Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
- Thread starter marty344
- Start date
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
Why would Australia pick a player who struggled to get through more than 4 overs? Thats why Lee isnt in the team, got nothing to do with favouritism of the new players, they simply didnt trust him not to break down again and he proved them right time after time over the last 6 months
As for Bollinger, he is yet to show anything outside of the SCG and low, slow, crumbling pitches
Why would Australia pick a player who struggled to get through more than 4 overs? Thats why Lee isnt in the team, got nothing to do with favouritism of the new players, they simply didnt trust him not to break down again and he proved them right time after time over the last 6 months
As for Bollinger, he is yet to show anything outside of the SCG and low, slow, crumbling pitches
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
It is sad I agree that these old blokes hang around and keep trying to get into the side when they have clearly lost it and dont have the speed or penetration to take any top wickets anymore but it still wont stop them launching a massive media campaign...
It is funny that people complain about Hodgey, but other than Bracken last year, NSW players generally dont need to whinge, they are always picked and those who are not have the coach and the Fox Sports and other NSW media outlets to do the whingeing for them and louder
It is sad I agree that these old blokes hang around and keep trying to get into the side when they have clearly lost it and dont have the speed or penetration to take any top wickets anymore but it still wont stop them launching a massive media campaign...
It is funny that people complain about Hodgey, but other than Bracken last year, NSW players generally dont need to whinge, they are always picked and those who are not have the coach and the Fox Sports and other NSW media outlets to do the whingeing for them and louder
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Come on Eddie quit the crap and talk some proper cricket rather than outlandish claims about NSW bias.
Come on Eddie quit the crap and talk some proper cricket rather than outlandish claims about NSW bias.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: West Indies in Australia
Destroyed the WACA's on the Perth wicket Edward?
Destroyed the WACA's on the Perth wicket Edward?
a for effort
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
But there is obviously a huge NSW bias and has been for a long time
But there is obviously a huge NSW bias and has been for a long time
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
Banned
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
There is no NSW bias and Im really getting sick of hearing this crap, it is worse then the Big Footy cricket board, as a mod you shouldn't be encouraging this type of thinking.
There is no NSW bias and Im really getting sick of hearing this crap, it is worse then the Big Footy cricket board, as a mod you shouldn't be encouraging this type of thinking.
a for effort
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Sorry, maybe we should all talk about how much we hate England, just for something different.
People are free to believe what they want, I believe that if there is a 50/50 decision between two players, it will go to the NSW player. Most people share my belief.
Sorry, maybe we should all talk about how much we hate England, just for something different.
People are free to believe what they want, I believe that if there is a 50/50 decision between two players, it will go to the NSW player. Most people share my belief.
Caesar
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I'm pretty skeptical about the NSW bias thing. The evidence has always been highly anecdotal. NSW has always produced a lot of very good cricketers - if you look at the Alltime Australian draft we did a while ago, NSW was the most highly represented state by a very long way. Just because there are a lot of baggy blues in the side at any particular time doesn't necessarily mean there's a bias there.
I'd be more inclined to believe the bias claims on the basis of (1) 'fringe' choices, or (2) tossup selections when you have two good candidates.
In the first case, people are always quick to point out examples of NSW players who were punted on over perhaps more qualifed candidates and then quickly failed in the national side. There's plenty of those from other states as well though, it seems people just remember the Blues. Selectors take chances on players, its what they do.
The second case are things like Jacques over Rogers, Katich over Hodge. But in cases like those you can generally identify specific factors that influenced the decision, usually one of the players having a run of form at exactly the right time. There MIGHT be bias involved, but if so it's not particularly overt.
I'm not saying there's not potentially a bias but I'd like to see some stats to back it up. There's nothing much in specific cases I've considered which is conclusive, so you have to look at trends. And when you look at trends it shouldn't really be from a list of anecdotes.
What sort of stats? It's tough. I think to see whether sub-par NSW players get more chances at the top level I'd probably look at all players with <5 Tests in the last 20 years, and see if the number of NSW players was disproportionate to the number of NSW players with Test caps as a whole. You could also look at the top 100 batsmen and bowlers in the Shield based on average, over the last 20 years, and see who has Test caps and whether NSW are overly represented. Those are just tentative ideas.
None of it is going to be conclusive but it would be good to give a bit more concrete indication if something dodgy IS going on. It's something on my list to do one rainy day.
I'm pretty skeptical about the NSW bias thing. The evidence has always been highly anecdotal. NSW has always produced a lot of very good cricketers - if you look at the Alltime Australian draft we did a while ago, NSW was the most highly represented state by a very long way. Just because there are a lot of baggy blues in the side at any particular time doesn't necessarily mean there's a bias there.
I'd be more inclined to believe the bias claims on the basis of (1) 'fringe' choices, or (2) tossup selections when you have two good candidates.
In the first case, people are always quick to point out examples of NSW players who were punted on over perhaps more qualifed candidates and then quickly failed in the national side. There's plenty of those from other states as well though, it seems people just remember the Blues. Selectors take chances on players, its what they do.
The second case are things like Jacques over Rogers, Katich over Hodge. But in cases like those you can generally identify specific factors that influenced the decision, usually one of the players having a run of form at exactly the right time. There MIGHT be bias involved, but if so it's not particularly overt.
