Australia Vs India ODI series

User Name wrote:Aaron Finch (c), David Warner, Steve Smith, Chris Lynn, Glenn Maxwell, Shane Watson, Matthew Wade, James Faulkner, John Hastings, Kane Richardson, Nathan Lyon

Doesn't look too bad!

Cant and wont win the T20 World Cup with that bowling line-up

Ice wrote:

Cant and wont win the T20 World Cup with that bowling line-up

Lyon will go close to leading wicket taker in the comp. I think we need Tye in there, great death bowler.

T20 World Cup is in India isn't it? If so that won't be the bowling side selected. India have quite clearly shown their strength is not quick bowling, so their pitches will require some spinners in the line up.

I think Starc has been ruled out, which is a shame. The way he's been bowling in the short game in the last year he could just about win it by himself, even on slow, turning pitches. Boyce will be in there (even though it's usually finger spinners who do best there), and I wouldn't be surprised if old man Hogg gets a pick. I expect they will pick someone like Doherty before him though. Yuk.

Dip wrote:T20 World Cup is in India isn't it? If so that won't be the bowling side selected. India have quite clearly shown their strength is not quick bowling, so their pitches will require some spinners in the line up.

I think Starc has been ruled out, which is a shame. The way he's been bowling in the short game in the last year he could just about win it by himself, even on slow, turning pitches. Boyce will be in there (even though it's usually finger spinners who do best there), and I wouldn't be surprised if old man Hogg gets a pick. I expect they will pick someone like Doherty before him though. Yuk.

Yeah Boyce has been impressive for a few years now and should be included.

Another handy option would be Travis Head based on his impressive form with the bat but also his part time spin (was good last night anyway).

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

Yeah Boyce has been impressive for a few years now and should be included.

Another handy option would be Travis Head based on his impressive form with the bat but also his part time spin (was good last night anyway).

Kid looks like if he wasn't into cricket he'd be on the pipe

Regardless of where the T20's are held it has been proved that if you bowl over 150K you are a liability, because with today's bats if you stick it in front of it it's at least a 4

Your Name wrote:Regardless of where the T20's are held it has been proved that if you bowl over 150K you are a liability, because with today's bats if you stick it in front of it it's at least a 4

Really? There's only been a few 150+ bowlers since T20 started. Tait, Lee, Johnson & Starc come to mind as aussies with that capability, and they've all had pretty good T20 careers. Tait has been expensive the last couple of years, but to be honest, he's also been below 150 the last couple of years as well.

Starc is hands down the best limited overs bowler in the world

Mr Fernando wrote:Starc is hands down the best limited overs bowler in the world

Anyone that disagrees is wrong.

Starc's figures in the Matador Cup at the start of the season were phenominal. 26 wickets in 6 games at an average of 8.11, an economy rate of 3.96 and a strike rate of 12.2.

Epic choke coming up here. The way this series is going India could need 5 runs off the last 5 overs and find a way to miss ou.

They aren't going to make it

After that performance I'm tempted to go back to Sportal and listen to Ramesh spin how George Bailey is a cheat

Go home India, you're drunk !!

Hahaha my god how embarrassing.

1/277, needing 72 off 72 balls, and they get rolled by a C-grade attack despite what, 3 or 4 dropped catches?

lol

Mr Fernando wrote:1/277, needing 72 off 72 balls, and they get rolled by a C-grade attack despite what, 3 or 4 dropped catches?

lol

I can't believe I didn't watch it.  Didn't realise it was that bad.

Mr Fernando wrote:1/277, needing 72 off 72 balls, and they get rolled by a C-grade attack despite what, 3 or 4 dropped catches?

lol

The dropped catches were very late in the match though but my god how bad was the collapse. Australia were paying $9 at one stage.

Anyone else think Mitch Marsh almost cost us game 4 and DID cost us game 5? They guy shouldn't be in the test or one day side for mine, and though I love him, t was an absolute blunder from SMith to have him bowling the last over in game 5.

