Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Top Contributors
re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris;370823 said:
Okay well McGrath is one of the greatest gifts to Australian cricket ever, as a whole, but it is unfair to say that he was the greatest of every aspect of pace bowling. Yes he got consistent wickets with an extremely low average, the greatest ODI bowler for Australia ever, but actual effect on Australian cricket.

Australia hadn't had a very fast bowler for a little while. Lee was a new breed of cricketer, the always young and fit good bloke that just puts things to the extreme. He is the fastest bowler Australia has ever had. I know there was a lot of cricket in times without speed recording, but as a general rule bowlers are getting quicker and quicker due to professional coaching and technology, and for even Thompson to be quicker then Lee is a bit of a stretch.

Just having that shock factor of facing the fastest bowler in the world in the last ten overs of an ODI is just a scary fact. He has an average of 22, almost as good as McGraths and he really created an effect on audiences world wide. He is a show pony that really showed the world up with his arrogance.

Now he isn't the cricketer of McGrath, never ever would that be the case. Neither is he the best bowler in ODIs. But he had the greater effect on Australian cricket. Nothing being taken away from McGrath there.

Now he is just as good a seam and swing bowler as an out and out pace bowler. But at 155 km/h for his effort ball, 147 constantly. Scary for most batsman that like their body and dignity.



I second that motion.
Click to expand...


You are a complete and utter fool. Assuming he is a decent bloke, and no the biggest figjam in history, Lee would be embarrassed by the rubbish that you spew.

One bowler in recent history has had greater affect than McGrath and that is Warne. Lee rode on their (and dizzy's) coat tails and enjoyed his stay. Get over the delusion that he has been amazing since they retired because you are embarrassing yourself.
 
re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Okay to both of you.

You aren't getting what I am saying. I hated Brett Lee when he first started, just as I now dislike Siddle. It's how a lot of bowlers start out in my opinion rankings. But his effect, the way opposition crowds got rowdy with his bowling, the way he bowled either short or full, either hitting their head or a yourker, the utter craziness of his bowling. I didn't like it, neither did a lot of others, but people came to like him. He was trying to be the opposite of a good bowler. What was McGrath? Line and length, perfection, worked everytime. Best bowler Australia has ever had in the ODI arena (I like to disclude Warne because of his early retirement in it, it seems as if he didn't want to be in that area). He was the bowler everyone strived to be.

You don't see Siddle out there striving to be like Lee was. You don't see him trying to toss them up or back, striving for innacurracy. He aims his bowling towards line and length, consistency with variety. He is striving for a more McGrath performance.

Just pretend for this argument there are only two Australian bowlers, McGrath and Lee. Which would you rather be? Which would almost all bowlers want to be? McGrath I hear you say?

The fact that Lee publicly, in essence, announced that he wanted to be different, that he wanted to be innacurate, that he wanted to bowl fast and that is all is all I am trying to point out. He had a huge effect on Australian cricket, breaking into the side of consistency, into the best side in the world, with essentially crap bowling that got wickets because he was scary.

Obviously that has changed, but I remember as Lee was an up and comer, just entering the Australia ODI side, a lot of things changed and happened. He replaced Flemming, line and length bowler, consistent.

I don't know if it was the same in your world, but in my world with everyone around me, having Lee break in like he did, terrorising batsman really changed Australian cricket from a spectators view point, and from the view point of other countries. He was the world's fastest bowler till Ahktar came along. It is a scary point with a team that has both that and McGrath in the team.

How about I rephrase the statement that I am having trouble explaining. If you understood you would agree. Having McGrath and Lee in the same team really changed cricket, not from just a performance stand point, but from a reputation stand point.

I don't know how else to explain it. I am in no way saying McGrath was any less then he was, because he is just one of a kind and I hope you see that I am not taking anything away from him.

Also who would you call faster?

Lee has broken the 160 km/h mark. Even now at 34, when he is 'slowing down', he reaches 155 many times throughout a match.

There are bowlers before speed measurement, but I am going under the generalisation that bowlers are always getting faster due to technical improvements.

Tait has bowled quicker then him, but do you see him constantly in the Australian side?

