Avatar for owl

owl

Member since Nov 2011 • Last active Aug 2019

Most recent activity

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for owl

    It feels unnecessarily quirky, but I would really be tempted to try Woakes at 3. His technique is really good, if we ask him to perform a Trott type role and see off the new ball and hold it together he could be an interesting experiment and would allow other players to play in their best positions. I mean, it's certainly no worse an idea than playing Mo as opener/3...

  • Avatar for owl

    My tongue is quite firmly in my cheek here, btw...

  • Avatar for owl

    I doubt Brierley saw himself having a future in test cricket in 1981...

  • Avatar for owl

    I would go with your first XI there, but in reality I think they're very unlikely to make more than two changes - so Archer and Leach for Jimmy and Mo. Every chance they'll only make the one enforced change and give Mo another chance. I wasn't able to watch much but from reports he bowled reasonably well in the first innings?

  • Avatar for owl

    I know this is ridiculous, and never going to happen, but I was thinking last night that it might not be the worst idea to drop Denley for Morgan and give him the captaincy. Root has never seemed a convincing captain, various contemporaries (Swann and Trott in particular i think) were vocal that he shouldn't be captain, it wouldn't fit with his personality and he should be allowed to focus on just being the best batsman he can be. I think you can see a bit of this in the world cup when he seemed energised by the challenge of just batting as well as he could. Morgan's probably not going to score any fewer runs than Denley and I'd love to see him captaining in the ashes.

    But, it's clearly madness, can't imagine EM's played much first class stuff in the last few years and the psychological impact on Root of de-captaining him is unlikely to be positive!

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for owl

    Ha, no-one should be taking the internets as personal...

    I may be alone in this, but I am drawing a distinction between things that should/could be on the field anyway (zippers, suncream, boot studs, mints, fingernails, teeth etc) and things that are intentionally smuggled onto the field with the expressed intention of cheating (bottle top, sandpaper, potentially athers' pocket full of dirt) - the former seems like bending the rules (i.e. the ball could come into contact with all such things accidentally, this is just being encouraged/exploited), the latter seems far more calculated, malignant and worthy of stronger sanction.

    If anyone is seriously arguing that using minty saliva and bringing a fucking implement of DIY abrasion onto the pitch should be considered equivalent then we have very different perspectives and should probably agree to disagree...

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for owl

    You see, I don't agree with your classification of this as 'arrogance and competitiveness' - I appreciate it is only supposition that this was going on outside of this one instance, but then it's only supposition to assume it was a one-off - if this was a prolonged period of ball-tampering in a manner more brazen (and presumably effective) than any other that has ever been brought to light, this is a much greater fraud - to my mind as a fan- than some no-balls bowled to order that don't substantively impact the outcome of the game.

    But, I also take @BRM's point below that the impact of the tampering may be being overstated but in the context of a close game one key wicket because of greater-than-expected reverse swing could be enormous. And we have to assume that if they were doing it, they were expecting some sort of result/benefit.

    As I said before, it's impossible to know what a fair punishment is here - or even what a reasonable position to take on the matter is - without knowing how wide-spread this is throughout the game (have Eng/SA/india been bringing foreign objects onto the pitch to impact the condition of the ball? I imagine we'll find out in ~10 years time if they have) and for how long Australia were doing it. To my mine the only reasonable comparable from the examples you love listing is the kiwis with the bottle top and that was 30 years ago, the game has changed a lot since then.

    But, I don't think this is an invalid conversation to be having and the defensive position of 'everyone's been doing it, they've been adequately punished, it's just competitive arrogance' doesn't sit right.

    Anyway, Steve Smith may well be the best batsman of this generation and its a joy to watch him work at the moment. I just hope Archer has some answers at Lords...

  • in Miscellaneous and Meaningless
    Avatar for owl

    It's hardly the only source discussing it (https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/the­-damning-numbers-that-reveal-australia-s­-bowling-struggles-20190101-p50p1n.html, its been covered in the guardian and various podcasts etc), no debate that starc's a great bowler but to ignore that he's been unplayable at times when reverse swinging in tests over the past few years and we know what his team mates have been doing seems perverse. Does anyone really believe this was an isolated incident and that they got caught the first time they tried it ? Yeah, other teams have done stupid things and I'm really conflicted re whether I consider this punishment fair or not, but I do believe it merits further discussion. When you consider Amir got 6 months in prison and a 5 year ban for bowling a few no balls to order (for personal financial gain) its really murky. If we think the ozzies may have done this across a period of time, impacting results and hence also personal gain in performance bonuses and endorsements etc I really don't know where to come down in the issue. I can equally see the argument that it's not really that far from gratuitously throwing the ball into the pitch, roughing it on zips, using sweet saliva etc. Albeit massively more brazen/stupid...

Actions