Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

[Sober Symonds]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

People are acting like Pakistan are farking minnows, they are a team that deserves respect and are quite capable of competing with our current side.

To think we are going to blow Pakistan out of the water is a bit rich IMO considering our past performance over the last 18 months in the test arena and considering the workload our bowlers have been under.

Cricinfo - Blogs - Pak Spin - Younis makes no sense

- Are you sure Pakistan have got their house in order enough to say this is their best opportunity for a long time to beat Australia?

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

How can Pakistan be considered push overs when they have been out of cricket for ages?

You need evidence to prove this, and they have won ODIs, won T20s, although I'm not sure of their Test victories, so fill me in on their record their.

Just because they haven't played for a little while doesn't mean they automatically become push overs.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Look im not saying Pakistan are going to win, but Im not going to be arrogrant enough to suggest they might as well not come.

They are an unpredictable team.

 

[Sober Symonds]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

How can Pakistan be considered push overs when they have been out of cricket for ages?

You need evidence to prove this, and they have won ODIs, won T20s, although I'm not sure of their Test victories, so fill me in on their record their.

Just because they haven't played for a little while doesn't mean they automatically become push overs.

To the contrary Boris, after not having played in an environment such as Test cricket for some time, I would have said you would need evidence to prove that you will be competitive. ODI's and T20's, if you need it spelt out, are very different forms of the game. I would imagine they will go reasonably well in those formats. But it's Test cricket we're talking about, and you're not taking it seriously.

For the sake of providing the statistics you requested (even though I had not paid any attention to them previously):

Jul '09 - Lost in Sri Lanka 0-2
Feb/Mar '09 - Drew in Paksitan 0-0

Although they've only played a few short series in this time, they've not won a Test for almost 3 years (in the Inzamam & Akhtar days).

Look im not saying Pakistan are going to win, but Im not going to be arrogrant enough to suggest they might as well not come.

They are an unpredictable team.

...Or rather, predictable in their Unpredictability.

Do we finally have agreement then? I'm not saying they needn't bother coming, nor am I saying they will win.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Point taken, but what I was trying to say is that you cannot rule out a team without seeing them first.

We hadn't seen Australia play fully up until the Ashes - until they had a more 'set' squad, yet we ruled them favourites.

The same thing applies here. Just because they haven't played Test cricket doesn't mean they haven't been all playing domestic cricket against each other, and although domestic to international is a big leap, its not as if they haven't played at all. They are still considered a Test playing nation, which is a huge honour in itself, and ranked 6th compared to the Aussie's 4th.

I'm just saying that it is an insult to call Pakistan bad at any form of cricket because you never know how they are going to go at it. They have some good players coming through the ranks and the Australian team have hardly settled in. If there is any time that Pakistan is going to win against the Australian's in the next ten years it is right now so they better snare the chance.

Saying that, though, Australia have a reputation for not being happy customers after losing the Ashes and we may see another 16 Test winning streak...

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I dont understand saying Pakistan are unpredictable and are a chance when I keep hearing the argument every 4 years that Australia lose the Ashes due to a lack of test cricket beforehand

As pointed out, Pakistan truly have played very little, although they do get a warmup against the might of the Kiwis!

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I'm not saying Pakistan is going to win. That won't happen. But I'm not going to say they are going to be a pushover and every game is going to be wrapped up by the end of day 4 and Australia are going to get innings over 500 in every game. Pakistan should win a few sessions here and there and it should be an interesting series.

As for the one against the Windies, I'm looking forward to some huge totals and exciting bowling.

 

[Sober Symonds]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I'm not saying Pakistan is going to win. That won't happen. But I'm not going to say they are going to be a pushover and every game is going to be wrapped up by the end of day 4 and Australia are going to get innings over 500 in every game. Pakistan should win a few sessions here and there and it should be an interesting series.

As for the one against the Windies, I'm looking forward to some huge totals and exciting bowling.

That's precisely what I said, Boris. What I didn't say was that Pakistan were bad, so I don't think I've "insulted" them. Whether they're a pushover or it's interesting is yet to be seen, but they will fall short.

