Jump to content

btron3000

Donator
  • Content Count

    6,473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    71

 Content Type 

Profiles

Store

News Articles

Western Sydney Wanderers Youth Match Reports

Western Sydney Wanderers Match Database

Western Sydney Wanderers Women Match Reports

Western Sydney Wanderers Player Database

Western Sydney Wanderers NPL

Forums

Calendar

Everything posted by btron3000

  1. Told you. Root batted for twice as long this innings as his last.
  2. Roy is so predictable. As soon as he hit that four and then the drive that Hazlewood stopped, you just knew that he would go after one he shouldn't. With the sun out it looks like it's gonna be an easier batting day. If they survive the new ball, could be a long day for Australia.
  3. Australia lucky early - quite a few plays and misses by Warner in particular - but unlucky late. Cummins didn't hit his, Paine's lb was marginal, and Labuschagne would not have got out the way he did if he was batting in bright sunlight. Hopefully the predicted cloud cover stays around for England's innings today. If it does, it's going to be interesting to see how well Australia bowl on it and how good or bad a total of 179 is. I think Ussie and Wade are battling for one spot in the second innings, and Australia's batting lineup is going to start to look good when Smith and LBS are in the middle order together, especially if Warner's innings wasn't a one-off.
  4. Agree about Roy, but where can you put him in the order? If he's gonna succeed in Tests, he's gonna do it at 6. But Buttler and Stokes are in the right spots. You don't want to screw with that. So the only option really is 4. Not sure about that, but swapping him and Denly is the simplest option (unless they bring in another opener of course!). I think that the Aussies love having Root come in at 3. Get someone early and you're into him. And he clearly prefers 4. But it does start getting complicated to sort that out. Could bring in a 3 and move him down, and possibly move Denly to opener. Could just swap him and Denly, but having Denly bat at 3 is what they were trying to avoid in the first place. Actually, thinking about this potential batting order, there is an argument for bringing in Pattinson for Siddle. That would mean that Cummins could move to first change, and potentially be coming in to bowl to numbers 3 and 4 (hopefully 5!). Having Cummins come in after initial inroads are made gives Australia a much better chance of getting through the middle order cheaply. Man this (English) summer of cricket has been soooo good. Can't wait for Thursday.
  5. It's clearly not finished because they are essentially reviewing what went wrong, but they are saying it's not a review of the sacking. LOL that is exactly what it is a review of. What is the point of announcing a review of processes and explicitly saying it is not a review of the sacking? Who cares about internal processes? What are they gonna say at the end of it - "we found a few process improvements"? Wow. Then what? People will ask "was that what led to Stajcic being sacked?" and they'll say that they didn't review the sacking just the processes. So just do it, no-one wants to hear about a process review where they've already basically told us that they won't tell us anything of note. Or if you want to communcate it, say you are doing it but don't say anything expicitly about the sacking. Just say you are reviewing processes and if there is anything of note to come from that, you will communicate it. That way, a) you're not bullshitting the public that this isn't about the sacking, and b) if something of note comes out about the sacking, and you think you can communiate that in a reasonable way to the public, you can - you haven't closed yourself off to talking about the sacking. By saying "it's not about the sacking" when IT CLEARLY IS, they just look again like they are dodging stuff.
  6. Not sure where we are gonna get enugh runs. Somebody - probably two people - have to stand up. Gonna have to bowl well so be interesting to see who gets picked. Pattinson will come back, Cummins will be there, and then you have to decide between Siddle and Hazlewood to miss out. Siddle has been so consistent and so unlucky, but Hazlewood got us off to the good start. However, Hazlewood did nothing in the second innings and he's been a bit like that his whole career - real good and then not much. I think they can get from Pattinson what they get from him. England really only have to work out the top order. They've sorted 5 - 11. Does Roy keep his spot? Does Root move back down to 4?
