World Test Championship Final 2023 (7th June - 11th June)

First topic message reminder :

The second edition of the World Test Championship concludes with the final between Australia and India, starting on Wednesday at 10:30 BST (that's half an hour earlier than tests in England usually start, so be aware!).

Australia narrowly missed out on reaching the first final, but for this cycle they comfortably topped the table with 11 wins in their 19 tests. This included a 4-0 hammering of England at home and also a narrow win in Pakistan, although they did lose to India in India by a margin of 2-1. India edged out South Africa to 2nd place to reach their second consecutive final, and they'll be hoping to go one better than 2021 where they were defeated by New Zealand in the final.

The two squads are as follows:

Australia: Pat Cummins (captain), Scott Boland, Alex Carey, Cameron Green, Marcus Harris, Josh Hazlewood, Travis Head, Usman Khawaja, Marnus Labuschagne, Nathan Lyon, Josh Inglis, Todd Murphy, Steve Smith, Mitchell Starc, David Warner.

Reserves: Mitch Marsh, Matt Renshaw

India: Rohit Sharma (captain), Ravichandran Ashwin, KS Bharat, Shubman Gill, Ravindra Jadeja, Virat Kohli, Ishan Kishan, Cheteshwar Pujara, Axar Patel, Ajinkya Rahane, Mohammad Shami, Mohammad Siraj, Shardul Thakur, Jaydev Unadakt, Umesh Yadav.

Reserves: Yashasvi Jaiswal, Mukesh Kumar, Suryakumar Yadav

Must be noted that Josh Hazlewood, who has hardly played any tests over the past few years, has been officially ruled out of the final, as he continues to battle troubling injuries. Boland will be the likely beneficiary.

Unlike the 2021 final, the weather forecast is for continuous sunshine and temperatures going into the high 20s. There is a reserve day in place, but it's not probable that this will be required.

I favour Australia to win this one. Their batting and seam bowling seems much the stronger, plus Australia are likely to find conditions more to their advantage than India.

Starc on, taking over from the skipper.

Really positive start from India, it's what they need to have a hope of putting Australia on the back foot.

But I see Australia have got the ball changed...

Borland strikes ! Green with another terrific grab...

First brick gone from the wall

First time we have a contentious catch review since they abolished the soft signal.

I thought that was grassed, to be perfectly honest, but it's gone down as another sublime catch by Green. India's positive start undermined just before tea.

So Gill's not going to win it, falls to a tough catch from Green for 18. Boland with the wicket...

Gill hasn't done anything in this match to justify all the hype , has he ? There is talent there , sure ; but he needs to produce some solid achievements in the Test arena.

I suppose there will be a lot of social media chatter about that catch review. Ball was certainly close to touching the ground but I'm happy Green had it under control and the decision was correct.

Right on tea so a nice lift for the Aussies before the break !

alfie wrote:Gill hasn't done anything in this match to justify all the hype , has he ? There is talent there , sure ; but he needs to produce some solid achievements in the Test arena.

I suppose there will be a lot of social media chatter about that catch review. Ball was certainly close to touching the ground but I'm happy Green had it under control and the decision was correct.

Right on tea so a nice lift for the Aussies before the break !

Yeah, I was happy enough with the catch decision. The celebration by the slip nearest to Green seemed immediate and genuine - not proof of course but often a useful indicator. Clear and as thorough as possible once more by third umpire Kettleborough.

Re:Gill's catch
The umpire  said the right thing that justifies the decision.
"Yeah I can see fingers underneath the ball"
 But that the fingers were indeed underneath before the ball bounced wasn't at all clear from any angles
And impossible to judge in 2D frames

And if there is any doubt you don't give out....and it wasn't the question that he didn't have enuf evidence to reverse a soft signal
There  are no soft signals anymore

KP_fan wrote:Re:Gill's catch
The umpire  said the right thing that justifies the decision.
"Yeah I can see fingers underneath the ball"
 But that the fingers were indeed underneath before the ball bounced wasn't at all clear from any angles
And impossible to judge in 2D frames

And if there is any doubt you don't give out....and it wasn't the question that he didn't have enuf evidence to reverse a soft signal
There  are no soft signals anymore

Of all things that the ball did, it didn't bounce.

