Thursday, 2 May 2013

What Shane Really Means is.....

Shane Warne, most helpfully, has written an article for The Telegraph detailing how brilliant the Australian selectors have been in their choices for the Ashes 2013. 

You will notice that in bolded brackets, NWG has added in her own two cents. And these are probably not worth their weight in gold, but still, they might be revealing what's really going on.




'The selectors have copped a lot of criticism in recent times [mainly from Shane, let's be honest] and rightly so because they picked some ordinary teams
[you have to work with what you've got, Shane] but they have done well with this one [really?].


They have chosen experience and bringing back Chris Rogers and Brad Haddin adds players with old-fashioned Australian cricket principals of hard work and aggression [read: the only blokes left who said yes when they got the phone call and hadn't been offered Dancing With The Stars]. They are two tough cookies. Haddin is a class player and Rogers will fight tooth and nail.
The big players will still be Shane Watson [has he done his homework though?], Michael Clarke [new nickname: grumpy] and David Warner. If they score 400 plus in the first innings [dream on] then this Australian fast bowling attack can win the series for Australia [was that a joke?].
India and the homework nonsense has been and gone [he wishes. NWG will never let that one go]. Australia will have a spring in their step again [new catchphrase: the spring of doom]. Look at the core of the team. I think Australia have picked cricketers who can think properly [congratulations Australia. You have players who can use their brain. Surely a prerequisite to being a human being not playing international cricket] and hang in when it is hard [and not fly off home when they're given detention].
A couple of squads they have picked recently would have had no chance in England. But this one has the ability to win and surprise England.
It is a big [stupid] decision to make Haddin vice-captain. They are not picking him to sit on the bench as a keeper [since when could keepers sit on a bench whilst playing? He's not that old, surely]. Wade is still good enough to play as a batter and will feature in the top six and field [well what else would he be doing?]. I feel for Wade but when Watson stood down [that's a polite way of putting it] the selectors had little alternative. The only other candidates would have been David Warner or Peter Siddle and the selectors were reluctant to give it to either of those guys [NWG wonders why...], so I can understand why they have gone for Haddin [ie there is no one else].
I am sure there will be a few headlines about Dad’s Army because Australia have picked a 35-year-old Rogers but I can see the logic behind it. He has been a bit like Mark Ramprakash in making thousands of runs in domestic cricket in the latter part of his career [Look how well that turned out. And also, does he not remember Mark's foray in to international cricket?]. By picking him the selectors are acknowledging that Ed Cowan and Phil Hughes could be vulnerable against the English new-ball bowlers.
Obviously it is not a long-term choice. He might only play for 6-12 months and then Hughes and Cowan can step back up [Funniest sentence so far. Hughes stepping up, NWG can't pick herself up from the floor she's laughing so hard]. There is a sense in the selection. He will bat in the top three, and Australia have plenty of options. Warner could bat further down and be destructive at six if Rogers opens with Watson.
I have taken Faulkner under my wing [Kiss of death. What has Shane suggested? Get botox?]. His nickname should be ‘Future because that is what he is as far as Australian cricket is concerned [catchy]. He can be a genuine all-rounder [note the word 'can' and not is]. He has the ticker for it [because his heart beats? Surely everyone's does that]. He is a left-armer who bowls around 140 kph and moves it both ways. He wants the ball in his hand and never shies from a situation [That means he always hands his homework in on time and his handwriting is really neat]. He always wants to be batting up the order. He is not the prettiest guy to watch but he has nous and a good cricket brain at a young age [no, Shane, he's obviously hasn't spent as much money as you on cosmetic surgery].
A lot will depend on the conditions. I will be interested to see what pitches England prepare and see whether they back their bowlers to out-bowl Australia’s. That would be a risk. Australia would fancy their chances and on seaming pitches it could go either way. With Pattinson, Ryan Harris, Siddle, Faulkner and Jackson Bird, Australia could [ten years ago 'could' would never enter in to his vocabulary. It would be will] knock England over.
England’s strength is bowling too and the more seaming conditions they prepare the harder the contest will be to call. Siddle, Harris, Faulkner and Pattinson are four guys who you know will be running in just as hard at the end of the day as they did in the morning. They are all quick too.
I believe England should prepare absolute flat wickets that turn and pick Monty Panesar and Graeme Swann [don't listen to him England. NWG can smell a trick a mile off]. It will guarantee lots of runs but on turning pitches you would back England spinners to prevail. Flat pitches would also promote reverse swing and England’s quick bowlers are probably more adept at making that happen [NWG thinks what he is saying is that England will win regardless of what the pitch will be like].
Obviously if we have a wet summer, preparing flat, turning pitches will be impossible. It is a long time, probably 20 years, since England have had the option of preparing turning wickets for a series against Australia.
This is not going to be a walkover for England. This Australian side will fight to get the urn back.'