NWR Cricket

So Cook resigns as captain, but commits to playing on.

In terms of pure captaincy, I'd say he's improved over recent years, but this decision feels like he's had enough of the pressure. I can't blame him for that.

Time will tell if Root is a better captain (for I can't see anyone else getting the nod).
 
I am on the whole pleased that Cook decided to go. I think if the Australia tour began badly under him it might disintegrate completely by the end, as it did last time. he wasn't able to turn things round in India either. Not meant as criticisms as we lost to very good sides in their home conditions, but I wouldn't want to see it happen again. And we need more from him as a batsman.

Root - would be better if it could happen later but I imagine it will be him now.

Unless an outside option being touted currently on cricinfo: Stuart Broad, combative, a success in Australia in the past, aged 30, not involved in ODI or T20. Worth a thought.
 
Yes Broad and Stokes, along with Root have discussed the role with Strauss.

I don't think Stokes is ready for it, though sometimes captaincy makes you ready for it. I'm not sure whether Eoin Morgan will be ousted - it wouldn't surprise me, but would be quite harsh on a side that have developed well during his captaincy. I'm not convinced by the idea of 3 different captains across the disciplines.

Root is 26, not too young at all when you consider Tatenda Taibu or Graeme Smith, both very early 20s IIRC when they took on test captaincy, with Taibu having the almost impossible task with Zimbabwe in utter chaos and a political pawn to be played with. I rather like the idea that the test captain doesn't play T20 - a chance to slink off and recuperate at the end of a taxing tour. I can't see that with Root, as he deserves his place in all 3 formats. Maybe what they need to do is to give him a winter tour off every 2-3 years, to allow a successor to gain some experience, and to avoid the obvious burn-out. Bangladesh would have been a good example of such a tour, where Cook could have missed that and rejoined for India, or missed the whole winter tour.
 
Very interesting.
Let's see how the match finishes and indeed the rest of the series. It seems the Aussies haven't put a foot wrong since the capitulation at home against an SA side short of De Villiers and Steyn. They rip half the side out, Rod Marsh resigns as a selector and they then can't seem to lose. I'm waiting for how they react when they lose a couple of games, however if they carry on winning, then that's almost immaterial, as the confidence will be so high they'll be able to weather a setback or two.
 
Jasper, Bob, Ian - you seem to have ignored the rules applying to Australian tests! But nice to get a first win in India since 2004. For once, doctoring pitches seems to have backfired ...
 
It's worrying that Mr. Webb hasn't posted here. For those fretting whether he's OK, there's no need to worry. I received a message quietly celebrating the victory. He takes a truly an unAussie-like approach - magnanimous in victory, gracious in defeat. :cool: (Except for when it comes to rugby :eek::)).
 
Ian - following on from your comment, the collapses against South Africa (and before that Sri Lanka) were pretty dismal, but the addition of Handscomb and Renshaw has worked ok so far. (I still don't know why the Marsh brothers are back though). Given the expectation here that Kohli & co would be way too strong, a 3-1 eventual defeat will seem a moral victory...
 
Hi Dave
Indeed Renshaw seems an ideal foil for Warner, and Handscomb has got a lot of plaudits. Would they have played if the performances had been so bad, and if Rod Marsh hadn't resigned? I'm not convinced. The transition is remarkable, so it's too tempting to wonder if Rod Marsh was part of the problem.

The Marsh brothers have certainly had a lot of opportunities - more than most.

regards
Ian
 
A good, albeit surprising win, no doubt helped by batting first. Before the game,no-one would have picked O'Keeffe taking 12/70...remarkable if unlikely to be repeated.

I am sure India will respond strongly in the next test. This Australian team is not a team of world-beaters, but the introduction of Renshaw and Handscomb brought much needed freshness to the line up. And Steve Smith is a very, very good cricketer. His batting technique might be slightly unorthodox, but the numbers tell the story.

It says something for the status of this series in the eyes of the BCCI that not one test is being played in Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai or Kolkata.

As to the Marsh brothers, one suspects this series might be their final chance. But the fact that they have been given multiple chances speaks volumes of the modest depth in Australian cricket in the longer form of the game. Would be good if we could find a decent 'keeper......though Tim Paine must himself very unlucky.
 
Mark Carrington said:
You couldn't make it up, pt 83: Ian Healy has been having a go at Kohli for sledging. Pots & kettles.....
Click to expand...
That is indeed awfully rich. I believe the phrase used in Australia is "One-eyed"

That aside, Australia still in command of the 2nd test, but will very much want to wrap the lower order / tail up quickly.
Just looking at their 1st innings scorecard, the pace of scoring (or rather lack of it) is interesting. Showing they are prepared to watch and wait when needed, which is often sensible in India.
 
Phil - Tim Paine unlucky but injuries have not helped. Peter Nevill is a much better keeper than Wade (as is Paine) but the selectors seem to think they need a chatty batsman rather than prioritising keeping (still looking for the next Gilchrist, who was both an excellent bat and keeper, in the way they've been looking for the next Keith Miller for the past 60 years ...)
 
And England are still looking for the next APE Knott. The joys of good (let alone great) keeping are long gone from the game, at the highest level. A certain individual who currently pulls on the gloves occasionally for England is an embarrassment.
Edit. Just seen the end of day 3 scorecard. I'd put India as marginal favourite.
 
Ok, let's see what the selectors are like now.

IMO the calm, rational choice is to leave out Mitchell Marsh, 5 overs bowled doesn't justify his inclusion for his bowling and his batting has yet to suggest it's good enough to hold down a place. Looking at the squad, Glenn Maxwell is the choice that fits best with their thinking - they fret about the length of the tail, so will always go for an all-rounder. Swepson the leggie would be the bold choice, but I just can't see it happening. Ashton Agar another possibility and he does know how to bat. It will be Maxwell though.

That's it. They won the first test, and were on top for the majority of this one, with the spinners having surprising success. No reason for additional knee-jerk changes. FWIW I'm surprised that they brought Shaun Marsh in for Usman Khawaja, but that's their choice and Marsh top scored in the 1st innings so that selection won't get reversed.
 
Interesting if Kohli's claims are proven, and it wasn't a one-off "brain fade" by Steve Smith, but rather a concerted team effort to cheat the review system. If the latter, then ICC really ought to hand Smith as captain a (moderate) ban, as that would be a pre-planned & organised team effort to cheat.
 
Is Steve Smith the new Ian Chappell, Ricky Ponting, ... ;)

Kohli's interview suggests they spotted it earlier, and had alerted the match referee / umpires. If that is confirmed by the match referee / umpires (and Smith was waved off pronto, suggesting the umpires were aware to look for it), it's pretty damning, because it lends significant weight to the initial claims. Looking at the coverage it does look like his batting partner was looking in exactly the same direction for guidance (and indeed appeared to suggest it to Smith) and they had done so with their backs to the umpire. If the match referee is then shown similar instances occurring in the same game, then there are two problems for Smith: firstly that it's shown to be organised / planned, but then his 'brain fade' statement is shown to be a dishonest attempt to cover it up.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top