Allan Border's criticisms are unfair and that he should be more sympathetic as he was captain during another rebuilding phase. What rubbish! Australia aren't rebuilding, we are continuing on with this stupid "stop-gap" policy. That is, only blooding new players when we need to fill a position, not when players aren't fulfilling the duties of their position.
While having a go at WWOS.com, how is their heading "Black caps on top despite Katich...". No wonder no one put a name under that title, it is bordering on ridiculous! In such a low scoring match, how can the Kiwis be on top when they fell short by 58 runs in the first innings (their top scorer was still 18 runs less than the deficit -Taylor with 40). Even with Australia at 6 for 131 with the pitch getting better for batting, it is hard to see the Kiwis making the 189 they need now, let alone more than that.
It looks like Lee has found his rhythm, Johnson has continued his good form, and Watson and Clark are right in there too.
With zero hope of this being a 5 dayer, the best result would be to see Katich and Haddin put in a good knock, NZ to bat for the last session tomorrow with no wickets lost, and then a grinder on day 4... i hope!
the normally uber cool Mike Hussey showed why umpires are rapidly making themselves redundant (and genuinely hated!). While I'm a dedicated traditionalist, it surely can't be long before the umpires become nothing more than message boys for directing the players in what has been deemed the correct decision by the 3rd umpire. To those that think this is not the way to go, and that decisions are "swings and round-abouts", whatever happened to the benefit of the doubt going with the batsman?
That being said, it is nice to see a match where the ball is dominating... or is it the pitch/conditions? with thunderstorms each night and sunny mornings, the groundskeepers have done a great job at providing entertaining conditions, even if it is over in 3 or 3 1/2 days with the loss of 40 wickets!
Anyway, enough of the platitudes, now for the axe!
with another failure, I'm sad to say that for mine Hayden is finished; if he isn't dropped, i hope he goes on to some really hefty knocks in Perth and Adelaide, but at his age, with this form, it is unfair to the young guns (Marsh, D. Hussey etc) waiting in the wings to hold onto him. He has been awesome, but if Australia is to seriously rebuild, it has to start at the top of the list.
And while we are at the top, when is Ponting going to lift?
123, 17, 5, 2, 87 ,24, 8, 4, 17, is not much of a scorecard for the season so far from such a prolific scorer. If he isn't to be dropped, then why not have a "rest" from the captaincy? Just to allow him time to think about his batting. Tony Jones from WWOS.com cricket seems to think it is only tall poppy syndrome... that must be a euphemism for unaccountability! Why should Ponting be untouchable when his decision making is... dubious at best. Jones also states that Allan Border's criticisms are unfair and that he should be more sympathetic as he was captain during another rebuilding phase. What rubbish! Australia aren't rebuilding, we are continuing on with this stupid "stop-gap" policy. That is, only blooding new players when we need to fill a position, not when players aren't fulfilling the duties of their position.
While having a go at WWOS.com, how is their heading "Black caps on top despite Katich...". No wonder no one put a name under that title, it is bordering on ridiculous! In such a low scoring match, how can the Kiwis be on top when they fell short by 58 runs in the first innings (their top scorer was still 18 runs less than the deficit -Taylor with 40). Even with Australia at 6 for 131 with the pitch getting better for batting, it is hard to see the Kiwis making the 189 they need now, let alone more than that.
It looks like Lee has found his rhythm, Johnson has continued his good form, and Watson and Clark are right in there too.
With zero hope of this being a 5 dayer, the best result would be to see Katich and Haddin put in a good knock, NZ to bat for the last session tomorrow with no wickets lost, and then a grinder on day 4... i hope!
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
swingers are grinners
Why can't the Aussie bowlers get the same amount of swing- particularly reverse- as the teams we are playing?
The Cooley influence, it seems, has failed to get the same effect he had in England in 05, why?