Pakistan will have better opportunities to win here in the next ten years, just as they had a good one a decade ago.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

That's precisely what I said, Boris. What I didn't say was that Pakistan were bad, so I don't think I've "insulted" them. Whether they're a pushover or it's interesting is yet to be seen, but they will fall short.

Pakistan will have better opportunities to win here in the next ten years, just as they had a good one a decade ago.

Well we are agreed then.

Although Australia have shown that beating them after they lose the Ashes is just a dream, in reality this is the time to beat them. In the next ten years I am thinking that Australia will do the same again, rise to the top, stay there, and then drop off. As history doesn't like to repeat itself exactly, the time frames are speculative, but Pakistan should know that this is the time to do it, with an unsettled team of youngsters that have just lost their first Ashes, or for some their second one.

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Well we are agreed then.

Although Australia have shown that beating them after they lose the Ashes is just a dream, in reality this is the time to beat them. In the next ten years I am thinking that Australia will do the same again, rise to the top, stay there, and then drop off. As history doesn't like to repeat itself exactly, the time frames are speculative, but Pakistan should know that this is the time to do it, with an unsettled team of youngsters that have just lost their first Ashes, or for some their second one.

A few too many assumptions here, while the team is improving I can't see where the dominance will come from (for the next ten years).

We have a weakened pace attack, who are improving but I have doubts that they will be as dangerous as the McGrath led one.
We have Clark to replace Ponting (quality replacing freakish talent=a negative)
A keeper who can bat (but can't keep).
Questionable opening pairings compared to the haydon and langer run machin.

And if I didin't like our chances after these drawbacks of the new generation then the problem of never being able to replace warne makes me think you are overstating the facts a little.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

A few too many assumptions here, while the team is improving I can't see where the dominance will come from (for the next ten years).

We have a weakened pace attack, who are improving but I have doubts that they will be as dangerous as the McGrath led one.
We have Clark to replace Ponting (quality replacing freakish talent=a negative)
A keeper who can bat (but can't keep).
Questionable opening pairings compared to the haydon and langer run machin.

And if I didin't like our chances after these drawbacks of the new generation then the problem of never being able to replace warne makes me think you are overstating the facts a little.

Every era we find a new legend. We can't just say that we won't have one, because every team will. Every era brings another set of greats and although it might take those ten years I was talking about to get there, Australia will get there and dominate for a little while.

Remember what was said when Lillee and Thompson first started off after some bad times?

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Every era we find a new legend. We can't just say that we won't have one, because every team will. Every era brings another set of greats and although it might take those ten years I was talking about to get there, Australia will get there and dominate for a little while.

Remember what was said when Lillee and Thompson first started off after some bad times?

Did Australia really "dominate" with Lillie and Thompson, in what has become the modern convention on that term. You really need to clarify what you are infering with the term "dominate".

Secondly, it is folly to imagine that Championss will simply emerge, particularly if we continue to prolong some players careers.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Did Australia really "dominate" with Lillie and Thompson, in what has become the modern convention on that term. You really need to clarify what you are infering with the term "dominate".

Secondly, it is folly to imagine that Championss will simply emerge, particularly if we continue to prolong some players careers.

I classify dominate as winning more than 75% of Test series over at least a 3 year period. It means that any team playing them will most likely be prepared to be beaten before they even play the team. It is a bit hard to show it statistically because it is mostly a mental thing, but if the team looks flawless and barely changes over a few years then you know it is a dominate team.

The team we are both talking about is Australia. Australia, if you go back in history all the way back to the beginning days of cricket, has always been there. And if you add up everything over the years, Australia most likely comes out on top as the best ever cricketing nation, over more than 150 years. There have been some periods of down points, obviously, but they have always come back strong and have always at some point 'dominated' the other Test playing nations in general.

