Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
- Thread starter marty344
- Start date
Re: West Indies in Australia
First Innings:
Lee 0/59 @ 2.8 (21 overs)
Siddle 1/44 @ 2.6 (16.5)
Second Innings
Lee 1/73 @ 2.7 (27)
Siddle 0/84 @ 3.23 (26)
Lee better figures by not much, more of a best of a bad bunch situation, although they both bowled very economically with Johnson taking his 8fer that match.
The difference being that Lee was coming off a good streak that Siddle did not have. Lee was going for about .9 an over to start with in the second innings though and got a bit of a flog around at the end so even second innings as well.
Siddle did get his economical figures from bowling too wide and the batsman leaving him almost all day.
Let's call it even.
First Innings:
Lee 0/59 @ 2.8 (21 overs)
Siddle 1/44 @ 2.6 (16.5)
Second Innings
Lee 1/73 @ 2.7 (27)
Siddle 0/84 @ 3.23 (26)
Lee better figures by not much, more of a best of a bad bunch situation, although they both bowled very economically with Johnson taking his 8fer that match.
The difference being that Lee was coming off a good streak that Siddle did not have. Lee was going for about .9 an over to start with in the second innings though and got a bit of a flog around at the end so even second innings as well.
Siddle did get his economical figures from bowling too wide and the batsman leaving him almost all day.
Let's call it even.
Thumbs up
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
lets call it round 2
2nd Test: Australia v South Africa at Melbourne, Dec 26-30, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
lets call it round 2
2nd Test: Australia v South Africa at Melbourne, Dec 26-30, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
Caesar
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
The preference for him over Hodge was due to his age and potential, it had nothing to do with what colour hat he wore. Hodge has more to feel hard done by on the occassions he's lost out to players like Martyn and Katich.
I certainly wouldn't say Clarke had 'done nothing' when he was selected, but he was definitely fast-tracked into the team. The hype was driven by the fact he was far and away the best young batting talent in the country, in the face of a rapidly ageing Test lineup. The hysteria anointing him as Ponting's captaincy successor before he'd played a game was ridiculous.eddiesmith;378615 said:Really? Seeing as we are talking test teams and therefore first class cricket, I dont recall the Bulls beating Victoria for a long time there, matter of fact the 2nd XI just knocked off QLD by an inningsAnd no team beat Victoria last year
As for NSW bias, Michael Clarke over Brad Hodge more than 5 years ago is another fine example of a NSW player doing nothing being picked over a top player with the runs on the board. Phil Hughes could also be a good example, rushed in after 1 good season and being shown up because he hadnt been properly tested at first class level due to always missing the plane to away trips that werent to the Adelaide Oval
The preference for him over Hodge was due to his age and potential, it had nothing to do with what colour hat he wore. Hodge has more to feel hard done by on the occassions he's lost out to players like Martyn and Katich.
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I dont recall any non NSW players being touted the greatest batsman since Bradman when they are young and thrown into the team in recent times. Not sure on Clarke but I do have a feeling he hadnt actually scored a shield century for NSW when he debuted
Yet 2 from NSW have, although 1 did have alright numbers, just not enough exeprience for them to mean anything
I dont recall any non NSW players being touted the greatest batsman since Bradman when they are young and thrown into the team in recent times. Not sure on Clarke but I do have a feeling he hadnt actually scored a shield century for NSW when he debuted
Yet 2 from NSW have, although 1 did have alright numbers, just not enough exeprience for them to mean anything
Re: West Indies in Australia
I'm not going to even bother putting any figures up when Siddle is comprehensively the winner there. Lee did not get a wicket for the match and Siddle got 4 in the first innings. Second innings Hauritz got the only wicket with a draw occuring.
Siddle also got important wickets here. I watched every single ball of this match though, and when he was taking wickets in the first innings, it didn't appear as if he was. Nothing changed and the batsman got frustrated with constantly leaving it, lead to Smith's flail outside of off stump to get caught behind, AB to drag on.
If I may be so bold as to point out without sounding like I'm trying to cover my tracks here, my not liking of Siddle doesn't arise from statistics, but how he plays. He puts in so much effort into a quite stupid looking bowling action and the ball comes out perfectly straight, nothing off the seam and hitting a spot just short or full of a good length outside off stump. That is his stock ball and doesn't have many variants that he can use effectively. He reminds me of a young Lee that was wayward and had no idea what he was doing, except without the pace. I hated Lee back then, but his pace was like nothing seen before, so you couldn't help but raise an eyebrow and a little giggle when he bowled a bouncer.
