Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

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.

On what merit? Seriously, this is a professional sport - you don't turn competitive matches into testimonials.

Gillespie only got picked against Bangladesh because (a) our first choice attack was decimated by injury, and (b) he was performing extremely well in the Shield at the time. Last time I checked neither of those apply to Lee.

"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.

You keep saying this, but the figures don't back you up. So far in his career he's taken, on average, 2 wickets an innings at just under 30 runs apiece. Barring one Test against the West Indies, every single game has been probably the toughest matches you can play in world cricket at the moment - South Africa home and away, India away, England away.

It's not stellar but it's bloody solid. I know you're used to Australian attacks that terrorize the opposition for 20-25 runs a wicket and regularly take fivefers, but that's not the norm - especially for somebody who isn't the main spearhead of his side. Take a look around the world at other comparable players. I think you'll find he matches up quite well.

And before you start going on about his wickets being poor quality (because I know this is one of your favourites), take a look at his wickets summary. It's pretty much a who's who of international batting at the moment. His top 3 most frequent wickets are McKenzie, Boucher and de Villiers - all quality recognised batsmen. He's dismissed Pieterson twice in two matches; and he took Dhoni, Sehwag and Tendulkar in India during their single meeting. During the Ashes, Ravi Bopara was the only recognised English batsman he didn't dismiss at least once.

Seriously, I can understand you thinking he got lucky being selected in the first place. That's not an uncommon sentiment, and in fact I agree with it. But he has clearly brought the goods to the table since he was. Tell me, what does he have to do in order to justify his place?

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

On what merit? Seriously, this is a professional sport - you don't turn competitive matches into testimonials.

Gillespie only got picked against Bangladesh because (a) our first choice attack was decimated by injury, and (b) he was performing extremely well in the Shield at the time. Last time I checked neither of those apply to Lee.


You keep saying this, but the figures don't back you up. So far in his career he's taken, on average, 2 wickets an innings at just under 30 runs apiece. Barring one Test against the West Indies, every single game has been probably the toughest matches you can play in world cricket at the moment - South Africa home and away, India away, England away.

It's not stellar but it's bloody solid. I know you're used to Australian attacks that terrorize the opposition for 20-25 runs a wicket and regularly take fivefers, but that's not the norm - especially for somebody who isn't the main spearhead of his side. Take a look around the world at other comparable players. I think you'll find he matches up quite well.

And before you start going on about his wickets being poor quality (because I know this is one of your favourites), take a look at his wickets summary. It's pretty much a who's who of international batting at the moment. His top 3 most frequent wickets are McKenzie, Boucher and de Villiers - all quality recognised batsmen. He's dismissed Pieterson twice in two matches; and he took Dhoni, Sehwag and Tendulkar in India during their single meeting. During the Ashes, Ravi Bopara was the only recognised English batsman he didn't dismiss at least once.

Seriously, I can understand you thinking he got lucky being selected in the first place. That's not an uncommon sentiment, and in fact I agree with it. But he has clearly brought the goods to the table since he was. Tell me, what does he have to do in order to justify his place?

Let me just say I don't like media hype, and I don't like new players.

Every player has to prove themselves before I start giving them leeway.

Look at North for example. He has stepped up and really shone. If you are selected you are generally in good form and should blaze to start with. North averages 50 something with a couple of tons already. That's a great start. Hilfenhaus blazed on the scene at the Ashes and South Africa before that. He took wickets economically and was the best bowler in England. Hughes comes on the scene and scores a century in both innings. Siddle comes onto the scene with mediocre bowling the is just simply put boring and gets his wickets when nobody cares. I just fail to find him an interesting player, and believe me when I say interesting I find Dravid and Hussey batting interesting, or Clark bowling for millions of overs without wickets. At least it seems to be a challenge.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Okay, well now we're getting away from objective discussion and into what you find interesting and exciting to watch. Which is fine, but it shouldn't be conflated with the concept that Siddle is somehow a poor cricketer who doesn't deserve his place in the side. The numbers clearly show that he is not.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Yes Siddle was lucky, but the reason he got picked was because he took 8 wickets against the NSW test strength side and impressed the selectors, then Bollinger got injured and off to India he went. Then he did the one thing a player needs to do, impressed the captain so much he was picked the next time a vacancy opened up

I dont get this argument about Siddle v Lee, when has Lee ever been fit enough to replace Siddle?

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Yes Siddle was lucky, but the reason he got picked was because he took 8 wickets against the NSW test strength side and impressed the selectors, then Bollinger got injured and off to India he went. Then he did the one thing a player needs to do, impressed the captain so much he was picked the next time a vacancy opened up

I'd like you to remember this next time we're talking about how Clarke/Hughes/Jacques/Katich got into the team, Eddie.

