Test XI Selection Thread
- Thread starter Boris
- Start date
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
Harris is very undeserving of his spot, hopefully a series in England where conditions are a bit more batsmen friendly than the hacks of NZ in NZ it might show him up plus as long as Hilfy is still out, McKay is still next in line when inevitably one of the 1st choice attack breaks down
Harris is very undeserving of his spot, hopefully a series in England where conditions are a bit more batsmen friendly than the hacks of NZ in NZ it might show him up plus as long as Hilfy is still out, McKay is still next in line when inevitably one of the 1st choice attack breaks down
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
Woops I completely forgot about McKay
Haven't seen him for a while, forgot he was even in the Australian side.
I agree that Harris is undeserving, but as long as he is performing he stays. Let's see how he goes. If he works out it will be another 'Watson' selection... one they shouldn't have made but one that worked.
eddiesmith;399950 said:
Woops I completely forgot about McKay
Haven't seen him for a while, forgot he was even in the Australian side.I agree that Harris is undeserving, but as long as he is performing he stays. Let's see how he goes. If he works out it will be another 'Watson' selection... one they shouldn't have made but one that worked.
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
India coming up next.
Injuries:
- Hauritz is looking good to play, however with stress fractures they might play on the safe side.
- Haddin will play.
- Haven't heard any news on Harris with his surgery, but I don't expect him to be ready at all.
- I originally thought Siddle would be fine, but latest news is that he won't be ready for the Tests in two months, but strangely has announced he will be playing in the Champions League T20 next month for Victoria.
- Perhaps for the sake of himself North should get injured.
I've been hearing a bit around about the incompetence of Johnson. I'm not really an avid Johnson fan, but he's been our best bowler for quite some time now. Here's a refresher on his past couple of years:
And his efforts at home over his entire career:
His average is, well, average, but not bad. Plus by looking at his strike rates it really shows that he is a strike wicket taking bowler.
Don't judge his performance in England too harshly. Every bowler has their weak condition where they don't bowl as well, and we only have to look back to New Zealand before that where he had a 10 wicket match. Consistently over the entire summer (even though the opposition wasn't fierce) he failed to get under 3 wickets and innings and has proven difficult to play. He throws up a lot of rubbish, but throws up enough good stuff to even it out.
As I said, I'm not a Johnson fan, but he hasn't been doing as badly as everyone makes out him to be.
India coming up next.
Injuries:
- Hauritz is looking good to play, however with stress fractures they might play on the safe side.
- Haddin will play.
- Haven't heard any news on Harris with his surgery, but I don't expect him to be ready at all.
- I originally thought Siddle would be fine, but latest news is that he won't be ready for the Tests in two months, but strangely has announced he will be playing in the Champions League T20 next month for Victoria.
- Perhaps for the sake of himself North should get injured.
I've been hearing a bit around about the incompetence of Johnson. I'm not really an avid Johnson fan, but he's been our best bowler for quite some time now. Here's a refresher on his past couple of years:
Code:
Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
year 2008 14 28 585.0 107 1828 63 8/61 11/159 29.01 3.12 55.7 2 1
year 2009 13 24 502.5 89 1728 63 5/69 8/137 27.42 3.43 47.8 2 0And his efforts at home over his entire career:
Code:
Span Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
2007-2010 17 34 696.5 138 2150 84 8/61 11/159 25.59 3.08 49.7 3 1His average is, well, average, but not bad. Plus by looking at his strike rates it really shows that he is a strike wicket taking bowler.
Don't judge his performance in England too harshly. Every bowler has their weak condition where they don't bowl as well, and we only have to look back to New Zealand before that where he had a 10 wicket match. Consistently over the entire summer (even though the opposition wasn't fierce) he failed to get under 3 wickets and innings and has proven difficult to play. He throws up a lot of rubbish, but throws up enough good stuff to even it out.
As I said, I'm not a Johnson fan, but he hasn't been doing as badly as everyone makes out him to be.
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
Johnson has been fairly ordinary so far this year. His last six tests stats are below,
Not really the best looking statistics, especially for a guy who is considered our strike bowler at the moment. The most worrying part was when the Pakistan bowlers were moving the ball a mile in the second test and Johnson could barely get the ball to do anything. In fact, Johnson averaged almost 50 with the ball against Pakistan this year so far from four tests. And Pakistan's batting line-up in those games was mediocre at best, even worse when they contested over in England.