Then Lee got his status as the best bowler in the world up there alongside McGrath and Warne, and along with Clark became the most formidible attack since a couple of years previously with the only change being Gillespie for Clark. He learnt a lot from McGrath, and McGrath gave him the honours of bowling the first ball of a Test. He quickly became known as his replacement after he started bowling with the same or better figures then him. They were perhaps the greatest pair of opening bowlers Australia has had, but the problem was it was so short that nobody could notice. McGrath retired and Lee continued his legacy, he was meant to become the third only bowler to pass 500 wickets, and got to 300 before injury and sickness stopped him. He had become what was called the best reverse swing bowler in the world, and actually bowled a line and length. He become what he was never known for and was bowling at 140 km/h hitting the same spot over and over again and then a reverse swinging yorker that ended it all. The injury came at the wrong time for Clark as well, and out came a Victorian from literally nowhere. In every state but Victoria if you said Siddle, the answer would be 'who?'. They bowled alongside and Lee got sick. He announced he was going to sit out a game or two, but for some reason then decided to push on. He forced himself into bad form and Siddle was announced the hero because there was quite literally nobody else in the team to take wickets.
Then came New Zealand. Lee's 300th Test wicket was one of the best catches ever seen with Ponting diving away to his right at second slip in Adelaide. Lee in his bad form still showed himself the second best bowler in the team with Johnson emerging as the talent of the future to help Lee become the new best bowling partnership of the world. Lee was then gone with an ankle injury. He faultered against South Africa. Siddle got those wickets, but nobody remembered how. The short memory of the public was lost on Lee and Siddle became the new wonder, that 'he could improve' and 'he will become the next best bowler'. Lee came back too early because he wanted to ensure that he would get a game in the Ashes, but injured himself again. Stupid idea, but showed everyone up in the ODIs, until once again injured himself trying to prove that he was still here, don't forget about him.
Why should Siddle who 'will become the next legend' who 'will improve' be ranked over top of someone who was already there?
I'm not going to even bother putting any figures up when Siddle is comprehensively the winner there. Lee did not get a wicket for the match and Siddle got 4 in the first innings. Second innings Hauritz got the only wicket with a draw occuring.
Siddle also got important wickets here. I watched every single ball of this match though, and when he was taking wickets in the first innings, it didn't appear as if he was. Nothing changed and the batsman got frustrated with constantly leaving it, lead to Smith's flail outside of off stump to get caught behind, AB to drag on.
If I may be so bold as to point out without sounding like I'm trying to cover my tracks here, my not liking of Siddle doesn't arise from statistics, but how he plays. He puts in so much effort into a quite stupid looking bowling action and the ball comes out perfectly straight, nothing off the seam and hitting a spot just short or full of a good length outside off stump. That is his stock ball and doesn't have many variants that he can use effectively. He reminds me of a young Lee that was wayward and had no idea what he was doing, except without the pace. I hated Lee back then, but his pace was like nothing seen before, so you couldn't help but raise an eyebrow and a little giggle when he bowled a bouncer.
Then Lee got his status as the best bowler in the world up there alongside McGrath and Warne, and along with Clark became the most formidible attack since a couple of years previously with the only change being Gillespie for Clark. He learnt a lot from McGrath, and McGrath gave him the honours of bowling the first ball of a Test. He quickly became known as his replacement after he started bowling with the same or better figures then him. They were perhaps the greatest pair of opening bowlers Australia has had, but the problem was it was so short that nobody could notice. McGrath retired and Lee continued his legacy, he was meant to become the third only bowler to pass 500 wickets, and got to 300 before injury and sickness stopped him. He had become what was called the best reverse swing bowler in the world, and actually bowled a line and length. He become what he was never known for and was bowling at 140 km/h hitting the same spot over and over again and then a reverse swinging yorker that ended it all. The injury came at the wrong time for Clark as well, and out came a Victorian from literally nowhere. In every state but Victoria if you said Siddle, the answer would be 'who?'. They bowled alongside and Lee got sick. He announced he was going to sit out a game or two, but for some reason then decided to push on. He forced himself into bad form and Siddle was announced the hero because there was quite literally nobody else in the team to take wickets.
