If Eng lose Anderson, they lose the series--Warne

Warne's views in the aftermath of T1.....Aus in the ascendancy and Eng all to be worried about.
he is recommending brining in Faulkner and Khwaja for Starc and Cowan.

and he's kinda echoning a lot of my thouhgts that I have been writing dispersed throuhg many threads....in bold below

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/10181374/Ashes-2013-England-were-lucky-and-Australia-can-still-win-this-series.html


By Shane Warne
6:10AM BST 16 Jul 2013

Before the series started Australia would have felt worried about playing England. But less so now. After the first Test, the Australian players will now believe they can win this series. Australia did not play as well as they can in Nottingham, but very nearly won the match.

Before a ball was bowled, some were arrogantly predicting that England would win the two Ashes series 10-0. Perhaps they are feeling a little concerned now.

The first Test has given us perspective. Although England remain the favorites, as I said before the series started, I believe Australia could win 2-1.

Let us break down the first Test; it exposed a lot of England’s problems. It exposed some Australian issues too, but I think they gained more out of the match.

England showed Alastair Cook’s mindset in terms of what he thinks of his bowlers. He does not have full confidence in Steven Finn. Australia liked facing Finn. James Anderson bowled 13 overs straight on Sunday because he was the only bowler looking capable of taking a wicket. Anderson was superb. England look a little bit of a one-man show with the ball, not one of the other bowlers took a wicket, and they were bowling to tailenders on that last day.
Graeme Swann did not have any real impact on a fifth-day pitch, bowling to all those Aussie left-handers who we were told before the series he would knock over for fun. Swann though, will be better after his overs in the first test.

A concern will be the amount of knee-high full-tosses he bowled and the little impact he had. I have said before, he is the best Test spinner in the world. But, I just wonder if he felt the weight of expectation as he knows England have prepared pitches especially for him to bowl on and lead the team to victory. He needs to put in a better performance.

The moral of Sunday for England is if they keep preparing these slow, dry pitches, they are negating Finn and Broad and putting all hope on reverse swing and Swann.

Anderson is going to have to get through a lot of overs because he looks the only fast-bowling threat that can take wickets on these surfaces. Cook showed that by bowling him for 13 overs in a row. England have to wrap him in cotton wool and be very careful of his workload. If they lose him, they lose the series. To bowl 13 overs in a spell with another Test starting a few days later was a big gamble and makes the toss on Thursday absolutely crucial. If Anderson has to go in the field for a day and a half again the little niggles, aches and pains will really hurt.

Joe Root is a good young player but has not experienced the intensity of Ashes Test cricket. It was a big call for him to open the batting and he will be feeling the heat a bit more after making 30 and five in the first Test. Jonny Bairstow has some concerns. He has hardly played cricket recently and is looking for touch in an Ashes series. Australia can expose him.

Cook, Jonathan Trott, Kevin Pietersen and Ian Bell are strong. Bell made a fantastic hundred, probably the best of his England career. But he might think he has done enough now and get lazy. He has done that before.

If Australia had made those final few runs these would all be issues for England. A lot was covered up because England won, but they underestimated the Australian team, so did many.

There were enough encouraging signs for Australia. Guys like Chris Rogers and Brad Haddin added steel. Steve Smith has improved out of sight, and Phil Hughes played really well under pressure in the first innings. He was very unlucky to be given out in the second innings. I will argue until I am black and blue in the face that the ball pitched outside leg stump, there is just no way it pitched in line. But, let us not talk about that wonderful, 100 per cent accurate DRS.

Michael Clarke only managed 23 runs in the game and got one of the best balls of his career in the first innings. That will not happen again. Shane Watson is about to explode with a huge score, he is in too good a form. There is potential for so much more from the Australian side.

Ashton Agar’s performance showed the mood has changed in the dressing room.

Three months ago, 117 for nine in the first innings would have cost Australia a 100-run lead. Agar handled the situation and pressure brilliantly. It showed a happy team environment where young players feel free to express themselves.