He needs a good tour of India otherwise he could be in a bit of trouble and that's coming from a person who has vigorously defended Johnson in the past on this site. Hauritz is going to be our main weapon over there with the pitches suiting the spinners exclusively. North might get a game solely on the fact they are playing there and he is a handy part-time off-break option.
The batting side of things is probably the biggest concern. Katich is the only batsman who you'd consider in form and would be the first picked player after Ponting. Watson seems to get a lot of starts but never goes on with it, Ponting has looked fairly average for a while now and both he and Watson seem to get out playing some strange and at times quite silly shots. Clarke hasn't done a lot of note for a bit, Hussey is probably the next picked after Kat and then there's North who is badly out of form and possibly on the brink of being dropped but might get a game based on his handy off-breaks. Haddin being back in the team will give the side some extra bite down the order but he really isn't noted for sticking around.
All in all, it'll be a big tour. Along with the two tests against Sri Lanka in late October, this is the last chance we have to start playing well before the Ashes roll around again. Interesting times ahead.
Boris;404819 said:
Johnson has been fairly ordinary so far this year. His last six tests stats are below,
Code:
Mat Inns Overs Mdns Runs Wkts BBI BBM Ave Econ SR 5 10
6 12 201.5 38 720 21 6/73 10/132 34.28 3.56 57.6 1 1Not really the best looking statistics, especially for a guy who is considered our strike bowler at the moment. The most worrying part was when the Pakistan bowlers were moving the ball a mile in the second test and Johnson could barely get the ball to do anything. In fact, Johnson averaged almost 50 with the ball against Pakistan this year so far from four tests. And Pakistan's batting line-up in those games was mediocre at best, even worse when they contested over in England.
He needs a good tour of India otherwise he could be in a bit of trouble and that's coming from a person who has vigorously defended Johnson in the past on this site. Hauritz is going to be our main weapon over there with the pitches suiting the spinners exclusively. North might get a game solely on the fact they are playing there and he is a handy part-time off-break option.
The batting side of things is probably the biggest concern. Katich is the only batsman who you'd consider in form and would be the first picked player after Ponting. Watson seems to get a lot of starts but never goes on with it, Ponting has looked fairly average for a while now and both he and Watson seem to get out playing some strange and at times quite silly shots. Clarke hasn't done a lot of note for a bit, Hussey is probably the next picked after Kat and then there's North who is badly out of form and possibly on the brink of being dropped but might get a game based on his handy off-breaks. Haddin being back in the team will give the side some extra bite down the order but he really isn't noted for sticking around.
All in all, it'll be a big tour. Along with the two tests against Sri Lanka in late October, this is the last chance we have to start playing well before the Ashes roll around again. Interesting times ahead.
Beeswax
Member
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
Well, they'll be glad to get away from England anyhow. Getting beaten by India in India is fairly normal. Getting beaten by Pakistan anywhere isn't.
It should be an interesting tour.
Punter owes the team some runs badly. His stats for the past 2 years make for very ordinary reading for a number three or his proven quality.
North's arse is really on the line or would be if the selectors were doing their jobs.
I don't know what to think about Hussey anymore. I just don't. Not particularly reliable but seems to be doing the Justin Langer in the last year of his career, 'getting just about enough runs just when I'm looking droppable' number on the team. With North looking awful, he's pretty safe I would think.
Ljp86;404835 said:
Well, they'll be glad to get away from England anyhow. Getting beaten by India in India is fairly normal. Getting beaten by Pakistan anywhere isn't.
It should be an interesting tour.
Punter owes the team some runs badly. His stats for the past 2 years make for very ordinary reading for a number three or his proven quality.
North's arse is really on the line or would be if the selectors were doing their jobs.
I don't know what to think about Hussey anymore. I just don't. Not particularly reliable but seems to be doing the Justin Langer in the last year of his career, 'getting just about enough runs just when I'm looking droppable' number on the team. With North looking awful, he's pretty safe I would think.
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
Johnson hasn't been very good of the last year, as you pointed out, but when you are on the back of getting the most or near the most wickets in the world two years running, you surely have some leeway.
It may also be a case of being over worked. He plays all three forms of the game, and rarely ever misses one due to injury (I recall two matches over a couple of years? Probably a couple more). When he has the ODI or T20 off for a rest he seems to come back and does much better. Maybe his near invincible body could do with a couple of injuries to give him some time off. This break will be good for him.