Then came New Zealand. Lee's 300th Test wicket was one of the best catches ever seen with Ponting diving away to his right at second slip in Adelaide. Lee in his bad form still showed himself the second best bowler in the team with Johnson emerging as the talent of the future to help Lee become the new best bowling partnership of the world. Lee was then gone with an ankle injury. He faultered against South Africa. Siddle got those wickets, but nobody remembered how. The short memory of the public was lost on Lee and Siddle became the new wonder, that 'he could improve' and 'he will become the next best bowler'. Lee came back too early because he wanted to ensure that he would get a game in the Ashes, but injured himself again. Stupid idea, but showed everyone up in the ODIs, until once again injured himself trying to prove that he was still here, don't forget about him.
Why should Siddle who 'will become the next legend' who 'will improve' be ranked over top of someone who was already there?
Caesar
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Clarke and Hughes are just beneficiaries of the youth push that started when the selectors woke up and realised that they were in serious danger of everyone retiring in the mid-2000s. Same as Tait, Cullen, Siddle, etc.
Err... Ponting? He had as much experience as Clarke when he was put in the team, although he was knocking the door down when they did. Anyway, all this 'next Bradman' stuff is just media crap.eddiesmith;378652 said:
I can't remember either, but he was more picked on the quality he'd shown in the ODI team. He spent a year there and impressed a lot. I agree that he was accelerated far too quick but he benefited from being our only legitimate developed batting talent under 25 at the time.eddiesmith;378652 said:
Clarke and Hughes are just beneficiaries of the youth push that started when the selectors woke up and realised that they were in serious danger of everyone retiring in the mid-2000s. Same as Tait, Cullen, Siddle, etc.
Thumbs up
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
Lee is not in McGrath or Warnes League
Lee is not in the top tier of Australian fast bowlers throughout history Lee was not part of the best opening pair ever
Lee was not destined to take 500+ wickets
Lee has a habit of taking a lot of junk wickets (tremble NZ tremble)
Siddle took his wickets with good consistent bowling.
Siddle has wronged you and Australia in no way, in fact by offering an laternative to Lee Australia have not had to play test matches one short.
Lee is not in McGrath or Warnes League
Lee is not in the top tier of Australian fast bowlers throughout history Lee was not part of the best opening pair ever
Lee was not destined to take 500+ wickets
Lee has a habit of taking a lot of junk wickets (tremble NZ tremble)
Siddle took his wickets with good consistent bowling.
Siddle has wronged you and Australia in no way, in fact by offering an laternative to Lee Australia have not had to play test matches one short.
Re: West Indies in Australia
Lee has only been a good bowler for a fraction of his career, ie his last one and a half seasons. He is definitely not in McGrath or Warne's league because of this reason.
If Lee had not been injured he would have gotten at least 400 wickets, with about 4 seasons left that is plenty of time to get another 90 wickets when you consider he got 68 in his last full season.
Lee was part of the Australia mauling of England, ICC World XI and whoever came next up after the World XI until India last year.
Short memory causes this.
Siddle has consistently leavable bowling. He bowls a good ball, then follows it up by five more wide ones. Then he has a good spell, gets two wickets and then goes for 5 an over the next spell.
When I watch him the first thought that pops in my head is 'he isn't international quality'.
Thumbs up;378665 said:
Lee has only been a good bowler for a fraction of his career, ie his last one and a half seasons. He is definitely not in McGrath or Warne's league because of this reason.
If Lee had not been injured he would have gotten at least 400 wickets, with about 4 seasons left that is plenty of time to get another 90 wickets when you consider he got 68 in his last full season.
Lee was part of the Australia mauling of England, ICC World XI and whoever came next up after the World XI until India last year.
Short memory causes this.
Siddle has consistently leavable bowling. He bowls a good ball, then follows it up by five more wide ones. Then he has a good spell, gets two wickets and then goes for 5 an over the next spell.
When I watch him the first thought that pops in my head is 'he isn't international quality'.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I think Clarke was added as a calculated risk when they noticed everyone they had in the side were legends and they didn't need another top class batsman, instead a risk that could or could not turn out. It did so Hodge wasn't needed.