Australia will now go into the next Test looking forward to it and not thinking ‘oh no we have been beaten’. They will be upbeat and will have lost any doubts they could not win. England are looking nowhere near as strong as they have in the recent past, the series has a long way to run. James Faulkner and Usman Khawaja to replace Mitchell Starc and Ed Cowan for me, with Tim Bresnan coming in for Finn for England

Putting an appropriate similie on that comment as Warne would have intended to but could not as it was a news paper column he was writing

I will argue until I am black and blue in the face that the ball pitched outside leg stump, there is just no way it pitched in line. But, let us not talk about that wonderful, 100 per cent accurate DRS  

Shane Watson has proved numerous times, that his form is never too good for him not explode. Warne is a little too enthusiastic, imo. But the next match is a home match for Australia, since they "never" lose at Lord's.

England have a great chnace to nail the series if they win T2.

it will be impossible for Aus to come back from 2-0 down.

I do sense though that Aus can only improve from here

Well losing Anderson would be a hammer blow, any team in the world would miss a bowler of Anderson's capability. But it wouldn't lose England the series, and England have plenty in reserve - Tremlett, Onions, Bresnan, Meaker etc. I do wish Anderson would bowl less overs though. It was understandable during the 1st Test though as Finn was out of touch, and Broad was injured.

And of course DRS is not 100%, nothing is 100% in this world. Except England winning at least 2 more tests in this series. But to say Hughes' LBW pitched outside leg is laughable - just open your eyes Warne.

Australia were the lucky ones - one incorrect call by the 3rd umpire netted them 140 runs, and another incorrect call by the same umpire cost Trott his second innings.

Whole heap of wishful thinking from Warne here.

gives a snapshot into the mindset of Aussies from  the invincible Waugh era.......they were positive and believed they had an upper hand even in the toughest adversity.
Lehman is there to instill soem of the same mindset......and it's clear that Boof is calling the shots in many matters.

and that LBW in question...umpire immediately turned it down....and waved his arm to show it was going down the leg side.....
and Holding on air said clearly and and several times the same.......

to me that decision showed that the DRS placement / positioning / alignment  /calibration left in the hands of some 3rd party opertaors( neither from home board nor ICC)...creates more uncertainities then the problem it solves

How wrong can the tracking technology hawk-eye be? It follows the ball... with the live replay.

KP_fan wrote:and that LBW in question...umpire immediately turned it down....and waved his arm to show it was going down the leg side.....
and Holding on air said clearly and and several times the same.......

to me that decision showed that the DRS placement / positioning / alignment  /calibration left in the hands of some 3rd party opertaors( neither from home board nor ICC)...creates more uncertainities then the problem it solves

Just look at it yourself, it's clearly in line. Sky did a close-up on it as well.

http://www.unblockyoutube.us/permalink.php?url=xIQ0pQ5KYfPxWSu2MueIUEqG6h4V1AQY88f71wGygrVeX3FGRj%2B881puZDiLupBGYk0gX2R579V6A0ik1H3NJg%3D%3D

Typical Warney!. Bell might think he has done enough and get lazy, he has done it before!!. Talk about mental disintegration!.
There is a lot of hyperbole there, but it also gives an insight into Warne the leader. He doesn't particularly love coaches, but he could make a very inspirational one in the future.
But sorry Warney, the only way you can effect the kind of turn around you are hinting at by unretiring and turning the clock back at least 5 years.

--the point where the ball pitched was absolute...real...where the ball really pitched.

--the blue shadow zone is not real.

--I undertsand it is drawn by the hawk-eye software on a computer screen throuhg superimposition of a 2 dimensional band on a 3 dimensional object.

--if the hawkeye sensors/ cameras are not exactly aligned to the level plane
and not exactly in staright line  to the exact middle of the pitch....
and if there is even a micro degree of misalignment to the horizontal or straightline...that blue band will be easily offset by a few inches compared to reality

--and if the  sensors/ cameras are not exactly  degree to degree aligned the projected trajectory of the DRS can easily be offset by a few degrees / several inches

and neither  the home board nor ICC are doing the aligmnent or checking the aligment or have even qualified people to certiffy that the sensors and equipment are aligned and calibrated exactly before the start of the match.

we may be living in perceptions of accuracy

KP_fan wrote:--the point where the ball pitched was absolute...real...where the ball really pitched.

--the blue shadow zone is not real.

--I undertsand it is drawn by the hawk-eye software on a computer screen throuhg superimposition of a 2 dimensional band on a 3 dimensional object.