Australian news: Marcus North handed more breathing space | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com
Here's the latest on North. He seems to be playing not only the next series, but the Ashes as well. The selectors want a long-term replacement that has experience, due to the possibility of retirements-a-plenty that will occur soon. The plan seems to be to replace the retirees with youngsters, which would mean the team would be completely filled with inexperience. They want North to hang around as a batsman with 10 years of proffesional experience to take on the new team with Clarke.
This reasoning I can understand, in a couple of years him and Clarke will pretty much be the only ones left. Watson will be as well, but I don't call him someone I want to mentor a young team, plus he'll probably get injured and run out of form before being dropped (pessimistic, I know, but it is Watson we are talking about).
The problem is that this grand plan will not be possible if the batsman fails consistently. I have some faith left in North, he has played for WA for a long time and has a good record, plus has come out of multiple form slumps before. We know he can score at international level so I think he can do it. Hopefully he just prefers batting at home.
Johnson hasn't been very good of the last year, as you pointed out, but when you are on the back of getting the most or near the most wickets in the world two years running, you surely have some leeway.
It may also be a case of being over worked. He plays all three forms of the game, and rarely ever misses one due to injury (I recall two matches over a couple of years? Probably a couple more). When he has the ODI or T20 off for a rest he seems to come back and does much better. Maybe his near invincible body could do with a couple of injuries to give him some time off. This break will be good for him.
Australian news: Marcus North handed more breathing space | Australia Cricket News | Cricinfo.com
Here's the latest on North. He seems to be playing not only the next series, but the Ashes as well. The selectors want a long-term replacement that has experience, due to the possibility of retirements-a-plenty that will occur soon. The plan seems to be to replace the retirees with youngsters, which would mean the team would be completely filled with inexperience. They want North to hang around as a batsman with 10 years of proffesional experience to take on the new team with Clarke.
This reasoning I can understand, in a couple of years him and Clarke will pretty much be the only ones left. Watson will be as well, but I don't call him someone I want to mentor a young team, plus he'll probably get injured and run out of form before being dropped (pessimistic, I know, but it is Watson we are talking about).
The problem is that this grand plan will not be possible if the batsman fails consistently. I have some faith left in North, he has played for WA for a long time and has a good record, plus has come out of multiple form slumps before. We know he can score at international level so I think he can do it. Hopefully he just prefers batting at home.
Beeswax
Member
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
I think this stuff about North is a load of rubbish. They are planning to keep hold of a player who thus far in his career has proved to be someone who doesn't stand up under pressure and who will probably average around 40 even if given multiple chances on the grounds that he is a good thinker about the game.
He isn't even going to be captain or is that really the plan under all this?
Since when did the selection of players include these type of criteria? Make him bloody manager or a coach if they want his input. Surely some of the younger players have brains too?
In all honesty, this is Punter getting surety over who he wants in the team regardless of form, temperament or any other considerations.
Boris;404893 said:
I think this stuff about North is a load of rubbish. They are planning to keep hold of a player who thus far in his career has proved to be someone who doesn't stand up under pressure and who will probably average around 40 even if given multiple chances on the grounds that he is a good thinker about the game.
He isn't even going to be captain or is that really the plan under all this?
Since when did the selection of players include these type of criteria? Make him bloody manager or a coach if they want his input. Surely some of the younger players have brains too?
In all honesty, this is Punter getting surety over who he wants in the team regardless of form, temperament or any other considerations.
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
They could just be saying it to cover themselves, because really they have left it too late to change now before the Ashes. You would be bringing in Hughes or Khawaja into two Tests against the number 1 team in the world at home (seemingly the only place they win) where they have a higher probability than others to fail. You would then be running into the Ashes with no motivation and blooding a new player in the toughest series in the world isn't always the best idea.
He isn't there as captain, and never will be, but experience is always necessary. I think that is why Australia have always managed to be near the top - because they always offset the young and irregular with the experienced and consistent. A lot of teams go through transitions where their whole team is youngsters. They eventually get to the stage where they are a force to be reckoned with, but while getting there they lose most of their games.
I like the idea of keeping some experience in the team (especially as North will be nearer to 30 games by the time of retirements), but that experience has to be worthwhile. If it is someone like Hussey, then definitely, as he is extremely knowledgeable and all the youngsters say they learn either through him or Ponting, even if they aren't scoring. But what are the youngsters going to learn from a failing Marcus North?