Whilst I have you on and going back a day or so, I didn't follow your reference to Illingworth returning to international cricket after retirement. Grateful if you could educate me, thanks.

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Gill hasn't done anything in this match to justify all the hype , has he ? There is talent there , sure ; but he needs to produce some solid achievements in the Test arena.

I suppose there will be a lot of social media chatter about that catch review. Ball was certainly close to touching the ground but I'm happy Green had it under control and the decision was correct.

Right on tea so a nice lift for the Aussies before the break !

Yeah, I was happy enough with the catch decision. The celebration by the slip nearest to Green seemed immediate and genuine - not proof of course but often a useful indicator. Clear and as thorough as possible once more by third umpire Kettleborough.

"Celebration by slips looked genuine and spontaneous "
"The guy claiming the catch is a nice and honest guy"
"I know he won't claim if he wasn't 100% "
Are all good arguments used and sure we can accept these if this was the criteria set by ICC to judge ambiguous catches

Unfortunately the criteria set by ICC rules is that 3rd umpire should have clear and unambiguous evidence to give out.
And clear evidence was the only thing missing.
Rest all , verbiage , lip service he did well

The crowd on Green's case... I am really not sure about the catch really. It surely isn't a Bucknor moment, it wasn't obviously not out... Gill can consider himself a touch unlucky, but has to take it as it seemed 50-50.
As for him to live up to build-up, of course there is a long way to go, but he already has a couple of test tons against his name in the last 6 months... Will be happy to give him plenty of rope...

Fifty stand comes up very briskly...these two batting very smoothly so far . Starc and Cummins both going around six per over so they're well ahead of the RRR...though very early days !

Here comes Lyon : not surprising . Should be some spin for him : might have a bit of work to do in this innings...

Duty281 wrote:First time we have a contentious catch review since they abolished the soft signal.

I thought that was grassed, to be perfectly honest, but it's gone down as another sublime catch by Green. India's positive start undermined just before tea.

I don't think there's much debate on this one, grassed without a shadow of doubt. Green will have known he's grounded that.

So Nathan Lyon on. Cheteshwar Pujara used to play him really well, but in recent times, Lyon has had the edge in that battle. And Starc may just have created a bit of footmarks for him to work with...

...and he's broken through immediately !

Poor choice of shot there , Rohit ...

Rohit goes, with a poor shot. Yet again, not for the first or last time, Rohit should feel he's given it away. The sweep isn't his strongest shot unlike the pull which is also is often deployed to self-destruct, and he hasn't had much of a sight of Lyon. And he was batting so well.

Cummins continues to have that no-ball problem.

Pujara trying to be positive gets unlucky
Most days , many batsmen would have been able to ramp that

Rohit's sweep was a bad shot selection
Kohli needs to deliver a big one and Rahane repeat of first inning

The great unraveling has started. Cummins managed to stay within lines, Pujara played a rather uncharacteristic shot, failed badly in execution and edged behind.

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:First time we have a contentious catch review since they abolished the soft signal.

I thought that was grassed, to be perfectly honest, but it's gone down as another sublime catch by Green. India's positive start undermined just before tea.

I don't think there's much debate on this one, grassed without a shadow of doubt. Green will have known he's grounded that.

With respect , Soul , I don't think you can claim there was " no doubt" about the decision. Clearly several of us on here - and many on other platforms I'm sure ! Have all watched it and come to different conclusions. The only opinion that counts in the end is the TV umpire's...

I agree that if there actually was such a thing as "benefit of doubt to the batsman" then it would have been fair to call it not out. But that oft used phrase has no standing in the Laws of Cricket. One could reasonably argue the umpire was wrong ; but there really is no way to prove that , for all the technology we possess.

alfie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:First time we have a contentious catch review since they abolished the soft signal.

I thought that was grassed, to be perfectly honest, but it's gone down as another sublime catch by Green. India's positive start undermined just before tea.

I don't think there's much debate on this one, grassed without a shadow of doubt. Green will have known he's grounded that.

With respect , Soul , I don't think you can claim there was " no doubt" about the decision. Clearly several of us on here - and many on other platforms I'm sure ! Have all watched it and come to different conclusions. The only opinion that counts in the end is the TV umpire's...