Please tell me of any others of years gone past, because I can't name one that has broken the 160 mark.
 
re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I guess I'm not really sure what the point you're trying to make is, or even if there is one. You're kind of saying 'Brett Lee is better than McGrath except he isn't but he really is'. I don't understand what you mean by 'person x changed cricket' or how bowling speeds relates to it. There have been faster, more dangerous bowlers than Brett Lee, even in the recent past, bowling 90mph+ is nothing new. It would be hyperbolic to suggest that any one player changed the game, even for guys like Warne, Tendulkar or Bradman, and especially for good-but-not-great players like Brett Lee.
 
re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Look Lee had a good start to his career against India, then against New Zealand in early 2000 and then against the West Indies in 00/01 but he injured his elbow I think.

Had to have a break, missed the Indian tour in early 01, came back for the Ashes in England in 01, got belted around the park. From that moment on his performances in the test arean were inconsistent, he oftne went for a few but this was excused as he was seen as the one to crank the speed gun up and get blokes jumping around. The fact that we had bowlers of the ilk of Gillespie, McGrath and Warne probably had something to do with that.

Lee from memory terrorised some South African bunny who couldn't hold a bat in 01/02 at Adelaide. We were about to wrap up the match but this guy called Hayward kept running away to leg and Lee would follow him with a searing bouncer that this spud would somehow evade. Afterwards there was uproar, with the likes of Harvey or some other geezer saying he was ashamed to be Australian.

Lee then went to South Africa, had a decent series. Come 02/03 against England his spot from memory was taken up by Bichel, and that went on for a while.

Lee's career held that pattern up until the end of 2005, he missed a lot of cricket in 2004 because he wasn't selected on the basis of merit, came back, had a decent ashes series.

Then he improved after that, to become our strike bowler up until the India series last year.

Lee has been a good performer at test level over his career and he is an outstanding white ball bowler and a determined batsmen, he is also a very good fielder.

He is a capable cricketer, but for a while there I think he thought he was the guy to stir a few people up with some chin music and then try and blast their big toe off with a yorker. Under waugh I think that was the main route of attack with Lee.

To bring him on and try and get blokes packing it.

It took a while for him to break that mould, but when you have McGrath, Warne and Gillespie you don't need another line and length bowler, Lee complemented that attack perfectly.

Without those bowlers he was a bit lost for a while.
 
re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I am not talking in the Test arena. Only in the last 3 1/2 years has Lee had any real effect there.

That's more the point I am trying to make, he and McGrath in ODIs were a very fearful team. Having Lee there really effected the way even selectors see different positions. Ever since Lee they have tried to pick at least one good line and length bowler (Clark, Bracken and McGrath himself) and one terror of a bowler (Lee, Johnson, Tait, Siddle partly (I'm not sure what he's aiming at, if that is anything)).

Having my favourite pace bowler of the last two decades in Gillespie, and the likes of Bichel etc really doubled the force of the attack, but the two main stays in the side of pace were Lee and McGrath and that is what I call the best opening bowler pair in ODI cricket I have ever seen.

That is on the way to the point I am making.
 
re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Are you backing away from your earlier comments?

Lee had nothing like the effect of McGrath, who was a better bowler in every form of the game and just about as mentally tough as a bowler gets.
 
re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Thumbs up;371165 said:
Are you backing away from your earlier comments?

Lee had nothing like the effect of McGrath, who was a better bowler in every form of the game and just about as mentally tough as a bowler gets.
Click to expand...

I'm backing away from my earlier explanation, but the point I am getting at is still the same.

Remember that I am only making reference to the One Day form of the game, not mentioning Tests at all.

I am not talking about the skill level of the bowler either, otherwise McGrath just stands above everyone and is no contest.

I am talking about how Lee effected audiences and selectors. McGrath was the greatest Australian ODI bowler to ever walk the planet, and there were huge amounts of fans watching his bowling, but everyone came to know and expect from him, 3 wickets per match with an economy of 3 r.p.o., line and length with subtle variations. Lee was different. He may average 3 wickets a match, but that was an average. There were times when he got his wickets all in the last over, there were times when he didn't get a wicket and everyone applauded his performance, and their were just as many times people said he was a crap bowler.

Does anyone think he is a legend of the ODI game? I wouldn't like to think that myself, but the facts are that he has figures rivaling McGraths. Do we say he should have the same reputation then? If he finished his career now he would have only a touch higher average and would have around the same amount of wickets if they played the same amount of games.

People's thinking has changed as a result of him. A lot of people still think Lee is a terrible bowler despite this, yet he consistently performs. Audiences sit forward on their seat when he bowls, but sat back and watched McGrath thinking: Yep, wicket for sure this over.