  7. Good point, except people wanted a review into the Stajcic sacking, not a review that says they are looking into processes but specifically NOT the Stajcic sacking. I mean, talk about a toothless tiger. What are they going to do if it is established that Stajcic sacking was because the senior management hid issues, or the Board didn't have the appropriate processes in place to be certain that a big decision like this is made for the right reasons? Sack them? Step down? I mean, didn't Staj already get a payout which assumedly contains a clause that he can't get more cash from them? So who are they protecting by not looking into it?
  8. Smith out of third Test. Well, there is one positive from this. Labuschagne clearly put his hand up but most people were struggling to work out how bringing him in to the team might work. Do they drop an opener and push Khawaja up? Or drop Khawaja? They'd probably have preferred to drop Wade but he got that hundred. And is one innings from Marnus enough to make any of those decisions? Now, it's simple and they have just one question to answer around the batting lineup - does Bancroft go for Harris? I think yes, but I reckon they'll give him one more chance. The positive is that everyone is playing for their spot, except probably Head, he's been consistent enough, and by the fourth Test we'll know who put their hand up and should have the best 6 playing.
  9. Are they serious? How many external reviews do they need to do in order to have policies and processes that could be set up by a senior staff member? Have they ever had a Chief Operating Officer? If they had hired one competent ******* person over the last 5 years they would have all this **** in place. Instead they spent their time fighting everyone in football and paying lawyers.
  10. I hope all your Kopite calling is a joke. Because you call the smurfs the Kopites when they claim to be the Man U of Australia. Doesn't quite work, does it.
  11. Yeah I have no problem with the England player's reaction. Just because people are laughing doesn't mean that they are laughing at someone. Anyone ever laughed at a funeral or wake? Sometimes laughing is the only way people deal with weird or bad situations. The booing, on the other hand... what, we've already been over that? Must have missed it...
  12. Pace is one thing. Quality is another. Starc can't even get a run in our team because he is too wayward for Tests. In any case, there was a good article on cricinfo about the speed gun, and how it doesn't really tell the story. If I can dig it up, I'll post it. Basically, the first issue is that it doesn't actually calculate how far the ball travels and the time it takes (as you would expect because that is the normal definition of speed), it somehow measures the speed at a certain point. It's fallible. Also, the action of the bowler makes it easier or more difficult to hit. Starc is quick but his smooth action and where he releases the ball from make him easier to hit for someone of his pace (unless he's slinging in his yorker of course!). Bowlers like Bumrah and Archer who jog in and go whoosh are difficult. Batsmen just find some bowlers harder to deal with than others, regardless of what the speed gun says. You only have to look at Ben Stokes as an example. He regularly bowls as quick as Cummins or Hazlewood according to the speed gun. But there is no way that anyone would argue that he is as difficult to play as them. Or even actually as fast as them. Archer is ridiculously quick, bowls from right next to the stumps and straight at the batsmen, can move it, and has a vicious bouncer the batsmen don't see coming. Most Test batsmen subconsciously use the body language of the bowler to start moving into position before the ball is released. Archer gives no early warning signals of what's coming. Almost every ball uses the same action. But yes, doing it on the subcontinent will be interesting. As will he having to adapt when batsmen work him out. Labuschagne was leaving anything that was going over the stumps, and then when Archer pitched it up he drove him (he also played and missed quite a few early!). Those that were getting in behind it or trying to play the hook and pull shots were the ones that struggled.
  13. Dude, he’s the real deal.
  14. Same old Root, always cheating. Joel Wilson is the worst umpire of all time. I swear he’s blind. Every DRS he has been uncertain. Just rock and roll that. Slower. Slower. And now the catch that SO OBVIOUSLY hit the ground. Unbelievable. If we lose this now...