It's true though. Luck + timely performance = selection. Plenty of great players have missed out over the years because they couldn't get those two factors to coincide.

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

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.

Then you'd be Robinson Crusoe, teams are not laughing at our bowling line up and the english do not have the best bats going around. Smith by the way intimated that he thought Australia would do well in England, which at the time with the inflection was a pretty clear indication he expected Austrqalia to be the victor. Don't rewrite history, the english played well and Siddle was far fromthe biggest offender in the bowling ranks. these artguments have been had and there is no point revisiting the ashes as you nor I will yeild.

Siddle is a better owler than Mckay, Laughlin, Nofke and McDonald. Stop claiming that stats back up your argument when they don't!. Nofke has had a long time to attempt to develop into a bowler who can be damaging and has failed to do so. he is good at two disciplines but international test level at neither.

Offering a bit of batting ability for a bowler is not a decisive argument as all those you listed a far inferior as bowlers which is what Siddle is lselected to be.

On a previous comment you made who would have guessed you dont like new players in the international team?

You threw away siddle because he didn't fit into your design of picking on sentimentality, not necessarily on ability. On exerience and not on performance or ability. You keep thinking that way but Clark was done (120 is not fast enough) Bollinger has not set the world on fire and geeves is rubbish.

Do please try again and this time try harder

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Okay take for example today's play.

Siddle bowls a beauty of a ball to Sarwan. He follows it up with a wide one outside off stump that goes to four. The next over he bowls a short one that gets him into all sorts of trouble, then guess what, next ball was a four. This happened the whole day, once again.

It is not my personal preference of viewing. I find it great viewing because he leaks so many runs at bad times, not necessarily in large quantities but his plans never come off without getting a belting. How does he build any pressure by being innacurate and having a loosener every over?

Chanderpaul had it completely over him. Yes he beat the edge, but three times did Chanderpaul run the ball down to fine leg through the varying gaps in the slips. Twice did he bowl on middle stump and get put away through square leg. His good balls were going for fours.

This happens in every game. Even if he gets a five for, he is making it hard for the guy at the other end. He bowls a great ball, then goes for four. Bowls a great spell, then the next he goes for 5 an over without troubling the batsman. Bollinger today was on the money through each of his spells, and although not very sensational, he wasn't letting pressure just explode outwards. Bollinger is a mediocre bowler, but at least he knows what he is doing.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Bollinger a mediocre bowler?

I can name a heap of international bowlers that have been playing international cricket for years that should be classified as 'mediocre bowlers' but are roundly thought of as gods.

Bollinger really impressed me today, and I'll be honest, Siddle was ordinary. Siddle would want to be careful as well, his spot is by no means established, especially if Bollinger continues to bowl well and Hilfenhaus regains full fitness as expected.

What impressed me about Bollinger was that lift he got off the pitch, that ball to get Gayle was an absolute peach.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Bollinger a mediocre bowler?

I can name a heap of international bowlers that have been playing international cricket for years that should be classified as 'mediocre bowlers' but are roundly thought of as gods.

Bollinger really impressed me today, and I'll be honest, Siddle was ordinary. Siddle would want to be careful as well, his spot is by no means established, especially if Bollinger continues to bowl well and Hilfenhaus regains full fitness as expected.

What impressed me about Bollinger was that lift he got off the pitch, that ball to get Gayle was an absolute peach.

Bollinger bowled well today, and I'm very pleased that he was picked now, but the question is will he be like that in the next Test he plays? It's just a waiting game to see if he will come through. I would rather Siddle than someone who performs randomly.

Johnson's bounce to day really shocked me, 12 runs directly behind the keeper in total. Bloody hell. He bowled as he does, sprays it, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't and he got a wicket.

Siddle IMO bowled as he always does but I'm not going to comment any further.

Chanderpaul was the pick of the batsman for me. Bravo scored a brilliant hundred (any hundred for them at the moment against Australia is superb) but Chanderpaul I think was the pick for sticking to it through the tough period and really frustrating bowlers with his flick through the slips and taking balls off middle stump etc. The Windies actually looked like a Test playing nation today. Well done.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

At this stage our bowling is too inconsistent, we could come out tomorrow and wrap them up for 350 with Johnson tearing them apart.

The run-rates in the first session were unacceptable, simple as that.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

With Gayle batting first up you are going to have high run rates and economy rates, until he gets himself out anyway (usually). You have to take that into account, there isn't really a way to slow him down. He's either scoring or out.

And you have to remember for a side that struggled to get to 150 last Test, 350 is defendable.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Yes but things like bowling 5 wides don't help.

I like to see control in our attack, at this stage we might have one day when all the bowlers bowl well with control and wickets fall at regular intervals, other days wicket taking balls are interwhined with a lot of wayward stuff, which happened during the Ashes.