I agree that if there actually was such a thing as "benefit of doubt to the batsman" then it would have been fair to call it not out. But that oft used phrase has no standing in the Laws of Cricket. One could reasonably argue the umpire was wrong ; but there really is no way to prove that , for all the technology we possess.

The fingers were spread, there is no physical way the ball doesn't touch the ground in that situation.

msp83 wrote:The great unraveling has started. Cummins managed to stay within lines, Pujara played a rather uncharacteristic shot, failed badly in execution and edged behind.

Yeah not what India needed , two set batsmen gone like that - and both rather unnecessarily rash shots. They had been scoring readily enough without getting all "funky".

101/3 and I fancy this is going the way we all expected at start of day. Barring a big partnership from these two Australia should be celebrating tomorrow afternoon at latest...

Soul Requiem wrote:

alfie wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:

Duty281 wrote:First time we have a contentious catch review since they abolished the soft signal.

I thought that was grassed, to be perfectly honest, but it's gone down as another sublime catch by Green. India's positive start undermined just before tea.

I don't think there's much debate on this one, grassed without a shadow of doubt. Green will have known he's grounded that.

With respect , Soul , I don't think you can claim there was " no doubt" about the decision. Clearly several of us on here - and many on other platforms I'm sure ! Have all watched it and come to different conclusions. The only opinion that counts in the end is the TV umpire's...

I agree that if there actually was such a thing as "benefit of doubt to the batsman" then it would have been fair to call it not out. But that oft used phrase has no standing in the Laws of Cricket. One could reasonably argue the umpire was wrong ; but there really is no way to prove that , for all the technology we possess.

The fingers were spread, there is no physical way the ball doesn't touch the ground in that situation.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion ! But I think you've been outvoted here by Kettleborough , Guildford and me

KP_fan wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Gill hasn't done anything in this match to justify all the hype , has he ? There is talent there , sure ; but he needs to produce some solid achievements in the Test arena.

I suppose there will be a lot of social media chatter about that catch review. Ball was certainly close to touching the ground but I'm happy Green had it under control and the decision was correct.

Right on tea so a nice lift for the Aussies before the break !

Yeah, I was happy enough with the catch decision. The celebration by the slip nearest to Green seemed immediate and genuine - not proof of course but often a useful indicator. Clear and as thorough as possible once more by third umpire Kettleborough.

"Celebration by slips looked genuine and spontaneous "
"The guy claiming the catch is a nice and honest  guy"
"I know he won't claim if he wasn't 100% "
Are all good arguments used and sure we can accept these if this was the criteria set by ICC to judge ambiguous catches  

Unfortunately the criteria set by ICC rules is that 3rd umpire should  have clear and unambiguous evidence to give out.
And clear evidence was the only thing missing.
Rest all , verbiage , lip service he did well

KP_fan - I don't doubt for a moment that it was accidental but you cut out my query to you about Illingworth and neglected to answer it.

280 needed in 90 overs....
pitch is showing no seam movement, no spin, no high or uneven bounce and 40 overs to the new ball
India not out of the game based on the above...but have lost one wicket too many...and has a long tail

They need to go thru first session without losng more than 1 wicket...and one of these two has to bat almost to the end and when the next wicket falls.....they should consider promoting Shardul.....hold back Jadeja until later

Aus still favorite...70% to win.....Ind has 30% chance to draw or win combined

Good job from Kohli and Rahane to get India to stumps. Pujara's dismissal was very poor, he needed to be the anchor of the innings, not playing daft shots like that.

So, 280 to win, seven wickets left, 90 overs to go. Fairly decently set, but Australia are the big favourites in this position, especially when you factor in the second new ball and India's long tail: just Bharat, Jadeja and Thakur to come in terms of meaningful bats. India need Kohli and Rahane to get through the first hour unscathed as a minimum.

Haven't changed my mind on the catch. Ball was grassed. Poor decision from the 3rd umpire.

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

alfie wrote:Gill hasn't done anything in this match to justify all the hype , has he ? There is talent there , sure ; but he needs to produce some solid achievements in the Test arena.

I suppose there will be a lot of social media chatter about that catch review. Ball was certainly close to touching the ground but I'm happy Green had it under control and the decision was correct.

Right on tea so a nice lift for the Aussies before the break !