  15. No. My opinion has always been that hitting a batsman is part of the game, as is fighting back against hostile bowling. What I disagreed with - maybe it wasn't clear - was you saying that people wanted to see the enemy "destroyed and smashed" and "not their stumps". In other words, they would have been happy had the bowlers hit the batsmen but then not got them out. Nonsense. I've never seen a cricket crowd anywhere that was happy just hurting them and not getting them out. To use the players that you chose as examples, what is the Australian cricket public's opinion of Dennis Lillee compared to Shaun Tait? One is a legend because he did more than just scare or hit batsmen, he got them out. The other was a wild guy that bowled quick and was exciting for a bit (and that is about the best review of him you will get!). BESIDES, even taking into account all the above, the original argument was never about whether crowds wanted to see people get hit, it was about the attitude ONCE you have hurt them, not beforehand. Smith got knocked the **** over, and people were booing him coming back. That's what was disgraceful, not the desire to see someone get hit. And hell, even the commentators were saying "how long till Archer is back on". That is part of the game, but booing the guy for coming out KNOWING he was likely to face more chin music at 150km/h is pretty low. I would have had no problem AT ALL had Archer come back on and the crowd cheered another bouncer barrage. That's fair game. Anyway, I'm done. I've said my bit. Probably see yous at 8:00pm.
  16. Jesus ******* Christ I never said that people don't want to see players hit. I like it when players get hit. It's part of the game. But so is coming back and facing the music again. But hey, keep cherrypicking my posts.
  17. I get the first part, but even if people think he should have been banned for longer (which is RIDICULOUS considering the punishments handed out to people before him), there is a time to at least shut up. I disagree totally with the second part, as would most of the players you mention. And I'm not being ******* naive. I love seeing batsmen ducking for cover (danger is an inherent part of the game) but the ultimate goal is to use a hit to the batsman (or the idea of a hit) to put doubt in their mind so you get them out. And there is a big difference between hitting someone on the arm, shoulder, fingers etc or a glancing blow to the head and someone getting KO'd like Smith did. And anyway, even if there is a desire to see someone hit, that is still VERY different to actively booing someone coming back from a hit. The game is about taking a hit and showing the courage to come back. Booing someone for doing that is disrespecting the game. The GREAT thing about cricket - until now - has been the respect that people - teams and fans - show the oppositon. I've been at the SCG when the whole crowd was literally cheering every time Lara hit a boundary, they were in that much awe. But in the past few years there has been WAY too much focus on the battle - even with those stupid CH 9 documentaries with that voice over: "Ashes Battles blah blah". And things like the Aussie administrators putting up that giant hand on stage showing 4-0 when we won the Ashes. A lack of respect for the opposition and the game. If there is one good thing to come from Newlands, it is that the Aussie team and administrators have started to respect the game again. Let's see if the other countries follow suit (and our fans too).
  18. LOL Degenek 81. Also, your precious FIFA rating doesn't look at where someone plays and how they fit into the coach's tactics. Or age, or getting used to playing in summer on hard pitches, with refs that let oppositon teams hack you etc etc.
  19. All FOUR results still possible! Agree 200 is the magic number. Also, will depend how Smith wakes up. If Stokes plays a big part with the bat Australia are going to rue that drop and the non-review.
  20. Well I don't agree with you guys about the Sydney crowd, but why are we debating whether an Australian crowd WOULD do it - it's disgraceful no matter who does it and the crowd last night DID do it. To boo someone who comes back out after being felled by a hit to the head from a 95km/h bouncer, especially AFTER what we saw happen to Phillip Hughes, is ******* low. Head knocks are serious stuff.
  21. Dude... he got hit on the hand and he basically got a standing ovation from the entire ground! That's a terrible example and just highlights my point! So three dudes near you booed. That's not the same as being able to hear a chorus of boos through the tv for a guy who got hit on the head.
  22. When? I want to know the situation. I bet you it is different to this. Never seen anyone booed at the SCG when they've been sconed and come back out to bat.
  23. There is NO WAY that the Sydney Test crowd would boo a dude who has been through that. Maybe the idiots that go to one-day games and have no idea.
  24. On the whole, as you would know, Aussie fans will give you heaps, but if you show the guts to deal with it, score hundreds, then come out after getting whacked in the head, they'll respect you. Maybe Brisbane, but even there I doubt it. Anyway, this is Lord's... the best of you...
×
×
  • Create New...