During the Ashes we were generally taking wickets at regular intervals, however at times these wicket taking balls were mixed with crap, i want the crap out and the good stuff in.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

That's what I have been trying to say for a little while, and it also has a lot to do with the bowling attack. They have to complement each other. Please don't think I'm taking a swipe at Siddle because I'm not.

It would be silly to have Tait and Johnson in the same team because they bowl similarly, pace with swing and sprays it a lot. No use having three Clark/Hilfenhaus bowlers when you have nobody to mix it up.

No matter who is actually in the side, I don't think the Siddle, Johnson, Bollinger group match up, either Bollinger or Siddle seems to become redundant. McKay would fit in there IMO, but I don't think I want him playing. Not sure.

 

[Sober Symonds]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Just a few days ago the Inside Cricket panel were lauding the great variety the Aust pace attack offers. Even with Hilf out, it can't all of a sudden no longer be the case. Bollinger is similar enough to Hilf (yes, I know they use different arms!), to mean that the combination should still stand up.

Let the Test run it's course, and we can make better judgement. LtD is right, Siddle would need to continue returning good figures, or to Boris's absolute delight, someone else might just bob up. I didn't see much of today, but of the bits I did see and hear, Siddle was slashed and edged very streakily, had catches dropped, though I'm not silly enough to think this happened all day.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Hard to bag the bowlers at all after today when the last test the great Warne, McGrath, Lee and Clark attack played at this ground they conceded 5/550 in the 1st innings

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

That's what I have been trying to say for a little while, and it also has a lot to do with the bowling attack. They have to complement each other. Please don't think I'm taking a swipe at Siddle because I'm not.

It would be silly to have Tait and Johnson in the same team because they bowl similarly, pace with swing and sprays it a lot. No use having three Clark/Hilfenhaus bowlers when you have nobody to mix it up.

No matter who is actually in the side, I don't think the Siddle, Johnson, Bollinger group match up, either Bollinger or Siddle seems to become redundant. McKay would fit in there IMO, but I don't think I want him playing. Not sure.

I think on paper each bowlers style complements each other, the problem is that at times the likes of Siddle and Johnson are prone to serve up crap for short periods of time, which in turn allows the run-rate to sky rocket which makes it very hard for the much maligned Ponting to have any control over proceedings.

I mean there really isn't any excuse for letting fly with 5 wides over the keepers head, WTF was Johnson thinking.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I think on paper each bowlers style complements each other, the problem is that at times the likes of Siddle and Johnson are prone to serve up crap for short periods of time, which in turn allows the run-rate to sky rocket which makes it very hard for the much maligned Ponting to have any control over proceedings.

I mean there really isn't any excuse for letting fly with 5 wides over the keepers head, WTF was Johnson thinking.

Johnson is the extreme bowler. He is allowed to do crazy stuff like that (to a degree anyway). Haddin was also taking everything above his waist he probably could have moved back a little.

That means the other bowlers have to knuckle down and ensure they aren't going for the same runs too. There job is to clamp down and put the pressure on.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Johnson isn't allowed to do stuff like that, as a spectator it is frustating to see the ball fly over the keepers head for 5 wides, then to see it followed up with 4 leg byes down leg and then a half volley dispatched for four through mid wicket.

It must drive Ponting up the wall. It will be interesting to see how the Australian bowlers go with the ball in the 3rd innings, Im not necessary looking for bags of wickets, but it would be nice to see the bowlers at least of a bit of control over proceedings instead of a 4.5+ run rate.

Yes the pitch is a road, but some of the stuff served up on day 1 was unacceptable.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I actually find it entertaining when Johnson bowls a short ball like that and go for a two bounce four, puts his pace into perspective, but that's just me in awe.

He was out of control a little yesterday, but I said its okay to a degree, he probably reached that degree yesterday with craziness. He needs that wild spraying technique at the moment to get wickets, as you can see he got the most wickets. He reminds me of the young Lee I hated, out of control and scored off freely, but he got wickets and terrified people. Johnson is meant to be a little wild, a little crazy and fired up, but only until it simply gets too much.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I agree with LtD (someone save this post). Johnson is supposed to be our front-line spearhead and senior bowler. If you want to do that you cannot give up gratuitous runs, much less bleed extras like they're going out of fashion.

Lee had the luxury of being a tearaway speedster in his younger days because we had the absolutely brilliant Glenn McGrath spearheading the attack, not to mention exceptional containers like Kaspa/Bichel and Gillespie. Our team currently is not like that - in fact, no normal Test team is like that.

In a normal Test team you can't afford to have one of your frontline bowlers leaking runs all over the place - much less your most senior spearhead. Johnson needs to get his act together. In particular, his petulant behaviour and wasteful bowling when he couldn't get Rampaul out was disgraceful for someone who should be leading our attack.