I think Clarke was added as a calculated risk when they noticed everyone they had in the side were legends and they didn't need another top class batsman, instead a risk that could or could not turn out. It did so Hodge wasn't needed.
Caesar
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
Boris, I realise you really like Lee as a bowler, but like him you're living on past glories. Consider:
I know you don't like him Boris, but it's time to acknowledge that Siddle has surpassed Lee as a Test bowler. If we were talking about the Lee of even just 3 years ago I might feel different... but we're not.
Unfortunately players age and lose their potency and decline. Not all fast bowlers - not even most - are evergreens like McGrath who can keep being wonderfully effective well into their 30s. It's a sad thing, but for true quicks like Lee or Gillespie all it takes is the loss of a little bit of pace and they go from lethal to ordinary in a very short space of time - especially in the Test arena, where the workload is so much higher.
Boris, I realise you really like Lee as a bowler, but like him you're living on past glories. Consider:
- Siddle has played 13 Tests and taken 51 wickets @ 29.6, with 2 fivefas.
- In Lee's last 13 Tests, he has taken 50 wickets @ 34.6, also with 2 fivefas.
I know you don't like him Boris, but it's time to acknowledge that Siddle has surpassed Lee as a Test bowler. If we were talking about the Lee of even just 3 years ago I might feel different... but we're not.
Unfortunately players age and lose their potency and decline. Not all fast bowlers - not even most - are evergreens like McGrath who can keep being wonderfully effective well into their 30s. It's a sad thing, but for true quicks like Lee or Gillespie all it takes is the loss of a little bit of pace and they go from lethal to ordinary in a very short space of time - especially in the Test arena, where the workload is so much higher.
Re: West Indies in Australia
Just hope the same as Gillespie doesn't happen for the sake of the selectors credibility then. Gillespie had the best three seasons in the domestic area of his life before he retired, and they just ignored him. I have the feeling its going to all happen again and another career wasted before it had finished.
Just hope the same as Gillespie doesn't happen for the sake of the selectors credibility then. Gillespie had the best three seasons in the domestic area of his life before he retired, and they just ignored him. I have the feeling its going to all happen again and another career wasted before it had finished.
Caesar
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
Whether he would have been able to bowl to an international standard again after his Shield revival is up for debate, but at his age there was simply very little value to the team in bringing him back for a second shot. The team was already looking to transition to the new generation.
At what point would you drop him? Let's hear some criteria.
The selectors lost no credibility for dropping Gillespie. They had no choice. Do you remember how badly he was bowling in 2005? He was taking less than a wicket an innings at an average of well over 60.Boris;378670 said:
Whether he would have been able to bowl to an international standard again after his Shield revival is up for debate, but at his age there was simply very little value to the team in bringing him back for a second shot. The team was already looking to transition to the new generation.
How is Lee's career being wasted, Boris? You can see clearly from the stats that Lee had declined to a point where Siddle is performing better, and an average of almost 35 for a guy who wants to be Australia's Test spearhead is frankly pretty appalling.Boris;378670 said:
At what point would you drop him? Let's hear some criteria.
Re: West Indies in Australia
Gillespie had one bad tour and was dropped in a knee jerk reaction to losing the Ashes, fair enough, but not letting him back after bowling 3 ten fas in a row (for the match) for South Australia isn't fair.
And the issue is that Lee's figures have been improving ever since the start of his career. He was averaging 35 not long ago and then had two seasons where he was averaging 23 and 24. He won the Allan Border medal for getting 68 wickets in a season. That is a huuuge amount. He really stepped up to the challenge, and then one poor India series let that 13 Test average of yours above down. Once again, a knee jerk reaction by the public causing him to push on where he shouldn't and cause himself and injury. He was averaging 35 when he was out of form. It's not as if it were any 60. One thing dropping a bowler that is declining, but improving?
Caesar;378674 said:
Gillespie had one bad tour and was dropped in a knee jerk reaction to losing the Ashes, fair enough, but not letting him back after bowling 3 ten fas in a row (for the match) for South Australia isn't fair.