I'm not saying there's not potentially a bias but I'd like to see some stats to back it up. There's nothing much in specific cases I've considered which is conclusive, so you have to look at trends. And when you look at trends it shouldn't really be from a list of anecdotes.
What sort of stats? It's tough. I think to see whether sub-par NSW players get more chances at the top level I'd probably look at all players with <5 Tests in the last 20 years, and see if the number of NSW players was disproportionate to the number of NSW players with Test caps as a whole. You could also look at the top 100 batsmen and bowlers in the Shield based on average, over the last 20 years, and see who has Test caps and whether NSW are overly represented. Those are just tentative ideas.
None of it is going to be conclusive but it would be good to give a bit more concrete indication if something dodgy IS going on. It's something on my list to do one rainy day.
a for effort
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I don't think there is anything 'dodgy' going on in the sense that there is some kind of conspiracy to get as many NSW players in as possible, just that home state may have been used as a tie-breaker of sorts in past years.
Hauritz over Krezja
Watson over Rogers
Henriques over *insert anyone who has actually achieved something*
I don't think there is anything 'dodgy' going on in the sense that there is some kind of conspiracy to get as many NSW players in as possible, just that home state may have been used as a tie-breaker of sorts in past years.
Hauritz over Krezja
Watson over Rogers
Henriques over *insert anyone who has actually achieved something*
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I definitely am not a fan of the Blues, the opposite actually, but I don't care if there is a bias towards them because that state has been producing some bloody good cricketers. At least IF they are biased, they are biased towards the only state that has a proven track record of producing international quality players, the other states have a scratchy record producing players consistently.
I believe the reason that Victoria is doing so well domestically is because all of their players are fringeline Australian players that are closed to being picked but probably never will, or only temporarily, for example Hodge. Therefore they have a lot of very good players, but most of them aren't up for the big time. So they don't have to worry about their best players being pulled away from them and as such they have the strongest team possible.
I definitely am not a fan of the Blues, the opposite actually, but I don't care if there is a bias towards them because that state has been producing some bloody good cricketers. At least IF they are biased, they are biased towards the only state that has a proven track record of producing international quality players, the other states have a scratchy record producing players consistently.
I believe the reason that Victoria is doing so well domestically is because all of their players are fringeline Australian players that are closed to being picked but probably never will, or only temporarily, for example Hodge. Therefore they have a lot of very good players, but most of them aren't up for the big time. So they don't have to worry about their best players being pulled away from them and as such they have the strongest team possible.
Thumbs up
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
He didn't seem to trouble too many South Africans, they seemed happy to fend him off and didn't look troubled at all. Theree don't seem to be too many obvious weapons in his arsenal for internationl level.
Deserves to be next in line though so good luck to him, I suspect he'll need it.
He didn't seem to trouble too many South Africans, they seemed happy to fend him off and didn't look troubled at all. Theree don't seem to be too many obvious weapons in his arsenal for internationl level.
Deserves to be next in line though so good luck to him, I suspect he'll need it.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
The thing you will see here though, is that all of those decisions have worked, except for the Henriques one because I don't like him.
Hauritz has done a great job so far and has been the best bowler for a little while.
Watson has underachieved a little in the Tests, but is still scoring in the 50-100 area, and absolutely blitzing in the ODIs. He has done superbly with the ball as well.
Krezja was touch and go and after having a few first class matches with an economy rate of over 10, his reputation got washed away a little.
Rogers has never played Test cricket, probably never will, and has shown himself as a long term fix, not the short term CA is probably looking for.
a for effort;378593 said:
The thing you will see here though, is that all of those decisions have worked, except for the Henriques one because I don't like him.
Hauritz has done a great job so far and has been the best bowler for a little while.
Watson has underachieved a little in the Tests, but is still scoring in the 50-100 area, and absolutely blitzing in the ODIs. He has done superbly with the ball as well.
Krezja was touch and go and after having a few first class matches with an economy rate of over 10, his reputation got washed away a little.
Rogers has never played Test cricket, probably never will, and has shown himself as a long term fix, not the short term CA is probably looking for.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Woops, has played Test cricket, but unsuccessfully. Most probably won't get another chance.
CA want Hughes, that seems to be a given, but with his weakness he wasn't going to make it. They bring Watson in to help with the way under-performing bowling and to make some runs at the top, most likely a short term fix until their main man Hughes gets back.
They aren't really looking at Rogers at all.
Thumbs up;378597 said:
Woops, has played Test cricket, but unsuccessfully. Most probably won't get another chance.
CA want Hughes, that seems to be a given, but with his weakness he wasn't going to make it. They bring Watson in to help with the way under-performing bowling and to make some runs at the top, most likely a short term fix until their main man Hughes gets back.
They aren't really looking at Rogers at all.
Re: West Indies in Australia
Bollinger played against the South Africans in Australia where Siddle was getting the same treatment as him. Siddle was definitely, no argument, under-performing until he went to South Africa.
If Bollinger doesn't get the same chance then I think its Victorian favouritism rather than NSW.
Thumbs up;378594 said:
Bollinger played against the South Africans in Australia where Siddle was getting the same treatment as him. Siddle was definitely, no argument, under-performing until he went to South Africa.
If Bollinger doesn't get the same chance then I think its Victorian favouritism rather than NSW.