--if the hawkeye sensors/ cameras are not exactly aligned to the level plane
and not exactly in staright line  to the exact middle of the pitch....
and if there is even a micro degree of misalignment to the horizontal or straightline...that blue band will be easily offset by a few inches compared to reality

--and if the  sensors/ cameras are not exactly  degree to degree aligned the projected trajectory of the DRS can easily be offset by a few degrees / several inches

and neither  the home board nor ICC are doing the aligmnent or checking the aligment or have even qualified people to certiffy that the sensors and equipment are aligned and calibrated exactly before the start of the match.

we may be living in perceptions of accuracy

So, because it MIGHT, possibly, be wrong, we should assume it is?

hoggy wrote:
So, because it MIGHT, possibly, be wrong, we should assume it is?

It cannot be relied unless before every game it's intsalaltion, alignment and calibration is certified by someone qualified to do so from ICC or home board

KP_fan wrote:

hoggy wrote:
So, because it MIGHT, possibly, be wrong, we should assume it is?

It cannot be relied unless before every game it's intsalaltion, alignment and calibration is certified by someone qualified to do so from ICC or home board

Why?
Why is the expertise of those who set it up not adequate.
Why are they more likely to get it wrong than the ICC's man?

hoggy wrote:
Why?
Why is the expertise of those who set it up not adequate.
Why are they more likely to get it wrong than the ICC's man?.

Conflict of interest.
very standard.
you cannot certify and approve the work.........that will release your pay check.

KP_fan wrote:

hoggy wrote:
Why?
Why is the expertise of those who set it up not adequate.
Why are they more likely to get it wrong than the ICC's man?.

Conflict of interest.
very standard.
you cannot certify and approve the work.........that will release your pay check.

Do you know what system of checks are currently in place?
Do you have any evidence that Hawkeye has been inadequately/wrongly set-up in the past?

hoggy wrote:  Do you know what system of checks are currently in place?
Do you have any evidence that Hawkeye has been inadequately/wrongly set-up in the past?

we know there are no checks / controls  in place...because ICC's explanations have revealed hawkeye compnay does it all.

how would there be evidence that hawkeye is inadequately installed...if there are no official controls.......and that's why it's dangerous

KP_fan wrote:

hoggy wrote:  Do you know what system of checks are currently in place?
Do you have any evidence that Hawkeye has been inadequately/wrongly set-up in the past?

we know there are no checks / controls  in place...because ICC's explanations have revealed hawkeye compnay does it all.

how would there be evidence that hawkeye is inadequately installed...if there are no official controls.......and that's why it's dangerous

Christ, it's all a massive conspiracy involving Andy Flower, Ian Botham, and Prince Charles. KP_fan's just rumbled it!  

there is no conspiracy....just fundamental flaws in implementation.
No official checks and controls

I must say, I'm especially disappointed in his Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales.

KP_fan wrote:

hoggy wrote:  Do you know what system of checks are currently in place?
Do you have any evidence that Hawkeye has been inadequately/wrongly set-up in the past?

we know there are no checks / controls  in place...because ICC's explanations have revealed hawkeye compnay does it all.

how would there be evidence that hawkeye is inadequately installed...if there are no official controls.......and that's why it's dangerous

So you don't know what checks the Hawkeye company may have in place and no evidence that they've ever fitted it incorrectly, just supposition that they MIGHT have?

hoggy wrote: So you don't know what checks the Hawkeye company may have in place and no evidence that they've ever fitted it incorrectly, just supposition that they MIGHT have?

what we do know.....there are no official certified inspectors / controllers by ICC


anything without control is by defntiions unreliable and dangerous

KP_fan wrote:

hoggy wrote: So you don't know what checks the Hawkeye company may have in place and no evidence that they've ever fitted it incorrectly, just supposition that they MIGHT have?

what we do know.....there are no official certified inspectors / controllers by ICC


anything without control is by defntiions unreliable and dangerous

The fact that there are no official certified inspectors working for the ICC does NOT mean there are no controls. All it means is that the controls are in the hands of the Hawkeye company itself. As neither you or I know what controls exist, how they operate or how they are checked, we really can't conclude that the fact that the controls are carried out by the Hawkeye company, and not the ICC, makes the system unreliable.

