Test XI Selection Thread

[Boris]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

But we don't know. You could ask the same thing about any young player, regardless of whether they're allrounders or specialists! You have to separate his batting ability from his bowling ability.

Hypothetically, say we have a 20 year old middle-order batsman who is piling on runs, unstoppable, higher average than any other of the top batsmen and more centuries in fewer matches. He has never bowled a ball in his life. He gets called up to the Australian team and bats at 6 or 7. Now, there is always the possibility there that he will end up averaging 30, and get dropped. It's quite possible. A lot of players get chances and don't go on with it. He might even make an appearance a few years later, a better player, and average 50 from that point onwards.

Now, I think it's fair to say that whether or not he has ever bowled is irrelevant. So I'm really struggling to see why you think a player in the exact same situation that CAN bowl is somehow more likely to fall through.

Let go of the concepts of batting and bowling allrounders. Smith is a genuine talent with the bat that is performing. He's in fantastic form. Play him. If his average drops, but his bowling comes along, then he turns into a bowling allrounder. Is that a bad thing?

You're justifying a preconceived notion (that Smith shouldn't get a game) by attributing to him a scenario that is just as likely with any young batsman, as well as portraying the scenario in a negative light when it really isn't. I mean really, who cares if Smith breaks into the side but his form then drops? He is then dropped, and is a better player for the experience. And why is this any more likely for Smith than any other young player anyway? It's not. Form is form. You're using his bowling to try to discredit his batting, because he obviously couldn't be good at both, right?

Seriously, seriously weak argument.

So you are saying you would play White for Hauritz then?

That's what you are saying. You are saying that no matter what the player is they can play in any situation.

I'm not going to play Smith if he has been batting anywhere from 5-8, most often lower order, strikes at about 100 and plays very attackingly. That adds to the risk more and more.

Seriously I like the kid, one of my favourites at the moment, but not for the Test team.

You don't get selected in the Test team to screw around and 'become a better player'. You have to be that player, and you have to prove that you are better than everyone else for the position. He is not better than White, and hell I'd even say he's not better than North. North has Test centuries to his name and that's something you can't take away from him.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

I think the squad is alright. Personally I would have taken Cameron White and probably Ben Cutting.

Why don't we just take all the state sides over and just for good measure, the 2nd XI Victorian team.

 

[breeno]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Still not my point.

Let's use an example: Hopes in ODI cricket this summer.

Hopes is a bowling all rounder through and through, always has been, always will.

This summer, though, he has averaged 45 with the ball and has had some flashes of brilliance, but on the most part has been, for want of a better term, crap.

His batting though... that's a different story. Along with Hussey he has saved many games, or won them. His batting has brought him back as what you would probably call a permanent member now.

That's what I have trouble working out with Smith. Is he a batting all rounder truly? If he is, then I would be able to put him in at 6.

Or is he like Hopes is now, really a leg spinner and just having a good time with the bat. Will he drop off and average 30ish with the bat in the future? Is that good enough from a guy at 6/7?

If he is a bowling all rounder then Hauritz has his spot.

Otherwise I agree with Lpj, keep him on tour, don't play him.

I think your problem is you never explicitly label your point. Every time you come close to it you start going off on unexplainable tangents. Excise me as I'm extremely drunk right now, but why are you saying that "his true colours will shine through right now he has to average 30 when he drops off". He may never do this, so take him on his rich vein of form and accept that he can bat and may be selected as a batsman who can relieve Hauritz, throwing him in for a little experience.

I can undertsand but don't agree with your argument of "he hasn't had enough time", but saying that you dont know what Smith is is just ludicrous. He's a guy averaging 70 with the bat who can provide some relief with the ball, and certainly has the potential to average 45+ with the bat and 30- with the ball. You're just using his all rounderness as an excuse and roundabout way of saying you don't want a young guy in the team.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

He averaged 41 for the summer and 45 for Australia since the start of the England tour, not bad at all, but of course runs at international level dont compare to the might of the South Australian and Tasmanian bowling attacks...