They don't want his input, they just want a guy that won't go out partying after every win and who has seen enough cricket to know what to expect. Throwing in a youngster who doesn't know it leads to a blind leading the blind situation IMO.
North is the wrong person to be doing it, though. Unfortunately I fear it is too late to change.
Beeswax;404898 said:
They could just be saying it to cover themselves, because really they have left it too late to change now before the Ashes. You would be bringing in Hughes or Khawaja into two Tests against the number 1 team in the world at home (seemingly the only place they win) where they have a higher probability than others to fail. You would then be running into the Ashes with no motivation and blooding a new player in the toughest series in the world isn't always the best idea.
He isn't there as captain, and never will be, but experience is always necessary. I think that is why Australia have always managed to be near the top - because they always offset the young and irregular with the experienced and consistent. A lot of teams go through transitions where their whole team is youngsters. They eventually get to the stage where they are a force to be reckoned with, but while getting there they lose most of their games.
I like the idea of keeping some experience in the team (especially as North will be nearer to 30 games by the time of retirements), but that experience has to be worthwhile. If it is someone like Hussey, then definitely, as he is extremely knowledgeable and all the youngsters say they learn either through him or Ponting, even if they aren't scoring. But what are the youngsters going to learn from a failing Marcus North?
They don't want his input, they just want a guy that won't go out partying after every win and who has seen enough cricket to know what to expect. Throwing in a youngster who doesn't know it leads to a blind leading the blind situation IMO.
North is the wrong person to be doing it, though. Unfortunately I fear it is too late to change.
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
So let's get this straight: because they're worried about retirements in the near-mid future, they are holding on to an experienced player despite poor performances, who was only elevated on the back of one or two good seasons to begin with (with a respectable but far from breathtaking first class record), and who is keeping an inexperienced player out, when that inexperienced player could be gaining experience under the soon-to-be-retired experienced players, in which case he might become experienced himself, thus eliminating the problem? Is that right?
Boris;404893 said:
So let's get this straight: because they're worried about retirements in the near-mid future, they are holding on to an experienced player despite poor performances, who was only elevated on the back of one or two good seasons to begin with (with a respectable but far from breathtaking first class record), and who is keeping an inexperienced player out, when that inexperienced player could be gaining experience under the soon-to-be-retired experienced players, in which case he might become experienced himself, thus eliminating the problem? Is that right?
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
Yep that's pretty much it.
One thing I'd like to add though is your thinking on 'experience' is probably a little different to mine. North has played for and captained the WA team for a long time, and in a way has 'seen it all'. That is what the selectors wanted, because you could be 23 years old and have played 23 Tests like him, yet still be called inexperienced.
In fairness to the selectors if I was running this plan at the time I probably would have chosen North as well. As you said his record isn't breathtaking, but it is quite good over a long period of time, plus he was going well for a couple of seasons. So if you wanted to pick a good and experienced batsman, at the time he was the choice.
Problem for the selectors is that he hasn't been performing, which also in fairness could have happened with any choice, and they had to make the punt as to whether to keep him or dump him as quickly as possible to get someone else in (maybe someone like D.Hussey I would have picked - leave White for the next full time replacement). They went with the long-term replacement idea and now they've got themselves stuck in a corner where they can't really do anything. North is just going to have to be the man for the Ashes whether we like it or not, the English bowlers have sorted out Hughes before and nobody really knows what Khawaja is like, let alone trying to find out during the attempt to win back the Ashes.
BabyBlues;404980 said:
Yep that's pretty much it.
One thing I'd like to add though is your thinking on 'experience' is probably a little different to mine. North has played for and captained the WA team for a long time, and in a way has 'seen it all'. That is what the selectors wanted, because you could be 23 years old and have played 23 Tests like him, yet still be called inexperienced.
In fairness to the selectors if I was running this plan at the time I probably would have chosen North as well. As you said his record isn't breathtaking, but it is quite good over a long period of time, plus he was going well for a couple of seasons. So if you wanted to pick a good and experienced batsman, at the time he was the choice.