And the issue is that Lee's figures have been improving ever since the start of his career. He was averaging 35 not long ago and then had two seasons where he was averaging 23 and 24. He won the Allan Border medal for getting 68 wickets in a season. That is a huuuge amount. He really stepped up to the challenge, and then one poor India series let that 13 Test average of yours above down. Once again, a knee jerk reaction by the public causing him to push on where he shouldn't and cause himself and injury. He was averaging 35 when he was out of form. It's not as if it were any 60. One thing dropping a bowler that is declining, but improving?
Caesar
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
It wasn't one bad series against India damaging his stats. It was the home series, then the return away series, plus the start of the home series against South Africa. If it wasn't for the 5 matches against the might of the West Indies and New Zealand in between, his stats would be even more appalling. Put all that together, and it's an entire calendar year where Lee had failed to perform at all acceptably against quality opposition.
Again, I ask, what is your criteria for dropping players? When a player is out of form against good opposition for a year, how many chances does he keep getting?
---------
By the way, in contrast (since we're comparing) 12 of Siddle's 13 matches were against South Africa, India, and England on an Ashes tour. Clearly better opposition, and yet his stats are still better. I'm seeing less and less reason to replace him with Lee, and less and less reason why you constantly slag him off.
But he wasn't improving. He had improved previously, and then he declined again. You're ignoring that the 13 matches I quoted were the final 13 matches he played, showing a clear drop from when he was playing well.Boris;378675 said:
It wasn't one bad series against India damaging his stats. It was the home series, then the return away series, plus the start of the home series against South Africa. If it wasn't for the 5 matches against the might of the West Indies and New Zealand in between, his stats would be even more appalling. Put all that together, and it's an entire calendar year where Lee had failed to perform at all acceptably against quality opposition.
Again, I ask, what is your criteria for dropping players? When a player is out of form against good opposition for a year, how many chances does he keep getting?
---------
By the way, in contrast (since we're comparing) 12 of Siddle's 13 matches were against South Africa, India, and England on an Ashes tour. Clearly better opposition, and yet his stats are still better. I'm seeing less and less reason to replace him with Lee, and less and less reason why you constantly slag him off.
Re: West Indies in Australia
I'm not slagging Siddle off, I just know there are better elsewhere in the domestic scene. He is a nobody that rose from nowhere... nobody knew him when he was selected or why. He put in a dozen good matches for Victoria and he got selected. Nobody got it... except for the Victorians because they were happy to finally see someone in the side. Then everyone is suddenly glad because he gets some good figures but even when he was bowling against the Windies every over was the exact same boring routine, leave, leave, block, leave, leave. He doesn't have any experience whatsoever to know the basics of bowling, he is trying to do exactly what Lee was when he was young, bowl fast and look good by stirring the crowd up and strutting round like a complete tool. I also noticed I'm contradicting myself because I am slagging him off, but I'm going to do the exact same to him as to what I did to Lee. Obviously I wasn't on this site when Lee was young, but when he was I hated him and just sat there waiting for him to grow up and I knew he would come good. Siddle has the potential, but at the moment he is a show pony without the ability you want out of a young fast bowler. You want them to blast onto the scene then settle down, not blast out some failures, get one good one and then just put along a little more. I also can't believe the support for him on this site. The majority of people I talk to day to day, or other places around the internet are thinking in the same frame of mind as me.
Also Lee did well in the home series against India, and then was SICK and INJURED in India, definitely not playing his best which you could tell by a drop in pace of 5 km/h average.
If he is as old as everyone says he is, why is he still the fastest bowler in Australia (Tait is faster but not consistently, and the others that get up there that is their effort ball)?
As for my dropping qualities.
I like to have an established team and players play for the different spots, the numbers. This isn't necessarily the batting order.
1 and 2 are the openers.
3 is the batsman that is the most consistent and 'the best'
4 is the 'second best'
5 is the mid range batsman capable of hitting out but also saving the match
6 is the biggest hitter/quickest score capable of putting together helpful innings to boost the score or bring the side back from a collapse.
7 is the keeper
8 is the spin bowler
9 is the threatening raw bowler, often quick
10 is the consistent line and length bowler
11 is the special bowler
I then have players vying for each spot lined in a list of preference.
For example for the number 8 spot I would have Hauritz, Krezja, McGain, Smith etc
Players will rarely be able to be in contention for two spots, like Hodge was viable for Ponting's spot and as such in my books wouldn't have gotten it unless there was a shortage for number 4.