Apart from Binger, no one seams (sic) to be able to get any sideways movement through the air in the Aus side, and Lee is doing it frequently faster than science says it can be done. Why do the others- namely Johnson and to a lesser degree Siddle and Watson (who got good reverse swing in one session of the last test before being taken off due to the over rates fiasco) fail to achieve this when they bowl more within the range that causes substantial swing? I have not included Clark as it is obvious his role is much more line-and-length with subtle use of cutters. That being said, everyone can benefit from a few more strings in their bows.
Johnson, who i think worked his heart out in India- would be so much more complete if over the wicket to the right handers he could in-swing some yorkers, there would be a bag of LBW's as well as clean bowled in that for him. Around the wicket he could still expect a lot of sandshoe crushers to topple the stumps, even at the loss of the LBW decisions. As it stands, the constant over after over of balls just moving away towards first slip off the bounce just isn't enough, if he could also swing it away...well, it is obvious everyone would be clamouring to get into 2nd and 3rd slip. This question of swing, is really aimed at him. He is the one to most benefit from developing these skills.
Hopefully Lee feels a little happier being back at home now, as the GABBA should be as steamy as the curry that took him out over in India and he has spruiked in the media over the last few days that he will get faster through his 30's; unlikely, but with the maturity he developed last summer, a settled head could be horrendous for NZ.
Certainly with the green-top and all of the rain and humidity, the lesser bowlers should start to find a bit more shape and movement... if not, what has Cooley been telling them? Or, given Marcus -i don't care about the rules, it's funny coz we got away with it- Trescothics admission of ball tampering, have the Australians decided not to "come to the dark side" and make the black art of reverse-swing happen due to ethics? If that is the case (and Pakistan were always suss in the 80's and 90's[and how did Z Kahn do it so early in this last series?]) we still need to be able to swing the ball AWAY from the shiny side.
But given how obvious it is that in the same day and with similar conditions, some countries manufacture swing and Australians can't, it must be said something is suss! And because CA won't say it for fear of upsetting whoever it is they are scared of, that is to say that there are cheats on the field! Someone should say it, so i will as it is just so blatant something is happening! Some would say this is sour grapes from me. NO! it is not! i can handle being beaten by a better side- when they play better cricket and deserve to win, but as a traditionalist, i say ball tampering is rank, and if that is the only way to win... you suck and are unworthy to play test cricket.
The genuine swing bowler is probably THE most effective weapon in cricket. let the skill be attained through practice and good captaincy giving the ball over at the best possible time to achieve swing! Not through cheating and ball manipulation!
It is one thing getting the guy that (partially) cost us the Ashes on side, it is another to see his results... which we haven't yet! If it was only a throat lozenge that got the 'no-better-than club cricketers' Anderson and Hoggart to be so effective, Cooley should pack his bags now and CA should apologise to D.K.Lillee and beg him (yes BEG!) to come back and teach the finer points of pace bowling; which is unlikely given CA's arrogance and J Sutherlands "futuristic" outlook!
The Cooley influence, it seems, has failed to get the same effect he had in England in 05, why?
Apart from Binger, no one seams (sic) to be able to get any sideways movement through the air in the Aus side, and Lee is doing it frequently faster than science says it can be done. Why do the others- namely Johnson and to a lesser degree Siddle and Watson (who got good reverse swing in one session of the last test before being taken off due to the over rates fiasco) fail to achieve this when they bowl more within the range that causes substantial swing? I have not included Clark as it is obvious his role is much more line-and-length with subtle use of cutters. That being said, everyone can benefit from a few more strings in their bows.
Johnson, who i think worked his heart out in India- would be so much more complete if over the wicket to the right handers he could in-swing some yorkers, there would be a bag of LBW's as well as clean bowled in that for him. Around the wicket he could still expect a lot of sandshoe crushers to topple the stumps, even at the loss of the LBW decisions. As it stands, the constant over after over of balls just moving away towards first slip off the bounce just isn't enough, if he could also swing it away...well, it is obvious everyone would be clamouring to get into 2nd and 3rd slip. This question of swing, is really aimed at him. He is the one to most benefit from developing these skills.