Problem for the selectors is that he hasn't been performing, which also in fairness could have happened with any choice, and they had to make the punt as to whether to keep him or dump him as quickly as possible to get someone else in (maybe someone like D.Hussey I would have picked - leave White for the next full time replacement). They went with the long-term replacement idea and now they've got themselves stuck in a corner where they can't really do anything. North is just going to have to be the man for the Ashes whether we like it or not, the English bowlers have sorted out Hughes before and nobody really knows what Khawaja is like, let alone trying to find out during the attempt to win back the Ashes.
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
Just been working on my own plans for the future if I were selector. I'm not worried about the bowlers at the moment because it's all too unpredicatable.
Ponting and Hussey are 35. Ponting says he isn't thinking of retirement after the Ashes, and Hussey I think wants to play until he's 50 and it might take his wife to go at him with a cricket bat to stop him. So I think it's fair enough to say that both of them will stick around for one more year (perhaps the 2011/12 season?). If not the principles still stay the same if they are to retire earlier.
Katich is 34 and since he has had his late bloom he might like to stick around as long as his form takes him. Let's say he will finish also at 36 in the 2012/13 season. Brad Haddin will probably also finish around then, if not earlier, as he is 33 but his body mightn't hold up as long as the others.
The first step would be replacing Ponting and Hussey, whether they both retire at once or individually it doesn't matter.
I would be bringing in Hughes in the first instance, let's say for Ponting, putting him in the opening postition and plonking Watson where his style suits him best, at 6. I would then be bringing in Cam White for his Test debut at number 5 for Hussey once he goes.
So a rough estimate for my plan here would be the end of the 2011/12 season:
1. Katich
2. Hughes
3. Clarke
4. North
5. White/Khawaja/In form batsman at the time
6. Watson
Or my secondary plan would be:
1. Watson
2. Hughes
3. Katich
4. Clarke
5. North
6. White/Khawaja/In form batsman at the time
As you can see it would be an advantage if North was still there (presuming he is averaging at least 45) as there are 2 newbies and the unpredictable Watson (plus the probable waning form of Katich), so his steady but sure batting and experience for the think tank (maybe even vice-captain if he gets that far) would be an asset at 4, but it all comes down to whether he finds form.
My secondary plan is there because Katich is the next to go and it depends on who is up for selection at the time. If the selectors find a new opening batsman, then he would be going into plan 1, or if they find a middle order batsman, he would be going into plan 2.
So end of 2012/13 season:
Plan 1:
1. New Opener
2. Hughes
3. Clarke
4. North
5. White (I'd like to see him in there full time by then)
6. Watson
Plan 2:
1. Watson
2. Hughes
3. Clarke
4. North
5. White
6. Khawaja/Whoever at the time is in form
Obviously it is very hard to see ahead that far with new players coming up all the time, but this would be my thinking as a selector right now.
You can see the benefit of having North when you look ahead like this. If North wasn't in the side now it would be Hughes or Khawaja in for him, and if you look at either plan 1 or 2 there, that side is very down on experience without an oldie like North. Clarke would really be the only one there, Watson is never much help with anything (I half suspect he will be dropped by then anyway). It's also notable to take into account that Haddin probably won't be in the team then either.
Of course Smith might get a run up the order, but I think so far it's best if he's not unless he strings together another good series.
Just been working on my own plans for the future if I were selector. I'm not worried about the bowlers at the moment because it's all too unpredicatable.
Ponting and Hussey are 35. Ponting says he isn't thinking of retirement after the Ashes, and Hussey I think wants to play until he's 50 and it might take his wife to go at him with a cricket bat to stop him. So I think it's fair enough to say that both of them will stick around for one more year (perhaps the 2011/12 season?). If not the principles still stay the same if they are to retire earlier.
Katich is 34 and since he has had his late bloom he might like to stick around as long as his form takes him. Let's say he will finish also at 36 in the 2012/13 season. Brad Haddin will probably also finish around then, if not earlier, as he is 33 but his body mightn't hold up as long as the others.
The first step would be replacing Ponting and Hussey, whether they both retire at once or individually it doesn't matter.
I would be bringing in Hughes in the first instance, let's say for Ponting, putting him in the opening postition and plonking Watson where his style suits him best, at 6. I would then be bringing in Cam White for his Test debut at number 5 for Hussey once he goes.
