Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
- Thread starter marty344
- Start date
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I dont understand why North's rubbish off spinners would be the difference in him getting picked, both Hodge and Dussey can bowl alright offies and are better batsmen
I dont understand why North's rubbish off spinners would be the difference in him getting picked, both Hodge and Dussey can bowl alright offies and are better batsmen
a for effort
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Ferguson could probably bowl too if he tried
Ferguson could probably bowl too if he tried
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Maybe he should try because his batting alone isnt good enougha for effort;379870 said:
a for effort
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Apparently neither was Hussey's or Hodge's
eddiesmith;379882 said:
Apparently neither was Hussey's or Hodge's
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
North was in form at the time whereas Hussey and Hodge were both struggling. North was also taking wickets and with the team unsure what direction they take with regards to a spinner, that probably went in North's favour.
David Hussey had a chance to give himself an opportunity to push for a test spot last summer but failed so North took the spot. And maybe if Hodge spent less time sooking to the media about how hard done-by he is then he may have gotten picked.
eddiesmith;379869 said:
North was in form at the time whereas Hussey and Hodge were both struggling. North was also taking wickets and with the team unsure what direction they take with regards to a spinner, that probably went in North's favour.
David Hussey had a chance to give himself an opportunity to push for a test spot last summer but failed so North took the spot. And maybe if Hodge spent less time sooking to the media about how hard done-by he is then he may have gotten picked.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I agree, but you do have to admit North kinda did come from nowhere. I was not thinking he was one that was going to be picked.
Ljp86;379921 said:North was in form at the time whereas Hussey and Hodge were both struggling. North was also taking wickets and with the team unsure what direction they take with regards to a spinner, that probably went in North's favour.
David Hussey had a chance to give himself an opportunity to push for a test spot last summer but failed so North took the spot. And maybe if Hodge spent less time sooking to the media about how hard done-by he is then he may have gotten picked.
I agree, but you do have to admit North kinda did come from nowhere. I was not thinking he was one that was going to be picked.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I dont see why they persist with this side. I think one of the ways to into the selectors heads is to create a separate selection panel, picking the Austrlia A side. They could then argue with the current selectors about a possible collective side. Just a thought, we obviously need a second panel to try and sort out the current dillema.
I dont see why they persist with this side. I think one of the ways to into the selectors heads is to create a separate selection panel, picking the Austrlia A side. They could then argue with the current selectors about a possible collective side. Just a thought, we obviously need a second panel to try and sort out the current dillema.
thommy_rissole
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
North is a part-time bowler, hence the 1st Class Average of 42. You say you didn't see his selection coming, he has averaged 40+ on the first class scene for a long time. He just isn't like a Hodge or co who constantly are beating up in the media about non-selection.
Watson bowled 8 overs in the Ashes Series, for the record North bowled significantly more. 5th test - 2nd Innings Australia used 7 bowlers, Shane Watson was not one of them: 5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Aug 20-23, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com Watson's bowling was irrelevant in the selection process, therefore yes they would've put the reserve batsman in if it was Jaques, Rogers or Hodge.
On behalf of everyone reading your rubbish posts Boris, you're a muppet.
Boris;379868 said:
North is a part-time bowler, hence the 1st Class Average of 42. You say you didn't see his selection coming, he has averaged 40+ on the first class scene for a long time. He just isn't like a Hodge or co who constantly are beating up in the media about non-selection.
Watson bowled 8 overs in the Ashes Series, for the record North bowled significantly more. 5th test - 2nd Innings Australia used 7 bowlers, Shane Watson was not one of them: 5th Test: England v Australia at The Oval, Aug 20-23, 2009 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com Watson's bowling was irrelevant in the selection process, therefore yes they would've put the reserve batsman in if it was Jaques, Rogers or Hodge.
On behalf of everyone reading your rubbish posts Boris, you're a muppet.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
It was a question, not an argumentative point and I thank you for answering it, though not quite in a very nice way...
But then it does kinda suggest once again that North was playing as an all rounder out of his league.
thommy_rissole;379989 said:
It was a question, not an argumentative point and I thank you for answering it, though not quite in a very nice way...
But then it does kinda suggest once again that North was playing as an all rounder out of his league.
thommy_rissole
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
It doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that Watson was played as a batsmen and North/Katich/Clarke all bowled on a spinner friendly deck day 4 of the 5th test. There was Hauritz to ply his trade. Yes, granted he bowled some overs - the ball was ragging everywhere from memory, so it was no suprise he bowled a few as he was the best credentialled spinner in the team (remember no Hauritz). The selectors went with 4 quicks. There is no doubt in hindsight the selectors made a mistake not selecting him in the 5th test. It doesn't automatically assume North takes up a vacant all-rounder spot though.
Clarke pre-back injury often bowled 3-4 over spells during a test, yet we didn't categorise him as an all-rounder. I feel the same way about North and his bowling. North is a middle order batsmen, a good one at that who bowls occasionally at test level. His batting is what got him in the test side and his bowling is a bonus.
On the other hand we have Watson:
Now if he remains fit then he could assume the "all-rounder" position (I classify an all-rounder as someone who could bat top 7 and bowl 10-15 overs each day)*.
The whole dilemma is Mike Hussey. The longer he stays in then longer we will be having this argument. He has been a fantastic servent for Aus Cricket but when it is time to go then it is time to go.
For mine, Watson to 6. North to 5. Clarke 4. Opener for me would be on form Rogers, on future prospects Hughes, on selection policy Jaques.