In my books Siddle and Lee are going for the number 11 spot.
Johnson has 9, Hilfenhaus/Clark/Bollinger for 10.
Lee filled the 9 spot at the time he first started. Lee then has progressed from being crazy knock head off everyone guy to more sedate line and length and as such moves to number 11 because he fills neither of those other categories.
The longer the player fills that spot, the more it takes to knock that player off.
Take the example I use a lot, when Langer was injured one time, Jaques filled in for a game. He came in and blitzed the bowling. He scored a quickfire 99 and then Langer was back for the next game, even though Langer at that time was going through a rough period and had been out of form for nearly a year.
This is because Langer had been in the side for so long and had as such filled his 'meter' up to the full, and that slowly went down and down, but had not reached the point until he was dropped. Jaques may have added a fresh face and could have done better, but really would you have dropped him ever?
The problem here is that Lee moved from the number 9 position and they had to find a new one - Johnson. Partly this was because Lee was maturing and found his niche, and partly because Johnson was pressuring always for that spot. Lee then slowed his bowling down and worked on accuracy and earnt himself the number 11 spot. He excelled there, but because he changed spots, he also hadn't cemented himself there. Really he had played 20 Tests in that position and although being the best in the world at it for a short while, he hadn't filled up his 'meter'. This allowed for a quick fall from grace as soon as he showed some sort of bad fortune.
Why was Hayden and Hussey kept for so long? Because they have been there for over 150 Tests combined and they earned their right to have the place in the side. Lee has served the same duties and should have at least half the rights they had.
Siddle has not been there very long and as a result should not get the same leeway.
And beside you have already shown that he shouldn't be in the team. As you have shown, he was performing at the same level as Lee at his worst and you have said that wasn't enough to keep him playing. Hmm...
Caesar;378679 said:
I'm not slagging Siddle off, I just know there are better elsewhere in the domestic scene. He is a nobody that rose from nowhere... nobody knew him when he was selected or why. He put in a dozen good matches for Victoria and he got selected. Nobody got it... except for the Victorians because they were happy to finally see someone in the side. Then everyone is suddenly glad because he gets some good figures but even when he was bowling against the Windies every over was the exact same boring routine, leave, leave, block, leave, leave. He doesn't have any experience whatsoever to know the basics of bowling, he is trying to do exactly what Lee was when he was young, bowl fast and look good by stirring the crowd up and strutting round like a complete tool. I also noticed I'm contradicting myself because I am slagging him off, but I'm going to do the exact same to him as to what I did to Lee. Obviously I wasn't on this site when Lee was young, but when he was I hated him and just sat there waiting for him to grow up and I knew he would come good. Siddle has the potential, but at the moment he is a show pony without the ability you want out of a young fast bowler. You want them to blast onto the scene then settle down, not blast out some failures, get one good one and then just put along a little more. I also can't believe the support for him on this site. The majority of people I talk to day to day, or other places around the internet are thinking in the same frame of mind as me.
Also Lee did well in the home series against India, and then was SICK and INJURED in India, definitely not playing his best which you could tell by a drop in pace of 5 km/h average.
If he is as old as everyone says he is, why is he still the fastest bowler in Australia (Tait is faster but not consistently, and the others that get up there that is their effort ball)?
As for my dropping qualities.
I like to have an established team and players play for the different spots, the numbers. This isn't necessarily the batting order.
1 and 2 are the openers.
3 is the batsman that is the most consistent and 'the best'
4 is the 'second best'
5 is the mid range batsman capable of hitting out but also saving the match
6 is the biggest hitter/quickest score capable of putting together helpful innings to boost the score or bring the side back from a collapse.
7 is the keeper
8 is the spin bowler
9 is the threatening raw bowler, often quick
10 is the consistent line and length bowler
11 is the special bowler
I then have players vying for each spot lined in a list of preference.
For example for the number 8 spot I would have Hauritz, Krezja, McGain, Smith etc
Players will rarely be able to be in contention for two spots, like Hodge was viable for Ponting's spot and as such in my books wouldn't have gotten it unless there was a shortage for number 4.
In my books Siddle and Lee are going for the number 11 spot.
Johnson has 9, Hilfenhaus/Clark/Bollinger for 10.
