-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
2nd Semi Final - Australia v England
- Thread starter James
- Start date
He should be sacked, that middle order is an embarrassment. Think we might have missed khawaja yesterday, better option than handscomb during a top order collapse I think
flibbertyjibber
Well-known member
Should get sack for bare foot thing.
jcas0167
Well-known member
Allow three reviews. The less room for umpiring error to influence games the better.
flibbertyjibber
Well-known member
More stupid reviews though.
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
Yeah not that I think it would have made a difference to the result (after being 2/10, game was over tbh), but sending Handscomb to bat in the first few overs against the new ball with the field up = dumb. Add that to leaving Stoinis to bat down the order with the field back against spin = doubly dumb. Picking Stoinis at all = triply dumb.
Red Hill
The artist formerly known as Monk
Shame he'll be suspended for the final.
He’s on 3 points after yesterday so he’s clear
What like a sit down interview with Michael Vaughan or something of that nature ?
quincywagstaff
Well-known member
Agree with those who said Oz did pretty well overall considering the major weaknesses they had in their squad.
And that includes their spin lineup. Saw some cricket media talk up Nathan Lyon as a really dangerous and viable ODI bowler but I never really saw it. There's a reason why his ODI average is worse than Xavier Doherty.
And that includes their spin lineup. Saw some cricket media talk up Nathan Lyon as a really dangerous and viable ODI bowler but I never really saw it. There's a reason why his ODI average is worse than Xavier Doherty.
quincywagstaff
Well-known member
Marcus Stoinis seems to be at as a ODI player where Cameron White was after the 2011 WC.
Played some top ODI knocks but was persisted with during a poor run of form for such a prolonged period including a dire WC that even if he dominates domestically can't see him getting much of a shot again.
Played some top ODI knocks but was persisted with during a poor run of form for such a prolonged period including a dire WC that even if he dominates domestically can't see him getting much of a shot again.
morgieb
Well-known member
Nah, in that situation batting him over Stoinis and Maxwell made perfect sense.
TheJediBrah
Well-known member
I think the obsessive search for a seam-bowling allrounder that has infected Australia's selectors for the best part of the past decade, in all formats, has really hurt the team and it's performances.
It peaked with the ridiculous run a failing Mitch Marsh got in the Test side, and sticking with a clearly out of form and basically **** Marcus Stoinis in this World Cup has been almost as bad.
Those in charge need to accept that if you don't have a player good enough to do the role effectively, then it's not worth wasting a spot on a pretender. Picking a specialist batsman who can actually contribute (whether talking about Tests or limited-overs) is more important than any extra overs you'll get out of a crap all-rounder. Wasting that spot hurts the team more than having to make up some overs from part-timers like Smith & Maxwell would.
stephen
Well-known member
Ahead of Maxwell yes, but not ahead of Stoinis.
But the fundamental problem is that Carey batting at 5 basically meant we had nothing in the shed for later. By sending in Stoinis we give him a chance to get set against pace instead of spin. It gives him the chance to crab hiss way to 20(40) and actually contribute.
Carey's default position should be 6 or 7, no higher.
Marsh could come in at 7. There is no reason to keep Maxwell in the side. He's rubbish and inconsistent and doesn't make good decisions and can't be relied upon for more than 20(10) which is more what you expect from a number 7 or 8.
