cricket with balls

Mike Hussey:

Who I thought (and still do) should have been dropped sometime during his great drought.

But did get dropped more times than Bobby Brown.

Still, even with all that fumbling behind him, he held firm and was the man when it mattered.

Nathan Hauritz:

I once considered going back in time to break his arms as a child.

Got some lucky wickets, one that almost cost him his thumb, and got some tail enders.

His second five wicket haul on the trot. Lucky or not, that is impressive, and I salute anyone who can do that in test cricket in this day and age.

Shane Watson:

Said he shouldn’t open the batting.

He still shouldn’t be opening the batting, but only because he now gets wickets.

I’ve checked this, and 97 is only three runs short of a hundred, and 3 runs would not have made a difference to this game.

The SCG pitch:

Over the years the MCG pitch has been bagged, quite rightly, but the SCG has got awway with pitches that blind many looking for their cat could score double hundreds on it.

Pakistan might have made this a better pitch by batting on it like it was a forgotten minefield.

Hard to bat on the first day, easier on the second and third, and produces a tight result on the fourth, drop this pitch in every ground in the world.

And finally, Kamran:

Over the years I have bagged Kamran about his appearance but said he is a classy player.

This test might have moved me to the other side.

His three drops were as bad as I have seen from a test match keeper.

And the worst bit was that it looked like the pressure got to him even at the stage when there was no reason for that to be the case.

He was the true hero of Sydney, just not for his side, and he was the only one before this test i would have stood up for.

Not anymore.

It is my birthday today, so buy my book, get a t-shirt, or donate to the whisky fund.

Johnson, Hilfenhaus and Siddle chipped in with 11 wickets in this test.

Knowing that fact alone, Australia should have lost.

But, and perhaps this has to do with the inept state of the opposition, Australia still won by an innings and change.

The other 9 wickets were picked up by Hauritz (5 wickets without having to do much work), Watson (3 who picked his up with filth and guile) and laughably Michael Hussey (1 charity).

These weren’t just tail end wickets, Hauritz cleaned up the tail in the first innings, but their wickets included the 3 top scorers for the Windies (Dowlin, Barath and Ramdin), and Bravo and Nash were also victims in the top order.

Gayle and Chanderpaul never managed to go out to this powerful threesome, but only because they never lasted that long, even though they used three referrals between them.

The Windies bowling impressed in this test, in their one chance, but their batsmen are still yet to arrive.

This test is sort of like you beating up your little brother after you’ve been beaten up by a kid your size, it feels good for a little while, but it doesn’t make you forget you got your ass kicked.

At least of the Windies little boys had some fight in him, bringing up a hundred on debut as a teenager while your team is 145 runs after following on.

Well done Adrian Barath, and great maternal work from Ramdin in dishing out the hug.

Phil Hughes has never gone out to a short ball off his gloves or any real variation of the ball that is his weakness at test match cricket.

Shane Watson has gone out LBW 6 out of his last 7 test innings, and has also gone out after a break 4 times during that period.

Who has the weakness?

Watson has a vastly superior looking technique than Hughes’ technique of looking like he is a glass doll being dropped from the second floor.

But Watson’s test average can’t even look up at Hughes’ average.

Watson has no test century, since coming in as opener he is yet to take a wicket in three tests, and keeps going out the same way.

Phil Hughes must be beside himself, and beside himself there must be Chris Rogers and Phil Jacques who are beside him who is… you know.

The Australian batting line up makes no sense. A middle order batsman and a number three open the batting, and an opening batsman at number four.

The one resource that Australia seems to have in reserve is opening batsmen, yet both their openers are manufactured. It just doesn’t make sense.

Hilditch may like to think of himself as some wacky experimental scientist mixing up random potions and hoping for a good outcome.

There are simple ways around this, swap Hussey for Watson, and see how that goes.

Or drop Hussey, bring back in a proper opener, move Clarke to 4 and Watson to 5. Watson doesn’t have to change the way he plays then.

Or drop Watson until there is a spot in the middle order where his bowling can actually be used, and bring in an opening batsman, there is a pile of them at the door.

What I expect Hilditch to do is bring in a second keeper in the place of North, open the batting with Mitchell Johnson, move Hussey to number 8 and wait for the magic to happen.

I just want to know what Phil Hughes thinks of all this, oh for the glory days when he was tweeting the inner workings of his mind.

Check out our newest book ‘ashes 2009: when freddie became jesus‘.

Australia have dropped Stuart Clark for the Dougie Bollinger.

Bollinger bowled very well in India, and Stuart Clark is 34 and out of fashion.

This year Clark has been selected for 2 of a possible 5 test matches.

In one of those matches he was a key figure, in the other one he struggled in the dust.

At 34 you can get dropped without too many questions being asked.

His two Ashes tests were obviously a golden handshake, and Hilditch is now shuffling Clark towards the door.

On his way out Clark has to go past where Mike Hussey’s desk is.

I wonder if Clark thinks he has more “nip” left than Hussey has runs?

They obviously aren’t fighting for the same spot, but they are the same age, and I think Clark would happily stack his record over the last 18 months up against Hussey’s, even (as people keep reminding me) if Hussey did have a great one day series against India.

Clark wasn’t allowed to even be a back up and prove he had “nip” in India.

Hussey was.

That could piss Clark off.

If I was he, I may be pointing to the fact that Hussey has a tendency to make ducks and leave balls that bowl him, and that might be the equivalent of losing your “nip” for a batsman.

Both men came to test cricket late, one had lost test form for 18 months, the other had a couple of months of injuries slowing him down, but is now fit.

It pays to be a batsman.

I was struck yesterday by the fact that captaining a cricket side is less important than wicketkeeping, so I did something for TWC.

And I thought it was about time that someone got a little ranty on cricinfo about the king probot mike hussey.