Australia made 17 or the last 3 overs as Marsh blundered to his personal milestone, a day after Maxwell had laid down the challenge to the rest of the side and had a crack at Virat and Co. It was so disappointing to see Marsh not grasp the way you finish off a one day innings as opposed to chase personal glory. I said at the time not making 30 of the final 3 overs wouold prove very costly, and so it was a Marsh leaked 13 of his final over including a wide and an absolute pie for Dhoni, yet the next day I read how Marsh has finally lived up to his prodigious talent!!!

Please, spare me.

Ice wrote:Anyone else think Mitch Marsh almost cost us game 4 and DID cost us game 5?  They guy shouldn't be in the test or one day side for mine, and though I love him, t was an absolute blunder from SMith to have him bowling the last over in game 5.

Australia made 17 or the last 3 overs as Marsh blundered to his personal milestone, a day after Maxwell had laid down the challenge to the rest of the side and had a crack at Virat and Co.  It was so disappointing to see Marsh not grasp the way you finish off a one day innings as opposed to chase personal glory.  I said at the time not making 30 of the final 3 overs wouold prove very costly, and so it was a Marsh leaked 13 of his final over including a wide and an absolute pie for Dhoni, yet the next day I read how Marsh has finally lived up to his prodigious talent!!!

Please, spare me.

I'm not quite as scathing but the bloke does frustrate me by not cementing his spot.

I didn't like him at first but I think over the next year or two Maxwell will force his way back into the Test side and potentially as the all-rounder, if Marsh continues to promise but not deliver.

Oz Sport Mad wrote:

I'm not quite as scathing but the bloke does frustrate me by not cementing his spot.

I didn't like him at first but I think over the next year or two Maxwell will force his way back into the Test side and potentially as the all-rounder, if Marsh continues to promise but not deliver.

Maxwell isn't and never will be a test standard bowler, and picking him as an all-rounder will never increase the teams likelihood of taking 20 wickets in a test match if our best four cant get the job done, therefore, he should only be in the test side if his batting is good enough to warrant selection in the top 6. Same goes for Mitch Marsh, he isn't a good enough 6 and never will be at test level, his batting will never be as good as Watson could have been at test level, so picking him at the expense of any number of far superior batsmen, including his brother WILL cost the team runs on the board, so is it worth forgoing those runs and will forgoing those runs see us with enough runs on the board that will allow our bowlers to defend them and take the requisite 20 wickets, and will Marsh's inclusion mean we are more likely to take 20 wickets? I don't think so.

This fascination with All-Rounders has simply gone too far for mine and never has it been more glaringly obvious than the last few months. When you start picking a person basically, and only really as cover in case someone else in the team can't fulfil their duties, then you have serious selection issues. In tests, pick your best 6 batsmen, to maximise you chances of scoring more runs (if one can bowl a bit, then so be it), and pick you best 4 bowlers for the condition to maximise your chances of 20 wickets and pick your best keeper/batsman.

In one dayers, ok we creamed India 4-1, but still, I don't think we need Marsh, Faulkner and Maxwell all in the team IF we have our best bowling attack, which we didn't have this series. How do you leave out Ussie though? Rod Marsh said it was because that wanted him to warm up via shield on the Adelaide wicket and questioned who they would leave out???? Really, Shield cricket in Adelaide is better preparation for NZ Tests/Conditions than One Dayers in NZ?? Sorry, I can't agree given the nature of the modern game. And who do you leave out, well, that is easy, its not about finding space for the most inform batsman on the planet, you simply put him on the team sheet first and fill in the blanks based on who you should pick next, after 5, maybe 6 names, you find out who misses out. It might be a little harsh for that guy, but whats harsher/dumber, is leaving out a guy in the scintillating touch Usman is in.

Seriously, back to All-Rounders, if you can't justify a place for them on either their batting or bowling alone, then pick someone else. Almost all the top shelf all-rounders in recent and past memory can justify their selection that way, hell even Watson could at one stage given the lack of depth we had. But I don't think Maxwell or Marsh can at test level. And I prefer Maxwell and Faulkner in the ODI's but I don't think we can fit all 3 in.