*not just bowl day 4-5 when the ball is turning.
Boris;379994 said:
It doesn't suggest that at all. It suggests that Watson was played as a batsmen and North/Katich/Clarke all bowled on a spinner friendly deck day 4 of the 5th test. There was Hauritz to ply his trade. Yes, granted he bowled some overs - the ball was ragging everywhere from memory, so it was no suprise he bowled a few as he was the best credentialled spinner in the team (remember no Hauritz). The selectors went with 4 quicks. There is no doubt in hindsight the selectors made a mistake not selecting him in the 5th test. It doesn't automatically assume North takes up a vacant all-rounder spot though.
Clarke pre-back injury often bowled 3-4 over spells during a test, yet we didn't categorise him as an all-rounder. I feel the same way about North and his bowling. North is a middle order batsmen, a good one at that who bowls occasionally at test level. His batting is what got him in the test side and his bowling is a bonus.
On the other hand we have Watson:
Now if he remains fit then he could assume the "all-rounder" position (I classify an all-rounder as someone who could bat top 7 and bowl 10-15 overs each day)*.
The whole dilemma is Mike Hussey. The longer he stays in then longer we will be having this argument. He has been a fantastic servent for Aus Cricket but when it is time to go then it is time to go.
For mine, Watson to 6. North to 5. Clarke 4. Opener for me would be on form Rogers, on future prospects Hughes, on selection policy Jaques.
*not just bowl day 4-5 when the ball is turning.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
We have to remember that if Watson was fit enough during the Ashes he would have been bowling more too.
But I agree with you there, as I have been the whole time with that theory.
The thing is, though, if Hussey stays as he appears to be, what happens? In case nobody has noticed, that is the argument I have been trying to put forward for about the last twenty odd posts.
thommy_rissole;379998 said:
We have to remember that if Watson was fit enough during the Ashes he would have been bowling more too.
But I agree with you there, as I have been the whole time with that theory.
The thing is, though, if Hussey stays as he appears to be, what happens? In case nobody has noticed, that is the argument I have been trying to put forward for about the last twenty odd posts.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Well perhaps interrupting them with random interspersed other arguments like North and Watson's capabilities that did nothing but distract me weren't quite the way to go
To put this in a more civilised and structured manner.
The whole time I was not saying drop North. The whole time I have not been saying drop Watson. I have not said that North is an all rounder, instead I have said he has been played as an all rounder because it seems that Ponting knows no other way than to have one, which is fair enough.
All I have simply stated is what I thought were plan A, B and C by the selectors when they selected North which was my first post in all of this. From then on it has been jumbled up garbage seemingly about five different arguments at once which I have only started one of.
breeno;380010 said:
Well perhaps interrupting them with random interspersed other arguments like North and Watson's capabilities that did nothing but distract me weren't quite the way to go
To put this in a more civilised and structured manner.
The whole time I was not saying drop North. The whole time I have not been saying drop Watson. I have not said that North is an all rounder, instead I have said he has been played as an all rounder because it seems that Ponting knows no other way than to have one, which is fair enough.
All I have simply stated is what I thought were plan A, B and C by the selectors when they selected North which was my first post in all of this. From then on it has been jumbled up garbage seemingly about five different arguments at once which I have only started one of.
thommy_rissole
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
If Glenn McGrath didn't retire then he would've bowled more overs during the Ashes. Pointless argument.
Watson was picked as a batsman because he couldn't bowl to his full all-rounder credentials, we all knew that.
Well then unfortunately nothing happens. Hussey is the one who is holding up the whole Watson to 6 transition.
In my opinion you can't drop North, it's that simple. If the selectors dropped North, batted Watson at 6, and kept Hussey in the team then I could well see Hilditch & Co inflating Australia's unemployment figures.
North is not playing/picked/selected/intended to be/chosen as an all-rounder, he is a pure number 6 batsmen who can roll the arm over. Just like Bevan was. From my brief knowledge of Cricket a team usually consists of 6 batsmen, a keeper and 4 bowlers - the 6 batsmen are designed to make the majority of the runs and the 4 bowlers are there to take the majority of wickets in the match. Post that, there will usually be 3-4 other players (in Australia's case: Katich, Clarke, Hussey, North) who are capable of bowling, it does however not mean they are selected in the side on the back of their "all-round" capabilities. Same as Johnson & Hauritz are both capable of making some runs.
Boris;380002 said:
If Glenn McGrath didn't retire then he would've bowled more overs during the Ashes. Pointless argument.
Watson was picked as a batsman because he couldn't bowl to his full all-rounder credentials, we all knew that.
Boris;380002 said:
Well then unfortunately nothing happens. Hussey is the one who is holding up the whole Watson to 6 transition.
In my opinion you can't drop North, it's that simple. If the selectors dropped North, batted Watson at 6, and kept Hussey in the team then I could well see Hilditch & Co inflating Australia's unemployment figures.
North is not playing/picked/selected/intended to be/chosen as an all-rounder, he is a pure number 6 batsmen who can roll the arm over. Just like Bevan was. From my brief knowledge of Cricket a team usually consists of 6 batsmen, a keeper and 4 bowlers - the 6 batsmen are designed to make the majority of the runs and the 4 bowlers are there to take the majority of wickets in the match. Post that, there will usually be 3-4 other players (in Australia's case: Katich, Clarke, Hussey, North) who are capable of bowling, it does however not mean they are selected in the side on the back of their "all-round" capabilities. Same as Johnson & Hauritz are both capable of making some runs.