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

hoggy wrote: So you don't know what checks the Hawkeye company may have in place and no evidence that they've ever fitted it incorrectly, just supposition that they MIGHT have?

what we do know.....there are no official certified inspectors / controllers by ICC


anything without control is by defntiions unreliable and dangerous

The fact that there are no official certified inspectors working for the ICC does NOT mean there are no controls. All it means is that the controls are in the hands of the Hawkeye company itself. As neither you or I know what controls exist, how they operate or how they are checked, we really can't conclude that the fact that the controls are carried out by the Hawkeye company, and not the ICC, makes the system unreliable.

Ha Ha ha......what your are saying:
leave the cleanliness inspection of food joints in the hands of restaurant owners...instead of health ministry
leave the stock market controls in the hand of stock brokers and financial institutions......instead of government / finance minsitries
leave the construction quality control  in the hands of builders mafia....instead of government municipality....
and you will get chaos and ripping of the common man.

Unless ICC:
--Develops it's own inspectors controllers who are trained in and undertsdand the technology
--and have their own guidelines and tests and controling laws..
--and penalty clauses if during controls technology is found to malfunction

there will just be chaos and the players / fans will be ripped..EVERY series throws up more controversies.....

ICC jumped into this without developing a inhouse control system and no wonder more and more eminent players are mumbling and complaining about it.

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

hoggy wrote: So you don't know what checks the Hawkeye company may have in place and no evidence that they've ever fitted it incorrectly, just supposition that they MIGHT have?

what we do know.....there are no official certified inspectors / controllers by ICC


anything without control is by defntiions unreliable and dangerous

The fact that there are no official certified inspectors working for the ICC does NOT mean there are no controls. All it means is that the controls are in the hands of the Hawkeye company itself. As neither you or I know what controls exist, how they operate or how they are checked, we really can't conclude that the fact that the controls are carried out by the Hawkeye company, and not the ICC, makes the system unreliable.

Ha Ha ha......
leave the cleanliness inspection of food joints in the hands of restaurant owners...instead of health ministry
leave the stock market contropls in the hand of brokers and financial institutions......instead of fiinance minsitry
leave the construction quality control  in the hands of buildes mafia....instead of governemnt municipality....
and you will get chaos and ripping oif the common man.

Unless ICC:
--Develops it's own inspectors controllers who are trained in and undertsdand the technology
--and have their own guidelines and tests and controling laws..
--and penalty clauses if during controls technology ids found to malfunction

there will just be chaos and the players / fans will be ripped..EVERY series throws up more controversies.....

ICC jumped into this without developing a inhouse control system and no wonder more and more eminent players are mumbling and complaining about it.

Um...this is totally different. It's not as if the home side is setting up the hawk-eye system. I am sure it is set up by a neutral party. I mean, I've never had any complaints about hawk-eye, and I still don't.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

Hoggy_Bear wrote:

KP_fan wrote:

hoggy wrote: So you don't know what checks the Hawkeye company may have in place and no evidence that they've ever fitted it incorrectly, just supposition that they MIGHT have?

what we do know.....there are no official certified inspectors / controllers by ICC


anything without control is by defntiions unreliable and dangerous

The fact that there are no official certified inspectors working for the ICC does NOT mean there are no controls. All it means is that the controls are in the hands of the Hawkeye company itself. As neither you or I know what controls exist, how they operate or how they are checked, we really can't conclude that the fact that the controls are carried out by the Hawkeye company, and not the ICC, makes the system unreliable.

Ha Ha ha......
leave the cleanliness inspection of food joints in the hands of restaurant owners...instead of health ministry
leave the stock market contropls in the hand of brokers and financial institutions......instead of fiinance minsitry
leave the construction quality control  in the hands of buildes mafia....instead of governemnt municipality....
and you will get chaos and ripping oif the common man.

Unless ICC:
--Develops it's own inspectors controllers who are trained in and undertsdand the technology
--and have their own guidelines and tests and controling laws..
--and penalty clauses if during controls technology ids found to malfunction

there will just be chaos and the players / fans will be ripped..EVERY series throws up more controversies.....

ICC jumped into this without developing a inhouse control system and no wonder more and more eminent players are mumbling and complaining about it.

Um...this is totally different. It's not as if the home side is setting up the hawk-eye system. I am sure it is set up by a neutral party.

