Australia v Pakistan, Only T20, MCG, Feb 5

tac wrote:How the fark does Midge go for 20 in his first over and finish with 4 overs for 24 . . . . snorfle

well he had to add some incentive for the pakistanis,

I just watched the replay . . if Pup had put a long on back for Midge, we would have saved 14 of those 20 runs . . .

Everyone's raving about Tait's pace but he can only sustain it for one over. As callers to Grandstand have suggested, Thommo could bowl ten overs at a rapid rate.

Red wrote:Everyone's raving about Tait's pace but he can only sustain it for one over. As callers to Grandstand have suggested, Thommo could bowl ten overs at a rapid rate.

Jesus, Red, I think most people were being ironic. Except maybe PP who is genuinely fascinated by pace.


One over with 2 wickets is pretty much all you can expect from Tait. That'll be enough for Glamorgan anyway.

DJ_Smerk wrote:

Red wrote:Everyone's raving about Tait's pace but he can only sustain it for one over. As callers to Grandstand have suggested, Thommo could bowl ten overs at a rapid rate.

Jesus, Red, I think most people were being ironic. Except maybe PP who is genuinely fascinated by pace.


One over with 2 wickets is pretty much all you can expect from Tait. That'll be enough for Glamorgan anyway.

I wasn't referring to people here, I was referring to our print and electronic press. Today they're calling people to phone in or SMS Grandstand to decide whether Tait is the fastest of all time.

Kim Hughes has just stated that he thinks Thommo bowled at around 170km before he wrecked his shoulder. He was tested at 160 post-shoulder injury and Hughes made the point that Tait collapses at the crease whereas Thommo had a pure action and remained upright.

The Tait pace thing is all the rage which is why I raised it, I did detect the sarcasm surrounding the matter here.

He's got a very fragile frame for a big lad. That bowling elbow of his is constantly strapped up too.


I mean if he can specialise in the shorter format, it's better than being a scattergun in the real form.

Get him in the Test squad pronto.

Red wrote:Everyone's raving about Tait's pace but he can only sustain it for one over. As callers to Grandstand have suggested, Thommo could bowl ten overs at a rapid rate.

I would agree with that.

Thommo, phurt. Did Thommo take a five fer in any form of the game?

DJ_Smerk wrote:He's got a very fragile frame for a big lad. That bowling elbow of his is constantly strapped up too.

It just takes one weak link to handicap the strongest of frames. So basically a big frame may be useful for some contact sport and help mask deficiency in one area but in tait's profession it's pretty much useless.

But FFS, how did it happen?

From run a ball at 4 for 90 odd they just played dumb and scared.

Thommo was quicker than Tait or Lee. Benaud rates Tyson the quickest.

Red wrote:Everyone's raving about Tait's pace but he can only sustain it for one over. As callers to Grandstand have suggested, Thommo could bowl ten overs at a rapid rate.

In the KFC big bash he was consistently recorded at bowling around the 146-147 kph mark. One of the speed guns if definitely dodgy.

Mick Sawyer wrote:Thommo was quicker than Tait or Lee. Benaud rates Tyson the quickest.

How often did Benawds face Thommo?

I guess Tait has found his niche.

Ozzy pace bowling was outstanding last night.

skully wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:Thommo was quicker than Tait or Lee. Benaud rates Tyson the quickest.

How often did Benawds face Thommo?

Your point is valid skully. No doubt having the leather scorch your face would leave a bigger impression than merely watching from outside the boundary. Nevertheless, Benaud would be the only person capable of reliably rating all the post WW11 quicks.

oh, and btw, this T20 crap never produces a great finish. It's all wack, bash & you know the result after 5 overs.

Nobody said never you hick billy, and you know it.

More of the games are one-sided than the marketing bods care to admit.

But people touting t20 as the saviour of the game and the way forward are incredibly short-sighted. Otherwise explain how Australia, a clearly superior team, was pushed to the limit by a Pakistan side and very nearly lost the match. Luck plays too big a part in t20 and the hype is bigger than the reality.

btw, even the bloke who was responsible for the t20 boom has come out and said it's reaching the point of overkill. LINK

Nobody said never

They might take a while to gouge out but they are there &, no, it wasn't you, from memory.

More of the games are one-sided than the marketing bods care to admit

.

What marketing bods? When? I read & heard them peddled as whack crash but not as you describe.

But people touting t20 as the saviour of the game

Really? Those with some official capacity? Must have missed that too.

it's reaching the point of overkill

I think it's arrived. I've said here that the offering must leave the punters wanting more. Overkill is what turned limited overs internationals (the 50 over version) into jamodis.

Re: The marketing bods, suggest you do some reading of the material put out by the IPL.

As for the saviour of the game, the bodies that have all decided to milk it for all it's worth demanding windows for tournaments, hastily shceduled world championships, additional teams and changes to the Shield season to accommodate more of the game all lean towards that. Even the way the iCC and other cricket 'experts' have been leaping on t20 to have the game played in more countries and get it into the Olympics...

What cricket needs is to reduce mismatches between unevenly matched opposition, and to give the bowlers a bit more of a chance. Espercially in shortened forms of teh game. That's the best way to market it.