Lee has ten overs of absolute fury, McGrath has ten overs of absolute consistency. That hasn't been seen before in Australian cricket. Lee had a huge effect on the way selectors chose players, even looking for players like Tait, who wouldn't have had a sniff 20 years ago.

Look at the difference he has made. My grandfather hates him and his style of bowling (or at least the bowler he used to be, he is a lot more consistent these days), my father is 50/50 with him and I like him. He has effected how different generations think about bowlers. Ask a lot of the younger generation of cricketers and you will find they love Lee. Ask any young cricketer with a large range of knowledge about the history of the game and they won't like him.

Lee and his style bowling is the thing of the future. He introduced his style to cricket, and now we have Johnson, Tait, Nannes, etc (not necessarily fast, just low on examples here). How did they get to be picked? says some of the older guys. They are just hacks, they say. My Grandfather and his group of mates hate those guys, they rather Clark, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger etc.

The trend that Lee started has assured that there will always be a bowler in the attack that is wayward, inconsistent and you don't know what you will get from him. He will not give you anything one game, but win you the next one. And if you have consistent bowlers that can win you the game on their own, then having that wayward bowler is just an asset, a game winner, that you cannot throw away.
 
re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Lee was a pie thrower in the test arena up until 2005 bar the odd series when he'd do well. This was tolerated though because Lee had something McGrath and Gillespie didn't have, that was express pace.

I don't think Lee changed how the audiences feel about the game, many people I know can't stand Lee mainly because of the "chainsaw" and the fact that his just one of those bowlers that can get belted around the park and respond to the belting by bowling pies.
 
re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;371226 said:
Lee was a pie thrower in the test arena up until 2005 bar the odd series when he'd do well. This was tolerated though because Lee had something McGrath and Gillespie didn't have, that was express pace.

I don't think Lee changed how the audiences feel about the game, many people I know can't stand Lee mainly because of the "chainsaw" and the fact that his just one of those bowlers that can get belted around the park and respond to the belting by bowling pies.
Click to expand...

That is what I'm pointing trying to point out. The chainsaw and the way people didn't like him as a person really changed fast bowling. Just because they didn't like him made you sit forward and wait for the one going 160+.

I have never really been a fan of Tait, but believe me when he's bowling I just have to sit in awe how professional cricketers are shaking in their boots.

Obviously there were fast bowlers like them before Lee, but ask around the public and see how many people say Lee is the fastest Australian bowler ever.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I used to love the old chainsaw personally, used to stir a few people up I think. Bit like Flintoff getting on one knee when he gets a wicket.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Yep, everyone has to have a signature of sorts.

Ponting almost always runs a single to bring up his century. There aren't that many times I have seen him hit a boundary for it. He then does his small lap of honour in a ring around and back to the bowlers end where he is greeted by his partner.

They are all the same to me and the funnier, the more exciting the better, as long as it doesn't reach into arrogance and into glaring at batsman walking off and such.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I want to bring something up that might cause quite the debate.

Does anyone feel the Test side just doesn't have that 'X Factor' anymore?

Let's go through everyone:

Katich - Great player now, nowhere near being dropped.
Watson - Going along well, close call to see if he would stay in the side if Hughes came into proper form.
Hughes - Young exciting prospect that will be in the side soon.
Ponting - Enough said.
Hussey - Dropped on form but I am hoping that very soon we will all be glad we stuck with him.
Clarke - In good form (hopefully still), thought of as next captain, will be around for a long time.
North - Batting coming along well, and although he hasn't completely cemented his spot I don't think he is about to lose it. Bowling not too good but it adds to his arsenal if he drops in form.
McDonald - There apparently as a replacement now. Fine bowler and coming along as a batsman now in Shield games.
Johnson - Greatest player in the side if it weren't for this apparent form troubles. Will be an automatic pick though.
Hauritz - Going along very well and I expect him to be in this side for a while.
Siddle - I am slowly starting to warm to him. Seems to be noticing he isn't a little boy anymore and actually has to play cricket for his team, not for a camera. Doubt he will be dropped anytime in the near future. Don't know if he can perform in Australia.
Hilfenhaus - Did very well in England but I am not sure how he will go in Australia. He will be most likely bowling the first ball against the Windies.
Clark - Don't know how the selectors are telling him no. It's almost like they are saying they don't want McGrath back. If he plays in Australia I can't see him getting dropped the next game.
Lee - Some say he will never play again but after a little while I think he will. It's hard to ignore a pace bowler that has averaged 22 and gotten over 70 wickets over his past two seasons of play, and bowling at 150+km/h. Love him or hate him he has to come back.

