Australia v India
-
@MN5 said in Australia v India:
@Cyclops said in Australia v India:
I remember Flem sending in Kyle Mills as a 'new ball watchman' when we were getting thumped by the South Africans. What else could we do? 'Lunchwatcher'? 'Drinkswatcher'? Maybe Crawley needed a Henrywatcher?
How spoiled are batsmen? Only expected to participate in half the game (if we're being generous you could say 2/3rds counting fielding). And even then they get to say 'nah, bit tricky' some of the time.
….and it’s not like Fleming evened the ledger by turning the arm over when his seamers were a bit tired.
Didn’t bowl a single ball in 111 tests.
Jadeja playing a bit of a sheet anchor role, if Oz get him the rest should crumble pretty quick I reckon.
Although looking at the ODIs he bowled in, it looks a bit like they said 'we're getting thrashed, Flem bowl a couple of overs to save the real bowlers averages'.
-
-
@Cyclops said in Australia v India:
Yeah I'm on Steve Waugh's side on the nightwatcher. The best case scenario is you get through to stumps without another wicket and then have an awkward start the next morning as a tail ender tries to hang around.
A tail ender hanging around while the best bowlers and the pitch are at their freshest in the morning is part of the point.
-
@Damo said in Australia v India:
@Cyclops said in Australia v India:
Yeah I'm on Steve Waugh's side on the nightwatcher. The best case scenario is you get through to stumps without another wicket and then have an awkward start the next morning as a tail ender tries to hang around.
A tail ender hanging around while the best bowlers and the pitch are at their freshest in the morning is part of the point.
So then why not open with 10 and 11 to 'see off the new ball'? (Although it's worth acknowledging that in the days of uncovered pitches there are examples of batting orders being reversed to try to give the pitch time to dry before the batters come in).
My feeling is that if a nightwatcher actually hangs around, then conditions are probably pretty good for batting and having a top order bat in inside would probably be more productive anyway.
I think both arguments are pretty marginal, I don't think using or not using one makes much difference in the scheme of things.
-
@Damo said in Australia v India:
I am going to go against the trend and argue that generally the night Watchman is a good idea.
This 2018 piece argues that 70% of Test night watchmen innings over the years have been successful so it is a percentage option, although not without risk.
Who is the best nightwatchman of all time?
The Bradman of nightwatchmen scored 327 runs in that role at an average of 40.9 and faced 1040 balls, averaging 116 balls per innings
It's also a role you can train an experienced player to be bloody good at. Jason Gillespie and Stuart Broad ("the night hawk") has two seasoned practitioners that spring to mind.
-
Back to the test, nice little twist happening with this partnership, draw certainly becomes more possible the longer they bat on
-
Does anyone else get the impression that the other commentators feel obliged to laugh when O'Keeffe cracks himself up? Some of the stuff he laughs at is not that funny.
Edit - although that drummer joke he just cracked didn't get a laugh
-
Khawaja and konstas now back at the crease, looks an intriguing battle. Bowlers marginally in front so far
-
Bumrah is back
-
Deep reasonably threatening but Bumrah gets Konstas 20/1
-
-
-
-
-
Australia with the 240 run lead with 4 wickets in hand and 4 sessions.
I think if we can get to a 300 run lead we'll be lucky. That would leave us 12ish overs to bowl tonight I think with the rubbish over rates that have been coming through.
At that point we need our best bowling to win the game and get one hand on the trophy.