Yeah, I was happy enough with the catch decision. The celebration by the slip nearest to Green seemed immediate and genuine - not proof of course but often a useful indicator. Clear and as thorough as possible once more by third umpire Kettleborough.

"Celebration by slips looked genuine and spontaneous "
"The guy claiming the catch is a nice and honest  guy"
"I know he won't claim if he wasn't 100% "
Are all good arguments used and sure we can accept these if this was the criteria set by ICC to judge ambiguous catches  

Unfortunately the criteria set by ICC rules is that 3rd umpire should  have clear and unambiguous evidence to give out.
And clear evidence was the only thing missing.
Rest all , verbiage , lip service he did well

KP_fan - I don't doubt for a moment that it was accidental but you cut out my query to you about Illingworth and neglected to answer it.

I didn't cut Illingworth even accidentally.....now you mentioned, I checked and found your mention of Illingworth on a different post.
I will revert on that one

I was loving watching Rohit bat so it was a disappointment when he got out. I'm not sure there's another player in the game that looks like he has as much time against quicks as Rohit. It just looks like slow motion somehow. That doesn't mean there aren't better players of course - though all middle order batters in recent years. I find him so aesthetic as a batter though.

It's been good fight from India to hang in this after letting Australia get away with that Smith-Head partnership. I fear that they've lost one wicket too many and allowed Australia to get too far away with the very useful Carey-Starc partnership.

Whatever the result I hope it goes deep into the day as it's been a cracking Test so far. One that deserves a proper finale!

India fighting, better than expected. By not going into a shell, they gave themselves a very small chance. If only the rub of the green had gone Gill's way, if only Rohit and Pujara were a touch more judicious with their shot selection... Kohli looked untroubled in his stay and Rahane played like Rahane, lots of fight, bit of luck... Hopefully he'll have more of both tomorrow and he and Kohli can do something special. There is only Jadeja to come as a proper bat. There are 2 number 9s and 3 number 11s to follow afterwards. That's why those 3 wickets would hurt more than they otherwise have.

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Re:Gill's catch
The umpire  said the right thing that justifies the decision.
"Yeah I can see fingers underneath the ball"
 But that the fingers were indeed underneath before the ball bounced wasn't at all clear from any angles
And impossible to judge in 2D frames

And if there is any doubt you don't give out....and it wasn't the question that he didn't have enuf evidence to reverse a soft signal
There  are no soft signals anymore

Of all things that the ball did, it didn't bounce.

Whilst I have you on and going back a day or so, I didn't follow your reference to Illingworth returning to international cricket after retirement. Grateful if you could educate me, thanks.

It's the Wikipedia article on List of athlete who came out of retirement & sub-list under cricket

msp83 wrote:India fighting, better than expected. By not going into a shell, they gave themselves a very small chance. If only the rub of the green had gone Gill's way, if only Rohit and Pujara were  a touch more judicious with their shot selection... Kohli looked untroubled in his stay and Rahane played like Rahane, lots of fight, bit of luck... Hopefully he'll have more of both tomorrow and he and Kohli can do something special. There is only Jadeja to come as a proper bat. There are 2 number 9s and 3 number 11s to follow afterwards. That's why those 3 wickets would hurt more than they otherwise have.

If all your "iffs" had gone India's way they would have chased down historic 444 with 8 wickets in hand and a session to spare

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:India fighting, better than expected. By not going into a shell, they gave themselves a very small chance. If only the rub of the green had gone Gill's way, if only Rohit and Pujara were  a touch more judicious with their shot selection... Kohli looked untroubled in his stay and Rahane played like Rahane, lots of fight, bit of luck... Hopefully he'll have more of both tomorrow and he and Kohli can do something special. There is only Jadeja to come as a proper bat. There are 2 number 9s and 3 number 11s to follow afterwards. That's why those 3 wickets would hurt more than they otherwise have.

If all your "iffs" had gone India's way they would have chased down historic 444 with 8 wickets in hand and a session to spare

The biggest "IF" is if only Rohit was in general, a bit more sensible?

KP_fan wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Re:Gill's catch
The umpire  said the right thing that justifies the decision.
"Yeah I can see fingers underneath the ball"
 But that the fingers were indeed underneath before the ball bounced wasn't at all clear from any angles
And impossible to judge in 2D frames

And if there is any doubt you don't give out....and it wasn't the question that he didn't have enuf evidence to reverse a soft signal
There  are no soft signals anymore

Of all things that the ball did, it didn't bounce.