There is no possible way we could say there will not be another legend. Who cannot say that Australia won't produce another Warne or Bradman in 100 years time? Another Ponting may come along in 20. Some are saying Hughes is the next legendary opener to play the game. Only in 15 years will we know or not if that is true. We cannot predict the future, but we can predict that Australia will produce some very, very fine players and they have already set the ball rolling with wins in ODIs, and after losing the Ashes they aren't going to be a very happy bunch so I fell sorry for the Windies and Pakistan at the moment.

Australia will rise up again, the question is who is going to be their main enemy this time round?

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I classify dominate as winning more than 75% of Test series over at least a 3 year period. It means that any team playing them will most likely be prepared to be beaten before they even play the team. It is a bit hard to show it statistically because it is mostly a mental thing, but if the team looks flawless and barely changes over a few years then you know it is a dominate team.

The team we are both talking about is Australia. Australia, if you go back in history all the way back to the beginning days of cricket, has always been there. And if you add up everything over the years, Australia most likely comes out on top as the best ever cricketing nation, over more than 150 years. There have been some periods of down points, obviously, but they have always come back strong and have always at some point 'dominated' the other Test playing nations in general.

There is no possible way we could say there will not be another legend. Who cannot say that Australia won't produce another Warne or Bradman in 100 years time? Another Ponting may come along in 20. Some are saying Hughes is the next legendary opener to play the game. Only in 15 years will we know or not if that is true. We cannot predict the future, but we can predict that Australia will produce some very, very fine players and they have already set the ball rolling with wins in ODIs, and after losing the Ashes they aren't going to be a very happy bunch so I fell sorry for the Windies and Pakistan at the moment.

Australia will rise up again, the question is who is going to be their main enemy this time round?

The problem here is that you are assuming far too much. Who is to say we wont have another Warne or Bradman... who's to say we will.

The world of cricket is larger and more competitive than it has ever been before and as a result it will be harder to "dominate" than it has been in the past. I just worry that you assume this talent will come through when there is not necessarily anything to back this up...

Competition is not only greater from abroard but also internally. The winter code sports will continue to strip talent from the game at an increasing rate as they continue to grow in professionalism and potential financial rewards.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

The problem here is that you are assuming far too much. Who is to say we wont have another Warne or Bradman... who's to say we will.

The world of cricket is larger and more competitive than it has ever been before and as a result it will be harder to "dominate" than it has been in the past. I just worry that you assume this talent will come through when there is not necessarily anything to back this up...

Competition is not only greater from abroard but also internally. The winter code sports will continue to strip talent from the game at an increasing rate as they continue to grow in professionalism and potential financial rewards.

Players have been getting better and better. For example having a batsman of fifty years ago face a bowler of today, the bowler has a much better chance of winning the contest. This is due to science and technology and is not a bad thing. I rate a player against who they play against, which is why I rate players like Lara very high because he was in a not so spectacular team and had to notch up hundred after hundred which was 70% of the team's total score. Bradman is the exception to this rule because he seems many, many years ahead. This, though doesn't have much to do with the argument, just wanted to add it. You could never take someone from a long time ago and compare of someone of today because it's not fair. Who knows, in 50 years time 160 km/h may be a common place, as almost all bowlers have to bowl up to 150 nowadays.

The tougher the competition, the more money and science will go into the sport. Therefore players will get better and better. Therefore it is more likely to have a greater player because their talent is exacerbated by the tutoring. This seems a natural progression, and to combat that, everyone else gets better and better. Therefore the much more skilled player is brought down a level and is only as far ahead as the ones of the last generation. I doubt this makes any sense to you because I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words on this particular bit, my fault.

One thing I do know for sure, is that Australia will never fall into the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh currently. They will always be at the top. It's like saying Brazil will never be good at soccer again, or Russia is going to be terrible at gymnastics.

Cricket is at a high in Australia for participation rates in comparison to population, and with the way commercialism is players will play the sport that offers them the most money. That means if they are greater in skill at cricket then another sport, they will play cricket because they will be paid more to do so, like Symonds wanting to play for the Broncos, but was better at cricket so followed that path. That means only the utmost quality will come through.

