think Green batting at 3 doesn’t make any sense given his bowling workloads. I can see him batting at 4 in the future, but 3 means a quick turnaround after he might have been helping to finish off the tail.”

Converse view – thinking about Australia batting, then bowling..

At #6, you you’d hope Green would many times (most times in an ideal world?) be batting down, in partnership with #’s 9,10,11.

In which case he’d be back out in the field again pretty quickly. So is it really that much of a difference for an allrounder like Green to be batting 3rd vs 6th?

Nah. Lance Morris is very close to becoming a national (Test) stalwart (for a couple of years at least), so is worthy of discussion re the Shield comp and how his influence is impacting his team and how that will also impact the NSW side (and other teams) that will come up against him (and his team) domestically.

No State side performs in a bubble. So NSW’s fortunes in the Shield are tied to the players and teams they come up against.

Indeed, it would be arrogant of some (not you BG) to try and make an assessment of the NSW team’s capabilities in isolation, without benchmarking it against the sides it will come up against.

I doubt a single comment in an article is really that big a deal.

Well, other than to you, Michael.

It’s kind of how The Roar works when it comes to the Shield comp. We all share our observations for the greater good re the domestic comp, as it rarely gets the coverage it deserves.

But feel free to continue being unnecessarily single-State-protective if that’s your parochial objective.

Or if you just feel like making a comment for comments sake.

But the rest of us enjoy sharing observations from “around the grounds”.

What a shame you’re not on board with that, Michael.

Most fervent Shield followers will take – and exchange – info whenever it becomes available.

But obviously not everyone.

I’m going to unashamedly hijack the NSW thread…

Feedback in WA is Lance Morris is back (sic) bowling sensationally in the nets and the WA squad batsmen (those available) are getting well worked over by facing him – it’s putting them in good stead in preparation for the Shield season by learning new stuff about their capabilities.

Nothing wrong for the batsmen being tested out pre-season by having to step up to out-and-out quality FAST bowling!

But back to NSW… ????

“Yawn”

I doubt you could stick your head down in to the sand further if you tried

Yep. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Unless you actually follow what’s happening in the game globally of course.

Ah, the West Coast Eagles/Adam Simpson argument. If only the senior players/ mid-level players and the junior players, were listening to their coach and subsequently performing on-field at a higher standard!

Blame the players, not the coach!

Headline: “Cummins is proving a successful captain”

Concluding remark: “While at the aggregate level Pat Cummins captaincy would appear to be a success, this is masking some key concerns. In short, the jury is still out”

This is one confused, article vs the headline hook (can’t blame the author for that though).

–

Can we please stop conflating the captaincy performance of Cummins with the % results re win/loss/draw.

It’s such a lazy helicopter assessment.

Cummins’ captaincy has been found wanting in too many areas, too often, in the last two years. Bowling strategies re who/when. Defensive tactics. Bewildering field placements. Conservative strategic decisions such as declarations (or not). It’s been so often discussed and assessed, I won’t even bother going into it here in detail, other than in summary.

Cummin’s captaincy isn’t solely the issue – the broader selectors role during this period is also at fault.

So many issues .. Karachi 2022, Nagpur and Delhi 2023, at least two Tests in the the Ashes 2023. Those Tests were unforgivable errors from a team that is supposed to be (expected to be) operating at peak performance.

Australia may have a “winning” record (aggregate results against certain nations are becoming almost irrelevant nowadays re performance assessment, given how much the gap is widening in Test cricket between the few good teams and the “other” – the majority – poor performers), but for this team, with the opportunities they’ve blown when they should have achieved much better, it’s a stretch to be praising what is, after all, mediocrity outcomes vs the talent on hand.

Marsh has been on-song as a Test player since his Ashes recall in 2017-18. It was the winter of 2017 where he reworked his defensive technique.

And, “recalled” at the age of 25.

Subsequently two tons in the 3 Test he was selected to play that 17/18 Ashes.

And then a 96 to follow up a few weeks later in the South Africa “sandpapergate” series.

The following summer season (2018/19) he had a shocker re outputs – however one only needs to do a quick google to properly understand the terrible personal circumstances that were affecting him that season. He should never have played that summer; more to the point, responsible selectors should have told him to take time off.

But that behind him, 6 months later he was selected for a one-off Oval Test in the Ashes and took five-for.

Then a four year Test selection hiatus and, when selected, did what he did this Ashes.

“his record in test cricket is not even remotely good enough to have justified the faith the selectors showed.”

This is such a tiresome assessment. Who *cares* what a player’s career record looks like *when* they are still playing and only now entering their prime. Marsh didn’t ask to be selected at the age of 19.

It’s an irrelevant consideration re “career record”.

I hear you B1. I’m going to be absent from the site for a while. Focusing on physical exercise at the expense of Roar mental jazzercise.

So coming down the stairs. Then going up them again. And repeat.

I believe the gym-pro term is stairs-ercise.

The good thing about working from home is staying in the pygamas all day.

Unfortunately I don’t live in a two-storey home, so was a bit of an effort to build the stairs out in the backyard. But at least I can wave hi (high) to my neighbours early morning and late evening.

It’s difficult to know with certainty re the medium term plans of Australian selectors, B1.

I wonder what the ratio of ball changes per 90 overs in Test cricket is in 2023, vs – say – 2010, 1995 or 1985?