Whilst I have you on and going back a day or so, I didn't follow your reference to Illingworth returning to international cricket after retirement. Grateful if you could educate me, thanks.

It's the Wikipedia article on List of athlete who came out of retirement & sub-list under cricket

Illy returned to county cricket with Yorkshire after retirement but not with England. He retired with Leicestershire in 1978, 5 years after his final England appearance. Upon which he returned to Yorkshire as a manager. During a torrid 1982 season he came out of retirement to take over as a captain and remained for 1983 before retiring finally. His book on those years with Yorkshire and the battles with Boycott is an interesting, though admittedly at times one sided, read for any interested.

king_carlos wrote:I was loving watching Rohit bat so it was a disappointment when he got out. I'm not sure there's another player in the game that looks like he has as much time against quicks as Rohit. It just looks like slow motion somehow. That doesn't mean there aren't better players of course - though all middle order batters in recent years. I find him so aesthetic as a batter though.

It's been good fight from India to hang in this after letting Australia get away with that Smith-Head partnership. I fear that they've lost one wicket too many and allowed Australia to get too far away with the very useful Carey-Starc partnership.

Whatever the result I hope it goes deep into the day as it's been a cracking Test so far. One that deserves a proper finale!

Rohit is a Chota Inzy i.e smaller Inzimam
reminiscent of Inzimam in many ways...
Similar laid back elegance & stroke play, similar fitness levels relative to peak fitness of side, similar expressively angry with team mates style of captaincy

king_carlos wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Re:Gill's catch
The umpire  said the right thing that justifies the decision.
"Yeah I can see fingers underneath the ball"
 But that the fingers were indeed underneath before the ball bounced wasn't at all clear from any angles
And impossible to judge in 2D frames

And if there is any doubt you don't give out....and it wasn't the question that he didn't have enuf evidence to reverse a soft signal
There  are no soft signals anymore

Of all things that the ball did, it didn't bounce.

Whilst I have you on and going back a day or so, I didn't follow your reference to Illingworth returning to international cricket after retirement. Grateful if you could educate me, thanks.

It's the Wikipedia article on List of athlete who came out of retirement & sub-list under cricket

Illy returned to county cricket with Yorkshire after retirement but not with England. He retired with Leicestershire in 1978, 5 years after his final England appearance. Upon which he returned to Yorkshire as a manager. During a torrid 1982 season he came out of retirement to take over as a captain and remained for 1983 before retiring finally. His book on those years with Yorkshire and the battles with Boycott is an interesting, though admittedly at times one sided, read for any interested.

Imran and Bobby Simpson I knew came out of retirement....and to complete the list google checked but didn't read the full article
Assumed Wiki list must be international cricket

msp83 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

msp83 wrote:India fighting, better than expected. By not going into a shell, they gave themselves a very small chance. If only the rub of the green had gone Gill's way, if only Rohit and Pujara were  a touch more judicious with their shot selection... Kohli looked untroubled in his stay and Rahane played like Rahane, lots of fight, bit of luck... Hopefully he'll have more of both tomorrow and he and Kohli can do something special. There is only Jadeja to come as a proper bat. There are 2 number 9s and 3 number 11s to follow afterwards. That's why those 3 wickets would hurt more than they otherwise have.

If all your "iffs" had gone India's way they would have chased down historic 444 with 8 wickets in hand and a session to spare

The biggest "IF" is if only Rohit was in general, a bit more sensible?

Although Rohit is a relatively cool customer...he has too much on his mind and shoulders
Ain't focused enuf and doing 20s, 30s , 40s and 50s.....his head doesn't remain clear enuf for long
he needs to dump IPL captaincy to make space in his head for Indian captaincy.........but BCCI & Ambani ain't gonna let him do that

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Green's hyped  like he is another Flintoff, Kalis, Imran, Pollock
Hasn't delivered  in 20 tests anywhere at that level

In Flintoff's first 21 tests (1998-2002) he only averaged 19.5 with the bat and 47.15 with the ball.