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Players have been getting better and better. For example having a batsman of fifty years ago face a bowler of today, the bowler has a much better chance of winning the contest. This is due to science and technology and is not a bad thing. I rate a player against who they play against, which is why I rate players like Lara very high because he was in a not so spectacular team and had to notch up hundred after hundred which was 70% of the team's total score. Bradman is the exception to this rule because he seems many, many years ahead. This, though doesn't have much to do with the argument, just wanted to add it. You could never take someone from a long time ago and compare of someone of today because it's not fair. Who knows, in 50 years time 160 km/h may be a common place, as almost all bowlers have to bowl up to 150 nowadays.

The tougher the competition, the more money and science will go into the sport. Therefore players will get better and better. Therefore it is more likely to have a greater player because their talent is exacerbated by the tutoring. This seems a natural progression, and to combat that, everyone else gets better and better. Therefore the much more skilled player is brought down a level and is only as far ahead as the ones of the last generation. I doubt this makes any sense to you because I'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words on this particular bit, my fault.

One thing I do know for sure, is that Australia will never fall into the likes of Zimbabwe and Bangladesh currently. They will always be at the top. It's like saying Brazil will never be good at soccer again, or Russia is going to be terrible at gymnastics.

Cricket is at a high in Australia for participation rates in comparison to population, and with the way commercialism is players will play the sport that offers them the most money. That means if they are greater in skill at cricket then another sport, they will play cricket because they will be paid more to do so, like Symonds wanting to play for the Broncos, but was better at cricket so followed that path. That means only the utmost quality will come through.

The competition argument has been lost on you, I think, could be wrong.

Today there are more quality international sides than there wore 20 years ago. As a result there are more rivals who are playing high qulaity cricket and developing quality teams, pursuing the Australian development path. When this unique approach is no longer just ours we will have to find another advantage in the production of champion teams or suffer the mediocrity that inevitably will follow. With a population and participation rate like Australia it would be nieve to expect the dominant teams to be continually produced. We may never again see an Australian team, or any nations team, as dominant as the aussies were recently.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

The competition argument has been lost on you, I think, could be wrong.

Today there are more quality international sides than there wore 20 years ago. As a result there are more rivals who are playing high qulaity cricket and developing quality teams, pursuing the Australian development path. When this unique approach is no longer just ours we will have to find another advantage in the production of champion teams or suffer the mediocrity that inevitably will follow. With a population and participation rate like Australia it would be nieve to expect the dominant teams to be continually produced. We may never again see an Australian team, or any nations team, as dominant as the aussies were recently.

As dominant as they were recently is not what I'm trying to get at though. That has only happened twice in history, that team and the invincibles from the 30s. What I'm talking about is having the team consistently at or near the number 1 position. Australia has had that position in the top three for a long, long time and only moves out every now and then, but not for long.

 

[Thumbs up]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

As dominant as they were recently is not what I'm trying to get at though. That has only happened twice in history, that team and the invincibles from the 30s. What I'm talking about is having the team consistently at or near the number 1 position. Australia has had that position in the top three for a long, long time and only moves out every now and then, but not for long.

The quality of competition formerly housed in the top three may soon exist in the top 4 or 5. Australian may continue to produce an equally good team time after time but this may be the new upper eschelon of cricket, not one, two, three, daylight....

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

The quality of competition formerly housed in the top three may soon exist in the top 4 or 5. Australian may continue to produce an equally good team time after time but this may be the new upper eschelon of cricket, not one, two, three, daylight....

That will happen as soon as all subcontinent teams learn to win outside of their own country. Only South Africa, Australia and the West Indies are able to move from country to country and play the same (for the Windies that isn't too great at the moment), until they get to the subcontinent pitches where they are dominated by teams that can play there and there only. Once the can do that, then I can see what you have said happening.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Some of you guys should jump over and read the bigfooty cricket board and the thoughts on selection in the test side.

"where's Cameron White?', "What about Brad Hodge"

Victorians really are a strange bunch.