The ICC, via its umpires, have allowed an insidious strategic aspect of the game re ball changes (being taken advantage of by gamesmanship) to creep in to the FC (Test) game in the last few years.

We can ague the merits of how well a ball fits through the “circle of perfect” that finds a warm home in the umpires’ pocket, but let’s admit it, the whole “ball changing” thing has elevated itself in the last two decades from being a “non-event” in a match to the derigueur for the fielding side multiple times per innings.

It’s become comical – and not in a funny way. It’s just another “pressure point” of playing teams vs umpires, with the team demanding they get their own way over whatever the umpire may be contemplating. The umpires simply give in to it nowadays.

In fact, the umpires seem to give in to most things. They almost seem apologetic/deferential to anything raised of (or shouted at) them on the field by the bowling team. The “control” of the on-field umpires of the game (of the teams) has gone from hero to zero in the last couple of decades.

Pakistan and South Africa had each won ODI series on tour in India within that 10 year period. Or did you mean the first Australian visiting team?

It is true that Australia won an away series against Pakistan for the first time in 20 years, though it had been 24 years since Australia had last played a Test series in Pakistan, so…

The coaching in the India series this year was a debacle in Nagpur and Delhi.

You didn’t watch the day then? No one who did could say that having four slips from the start of the day then bowling on England’s pads/legside for the first hour had anything to do with England being good and not acknowledge it had everything to do with Australia being poor.

Cummins certainly wasn’t responsible for the completely inept batting approach in Delhi.

Marsh to number 3 thanks. Belt a dozen over the fence.

Insipid.

That’s what Australia was on Day 3.

Insipid.

They delivered dross.

I thought the opening spell on Day 1 was bad enough. That was nothing compared to the tripe they offered up for the entirety of the morning session Day 3.

Dross and tripe.

One of the worst sessions I’ve seen from Australia.

Tactically and execution-wise, they are leaderless, rudderless and inept.

It STANK!

Cricket is so much like chess.

Left armer to right hand batsman. Right-armer to LH batsman. Right-armer to RH batsman etc. Quicks that use seam or swing. Or bounce.

Spinner that uses bounce or spinner that uses purchase off the wicket etc.

etc etc.

So many permutations based on the “pieces” available. So many “forks in the road” as to where the match can be guided by best using those available permutations with the players available.

I see chess and cricket as being VERY closely aligned!

One of my key comment focuses this series has been how Australia has been good (if not great) at building partnerships; maybe other than a couple of occasions, Australia has done very well to not lose clumps of wickets quickly. So quite “attritional” re wearing down the England attack.

But I still think the morning session day 2 (Labs) was on the wrong side of what would be the better outcome re wearing down England – the lack of runs kept their tails up. That said, England was bowling really well in the morning and it was difficult to score freely.

But I would have still hoped to see a little more scoreboard pressure from us session 1 that may have ameliorated the confidence of some of England’s bowling attack and consequently made life a bit easier for the middle order.

Anyway, game evenly poised right now…let’s hope we execute well today with bowling changes and field placements. I thought our opening spell (1st hour, 1st session, day 1) of Starc/Hazelwood was allowed to linger too long when it was clear they weren’t on-song. Eventually Cummins/Marsh came on and it looked like a different game.

Think Cummins needs to be more “bold” in recognising that if the bowlers aren’t “on” after 3 or 4 overs each. switch it up, rather than persisting with the business-as-usual approach of bowling them out for a 6/7 over spell each in “the hope” something will happen.

I think we got a lot more out of our lower order partnerships than we may have expected which got us the lead.

But also think the slow-ish batting in session 1 provided the England attack with additional focus (doubling down re digging deep) that allowed them to go harder at our middle order whereby we were subjected to sustained bowling pressure and consequently loss of our middle order wickets, that may not have occurred if our middle order had come in to bat in a better scoreboard situation.

I tend to agree the morning session was too slow. I applaud the protection of one’s wicket, but there comes a point where you hand back the confidence to the opposition by not scoring runs. But it wasn’t easy batting conditions against quality bowling. Then again, you’d hope (expect) Labs to find a way through that in a bit more of a proactive way re run scoring.

On reflection, Smith was out, but that was a dam_n hard call to make for the 3rd ump and it took up to an hour for most of the tv commentators to come to an agreed position. So even though it was “out”, the “not out” call was a reasonable one to make in the moment(s).

But commentary that was the worst Australia batting seen is way, WAY, OTT.

Australia got too bogged down in the 1st session, but also credit to England’s attack across 2+ sessions.

That’s all fine Pierro. Just highlighting that there was some death-riding of Paine in 2019 and the years after re that UK series, but similar outcomes (captaincy, DRS, keeper-batsman performance, toss-decisions) don’t seem to be getting anywhere near the same scrutiny for Cummins/Carey, as it did for Paine. Yet the decisions/performances are about on par 2019 v 2023…

The Cloverfield Paradox.

Test cricket is very much like watching a game of chess.

I’m in two camps Sarge. I think Labs approached it right re protecting his wicket, but also think he batted so slow re runs on the board so as to keep England’s confidence right up even if they had to keep bowling for longer spells. Needed to score a few more runs to slowly put the pressure back on England.

At some point, no matter how well you are batting, there’s invariably a wicket-taking ball with your name on it. Labs kept that hope alive for England. The balance of defence re turning the strike over and slowly pushing forward with runs wasn’t quite right.

The current set up does seem a bit meandering/directionless/non-proactive. Just “let it all unfold”.