It was only after this, between 2003 and Apr 2006, that he became the all-rounder that England so loved. In this 2003-Apr 2006 period Flintoff played 38 tests and averaged 41.3 with the bat and just under 28 with the ball. That was when he was world-class.

After April 2006 to the end of his career, Flintoff often struggled with injury and, for a little bit, the burdens of captaincy, plus, I suppose, the hype that was always around him following the 2005 Ashes. For the final 20 tests of his career his batting averaging was 26 and his bowling average 37.25.

Thus far, Green has played 21 tests and has a 36 batting average and 33 bowling average (near identical to Stokes), which is a more than solid start, especially as he's only 24. His test bowling is roughly in line with what you'd expect from his FC figures, but his batting can certainly make an improvement and perhaps go beyond a 40 average. What I find most curious about Green is his batting strike-rate is the slowest of all of Australia's top seven - ordinarily, you expect an all-rounder to be aggressive. Perhaps indicates he should be batting higher than 6, but that's not happening with Labuschagne-Smith-Head at 3-4-5!

That's good information and helps make my point

After 21 tests or even 25 tests Flintoff would have been deemed mere potential.
It's the next 38 test purple patch that confirmed him as a world class al-lrounder.

That purple patch has not happened yet with Green.
I could happen....I wish it does...but it might not also......Mitch Marsh, Watson, Stoinis...especially Watson were all potential and had the hype but didn't blossom

To start with Green needs to deliver a couple of series against TOP sides...where he makes defining / match winning contributions, preferably with both ball and bat.
But at-least super in one department and useful in the other .....to get him to roll.

If he blossoms he is  more likely to be in Kallis, Sobers and Stokes category...i.e bigger contributor with the bat.

But lets see if he blossoms at all

Mitch Marsh and Stoinis were not hyped as genuine all-rounders. Especially Stoinis is Tests. Both were always batters who could bowl medium pace. Suggesting they were hyped like Green is simply disingenuous.

Shane Watson had more hype as a bowler early in his career but sadly injuries meant that was never really seen outside the shorter formats.

Green can hit 90mph from a steepling height that generates great bounce. Plus he averages nearly 50 in F-C cricket with a Test century in India. Whilst he can also score centuries in shorter forms striking at 150. Plus he's one of the most talented gully fielders you'll see. The list of players who can do that in international cricket are, Cameron Green. That's why there's hype around him.

He's started his career really well. Having a significantly higher batting average than bowling average is a great start at the stage he is. Whilst averaging high thirties is strong for a Test number 6 and averaging low thirties with the ball is strong for a fifth bowler.

He also averaged 15 with the ball in the Ashes down under, which is pretty good as far as performing in a high profile series goes.

His batting talent certainly hasn't fully blossomed in Tests yet but suggesting he hasn't performed in 20 Tests is laughable. Basically it sounds like you wont feel he's performing until he averages over 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball. In the history of Test cricket I believe only Aubrey Faulkner has ever done that from a substantial number of games.

king_carlos wrote:Mitch Marsh and Stoinis were not hyped as genuine all-rounders. Especially Stoinis is Tests. Both were always batters who could bowl medium pace. Suggesting they were hyped like Green is simply disingenuous.

Shane Watson had more hype as a bowler early in his career but sadly injuries meant that was never really seen outside the shorter formats.

Green can hit 90mph from a steepling height that generates great bounce. Plus he averages nearly 50 in F-C cricket with a Test century in India. Whilst he can also score centuries in shorter forms striking at 150. Plus he's one of the most talented gully fielders you'll see. The list of players who can do that in international cricket are, Cameron Green. That's why there's hype around him.

He's started his career really well. Having a significantly higher batting average than bowling average is a great start at the stage he is. Whilst averaging high thirties is strong for a Test number 6 and averaging low thirties with the ball is strong for a fifth bowler.

He also averaged 15 with the ball in the Ashes down under, which is pretty good as far as performing in a high profile series goes.

His batting talent certainly hasn't fully blossomed in Tests yet but suggesting he hasn't performed in 20 Tests is laughable. Basically it sounds like you wont feel he's performing until he averages over 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball. In the history of Test cricket I believe only Aubrey Faulkner has ever done that from a substantial number of games.