So a rough estimate for my plan here would be the end of the 2011/12 season:
1. Katich
2. Hughes
3. Clarke
4. North
5. White/Khawaja/In form batsman at the time
6. Watson
Or my secondary plan would be:
1. Watson
2. Hughes
3. Katich
4. Clarke
5. North
6. White/Khawaja/In form batsman at the time
As you can see it would be an advantage if North was still there (presuming he is averaging at least 45) as there are 2 newbies and the unpredictable Watson (plus the probable waning form of Katich), so his steady but sure batting and experience for the think tank (maybe even vice-captain if he gets that far) would be an asset at 4, but it all comes down to whether he finds form.
My secondary plan is there because Katich is the next to go and it depends on who is up for selection at the time. If the selectors find a new opening batsman, then he would be going into plan 1, or if they find a middle order batsman, he would be going into plan 2.
So end of 2012/13 season:
Plan 1:
1. New Opener
2. Hughes
3. Clarke
4. North
5. White (I'd like to see him in there full time by then)
6. Watson
Plan 2:
1. Watson
2. Hughes
3. Clarke
4. North
5. White
6. Khawaja/Whoever at the time is in form
Obviously it is very hard to see ahead that far with new players coming up all the time, but this would be my thinking as a selector right now.
You can see the benefit of having North when you look ahead like this. If North wasn't in the side now it would be Hughes or Khawaja in for him, and if you look at either plan 1 or 2 there, that side is very down on experience without an oldie like North. Clarke would really be the only one there, Watson is never much help with anything (I half suspect he will be dropped by then anyway). It's also notable to take into account that Haddin probably won't be in the team then either.
Of course Smith might get a run up the order, but I think so far it's best if he's not unless he strings together another good series.
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
But the thing about North is that his FC average is nothing special, even by FC standards. He got into the side on the back of some very good form, and that form initially carried onto the Test scene, but it's increasingly looking like that form was just a flash in the pan. If he'd been putting in fantastic performances his entire career and was always a prospect, but circumstances never quite conspired to see him break into the Test side (like Michael Hussey, for example), then it would be fair to select him with a view to him cementing a long-term spot. But North was picked on the back of unusual good form, a substitute, and it was always on the cards for that good form to fade. To select him and just assume that he'll always be in good form is misguided. To rely on it as fundamental to some succession plan is idiocy of the highest order.
The selectors would be better off cutting their losses, dropping North for the tour of India, playing another well-performed batsman (whether that be Smith, Khawaja, Bailey, whoever) and getting as much Test experience into them in the next 2-3 years, before the likes of Ponting, Hussey and Katich start to retire.
Boris;405005 said:
But the thing about North is that his FC average is nothing special, even by FC standards. He got into the side on the back of some very good form, and that form initially carried onto the Test scene, but it's increasingly looking like that form was just a flash in the pan. If he'd been putting in fantastic performances his entire career and was always a prospect, but circumstances never quite conspired to see him break into the Test side (like Michael Hussey, for example), then it would be fair to select him with a view to him cementing a long-term spot. But North was picked on the back of unusual good form, a substitute, and it was always on the cards for that good form to fade. To select him and just assume that he'll always be in good form is misguided. To rely on it as fundamental to some succession plan is idiocy of the highest order.
The selectors would be better off cutting their losses, dropping North for the tour of India, playing another well-performed batsman (whether that be Smith, Khawaja, Bailey, whoever) and getting as much Test experience into them in the next 2-3 years, before the likes of Ponting, Hussey and Katich start to retire.
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
Ah I guess that's where my lack of research lets me down. I've always though North was kind of like a Hussey, Hodge etc etc who averages around 50 and just stacks on the runs, but never quite enough or at the right time for selection. Whenever I've seen him play he's always seemed to be like that. If that's the case I haven't a clue why they picked him originally.
I'd always been baffled by his taking over of the all rounder spot after Symonds' demise. He was originally brought into the team as mostly an all rounder that bowled 10+ or so overs a day, almost as a front line spinner. Yet he would have trouble playing as a bowler in a club match. His original selection confounds me, must have only been for the captaincy experience.
BabyBlues;405017 said:
Ah I guess that's where my lack of research lets me down. I've always though North was kind of like a Hussey, Hodge etc etc who averages around 50 and just stacks on the runs, but never quite enough or at the right time for selection. Whenever I've seen him play he's always seemed to be like that. If that's the case I haven't a clue why they picked him originally.
I'd always been baffled by his taking over of the all rounder spot after Symonds' demise. He was originally brought into the team as mostly an all rounder that bowled 10+ or so overs a day, almost as a front line spinner. Yet he would have trouble playing as a bowler in a club match. His original selection confounds me, must have only been for the captaincy experience.