Erm... correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you making the opposite argument last year (FC runs trump ODI runs) when people were debating whether Hodge or Ferguson should be next in line for the Test team?

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

It is impossible not to love eddie, he arguements change like the wind.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Erm... correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you making the opposite argument last year (FC runs trump ODI runs) when people were debating whether Hodge or Ferguson should be next in line for the Test team?

Quite possibly but Fergusons record aint that great anyway so doubt he would be in test contention from his ODI stats and his first class record is just shit

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Clarke made his debut in 2004 with a FC average in the mid 30's.

Clarke made his debut based on a mixture of talent and potential.

Some Vics are yet to live that decision down.

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

So you are saying you would play White for Hauritz then?

That's what you are saying. You are saying that no matter what the player is they can play in any situation.

I'm not going to play Smith if he has been batting anywhere from 5-8, most often lower order, strikes at about 100 and plays very attackingly. That adds to the risk more and more.

Seriously I like the kid, one of my favourites at the moment, but not for the Test team.

You don't get selected in the Test team to screw around and 'become a better player'. You have to be that player, and you have to prove that you are better than everyone else for the position. He is not better than White, and hell I'd even say he's not better than North. North has Test centuries to his name and that's something you can't take away from him.

Are you serious? Did you seriously misunderstand what I said that much? That's takes something special, that does. I don't know where to begin.

I wouldn't play White for Hauritz because White is an ordinary bowler. White hasn't taken wickets regularly, he barely bowls any more!

Smith is a batsman. He has proven it many times this year. He is also a bowler. Is it that difficult to understand? At the moment, he is a far better batsman than bowler, and he is, on his batting form, in the best 6 batsmen in the country in the longest form of the game. The fact that he could develop into a potential number 1 spinner does not count against that.

Now, if White was dominating with the ball, on top of his batting ability, to the point that he was performing better than Hauritz, then yes, I'd play White ahead of Hauritz. He's not though, so he doesn't. Smith IS performing with the bat to the point that his performances have been better than both White and North this season. Therefore, he gets a run.

Not better than White or North? The guy averaged 77 this year, with 4 hundreds in 8 games, and a top score of 177. He was the best batsman in the Sheffield Shield. White has never done anything like that in Shield Cricket, and has had a very good but not phenomenal summer in ODI cricket, with question marks still remaining over his technique to the moving ball.

Smith should get a run. He might get found out at Test level, he might not. Most young guys do. If he does, he goes back and works with a new perspective on his technique that he NEVER WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD HE NOT BEEN GIVEN A RUN. If he doesn't, and his Shield form translates into Test form, then even better. The point is that RIGHT NOW, he's in the sort of form that could make him a match winner at Test level, and the best thing for the team is to play him. You have to take risks. North might have Test centuries to his name, but none at any level this summer. And if you're only going to play guys with Test centuries (which, I'll remind you, White has none), then you'll never get any debutantes.

I'll point out that Smith and White are in very similar positions when it comes to Test batting form. White is just as much of an unknown quantity as Smith when it comes to batting in Tests. And as for your 5-8 comment, well, White is the only one of the two that has ever batted at 8 in the longest form of the game. Smith is exclusively a 4-6 man (I don't know where you got "most often lower order" from). The only difference is that Smith has the FC form on his side, White DOESN'T.

Oh, and as for striking about 100 and playing attackingly, he actually struck at 73 this season, only 3 higher than Brad Hodge, and 2 LESS than David Hussey, two of Vic's main Test hopefuls in times past (and many are still campaigning for them today), and many times this season has played beautifully sensible knocks when NSW have been in trouble. He's not just a basher-and-crasher, he takes his time early, reads the situation, and only blasts when he's well settled AND the innings calls for it. Stop trying to turn his attacking flair into a flaw, he's not stupidly attacking, it's just another string to his bow.

 

[brickwaller99]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Are you serious? Did you seriously misunderstand what I said that much? That's takes something special, that does. I don't know where to begin.

