Howzat - The Cricket Forum

i agree mate, to use t20 as an excuse for poor shot selection and a lack of disipline is a cop out.

i agree re rogers. Blokes should be selected on current form and not on age, 'potential' or past performances...so rogers for me was always a logical choice. The number 3 position is a huge problem. Clarke clearly doesnt want to bat at 3, cowan just hasnt been up to standard. That realy only leaves Khawaja (who has hardly been banging the door down) or hughes.

As for the bowlers...i really think bird HAS to play at Lords. The slope at Lords has been exploited brilliantly by McGrath and (to a lesser extent) Clark in the past and i think Bird could do the same.

I don't understand why we wouldn't play Wade as a specialist batsman if we don't want him keeping. He already has 2 hundreds in 12 Tests ave 35 and his had the extra responsibility of keeping , that's already more centuries and a higher ave then Cowan 1 and ave 31 in 6 fewer Tests. Shane Watson seems to be a walk up start in our batting line up every time and yet Wade has as many hundreds as him and the same ave in 30 fewer Tests, Warner is another who's figures he matchs up alright with in fewer Tests as well, Warner has 3 hundreds and averages 39.

I think we should drop Cowan, Hughes up to 3 (still not sold on Hughes) and Wade as a batsmen to 6. I can't see any reason why Wade if he was just told to focus on batting couldn't give it a fair go.

mate i hear what you're saying re wade. Not yet sold on hughes either but options for number 3 are very slim. Not sold on warner for that matter. His form over the past 12 months has been awful...so who do you want as your bowlers for Lords?

I've always been a fan of Harris would bring him in in place of Strac, Siddle and Bird are a bit sameish to me so would probably go with Siddle just ahead of Bird.

You've got one bloke in your corner of taking the DRS away from the players. https://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/content/story/651755.html

Back onto the drs..the whole point is that it was brought in the get rid of obviously incorrect decisions. That's not how it is being used. It's being used to try and overturn decisions that appear to be (at best)50-50. How well a team uses the drs can now have a huge impact on a match which is wrong. Batting is a cricket skill, bowling, fielding, field placements etc these are all cricket skills that a match of cricket ought to be testing. The use of drs is a skill but its not one that should be used by players with the result that those who use it more effectively are greatly rewarded and those who dont use it as well are significantly punished. The drs is meant to be a tool to enable more correct decision making...not to see what team can use it the 'smartest'. And the current system doesnt do what it is meant to do, and that is eliminate 'howlers'.

i like harris but i would go with Bird at Lords for the reasons i have stated. To me starc and pattison are too similiar in that neither tends to bowl a consistent line and length and look more to pace and (some) swing. I like the height and bounce that Bird brings and his ability to bowl a consistent line and length. He does do a bit with the ball but his bowling always relies on natural variation...something the Lord pitch definately offers.

warner by the way is only averaging 28.0 in ten test innings in 2013. That's a total of just 280 runs in ten knocks. Hardly inspiring...and yet its a damning indictment of our batting stocks that there is debate re whether or not he should be playing.

Haddin and harper arent the only ones who want technology to be used to aid umpires (like in ever yother team sport) rather than used as a tactical device by players.

I would have liked haddin to explain why (when the pitch was quite decent, when we had oodles of time and required only 14 runs) he went for such an extravagent drive when the ball was too short and wide to safely play that shot.

Fantastic start to the Ashes, great that the first test was such an entertaining and close one.

Possibly would have been better had Australia won that test, I think they will struggle to get anywhere in this series now. England always improve and I think the Australian batsmen are going to struggle against England's bowlers.

Glad they made the first match a close one, completely blows out of the water this myth about how poor Australia are and how England would win both series 5-0 (Something claimed regularly by that tool Ian Botham). That won't happen, clearly Australia are not quite as good as England at the moment, but the gap isn't huge.

Will be interesting to see if Steven Finn will play at Lords. He had a bit of a nightmare on the fifth day at Trent Bridge, but he is a capable bowler and he performs very well at Lords.

So far I'm really enjoying the series.

Tbh I don't think many people over here genuinely think England will win 10-0. Botham and co have come out with that rubbish, but I think they are just trying to wind people up.

One small gripe about watching the series on Sky over here is the lack of Australian commentator or analyst. Everyone on the commentary team is English, with the exception of one 'neutral' commentator from the West Indies. It gives no Australian perspective, which is a pity. Always liked having perspectives from both sides.

Haddin has always had the tendency to play the occasional bad shot from no where. Wade on the other hand I can't think of too many times I've seen him bat where I felt he got out playing a bad shot.

The English media always tend to go over board JMO, can remember reading an article on line during the last Ashes down here from the Daily Telegraph by some English journo who tried to claim Greame Swann is better then Shane Warne was. England are a good side but they aren't travelling as well as the hype suggested and Australia aren't as bad as some people say but as me and Shawdowen have been saying, the Australian batting is a real weakness.

The following is a quote from the ICC (as of today)

"Technology was introduced with the objective of eradicating the obvious umpiring errors, and to get as many correct decisions as possible. If it can help increase the correct decisions by 5.5 percent, then it is a good outcome, but we must continue to strive to improve umpiring and the performance of the DRS."

This was their statement in defence of the way technology is used. They really have their heads in their arses. How can you defend a system that allows howlers like broad's thick edge to go uncorrected and yet still pat yourself on the back whilst saying "Technology was introduced with the objective of eradicating the obvious umpiring errors, and to get as many correct decisions as possible." Seriously, wtf