Precisely.

duty wrote:Um...this is totally different. It's not as if the home side is setting up the hawk-eye system. I am sure it is set up by a neutral party

neutral it would be if it is controlled by ICC trained and appointed inspectors using ICC created guidelines.

I blame it all on KP myself.

I don't fully comprehend the technical arguments made against the tracking technology. However, I can say KPF is not alone in doubting the very technology. Many Indian players doubt the accuracy of tracking, and South African all-rounder Jacques Kallis and some other players from different countries have expressed doubts regarding the accuracy of the technology. I am not for doing away with it though, but implement it fairly at least, and taking out the umpire's call system will go a long way in that. In the mean time, more R&D is also required to make it more accurate.

1) there is a supervision and control by ICC not existent as one issue discussed.

2) Furtehr the 2nd issue is the calibration of the technology..based on few models( see in italics below) which define how much the ball will bounce or spin or swing in a certain area.....whihc I presume is country.
They do not have a unique model for every pitch.....and certainly no facility to retune / reclaibrate their model when the charcater of the pitch changes reasonably.
Which means in summary too many approximation based models showing us the projections whihc we are lulled into believing as accurate reality.

Hawk-Eye is a complex computer system used officially in numerous sports such as cricket, tennis, association football and Gaelic football to visually track the trajectory of the ball and display a record of its most statistically likely path as a moving image.

A data store contains a predefined model of the playing area and includes data on the rules of the game[/u]

Adam Gilchrist thinks the DRS has to be put in the backburner for now, and if at it is to be used, the umpires have to take the call on a review and not the players.

You put the umpires in charge and they'll just review everything to make sure they haven't made an error which will have the same effect of slowing the game down as giving sides unlimited reviews. I don't think that's the answer.

Well now -Warny with a WUM. What a suprise.

Problem is next test you could see Cook with a couple of double hundreds- KP with a 150 off 100 , swann with a ten wicket haul..

And then he would just say england would lose without that player!!

Ha Ha Ha....Warne's thoughts and idealogies makes many a English fans uncomfortbale...because he is bringing to the fore the worst case scenarios ( albeit low probab) that might hit Eng

Lots of ifs, buts and mights from Warney, seems like a bit of straw-clutching to me. Also, strange how he fails to mention that Agar was out for 6 in the first innings...

Gilchrist has also said today that england are very reliant on anderson and that the aussies can target the other bowlers such as finn. While I agree that anderson is by far the best quick bowler in the series, I wouldn't mind finn being targeted at lords. On a faster pitch, and with his knowledge of the slope, I can see finn taking a few wickets especially if the batsmen try to get after him. Often in the past anderson's bowling has led to rewards for the "lesser bowlers" and this could easily be the same for the rest of the series. Obviously though finn has to bowl better than the two overs of dross that he sent down on the last morning.

KP_fan wrote:Ha Ha Ha....Warne's thoughts and idealogies makes many a English fans uncomfortbale...because he is bringing to the fore the worst case scenarios ( albeit low probab) that might hit Eng

Not really. England played poorly in that test, and still won. Only Bell made a significant score, and only Anderson made a significant impact with the ball, and England still won. What happens to poor old Australia when Cook/KP/Broad/Swann come to the party? Unmitigated disaster probably.

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Ha Ha Ha....Warne's thoughts and idealogies makes many a English fans uncomfortbale...because he is bringing to the fore the worst case scenarios ( albeit low probab) that might hit Eng

Not really. England played poorly in that test, and still won. Only Bell made a significant score, and only Anderson made a significant impact with the ball, and England still won. What happens to poor old Australia when Cook/KP/Broad/Swann come to the party? Unmitigated disaster probably.

England should win secodn test handsomely and comprehensively.
and shut any lose talkers attributing the first test win to luck/ umpiring and in the end just better good fortune then Aus  

KP_fan wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

KP_fan wrote:Ha Ha Ha....Warne's thoughts and idealogies makes many a English fans uncomfortbale...because he is bringing to the fore the worst case scenarios ( albeit low probab) that might hit Eng

Not really. England played poorly in that test, and still won. Only Bell made a significant score, and only Anderson made a significant impact with the ball, and England still won. What happens to poor old Australia when Cook/KP/Broad/Swann come to the party? Unmitigated disaster probably.