I wouldn't play White for Hauritz because White is an ordinary bowler. White hasn't taken wickets regularly, he barely bowls any more!

Smith is a batsman. He has proven it many times this year. He is also a bowler. Is it that difficult to understand? At the moment, he is a far better batsman than bowler, and he is, on his batting form, in the best 6 batsmen in the country in the longest form of the game. The fact that he could develop into a potential number 1 spinner does not count against that.

Now, if White was dominating with the ball, on top of his batting ability, to the point that he was performing better than Hauritz, then yes, I'd play White ahead of Hauritz. He's not though, so he doesn't. Smith IS performing with the bat to the point that his performances have been better than both White and North this season. Therefore, he gets a run.

Not better than White or North? The guy averaged 77 this year, with 4 hundreds in 8 games, and a top score of 177. He was the best batsman in the Sheffield Shield. White has never done anything like that in Shield Cricket, and has had a very good but not phenomenal summer in ODI cricket, with question marks still remaining over his technique to the moving ball.

Smith should get a run. He might get found out at Test level, he might not. Most young guys do. If he does, he goes back and works with a new perspective on his technique that he NEVER WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD HE NOT BEEN GIVEN A RUN. If he doesn't, and his Shield form translates into Test form, then even better. The point is that RIGHT NOW, he's in the sort of form that could make him a match winner at Test level, and the best thing for the team is to play him. You have to take risks. North might have Test centuries to his name, but none at any level this summer. And if you're only going to play guys with Test centuries (which, I'll remind you, White has none), then you'll never get any debutantes.

I'll point out that Smith and White are in very similar positions when it comes to Test batting form. White is just as much of an unknown quantity as Smith when it comes to batting in Tests. And as for your 5-8 comment, well, White is the only one of the two that has ever batted at 8 in the longest form of the game. Smith is exclusively a 4-6 man (I don't know where you got "most often lower order" from). The only difference is that Smith has the FC form on his side, White DOESN'T.

Oh, and as for striking about 100 and playing attackingly, he actually struck at 73 this season, only 3 higher than Brad Hodge, and 2 LESS than David Hussey, two of Vic's main Test hopefuls in times past (and many are still campaigning for them today), and many times this season has played beautifully sensible knocks when NSW have been in trouble. He's not just a basher-and-crasher, he takes his time early, reads the situation, and only blasts when he's well settled AND the innings calls for it. Stop trying to turn his attacking flair into a flaw, he's not stupidly attacking, it's just another string to his bow.

Honestly, that is the most idiotic response I could have imagined.

haha what a long way to say nothing of any relevance.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Clarke made his debut in 2004 with a FC average in the mid 30's.

Clarke made his debut based on a mixture of talent and potential.

Some Vics are yet to live that decision down.

Clarke made his debut after spending nearly 2 years with the ODI side, yet another in a long list of players picked after playing ODI cricket and showing they could handle International cricket

 

[Boris]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Are you serious? Did you seriously misunderstand what I said that much? That's takes something special, that does. I don't know where to begin.

I wouldn't play White for Hauritz because White is an ordinary bowler. White hasn't taken wickets regularly, he barely bowls any more!

Smith is a batsman. He has proven it many times this year. He is also a bowler. Is it that difficult to understand? At the moment, he is a far better batsman than bowler, and he is, on his batting form, in the best 6 batsmen in the country in the longest form of the game. The fact that he could develop into a potential number 1 spinner does not count against that.

Now, if White was dominating with the ball, on top of his batting ability, to the point that he was performing better than Hauritz, then yes, I'd play White ahead of Hauritz. He's not though, so he doesn't. Smith IS performing with the bat to the point that his performances have been better than both White and North this season. Therefore, he gets a run.

Not better than White or North? The guy averaged 77 this year, with 4 hundreds in 8 games, and a top score of 177. He was the best batsman in the Sheffield Shield. White has never done anything like that in Shield Cricket, and has had a very good but not phenomenal summer in ODI cricket, with question marks still remaining over his technique to the moving ball.