Lee filled the 9 spot at the time he first started. Lee then has progressed from being crazy knock head off everyone guy to more sedate line and length and as such moves to number 11 because he fills neither of those other categories.
The longer the player fills that spot, the more it takes to knock that player off.
Take the example I use a lot, when Langer was injured one time, Jaques filled in for a game. He came in and blitzed the bowling. He scored a quickfire 99 and then Langer was back for the next game, even though Langer at that time was going through a rough period and had been out of form for nearly a year.
This is because Langer had been in the side for so long and had as such filled his 'meter' up to the full, and that slowly went down and down, but had not reached the point until he was dropped. Jaques may have added a fresh face and could have done better, but really would you have dropped him ever?
The problem here is that Lee moved from the number 9 position and they had to find a new one - Johnson. Partly this was because Lee was maturing and found his niche, and partly because Johnson was pressuring always for that spot. Lee then slowed his bowling down and worked on accuracy and earnt himself the number 11 spot. He excelled there, but because he changed spots, he also hadn't cemented himself there. Really he had played 20 Tests in that position and although being the best in the world at it for a short while, he hadn't filled up his 'meter'. This allowed for a quick fall from grace as soon as he showed some sort of bad fortune.
Why was Hayden and Hussey kept for so long? Because they have been there for over 150 Tests combined and they earned their right to have the place in the side. Lee has served the same duties and should have at least half the rights they had.
Siddle has not been there very long and as a result should not get the same leeway.
And beside you have already shown that he shouldn't be in the team. As you have shown, he was performing at the same level as Lee at his worst and you have said that wasn't enough to keep him playing. Hmm...
Caesar
Member
Re: West Indies in Australia
You do realise that even in the current day and age, playing 20 Tests takes about a year and a half? And that only about 30% of Test players have a career that lasts longer than 20 Tests in total? 20 Tests is a hell of a long time. How long should he be given?
The bottom line is that it's been two years since Lee has exhibited the sort of form in unlimited overs cricket that would make him a better option than Siddle in the Test side. Two years is an extremely long time in cricket, particularly when you're an injury-prone fast bowler well into your thirties. Come on Boris, be honest, do you really think selecting a player on the basis of his form three seasons ago is a sensible approach?
Even if Lee could go back to the Shield and show that he still has what it takes to perform well in the multi-day format, it still probably wouldn't be enough. He's old with a limited shelf life and unreliable fitness. Despite your assertions Siddle is doing a servicable job and there is no massively pressing need for his replacement.
Really, Lee should just focus on the shorter format where there's less strain on his body and less question marks over his ability to perform.
Actually you're right about the home series against India, my mistake. But the home series against South Africa? His figures for those matches were his worst all year, because of which he was quite justifiably dropped.Boris;378696 said:
So his role changes slightly in the team (he's not even being dropped) and after 20 matches you still don't think he's been given enough time to cement his place?Boris;378696 said:
You do realise that even in the current day and age, playing 20 Tests takes about a year and a half? And that only about 30% of Test players have a career that lasts longer than 20 Tests in total? 20 Tests is a hell of a long time. How long should he be given?
Siddle isn't performing at the same level Lee was. He's performing (a) clearly better, taking wickets at the same rate, with a vastly lower average, (b) against clearly superior opposition, and (c) he's 8 years younger than Lee is, and not falling apart physically.Boris;378696 said:
The bottom line is that it's been two years since Lee has exhibited the sort of form in unlimited overs cricket that would make him a better option than Siddle in the Test side. Two years is an extremely long time in cricket, particularly when you're an injury-prone fast bowler well into your thirties. Come on Boris, be honest, do you really think selecting a player on the basis of his form three seasons ago is a sensible approach?
Even if Lee could go back to the Shield and show that he still has what it takes to perform well in the multi-day format, it still probably wouldn't be enough. He's old with a limited shelf life and unreliable fitness. Despite your assertions Siddle is doing a servicable job and there is no massively pressing need for his replacement.
Really, Lee should just focus on the shorter format where there's less strain on his body and less question marks over his ability to perform.
Thumbs up
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I have to agree with our esteemed moderator, no surprise there, that the Lee Siddle debate has only one possible winner for many reasons (age, performance...). It is a shame to see faitful servants careers sputter and die (Lee Clark) rather than having the player go out in a blaze of glory (McGrath Warne...) but it happens.
