Cricket fans on SS?
- Thread starter J_aco
- Start date
That seems like a really pointless statistic to me.. There seems to be too much stigma on the magical 100. Runs are runs.. Shouldn't the priority be to win the test at hand?
Classic example in the last test.. Mucking around waiting for Marsh to get his 100.. Runs himself out on 99 due to the pressure imposed on himself. Such a waste of time.. Bowling India out didn't seem a priority at all
4 wickets for Watson tomorrow
For the umpteenth time with the Axe seemingly poised to fall on his test career and (again) with the series decided and the pressure really off - he has come out and probably done enough to save himself.
Besides, who do we replace him with?
Yes, runs are runs, but more runs please.
His batting average of 37 or so (at position 3) is at the extreme lower end of the scale for acceptability in that position.
Regarding his famed ability to let hundreds slip and what you call a "pointless statistic". Take a step back and have a look at it....
In positions 1 to 4 (86 innings), he has 22 fifties and only 4 tons
You don't build a big innings around a 50, 60, 70, or 80....
Hundreds - and by and large the bigger the better - are the sorts of scores that innings are built around.
If <insert name of player here> is scoring big tons at one end, it means that <insert name of other players here> are at the other end and also scoring runs.
Sure, it is a team sport and it is the team's results that matter most.
Read my earlier post about Watson's contribution in recent series during the earlier parts of those series when winning a test actually means something. Winning a test when the series is decided (be it won or lost) looks good in the stats books, but beyond that it doesn't matter much does it?
Classic example in the last test.. Mucking around waiting for Marsh to get his 100.. Runs himself out on 99 due to the pressure imposed on himself. Such a waste of time.. Bowling India out didn't seem a priority at all
Yeah, credit where credit is due.... Watson knows how to get in there, and well, get back out. No mucking around there.
Personally, I was not that upset about the decision to bat on and give Marsh the opportunity to get the ton. We had already bagged this series (2 nil up) and there is an Ashes tour not too far away - which is far more important - and, imo, you want your top order batters to be going over there feeling like they can bank test tons (namely because they have in recent memory) - and that applies to all of them (not just S Marsh, it applies to Watson, Burns, Rogers, M Marsh, etc.)
But if you're one of those that thought we let the Indians off the hook by not declaring sooner. That's fine, but you can't blame Shaun Marsh for the Steve Smith / Darren Lehmann decision to bat on.
4 wickets for Watson tomorrow
He took 2 wickets in the first innings which, for him, is like taking all 10 in the innings.
It's frustrating - because the guy is unquestionably talented.
But the gap between what people believe he is capable of and what he has achieved thus far looks like a big one.
Last edited:
Not sure what you mean is more important? With batting I think you can only read into statistics so far. IMO, Players should cement their position in the team by their 'valuable contributions'. Marsh made his contribution with the runs - I don't think it needed to be validated by reaching 100. Batting in the second innings should be a selfless act - risk your wicket to score quick runs or declare short of a milestone to maximise time to bowl the other team out. Much more important.
I think there's been a great tradition set in the team, notably with pup, to contribute for the team than be worried about stats. Can't argue with you on Watson lack of contributions though.
No, the blame is definitely with Smith/Lehmann. Not as dissapointing as Smith's forfeit at the end.. Yes, I think forfeit is a better word than draw for that test. Even Dhoni was taken by surprise. We've developed such a great rivalry with India now, fighting for a series clean sweep was warranted..
The series is won. Clean sweeps don't mean much to me tbh (unless you're on the wrong end of them). While I agree that you want to win every game, chasing clean sweeps is to me a pointless statistic.
We have been head and shoulders above India this series (even with Kohli's superb performances). But I also think we have been a little lucky because to me our batting line up looks like this -
Smith and Warner are a veneer of as-good-as-it-gets test batting.
However, the wood underneath (which is most of it) a chipboard of bits and pieces - some of it ok (Rogers), but most of it pretty crap and / or unproven in tests actually.
Given that, and that mentally batters are more confident when they're scoring runs - letting our top / middle order find some form by spending some time in the middle and achieving the odd personal milestone - especially in the lead up to a long Ashes tour (which we want to give ourselves every chance of winning) - to me that sits pretty high on my list of priorities.
Because letting our bats find form / confidence makes us a stronger team.
And we cannot keep relying on Smith and Warner to bank tons around which we can build innings of 500+.
I saw that as the sole and encouraging example of being sporting and gentlemanly in a game - and a series - that has seen lots of examples of unsportsmanslike behaviour (on both sides).