Smith should get a run. He might get found out at Test level, he might not. Most young guys do. If he does, he goes back and works with a new perspective on his technique that he NEVER WOULD HAVE RECEIVED HAD HE NOT BEEN GIVEN A RUN. If he doesn't, and his Shield form translates into Test form, then even better. The point is that RIGHT NOW, he's in the sort of form that could make him a match winner at Test level, and the best thing for the team is to play him. You have to take risks. North might have Test centuries to his name, but none at any level this summer. And if you're only going to play guys with Test centuries (which, I'll remind you, White has none), then you'll never get any debutantes.

I'll point out that Smith and White are in very similar positions when it comes to Test batting form. White is just as much of an unknown quantity as Smith when it comes to batting in Tests. And as for your 5-8 comment, well, White is the only one of the two that has ever batted at 8 in the longest form of the game. Smith is exclusively a 4-6 man (I don't know where you got "most often lower order" from). The only difference is that Smith has the FC form on his side, White DOESN'T.

Oh, and as for striking about 100 and playing attackingly, he actually struck at 73 this season, only 3 higher than Brad Hodge, and 2 LESS than David Hussey, two of Vic's main Test hopefuls in times past (and many are still campaigning for them today), and many times this season has played beautifully sensible knocks when NSW have been in trouble. He's not just a basher-and-crasher, he takes his time early, reads the situation, and only blasts when he's well settled AND the innings calls for it. Stop trying to turn his attacking flair into a flaw, he's not stupidly attacking, it's just another string to his bow.

Still evading the point.

He has played one season. You can't tell he's a batsman.

White has played a number of seasons now. He started out as 'the next Warne', he was mostly a bowler. Then came the batting and now he's turned out to be a batsman who rarely ever bowls.

But still people were calling on White when he was very young saying he should be in the side for his bowler (which he was going well with at the time) and averaging mid 30s with the bat.

5 years later and he wouldn't get a game for South Australia as a bowler .

That is another example. Give time for him to settle a little, and for everyone and himself to work out if he really is a superstar batsman. Remember I'm not against him going on tour, but he shouldn't be playing YET.



As LtD said earlier Clarke was picked mostly on what he looked like, his average was poor and really had only half a summer behind him that was any good. His case worked out and he has turned out to be a good batsman at international level. The big difference there was, though, that the team had the room for a risk, which in this case was very needed in the losing Ashes campaign.

They had Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Katich, etc and in that list of consistent scoring you can play around a little bit and take risks.

Now there is Katich, Watson, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke. Not so much leeway there. Katich has slowly gone a downward curve. Watson has been good, but who knows when he will be injured next, Ponting has been 50/50 of the past two seasons, Hussey has been out of form for about a decade, Clarke has random spurts of genius but on a large part has been unreliable. Now with North struggling to get past 5 runs, Haddin being out of form and Johnson losing the little touch he had it is even less of a consistent building block.

Taking risks should be one thing that is being avoided for a short time until things settle down a touch.

If you gamble all of your money and lose it, there is no way of winning it back again. There's not that much left in the bank these days.

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

My argument in short: Smith can bat and bowl. His batting has been good enough for Test selection, and has been much better than White's or North's.

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Still evading the point.

He has played one season. You can't tell he's a batsman.

White has played a number of seasons now. He started out as 'the next Warne', he was mostly a bowler. Then came the batting and now he's turned out to be a batsman who rarely ever bowls.

But still people were calling on White when he was very young saying he should be in the side for his bowler (which he was going well with at the time) and averaging mid 30s with the bat.

5 years later and he wouldn't get a game for South Australia as a bowler .

That is another example. Give time for him to settle a little, and for everyone and himself to work out if he really is a superstar batsman. Remember I'm not against him going on tour, but he shouldn't be playing YET.



