FIRST TEST (LAST TEST): THE WACA

So, it's been a mere 16,764 days since the WACA hosted its first Test match. Today the WACA hosts its last Test match. That went quickly.

Comments

[Tony Tea]

In fact, it was the 1970/71 Ashes which started me barracking against England.

[Soups]

Not wanting to correct the host but this is only the last South African Test match at the WACA. Test matches against England, India & South Africa will be played at the new Perth Stadium whilst test matches versus the other countries will remain at the WACA.
Excellent start so far...

[Tony Tea]

I'll just pretend it's the last.

[I am and will always be Not Trampis]

gee I enjoyed going to watch the weather when Greg Chappell was about to get his tnn too in the first ever test at the WACA!

[Lou]

Another entry to the list. Sigh.

[SaggyGreen]

And yet I was surprised by that utter collapse. I'm a dickhead.

[Philsgone]

Well that should be the end of MMarsh at no.6. We are not good enough to play him. Pick the best young gun at 6 give hime 12 months. By then Voges is gone, new bloke goes to 5, next young gun at 6. Bowling has cost us very few matches, its the batting where we are chronically failing. Picking 6 batsman should give the bowlers more runs to work with, therefore 4 bowlers will get us home more often then not. So South Africa without AB and Steyn are going to beat us at home. Thats sad.

[Esoteric Bum-Boys MAGA]

shaun: "@Hugh, I gotta agree about the brittle batting. The only time that I remember an Australian line up that folds as easy as this is pre 1986, before Boon & Marsh were put together as openers & Border would then come in and rescue the innings."

Some things never change.

[Tony Tea]

We started bashing the Aussie batsmen around 8 or 9 years ago, but in that time nothing has changed, and I cannot see much changing into the future.

[Esoteric Bum-Boys MAGA]

Exactly what I meant.

[Philsgone]

If the top 6 can get 75% of the runs required, we can get to whatever the target is. Otherwise, the saffars have us on toast, or whatever they eat for breakfast.

[Tony Tea]

Ostrich eggs, aardvark juice and wildebeeste on toast.

[Philsgone]

that will put hairs on your chest

[I am and will always be Not Trampis]

Allrounder is a much abused title. an allrounder can win a test with the bat or ball. There has only been one in test cricket. Botham. Sobers was merely a batsman who bowled a bit because he played a lot of tests. Khan was only a bowler who got a century once or twice.

Only Botham won tests with ball and ball and of course he is the only man to hit a ton and take ten wickets in the same test!

[Carrot]

I'm sure Kapil Dev, the only player in Test history to take more than 400 wickets and score over 5000 runs, would have something to say about that.

[I am and will always be Not Trampis]

didn't win a test with the bat.

[lou]

Imran Khan had 6 tons in test cricket. He was an all-rounder by any way you judge it.

Can they find anyone with a spine in the Shield comp? And get rid of Lehmann.

I would expect Ferguson to take Voges place as well as Burns in for Shaun Marsh for the next test. Though if the ball swings, that won't help.

[Esoteric Bum-Boys MAGA]

I wish Kapil Dev played for us.

[Carrot]

OK, so by that entirely spurious, made-up definition, Imran Khan and Kapil Dev were not all-rounders because somehow the fourteen Test centuries they scored between them don't count. Right.

The definition of an all-rounder is pretty clear. It's someone who is selected for both their batting and bowling (or keeping, but that seems to be a recent addition). Mitchell Marsh is clearly an all-rounder on that basis and his role in the team really isn't up for debate; it's just his ability to execute it at the moment that is.

[I am and will always be Not Trampis]

Not spurious. Neither Dev nor Khan would have been selected as a batman. They were bowlers who could bat like Keith Miller.

Marxh is clearly an allrounder. Has he made even a ton or taken 10 test wickets?

If you play enough test you will make runs or take wickets.

In the meantime if the Proteas can take us apart through reverse swing what wil the Pakis do Assuming they are not backing Australia that is!

[Carrot]

So if you don't take ten wickets in a match - and I'm assuming that's what you're saying - you can't be classed as an all-rounder. By that logic, were Brett Lee and Jason Gillespie not bowlers?

[Lou]

And so Johnson was an allrounder? Had a ton and got stranded in the 90s twice.

The tail has gone downhill since he left.

[Professor Rosseforp]

Lou, Johnson was very definitely an all-rounder, but the pundits didn't realise it.
It would be the same as Wilfred Rhodes being referred to as a handy spinner when he was opening the batting for England, no-one having noticed that he had worked his way up the order.

[Tony Tea]

Johnson? All-rounder? Got that covered:

Johnston was handy in patches, and has a future. Not just a bowler, for that matter. I think he could come close to bowling all-rounder status. His hitting on day four wasn’t the rank tonking of a park hack; he was comfortable in defence and well balanced in attack, keeping his head still and swinging clean through the ball.

[Carrot]

Johnson was genuinely my favourite batsman when he was in the side. The backlift, the arc, the flourish.... I remember a partnership with him and Ponting in a losing effort in 2009, he looked right at home alongside one of the best players the game has seen. Shortly after that he got one of his nineties and his ton in South Africa. I have often wondered what would have happened if he'd got injured as a kid and changed disciplines, a la Michael Bevan.

[lou]

Same here Carrot. In the second test of the series where we were rolled for 40 something in SA, he scored runs in both innings and in the second innings, he played two of the best back foot punch shots straight down the ground I've ever seen.

Just blissful they were, his balance was spot on. No-one with half his grace in the team now. I'm not even sure any of them apart (weirdly enough) from Mitchell Marsh can play that shot.

[Tony Tea]

I definitely think Mitch Marsh can make it as a test cricketer. Hopefully his head thinks so, too. You get the impression with the Marshes that it's all about whet's in their noggins.

[Carrot]

I think he could well do ok too, Tony. It's probably his ODI form and figures that will save him. If he gets dropped in the next little while he should still stay a fixture in the other formats, which means he'll always be in the frame. He's still young with plenty of time to improve. A bit of time out of the Test line-up will probably do him good.

[Professor Rosseforp]

"Allrounder is a much abused title. an allrounder can win a test with the bat or ball" -- let's get rid of this assumption immediately.
There are many specialists who have never won a match with their specialty. I would include my favourite, Mike Hendrick, who played 30 tests for England, and never took a 5 wicket haul -- but was a virtual automatic inclusion because of his consistent ability to stop the batsmen from taking control, and for his consistent ability to take a couple of wickets in an innings.
It would be difficult to find wicketkeepers who won a match purely on their keeping ability, but many matches would have been lost without good performances from them.
While delving into ancient history, Mike Brearley is probably the nearest thing to a specialist captain I could could up with, and he won matches purely with his captaincy, often leading mediocre sides (see Mike Hendrick above). By contrast, teams led by Ponting, Waugh, Lloyd, etc, would have won without their captaincy.