England should win secodn test handsomely and comprehensively.
and shut any lose talkers attributing the first test win to luck/ umpiring and in the end just better good fortune then Aus  

Well since Australia had more than the rub of the green at Trent Bridge...

There is a suggestion that the ‘momentum’ is with Australia, however, I’m really not too sure. I think in the cold light of day they’ll realise:
They lost even when their last pair scored over 200 runs in the game
Their batting, 10th wicket and Clarke (who had a bad game with the bat) notwithstanding, was roughly what you’d expect of the batsmen. Hughes and Haddin maybe batted better than par for them
Their bowling attack, whilst better than recently, didn’t bowl too many wicket taking deliveries but poor shot selection got the England batsmen out. What’s the betting that won’t be repeated?
 Swann and, to a lesser extent, Finn weren’t as effective as they usually are
The weather was very hot and sunny for most of the match negating the amount of swing achieved. England’s quick bowlers will use the overhead conditions better (than the Aussie bowlers) to swing the ball should it be still warm but overcast

No way the momentum is with the Aussies. England are always at their worst, in recent times, in the first Test of the series and they've managed to successfully negotiate that and this was an Australian team rejuvenated under Arthur and now England have taken the sting out of them coming out firing I expect England to go on to win the series comfortably as things stand.

I wonder if dear old Shane still has this opinion?

Warne has had a level of consistency during this series that Australia's top 6 would give their right arm for. Every article he has written has been laughable horse shoot of the highest order. Can't wait for his offering after this Test!

Shane was in full swing during his commentary stint on Sky yesterday:

"Australia could have been 2-1 up with a bit more luck"
"Cook is a negative captain"
"England have only played well at Lords this series"
"Bringing Bresnan on is a poor choice" (then he takes a wicket in his 1st over!)

Awesome work from Warney! Where does he get luck from.

Luckiest break at TB was Agar's non-stumping. Would have been an utter drubbing of Lord's proportions if that had been given.

Rain at Old Trafford I don't class as bad luck: he has been to Manchester before, and escaped with a rain affected draw himself in 2005!

Last Test, if anyone had good fortune it was Aus that our first innings batting was a mess and we bowled like drains until Cook and Flower sorted things out at tea yesterday.

I suppose Warne is not wrong in some of what he said.

Do English supporters not believe Anderson is their most important bowler?

If so, then before the series started many would have agreed it would be a huge blow if they lost Anderson.

With a little bit of luck they could have been 2-1 up. Not such an outrageous statement to make either. Unfortunately, luck is not all you need to win a test series.

Warne and also Ian Healy ( and even Bill Lawry) can be very irritating as commentators if you are not an Australian viewer.....because they sound so biassed, almost jingositic.....seeing and talking up a Pro-Aussie winning situation / scenario even Aussie team is dead in the dumps staring point blank at defeat.

But they give you an insight into the player-mentality of these players in the Steve-Waugh Super winning team of 90s and 2000s...that always believed they could win even in the direst situation....and may times pulled their team out of holes becauuse of their sheer positive belief....and " just cannot lose" mindset.

Botham is just like them...equally annoying to an non-English viewer......but gives you a sight into his player mind...always believed he could win from any situation...howeever ridiculous it looks to a mortal.

In stark contrast Strauss  sounds so defeatist and Hussain  more defenisve / realitsic in assesing their own teams weak situation vs. Opponent.......and were rather more mortal / defensive players.

Biltong wrote:I suppose Warne is not wrong in some of what he said.

Do English supporters not believe Anderson is their most important bowler?

If so, then before the series started many would have agreed it would be a huge blow if they lost Anderson.

With a little bit of luck they could have been 2-1 up. Not such an outrageous statement to make either. Unfortunately, luck is not all you need to win a test series.

Losing Anderson would have been a blow, but not a series loser.

the luck has swung both ways, but in the end Australia have lost because, despit etheir opposition not playing all that well, they have not been good enough.

When do we get to read the next Warne article? I can see it now "Australia in the ascendency: Part 78"

Will include phrases like:

"That last wicket partnership which must have lasted well over 20 minutes has surely stolen the momentum"

"Watson is too good to keep missing the ball when playing across the line, probability dictates an unbeaten 150 with all runs scored behind square on the leg-side is imminent"

"I've seen enough of Usman Khawaja's strokeplay to declare the second coming of Brian Lara"