As LtD said earlier Clarke was picked mostly on what he looked like, his average was poor and really had only half a summer behind him that was any good. His case worked out and he has turned out to be a good batsman at international level. The big difference there was, though, that the team had the room for a risk, which in this case was very needed in the losing Ashes campaign.

They had Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Katich, etc and in that list of consistent scoring you can play around a little bit and take risks.

Now there is Katich, Watson, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke. Not so much leeway there. Katich has slowly gone a downward curve. Watson has been good, but who knows when he will be injured next, Ponting has been 50/50 of the past two seasons, Hussey has been out of form for about a decade, Clarke has random spurts of genius but on a large part has been unreliable. Now with North struggling to get past 5 runs, Haddin being out of form and Johnson losing the little touch he had it is even less of a consistent building block.

Taking risks should be one thing that is being avoided for a short time until things settle down a touch.

If you gamble all of your money and lose it, there is no way of winning it back again. There's not that much left in the bank these days.

Finally an argument that makes some sort of sense. If you don't want to risk Smith purely because he's young, that's fine. Personally, I'd like to see him get a run, but I can understand being conservative in that respect.

However, I will say that White is just as much of a risk as, and has less current form than Smith. You can use the risk-factor to say Smith shouldn't be in, but if you're going to use that, there's no way you can turn around and say White SHOULD get a go. Both are risky, but at least Smith has recent four-day form.

Personally, I don't see the same problems in our batting lineup as you do, so I see it as worth the risk, especially against NZ, but that argument at least makes sense. But saying "he doesn't know what he is yet", "he's batted at 8 in ODIs and T20Is", etc, doesn't, and you can't back White in because he's just as much of a risk.

 

[Boris]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Finally an argument that makes some sort of sense. If you don't want to risk Smith purely because he's young, that's fine. Personally, I'd like to see him get a run, but I can understand being conservative in that respect.

However, I will say that White is just as much of a risk as, and has less current form than Smith. You can use the risk-factor to say Smith shouldn't be in, but if you're going to use that, there's no way you can turn around and say White SHOULD get a go. Both are risky, but at least Smith has recent four-day form.

Personally, I don't see the same problems in our batting lineup as you do, so I see it as worth the risk, especially against NZ, but that argument at least makes sense. But saying "he doesn't know what he is yet", "he's batted at 8 in ODIs and T20Is", etc, doesn't, and you can't back White in because he's just as much of a risk.

White has been playing for 5 odd years and has averaged 50 over the entirety of them. Each season (apart from the first) has been at least 45. This shows consistency, plus with his batting (nothing that special, but it is a point) in the ODIs you would think that goes towards something. Hell, Ryan Harris has been picked in the squad on ODIs alone.

White has also come in leaps and bounds in maturity. He is already a state captain, and a good one too. He's played Tests in the hardest country in the world to play, an important part of the ODI team and plays T20s for the hell of it with the Aussies. I think he's of a lower risk than most players in the domestic scene at the moment.

This season in First Class he wasn't as convincing because he hasn't played for most of it. He has been playing for Australia.

Saying that I'm not that big a fan of White. If it was a White vs Smith battle though, White wins.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

All I can say is, after reading through this thread, I would back my cricket knowledge over anyone.

Fair dinkum, you guys could talk a glass eye to sleep.

Clarke made his debut in ODI cricket, sure. But for the most part he had a bits and pieces role in the side. Normally he'd come in at the 40 over mark, smash a few fours, turns 2's into 3's and what not.

He made his debut primarily on potential and the talent that he evidently had, his case for selection was not based on weight of runs at first class cricket, or his performances in the ODI side (although they would have gave an insight into Clarke's attitude and character). I know for a fact that Ponting said after the Windies tour in 2003 that Clarke had to get fitter (ie. lose weight).

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

White has been playing for 5 odd years and has averaged 50 over the entirety of them. Each season (apart from the first) has been at least 45. This shows consistency, plus with his batting (nothing that special, but it is a point) in the ODIs you would think that goes towards something. Hell, Ryan Harris has been picked in the squad on ODIs alone.