Re: Green...responding to msp I said
He is not bad...but not worth the hype
And I didn't say he is not performing  as you might think I said. He holds his place in the side
But he is not delivered to the hype is my point.

And what's the hype  
Flintoff, Kallis, Stokes, Pollock etal as the refrence

Sure he is holding his place...but nowhere to the levels of aforesaid

What's he lacking?
Bowling primarily ....it's alright to look at his average of 34 that's less than his batting
He is tall, bowls 90mph, hits the deck hard...all that's good...but the only thing that matters to be recognized as a good bowler in the end are wickets
His 20 odd wickets in 20 tests ain't cutting it for him as a genuine all-rounder. What would bother me more on closer look ...he hasn't cut-it as a good bowler even at FC level with only 60 odd wkts in 50 FC games

And if you are to be an genuine all-rounder you have to deliver upwards of 2.5 to 3 wickets per test if you can bat @ 35 to 40 average
The great Kallis and Sobers averaging 57 with bat had 2 and 2.5 wkts / test rate........their wicket rate /test  dropped as their career progressed because they became the best batter in the world in their times and in super strong bowling line-ups...so their usage as bowlers became less as their careers progressed.

Kallis after 21 Tests had taken 27 wickets. Green at the end of this Test will have played 21 Tests and taken 25 wickets, even if he doesn't take another in the second innings.

As Duty pointed out above his record is incomparably better than Flintoff at the same stage in Freddie's career.

Taking their career stats, comparing them to Green so early and pronouncing him as not worth the hype is just silly.

Polly was a bowling allrounder who opened up for South Africa so a completely different player. I've not seen anyone compare Green to Pollock.

Sobers frequently opened the bowling and bowled a stupendous number of overs due it being a different era. It's often overlooked when discussing the greatest allrounder but he bowled nearly twice as many overs per Test as Kallis. Sobers bowled the best part of 39 overs a game. Which is remarkable given his batting prowess as well. Sadly, we don't know what proportion was swing and what was spin though which would be really interesting to breakdown. For what it's worth Sobers didn't get used less as his career went on either. Sobers averaged nearly 56 overs a Test in the final year of his career.

king_carlos wrote:

As Duty pointed out above his record is incomparably better than Flintoff at the same stage in Freddie's career.

Taking their career stats, comparing them to Green so early and pronouncing him as not worth the hype is just silly.

.

Just because others like kallis/ Flinotff  etal did not deliver to the hype after 20 odd tests....but delivered later
and Green has not delivered for 20 odd tests....does not mean he will necessarily deliver to the hype later
he might....and good luck to him...I will believe when he does and applaud him too.

He might not too is a possibility and end up as  batsman averaging 35-40 plus a relief / change bowler only
That he hasn't cut it even as a reasonable bowler at FC level ( 60 odd wkts in 50Fc games) raises more questions in my mind about his ability to convert bowling skills to wkt taking skills

He has only taken 40 F-C wickets in 30 F-C games (outside of Tests this is) as he had a lot of stress fractures early on, hence playing as a batter when very young. He's taken those 40 wickets at a strike rate of 57.8 though so clearly can convert bowling skills into wicket taking skills. It will be a case of staying fit to do so. That's true of all cricketers.

In any debate regarding all rounders we really shouldn't be including Kallis and Sobers, both were absolute freaks and so far ahead of everyone else that their numbers are unobtainable.

Stokes like most didn't become a genuine batting all rounder until after his 20th match, it takes that period of time for coaches to decide which aspect to concentrate on. Green has made an ok start to his career and feel he'll end up being a number 6 like Stokes who bowls second change and is expected to do a lot of the donkey work once the ball is old.

king_carlos wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Re:Gill's catch
The umpire  said the right thing that justifies the decision.
"Yeah I can see fingers underneath the ball"
 But that the fingers were indeed underneath before the ball bounced wasn't at all clear from any angles
And impossible to judge in 2D frames

And if there is any doubt you don't give out....and it wasn't the question that he didn't have enuf evidence to reverse a soft signal
There  are no soft signals anymore

Of all things that the ball did, it didn't bounce.

Whilst I have you on and going back a day or so, I didn't follow your reference to Illingworth returning to international cricket after retirement. Grateful if you could educate me, thanks.