Hopefully Lee feels a little happier being back at home now, as the GABBA should be as steamy as the curry that took him out over in India and he has spruiked in the media over the last few days that he will get faster through his 30's; unlikely, but with the maturity he developed last summer, a settled head could be horrendous for NZ.
Certainly with the green-top and all of the rain and humidity, the lesser bowlers should start to find a bit more shape and movement... if not, what has Cooley been telling them? Or, given Marcus -i don't care about the rules, it's funny coz we got away with it- Trescothics admission of ball tampering, have the Australians decided not to "come to the dark side" and make the black art of reverse-swing happen due to ethics? If that is the case (and Pakistan were always suss in the 80's and 90's[and how did Z Kahn do it so early in this last series?]) we still need to be able to swing the ball AWAY from the shiny side.
But given how obvious it is that in the same day and with similar conditions, some countries manufacture swing and Australians can't, it must be said something is suss! And because CA won't say it for fear of upsetting whoever it is they are scared of, that is to say that there are cheats on the field! Someone should say it, so i will as it is just so blatant something is happening! Some would say this is sour grapes from me. NO! it is not! i can handle being beaten by a better side- when they play better cricket and deserve to win, but as a traditionalist, i say ball tampering is rank, and if that is the only way to win... you suck and are unworthy to play test cricket.
The genuine swing bowler is probably THE most effective weapon in cricket. let the skill be attained through practice and good captaincy giving the ball over at the best possible time to achieve swing! Not through cheating and ball manipulation!
It is one thing getting the guy that (partially) cost us the Ashes on side, it is another to see his results... which we haven't yet! If it was only a throat lozenge that got the 'no-better-than club cricketers' Anderson and Hoggart to be so effective, Cooley should pack his bags now and CA should apologise to D.K.Lillee and beg him (yes BEG!) to come back and teach the finer points of pace bowling; which is unlikely given CA's arrogance and J Sutherlands "futuristic" outlook!
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
2 allrounders?
Well, now that Andrew "Roy" Symonds has served his time for the fishing fiasco- conveniently relieving him from a trip to India and the tensions that would have created- the jostling to get him back in the side has begun.
Steve Waugh has stated that there is no reason why Australia can't have both Watson and Symonds in the side, and given how well Watson played in India, he certainly deserves to keep his spot. I wonder how Waugh would have reacted though, if when he was captain someone suggested he have two designated all-rounders in the side.
Symonds is a proven match winner and would be any captains dream pick due to his aggressive batting, medium pacers and the missing Indian tour option of a legitimate finger spinner. These points and the fact he has proven now without a doubt that he can concentrate on long test innings batting mean he must be considered a walk up start back into the side.
So is it worth trying something new with two all-rounders? my thought is... absolutely! Why not try something different? Not that NZ will lie down easily, but it is fair to say they fear Australia coming out and getting some form back at their expense. This is the ideal time to play around with the concept of how many all-rounders fit in a side. Who ever said there was room for only one anyway? When both Watson and Symonds can score runs, and when between them we get a quick, a medium pacer and an offey, it gives Ponting bowling options right through the life of a ball and innings. Let's do it!
***new poll below***
Steve Waugh has stated that there is no reason why Australia can't have both Watson and Symonds in the side, and given how well Watson played in India, he certainly deserves to keep his spot. I wonder how Waugh would have reacted though, if when he was captain someone suggested he have two designated all-rounders in the side.
Symonds is a proven match winner and would be any captains dream pick due to his aggressive batting, medium pacers and the missing Indian tour option of a legitimate finger spinner. These points and the fact he has proven now without a doubt that he can concentrate on long test innings batting mean he must be considered a walk up start back into the side.
So is it worth trying something new with two all-rounders? my thought is... absolutely! Why not try something different? Not that NZ will lie down easily, but it is fair to say they fear Australia coming out and getting some form back at their expense. This is the ideal time to play around with the concept of how many all-rounders fit in a side. Who ever said there was room for only one anyway? When both Watson and Symonds can score runs, and when between them we get a quick, a medium pacer and an offey, it gives Ponting bowling options right through the life of a ball and innings. Let's do it!
***new poll below***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)