White has also come in leaps and bounds in maturity. He is already a state captain, and a good one too. He's played Tests in the hardest country in the world to play, an important part of the ODI team and plays T20s for the hell of it with the Aussies. I think he's of a lower risk than most players in the domestic scene at the moment.

This season in First Class he wasn't as convincing because he hasn't played for most of it. He has been playing for Australia.

Saying that I'm not that big a fan of White. If it was a White vs Smith battle though, White wins.

White averages 42 at First Class level. Where on earth did you get over 50 from? And for the record, I'm not a huge fan of Harris in the squad. Though I'm not a huge McKay fan either.

 

[Boris]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

White averages 42 at First Class level. Where on earth did you get over 50 from? And for the record, I'm not a huge fan of Harris in the squad. Though I'm not a huge McKay fan either.

That's White's overall average, including his bad first season/s. I'm only talking about the past 3/4 years.

I have been using eddie as my reference though on this. He's normally pretty good with stats so I'm hoping he's right. All I know for sure is that every time he plays Queensland he scores a century .

Personally I would really like to see D.Hussey come in at 6. Long shot of that ever happening but I would still like to see it.

I like Harris, but not for the squad currently. He has had one 4 day game this season, not enough to say he is going well at it.

I don't mind McKay either, but after Siddle and Bollinger I would still prefer Clark. As Siddle is out, then I would have Clark over there, his domestic form is good currently and there is no disputing his international stats.

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

That's White's overall average, including his bad first season/s. I'm only talking about the past 3/4 years.

I have been using eddie as my reference though on this. He's normally pretty good with stats so I'm hoping he's right. All I know for sure is that every time he plays Queensland he scores a century .

Personally I would really like to see D.Hussey come in at 6. Long shot of that ever happening but I would still like to see it.

I like Harris, but not for the squad currently. He has had one 4 day game this season, not enough to say he is going well at it.

I don't mind McKay either, but after Siddle and Bollinger I would still prefer Clark. As Siddle is out, then I would have Clark over there, his domestic form is good currently and there is no disputing his international stats.

09/10, averaged 46. 08/09, averaged 57. 07/08, averaged 49. 06/07 averaged 39. 05/06 doesn't even make the top 50.

One of those is over 50. I think your impression of his performances are greater than what he's actually produced.

 

[Boris]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

09/10, averaged 46. 08/09, averaged 57. 07/08, averaged 49. 06/07 averaged 39. 05/06 doesn't even make the top 50.

One of those is over 50. I think your impression of his performances are greater than what he's actually produced.

No that actually proves my point. Over the past 3 years he has averaged 50.67, which is the figure I was trying to point out.

Before that he was young and bowling a lot more, 05/06 he was barely in the fray, and was bowling mostly full time to my memory, 06/07 he started his formation towards a batsman. Last three years he has been stamping his point. He has also always been playing second fiddle to Dussey.

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

No that actually proves my point. Over the past 3 years he has averaged 50.67, which is the figure I was trying to point out.

Before that he was young and bowling a lot more, 05/06 he was barely in the fray, and was bowling mostly full time to my memory, 06/07 he started his formation towards a batsman. Last three years he has been stamping his point. He has also always been playing second fiddle to Dussey.

3 years isn't exactly that long, you know. Add just one more year, and he averages 48 over 4 years. That's not that great. Not to mention the fact that he's only put together 4 centuries those 4 seasons, from 44 knocks. Smith has scored the same number in 13. Also, to those discounting this season's form because he hardly played, he had 7 knocks this season. He had 8 last year, when he scored at 57. If you're going to discount this year's, you should discount last year's as well.

My point is that as great as White has been in ODIs, he has been not much more than a pretty good contributor at FC level. Smith was the most dominant batsman in FC this year. He has not put a foot wrong, and has demanded selection.

Now, I'm not totally against playing North one more time. An ultimatum might be what he needs to kick into form. But whether he plays or not, next in line should be Smith.