Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Australia 299 all out

Labuschagne 60
Marsh 54
Khawaja 47

Jamal 6-69

Pakistan struggling though with the bat. Aussies back on top.

GarlicJam wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Selection meetings must be short.

apparently there was some strong argument for Boland for this test - but just who would have been under consideration to make way for him?

Hazelwood, maybe - but why?

Haze justifying his selection with 4-9 at the close.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:

GarlicJam wrote:

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Selection meetings must be short.

apparently there was some strong argument for Boland for this test - but just who would have been under consideration to make way for him?

Hazelwood, maybe - but why?

Haze justifying his selection with 4-9 at the close.

He certainly has - that 3-wicket-maiden he bowled has pretty much decided this test.

He also bowled very well last test, without much of a reward. It was for the Melbourne test that Boland's name was being tossed up for - him being considered the MCG specialist, and all.

I see a lot of Pakistan fans complaining about DRS on Twitter and what not.

If I have the story correct, apparently Shakeel was given out on a obvious massive overstepped no ball that he successfully overturned, then followed it up with an identical dismissal a few balls later which he also believed was a no ball. The review was sent up to the booth, and the replay confirmed the delivery was legal, but rather bizarrely Shakeel was at the non-strikers end in the footage used, so they reviewed the wrong ball....

Cricket trying to out do VAR in football for worst TV decision system?

sussexpob wrote:I see a lot of Pakistan fans complaining about DRS on Twitter and what not.

If I have the story correct, apparently Shakeel was given out on a obvious massive overstepped no ball that he successfully overturned, then followed it up with an identical dismissal a few balls later which he also believed was a no ball. The review was sent up to the booth, and the replay confirmed the delivery was legal, but rather bizarrely Shakeel was at the non-strikers end in the footage used, so they reviewed the wrong ball....

Cricket trying to out do VAR in football for worst TV decision system?

This was on day one.
I didn't see this live (I have seen maybe 50-70% of the test), and only have seen social media discussion on it, which obviously is as reliable as all heck.

From things I read, I had the idea that this vision of the wrong delivery was from the broadcaster's vision, not the third ump's.

I think it was a stirring up of a storm in a teacup. Could be wrong though.

Only seen the attached pictures with Shakeel at the non-strikers end, so cant comment... but seems to have upset Pakistan fans

GarlicJam wrote:On the subject of the ever present elephant in the room though - many Australians seem to have gone with the "done the crime, done the time" line. A lesser group, I think, are not prepare to forgive or forget. I am one of those. I am fine with him playing test cricket again, but his name is mentally written with an asterisk

From an outsiders perspective, cricket in Australia seems to have a bit of an identity crisis. As one Aussie journo put it a while back, the culture is based around "aggression and puritanism" , and I certainly agree with that. The Australian cricket team has tried to cultivate an off-field image of being composed with good old fashioned "heart in the right place" blokes, but with the additional tick in the box of being new-age blokes who do the dishes and are great dads too. Obviously this is all part of a marketing exercise to make players more bankable for flogging KFC or cars or home insurance or whatever, but it certainly doesn't tie in with the reality of how they are on the cricket field.

Nevertheless, I think that image dare I say is something that Australian's self-project, whether truthfully or not. Australians want to identify that way... be good people, play hard but fair... the reaction to the Sandpaper gate from afar felt like a huge exercise in moral exceptionalism, and one that was pretty misguided... not sure after you get caught cheating, its the time to remind everyone why that matters more to you, because its deep in your culture that you dont cheat. That is clearly b*llocks, as the actual example proved beyond doubt. You are just as prone to cheating as everyone else. Probably even more so, as Australia's proud heritage in sport also demands results like few other places.

To me, I think Warner is so hated because he destroyed part of that "puritanical" myth of how Australians want to identify; it wasn't really about cheating per se, just having to admit that there is a capability to lower oneself to it just like anyone else, and the feeling of losing that moral superiority. I realise for someone not Australian, commenting to an Aussie, that could sound xenophobic, insulting or be offensive. It really isnt the point - I have no pretence about England being capable of cheating, or being capable of acting like brats, or for that matter any team.

The point is, Warner has always been portrayed as a bad boy, but isn't all of his wrong-doings part of what Australian cricket is, and always has been? You telling me previous Aussies wouldn't sledge or get in people's face? Throw insults? Hell, the best captain you ever had labelled his tactical blueprint "mental disintegration", so lets be honest about it.... maybe Australia wants to be something different in the modern day and project a faux identity of huggable men being nice to pets on Instagram, but the fact is you put them on a field and they have always been in your face. When the team was apparently toxic was anyone asking questions about it? No, not at all.... Michael Clarke was threatening opponents with broken limbs, and Aussie fans frothed at the mouth.