Now despite debates over the bowling attack, that team is pretty much set no? We are agreed to have the finest players in this country playing. Then why did they struggle against a very underperforming England? Despite their win over South Africa, and a flogging before it, how did the team manage to just not seem right? It seems like nobody is inspired. In the field we used to see Roy diving to save a single time and time again, now we seeing Siddle letting two's being run off his arm? There is no excitement anymore, the team almost seems to not want to win. It's like watching South Australia try and hold out for a draw against Victoria almost constantly. The team just doesn't look right, and yet when you look at it you think, how can you change it? It's not possible. Everyone is performing and nobody can be dropped.

My question is, are there players that can do it better? Are there players you can drop that are performing just fine, becuase simply someone can do it better.

For example do you drop North and bring in one of the many batsman going crazy on a domestic scene, even though nothing has gone wrong?

It may be just me, but this team definitely doesn't feel right. I think that Pakistan will have it over them, if they don't it will be close.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

You have already answered this question, with you now not minding siddle there is one change. Hussey, not North, is in trouble and if we wanted the best team possible in the Ashes on form he would have been dropped and should be now. I would love to see him playing very well again, who wouldn't he seems like one of the nice guys of cricket, but I'll believe what I see and not the other way around!

I don't know if Lee is finished but I think the writing is on the wall for Clark, and before you get up in arms supporting these two this is not "i would drop them" it is what I think is happening. So I put it back to you Boris, which bowlers do you think will PLAY in the first test (not who you would like but who will play)?

Once again the Hughes issue comes up. I would not be picking him unless I (if i were a selector) was satisfied that sufficient work has be done and progress made on the obvious short-coming he has. Right now Watson probably wont move from opener, which is odd as he is up against better openers for the spot, but he has some runs on the board, and is finally not injured. The options for opening therefore are:
Hughes (dodgy technique)
Jaques (dodgy back, no form to speak of)
Klinger (great year last year, a touch defensive? but earnt consideration)
Rogers (good start to the season)
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Hussey may be in trouble but I cannot see him going on with anymore bad form after him keeping his eye in now. He has always had big jumps between series and only seems to score by the last game when he gets some time in the middle under his belt. For example in Australia vs South Africa, last test he scored 50, last test in South Africa he scored 70, last test of the Ashes he scored 140. He has been non-stop for the moment now and is coming along extra well in the ODIs, so hope it for the first time is able to transfer across. If I were him, I would see if WA will let him play a Shield match between the series.

I still don't feel comfortable with Siddle when Hilfenhaus, Johnson and Hauritz are playing, because all are young and if one breaks down there isn't another to back them up. So I would like to see either Siddle or Hilfenhaus with one of the old blokes to do what they do best day in day out.

But saying that I think it will be Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Hauritz for the First Test.

What I am trying to point at, though, is in another thread, about Australia's Second XI and the talent that is there, is this team really the best that Australia can put forward? In theory is there a player that can be dropped, in form or not, for a player that would do better by nature?

As an example, and this doesn't count because it isn't true, but say you could drop Katich for Klinger because Klinger is the better batsman by far, but Katich has been performing so well he can't be dropped (not true, I know). But if Klinger were in the side he would turn Katich's fifties into hundreds and hundreds into 150s. Just pretend they are player X and player Y if you get what I'm saying.

Is there a player in the side you would like to drop but simply can't, with all good intentions on making the team better?
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Chris Rogers would make a massive improvement on either opener and I dont think Watson is anywhere near safe as an opener, trouble is they have decided they dont like Rogers and would never drop the NSW captain or the selectors golden boy

Hodgey would be a big improvement on Mike Hussey as well and there is no reason to keep him in the side
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

With question marks over just about all our top batsmen, why - or how - can we continue to overlook a class performer, proven year in, year out through bulk of runs against anything he is put up against? Dare I even mention his name?
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I'm not sure how effective Hauritz is going to be on an early season GABBA wicket, offies have never really done well in Australia at all and they didnt bother with a spinner last year, might see Macca back in for the 1st test against the Windies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top