Pine not for their return but for the development of the next brigade. Boris I would like clarification on one thing. You made reference to the better options on the domestic scene (to replace Siddle), Who????????
I have to agree with our esteemed moderator, no surprise there, that the Lee Siddle debate has only one possible winner for many reasons (age, performance...). It is a shame to see faitful servants careers sputter and die (Lee Clark) rather than having the player go out in a blaze of glory (McGrath Warne...) but it happens.
Pine not for their return but for the development of the next brigade. Boris I would like clarification on one thing. You made reference to the better options on the domestic scene (to replace Siddle), Who????????
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
The home series against South Africa he played one and a half Tests with the first one being good figures outclassing everyone but Johnson with his 8fa, so no chance of getting wickets there.
Yes I do realise that and have noticed that 20 is an outrageous figure because going back 20 Test is when McGrath and Warne were playing. Really it's more like one season's worth there.
Just one thing I would like to put out there to remind you is that I know Lee is gone, but I'm trying to make sure that he isn't forgotten like Gillespie has been. He should at least get one more Test as such Gillespie did to go down in that blaze of glory.
Hmm take your pick. McKay has been performing well, so has McDonald. Laughlin (too old) and Nofke (should have been there ages ago) both easily outclass him with statistics and performance ability anyday, and one of them can bat just as well as Katich. Geeves also is another option.
He didn't do that great domestically. At the time I was looking over records of every one to see who there was and Hilfenhaus and Bollinger both appeared, yet Siddle I threw away before I could read any further because he had been playing for 18 months getting wickets on grounds he was suited to and mostly tail end wickets.
"He will improve" say some. Let's just hope he doesn't start costing too much before that happens. Picking him IMO was like picking Lee all those years ago, a risk, except it isn't as calculated this time because there are no McGrath, Warne and Gillespie to fall back on. If Siddle fails Hilfenhaus, Hauritz and Johnson have to mop up. Does that attack really inspire fear to anyone? I have friends in England who were laughing at me saying our selectors were ridiculous for walking into England with Hilfenhaus and Siddle with a combined greatness of 12 games to try and knock off the best batsman in the world on their own pitches. Graeme Smith actually said in a press conference that he couldn't work out their tactics and why they were not playing Clark, who was the destroyer of their team the last time they toured there, leaving with an average of 11 for the series. If I were another country I would be laughing too.
Caesar;378727 said:
The home series against South Africa he played one and a half Tests with the first one being good figures outclassing everyone but Johnson with his 8fa, so no chance of getting wickets there.
Caesar;378727 said:
Yes I do realise that and have noticed that 20 is an outrageous figure because going back 20 Test is when McGrath and Warne were playing. Really it's more like one season's worth there.
Just one thing I would like to put out there to remind you is that I know Lee is gone, but I'm trying to make sure that he isn't forgotten like Gillespie has been. He should at least get one more Test as such Gillespie did to go down in that blaze of glory.
Thumbs up;378740 said:
Hmm take your pick. McKay has been performing well, so has McDonald. Laughlin (too old) and Nofke (should have been there ages ago) both easily outclass him with statistics and performance ability anyday, and one of them can bat just as well as Katich. Geeves also is another option.
He didn't do that great domestically. At the time I was looking over records of every one to see who there was and Hilfenhaus and Bollinger both appeared, yet Siddle I threw away before I could read any further because he had been playing for 18 months getting wickets on grounds he was suited to and mostly tail end wickets.
"He will improve" say some. Let's just hope he doesn't start costing too much before that happens. Picking him IMO was like picking Lee all those years ago, a risk, except it isn't as calculated this time because there are no McGrath, Warne and Gillespie to fall back on. If Siddle fails Hilfenhaus, Hauritz and Johnson have to mop up. Does that attack really inspire fear to anyone? I have friends in England who were laughing at me saying our selectors were ridiculous for walking into England with Hilfenhaus and Siddle with a combined greatness of 12 games to try and knock off the best batsman in the world on their own pitches. Graeme Smith actually said in a press conference that he couldn't work out their tactics and why they were not playing Clark, who was the destroyer of their team the last time they toured there, leaving with an average of 11 for the series. If I were another country I would be laughing too.