And I wouldn't change that for the world. Its what I respect most about Australian sporting culture .... its time for Aussies to see in themselves that part of what makes Dave Warner an annoying b*stard is also why your nation is so damn hard to beat at cricket. That combative, cold blooded obsession of winning is what has driven all of the greats of Australian cricket.... I recommend you never change that. Being so bloody mentally toughed is in itself a national characteristic celebrate. Id love to import some of it to British sporting culture, god we might even win something for once.

He cheated. Others have.... he paid the price, a high one. I dont expect him to be loved, but I would think that as he retires, his record in the game deserves mention without reference to him as a person

I'm not sure the obsessive pursuit of winning really means you have to try to win at all costs. Gilchrist wasn't the Corinthian he was claimed to be, but he played to a higher standard of fair play than McGrath. The flintish single minded pursuit of excellence is necessary to be a winner. But mean spirited gamesmanship isn't. It's possible to win and be a decent person. Someone in the camp should make sure that the team plays to that standard.

Aussie cricket has its fair share of of decent blokes, but as a group they have appeared to be entitled and thin skinned. Much as England were under Flower and Cook. Maybe it helps you win, but the watchers don't forget. To succeed without losing your humanity is the best a sportsperson can be.

Arthur Crabtree wrote: Aussie cricket has its fair share of of decent blokes, but as a group they have appeared to be entitled and thin skinned. Much as England were under Flower and Cook. Maybe it helps you win, but the watchers don't forget

Worrying about the way victory is achieved feels very much a luxury for successful teams, and while Flower built an English team that was thoroughly unlikeable, no one remembers that. I have spent 10-11 years arguing about Flower with people - he is adored by the cricketing public for his results, only a few diehard minorities like you or I remember the negatives.

A really good example is that 2013-14 series. Australia had gone through a dark period in their history up to that series..... they had played something like 10 tests without a win coming into Brisbane, and had lost or drawn series they were expected to dominate (most noteably last ranked NZ got a series draw in Australia around then).

I dont think anyone in Australia stopped for a minute during that series to complain about how OTT it got. Australia dismantled England to the point it took nearly a decade for England to recover from it, and everyone loved it. Maybe if they'd won 20 games coming into that series, it would have been different.... as it was, the people got to enjoy an unfancied team suddenly clicked, and dispatching Flower's team that had beaten them a few times into oblivion.

People really only cared that Australia had won, and in emphatic style.... no one was mentioning the hostility or aggression

Hmm. Doesn't give me much hope for the future of mankind!

Sussex - I think you have hit the nail on the head in regards to a lot of the dislike for Warner is due to the loss of the right to a feeling of moral superiority.

That hurt a lot, and it still hurts.

However, Warner was not the most liked cricketer in Aus before this incident anyway. As I have commented earlier, right from the start, I did not like him - but he played for Aus and he played very well, so that makes things a lot better.

I cannot - and I don't care to try - separate my strong feelings for him from my opinion of him as a cricketer, so I will remain in disagreement of your later point: (his record in the game deserves mention without reference to him as a person).



Your comment about the 2013 Ashes being remembered for the (Aus) victory, not for the manner it was achieved is wrong, I think. The enduring memory of that series for me and a lot of Aus fans IS how they were won, namely, Mitchell Johnson's aggression and dominance - coming after so many trials and tribulations for him, especially in Ashes tours of England. His personal redemption. The stumps being scattered again and again, Johnson steaming in, snarling (with that "mean mother moe"), the English batters' palpable fear. As you say, coming after a poor period for Aus, and annihilating England when they were the underdogs really helped.



Arthur, you will be pleased (and Sussex not so pleased maybe) to see how this series is being played out between the two teams. I don't think that I have seen a test series like this, it goes well beyond cordial. I think a few things strongly contribute to this: Khawaja's presence; the recent tour of Pakistan by Australia, Cummins' leadership, and also Masood's leadership. I have been quite impressed with him - he seems to be captaining Pakistan well, presenting himself very well to the media, and looks to be a genuinely nice bloke.
There is constant chat and laughter between the sides, mid-over even. Even hugs. Uzzie has chatted to them in Urdu while at the crease (he was saying things to Warner in Urdu as well). We know there is a lot of this going on when the ex-players comment about not liking it: "it's fine off the field, but they are out there to play cricket for their country. Get on with it, boys"


Overall, I think the Aus team under Cummins' captaincy IS a far less aggressive and in-your-face team. There's still Warner, and Starc, and others, who are confrontational, but maybe less of them?

Slight recovery for Pakistan, but presume this will end with an Aussie win in the morning.

GarlicJam wrote:Overall, I think the Aus team under Cummins' captaincy IS a far less aggressive and in-your-face team.

Fair enough. The last Ashes series was dominated by Cummins' okaying of the Bairstow run out. But I accept that opinions vary on that.

Rizwan goes, so that should be decisive.