Last edited:
Further to my post above -
Mike Atherton famously declared on Graeme Hick when he was 98* in an Ashes test.
It would be have been Hick's first (and, as it turns out, only) Ashes ton.
Maybe England would have got a lot more out of Mr Hick over the course his illustrious career if he'd been allowed to have that moment of personal glory and know he could score 100's against us in Tests.
We'll never know though....
(Team ahead of individual, but you need strong individuals to contribute to the performance of the team. So sometimes, for the good of the team, you need to put the individual first).
Angus Fraser (now an England selector) says this (here, worth a read btw)...
Hicky [Graeme Hick] was a very popular player, a really nice man. I'd sort of shared his struggles, really. You suddenly play really well and are in line to get an Ashes hundred and you think this fellow deserves this. I don't think the right decision was made. It killed that moment. We'd been getting our backside kicked around Australia and you're suddenly on top in a match and a popular player is on the brink of achieving something special? I understand the reasons for taking the decision, but within the team you've also got to look at the individual players' development. It affected us as a team and undoubtedly affected Hick's career to some extent.
Mike Atherton famously declared on Graeme Hick when he was 98* in an Ashes test.
It would be have been Hick's first (and, as it turns out, only) Ashes ton.
Maybe England would have got a lot more out of Mr Hick over the course his illustrious career if he'd been allowed to have that moment of personal glory and know he could score 100's against us in Tests.
We'll never know though....
(Team ahead of individual, but you need strong individuals to contribute to the performance of the team. So sometimes, for the good of the team, you need to put the individual first).
Angus Fraser (now an England selector) says this (here, worth a read btw)...
Hicky [Graeme Hick] was a very popular player, a really nice man. I'd sort of shared his struggles, really. You suddenly play really well and are in line to get an Ashes hundred and you think this fellow deserves this. I don't think the right decision was made. It killed that moment. We'd been getting our backside kicked around Australia and you're suddenly on top in a match and a popular player is on the brink of achieving something special? I understand the reasons for taking the decision, but within the team you've also got to look at the individual players' development. It affected us as a team and undoubtedly affected Hick's career to some extent.
Last edited:
Valid. Noone is screaming out pick me pick me isn't it.
Back in the 90s, early 2000s, we had the young prodigy in Ponting and Clarke and knew they were destined for great things. We had the consistent run machines (seriously too many to name) in first class that just couldn't get in the Test team...
But over the past 10 years (coincidentally with the T20 intro), how many Sheffield Shield/Pura Cup matches do you hear about or watched? Are these youngsters able to learn, how to build a long innings (the kind Tugga used to do, unlike Junior
)...Whole different topic/issue/fundamental change to the game I guess... (like teenagers with their use of mobiles
)It was an embarrasment of riches, that was for sure.
Like you say, numerous players missed out on any opportunity or had their opportunities severely curtailed. Our current coach among them.
Before Punter came along we had the Waugh brothers. Steve of course debuting years before he was ready in 1985/86. Mark debuting (at Steve's expense) in 1990/91. Then both of them in the team. Then out. It wasn't until the selectors unceremoniously axed Dean Jones (whose last 7 test innings produced 426 runs @ 85.2) that both Waugh twins (seen as the future of Australian cricket) found a consistent place in the team.
Rahane to hit the winning runs
obviously an aussie fan but...
AB is just absolutely amazing... what can't he do?!
(Amla and AB over the past few years have just been so consistent in ODI and Test it's not funny)
On another matter, Faulkner is certainly the new Bevan - with a bit more aplomb too! (Hussey obviously another one in his early ODI career; Martyn and Symonds to some extent too in ~1999, from my memory of playing fantasy cricket on cricinfo)
AB is just absolutely amazing... what can't he do?!
(Amla and AB over the past few years have just been so consistent in ODI and Test it's not funny)
On another matter, Faulkner is certainly the new Bevan - with a bit more aplomb too! (Hussey obviously another one in his early ODI career; Martyn and Symonds to some extent too in ~1999, from my memory of playing fantasy cricket on cricinfo
)an unbelievable knock by AB. smashed the WR for the fastest 100.
the fastest ever 150 was off 80 something balls by Shane Watson, AB was about to beat that record by like 40 balls but got out on 149.
AMAZING
the fastest ever 150 was off 80 something balls by Shane Watson, AB was about to beat that record by like 40 balls but got out on 149.
AMAZING
That's crazy. They will be near impossible to beat in the world cup.