It's the Wikipedia article on List of athlete who came out of retirement & sub-list under cricket

Illy returned to county cricket with Yorkshire after retirement but not with England. He retired with Leicestershire in 1978, 5 years after his final England appearance. Upon which he returned to Yorkshire as a manager. During a torrid 1982 season he came out of retirement to take over as a captain and remained for 1983 before retiring finally. His book on those years with Yorkshire and the battles with Boycott is an interesting, though admittedly at times one sided, read for any interested.

Carlos - thanks for confirming and putting KP_f right. I was pretty sure that Illy came out of retirement to play county cricket but not Tests as repeatedly claimed by KP_f.

Well apart from Green's status (I reckon he is probably the best all rounder Australia has produced for many many years ; but since he has thus far played little outside Australia we should perhaps wait and watch for a while before we enthrone him in the pantheon) and That catch (which as predicted has sent social media into a frenzy) : this has actually turned into a very good Test Match.

280 in a day , seven wickets - pitch apparently a bit sleepy... theoretically a decent chance for the chaser  ; history suggests otherwise. But not impossible.

Some similarity to England/India last year , no ? Lot of scorecard matches : big first innings on the back of two centuries and not much else ; early collapse in response partially salvaged by one middle order bat's large effort assisted by couple of all rounder cameos ; big but not totally out of sight target set after a less than dominant third innings : and then a similar fast start to the chase seemingly undone by a flurry of wickets...

And of course now we have Kohli and Rahane attempting to emulate Root and Bairstow. The difference here (apart from the overall target being some 70 runs less) is that the latter pair had been able to break the back of the chase late on the fourth day so needed just 120 odd at the end. Kohli and Rahane haven't faced enough overs yet to tilt the scales back their way. If they could bat to lunch then the gap would narrow quite a bit !

Fascinating as it is to speculate , I reckon reality will prevail and a wicket or two will fall before history gets too close to being upset. To actually have a real chance I think they probably need to get to the new ball with no more than 4 down and that is a lot to ask. But that the game remains alive going into day five is good news for the spectators - and the Oval bar sales...

guildfordbat wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Re:Gill's catch
The umpire  said the right thing that justifies the decision.
"Yeah I can see fingers underneath the ball"
 But that the fingers were indeed underneath before the ball bounced wasn't at all clear from any angles
And impossible to judge in 2D frames

And if there is any doubt you don't give out....and it wasn't the question that he didn't have enuf evidence to reverse a soft signal
There  are no soft signals anymore

Of all things that the ball did, it didn't bounce.

Whilst I have you on and going back a day or so, I didn't follow your reference to Illingworth returning to international cricket after retirement. Grateful if you could educate me, thanks.

It's the Wikipedia article on List of athlete who came out of retirement & sub-list under cricket

Illy returned to county cricket with Yorkshire after retirement but not with England. He retired with Leicestershire in 1978, 5 years after his final England appearance. Upon which he returned to Yorkshire as a manager. During a torrid 1982 season he came out of retirement to take over as a captain and remained for 1983 before retiring finally. His book on those years with Yorkshire and the battles with Boycott is an interesting, though admittedly at times one sided, read for any interested.

Carlos - thanks for confirming and putting KP_f right. I was pretty sure that Illy came out of retirement to play county cricket but not Tests as repeatedly claimed by KP_f.

And so to the original reason which led to the search of cricketers who came out/ were asked by selectors to come out  of retirement
Moeen Ali....is now the only English cricketer to be asked by selectors to come out of retirement in the 130 years of test cricket history  
Wow.....that's how history will remember him

Interesting day ahead, I still think that Australia will cruise to victory but there is an element of doubt creeping in.

I read a lot of comments on the Green catch yesterday. It was a very difficult call by the third umpire. I cant say that Green caught that cleanly, there was very definitely assistance from the ground in him controlling the ball. I would say that Green would have thought he caught it cleanly in his mind though as by his reaction so no element of cheating there.

I am just a bit old school in giving the batter the benefit of the doubt so for me the wrong decision was reached in awarding the catch.

Rahane, usually a dodgy restarter, did well on that count in the first innings. He has started out by playing out a maiden without a great deal of alarm...

Should Cummins have gone for Lyon straight away from one end? He has himself and Boland on first thing.

With ye on that msp83, I would have started with Lyon with Boland.