Beeswax
Member
Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour
Trouble is that the Warriors almost use him as our main spin bowler in matches. That is how they treat spin bowlers for starters, they'd rather have four seamers and use part-timers. Another problem is that he has had a fair bit of success with his tweakers in the past couple of Sheffield Shield seasons which says scary things about the ability of our state teams to play ordinary spin bowling.
He hasn't even been close to being a Hussey or a Hodge certainly not in County cricket in England. If he had, the investment in him would be understandable. But he has been Mr Inconsistency his whole life. So the power he appears to have gained in a really short time with the Aus team is inexplicable. You only need to look at his career record to see that this bloke, on performance, is not who they are looking for in the long or even medium term.
Babyblues is right about it being idiocy, but we have to hope that he springs to life form-wise again as he's it for now.
He took a 6 for in a warm-up match when he first was starting off in South Africa. Shows how rubbish they are against spin as well, but we all knew that anyway.
Boris;405019 said:
Trouble is that the Warriors almost use him as our main spin bowler in matches. That is how they treat spin bowlers for starters, they'd rather have four seamers and use part-timers. Another problem is that he has had a fair bit of success with his tweakers in the past couple of Sheffield Shield seasons which says scary things about the ability of our state teams to play ordinary spin bowling.
He hasn't even been close to being a Hussey or a Hodge certainly not in County cricket in England. If he had, the investment in him would be understandable. But he has been Mr Inconsistency his whole life. So the power he appears to have gained in a really short time with the Aus team is inexplicable. You only need to look at his career record to see that this bloke, on performance, is not who they are looking for in the long or even medium term.
Babyblues is right about it being idiocy, but we have to hope that he springs to life form-wise again as he's it for now.
He took a 6 for in a warm-up match when he first was starting off in South Africa. Shows how rubbish they are against spin as well, but we all knew that anyway.
lethalhughes
Member
Re: Test XI Selection Thread
If selectors really want an experience player in the team why not give Jacques a go.He's a much much better batsman than North.Watson is ofcourse not an opener and the fact he doesn't convert his 50's into hundreds proves that.Jacques could then open up with Katish.So North out Jacques in.Watson would then bat at 5 and hussey would drop down to 6.Hughes would then come in at the retirement of katish /Ponting.So we would be left with(in 2 years time or after all 3 experinece players retire.);
1.Jacques(33)- Still would have atleast 3 years or so left in him
2.Hughes(23)
3.Khawaja(25)-replaces ponting
4.Clarke (31)
5.Watson(31)
6.Mitch Marsh(21)/Ferguson/White /Bailey- i would incline to go with Ferguson but it all depends on who is on top of their game in 2 years time.
7.Brad Haddin(35)/Paine/Wade-Haddin would be on his last leg by then.
This is my say for the day.
If selectors really want an experience player in the team why not give Jacques a go.He's a much much better batsman than North.Watson is ofcourse not an opener and the fact he doesn't convert his 50's into hundreds proves that.Jacques could then open up with Katish.So North out Jacques in.Watson would then bat at 5 and hussey would drop down to 6.Hughes would then come in at the retirement of katish /Ponting.So we would be left with(in 2 years time or after all 3 experinece players retire.);
1.Jacques(33)- Still would have atleast 3 years or so left in him
2.Hughes(23)
3.Khawaja(25)-replaces ponting
4.Clarke (31)
5.Watson(31)
6.Mitch Marsh(21)/Ferguson/White /Bailey- i would incline to go with Ferguson but it all depends on who is on top of their game in 2 years time.
7.Brad Haddin(35)/Paine/Wade-Haddin would be on his last leg by then.
This is my say for the day.
lethalhughes
Member
Re: Test XI Selection Thread
Jacques is a quality player and if he was to be selected for the indian tour in place of North.You're looking at a player with atleast 5 years in him.Katish, Hussey came into the team at a similiar age.Whats wrong with selecting a player as Jacques, when Marcus "' am only averaging 42 in domestic cricket"' North gets selected.
Jacques is a quality player and if he was to be selected for the indian tour in place of North.You're looking at a player with atleast 5 years in him.Katish, Hussey came into the team at a similiar age.Whats wrong with selecting a player as Jacques, when Marcus "' am only averaging 42 in domestic cricket"' North gets selected.