Completely agree with you. I just don't buy the prevailing attitude on here that our selectors were acting against Lehmann's wishes. Make no mistake, he got exactly the team he wanted.
Australia Test squad - 2014
- Thread starter Ian Dargie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Completely agree with you. I just don't buy the prevailing attitude on here that our selectors were acting against Lehmann's wishes. Make no mistake, he got exactly the team he wanted.
I don't have the answers just the info.
Siddle was not mentioned in any of the discussions, he's barely hanging on. Starc being left arm and a wicket taker appeals.
Hughes is considered a big risk against the turning ball, if he gets a go it will be as an opener only. They believe Warner is now the complete player thus he can play at three.
The preference is for a medium pace all rounder that allows them to play two spinners, Maxwell as a bowler is well short of Test standard.
That's the story.
Thanks mate. I'm not a big Siddle fan either but would've thought he's still ahead of Starc. Obviously not. I don't understand why Starc being a lefty would be advantageous at all when we already have Johnson bowling. Since we're likely only playing two frontline pacemen wouldn't it make more sense to play a right hander alongside Johnson?
Do you think Hughes is likely to get more of a go on non-turning pitches?
I don't rate Maxwell awfully highly either, but surely his spin would be more valuable there than Marsh's pace? I thought it'd make more sense to play two frontline spinners (O'Keefe and Lyon) PLUS Maxwell as the all-rounder if the pitches really are raging turners.
One other question I forgot to ask (although you may not be able to answer this either), but why did Hilfenhaus come back into contention? I'm guessing Bird isn't fit? What happened to Sayers?
Amongst the current and immediate past selectors there is an almost obsession with pace - that answers virtually every question you have posed. Why was Mitch Marsh preferred - because they reckon he can bat and bowl fast, ditto Starc over Siddle. Not sure about Hilfy myself but I didn't ask. The preference is to play two spinners, not half a spinner, thus Maxwell misses unless Clarke cannot play. Sayers unfairly is in the Trent Copeland class.
Hughes is there purely through default, if there was a middle order player doing the business he would be there, noting that the door is not shut on Cameron White, but as we know at the next level down he tends to dominate. They didn't want to have to play him again until he was ready (technique change still not bedded down) but through necessity he may have to play. I was told he either opens or doesn't play. As a bowler Maxwell has gone backwards since he began he isn't going to threaten anyone hence he's seems to be there as a backup in case Clarke does not come up.
I just don't get the big deal with starc, he takes just over 3 wickets a test at an average of 34 and an economy over 3 but the selectors even picked him over a fit harris in the early part of the england ashes.
he's also been ordinary outside of aussie pitches and a complete dud in his games in asia.
Only thing he has siddle beat on is the speed gun but if we pick all our quicks based on that are we going to start picking our spinners base on their rev counter readings?
he's also been ordinary outside of aussie pitches and a complete dud in his games in asia.
Only thing he has siddle beat on is the speed gun but if we pick all our quicks based on that are we going to start picking our spinners base on their rev counter readings?
Surely one of the main reasons, if they are going to pick Starc over Siddle, is to really get that rough developing outside the off stump for the right handers.
That sounds about right from what Marsh said.
All this stuff about how he didn't deserve selection but might have an x-factor. And if Clarke misses we surely may as well take the gamble.
I'm interested in how Bird rates with this new interest in pace. He's not fast but he has a bit on Sayers and what Siddle did in the summer.
I'd hope that Bird would still be ahead of Starc.
Do you have any idea where Hazelwood is rated at?
Just a guess, but Starc might be preferred over Siddle if two full-time spinners play because spin would provide the bulk of the overs and Siddle is a stock bowler more than a shock bowler. If O'Keefe plays, Starc and Johnson might be used in short, sharp bursts with Lyon and O'Keefe doing the hard yeards - and occasionally Smith and Maxwell/Marsh chipping in.
That may be why the odd choice of Hilf for Watson was made. Perhaps they had planned on using two spinners with Watson the third seam option, and without Watson the option of playing three quicks is more likely - though with Marsh in the squad that shouldn't be the difference. In that case having another seamer on hand might make sense. Siddle and Hilf both being more that third, stock bowling, option.
Starc and Hilf being anywhere this squad is a concern, but so is the batting in low and slow conditions - even if the ball doesn't turn much.
The Watson choice probably comes from the fact that they want to select Mitch Marsh as the allrounder anyway. If Watto could bowl he'd also play but Henriques or Faulkner aren't wanted in the top six.
They love Hazelwood and Cummins - because one is tall and one is quick but getting them to the altar is the issue. Henriques bats ok but his bowling at the top level seems to lack a bit of penetration, Faulkner is the reverse his batting not quite there and being a left armer given the other two doesn't help.
Reckon they just see Mitch Marsh as a potential superstar and don't quite see the others that way. I would have thought both Faulks and Henriques were both worth trying again before Marsh. He's looking a million bucks right about now, but I'd loved him to have had another Shield season to see what he could do.But then I am a Warriors fan and want them to win the Shield!
southernswannies
All Australian
Bird is faster than most think, he usually bowls around the 135-136 range but can push 140. Quicker than Siddle nowadays too. That said, surely he'd be in some contention if Hilfenhaus made the squad? Cracking swing bowler but his pace is ordinary.
Injuries aside, it might be a while before Hazlewood gets a crack. Harris, Bird and Pattinson will be back for the summer so Pakistan was probably his only chance.
Haze is always injured so I'd think even if he creeps to the top of any lists, he won't stay there.
So, if Clarke is fit, who gets Watsons spot at 6? Marsh has shown glimpses of late, but I can't say I'd be wrapped to see a bloke with a first class average of 28 batting at 6 for the country. Maxwell FC form has been solid and an average of 42 is pretty good these days, but does he have the head for test cricket? Marsh offers more with the ball, but Maxwells spin might give us an extra option over there. Big call here for the selectors and it may come down to whether they want to play O'Keefe along side Lyon. Personally, I'd like to see Maxwell given a go.
Warner
Rogers
Doolan
Clarke
Smith
Maxwell
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Starc
Lyon
Warner
Rogers
Doolan
Clarke
Smith
Maxwell
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Starc
Lyon
Carbine Chaos
The Gaff-er
- Apr 1, 2009
- 63,870
- 94,076
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Perth FC, Everton, Delhi
If Clarke is fit, I'd go...
Warner
Rogers
Doolan
Clarke
Smith
Marsh
Haddin (+)
O'Keefe
Johnson
Lyon
Siddle
I think that is what the selectors will go with. I just think Maxwell, although a risk, offers more with the bat. And I can't say I'm sold on O'Keefe even though he has a decent record. Time will tell though because it's seems likely that may be the side for the first test.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,468
What would Maxwell or Marsh need to do to push Watson out of the frame?
Make runs
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,470
To what extent?
If one of them comes in and averages 35, would you say they've leapfrogged Watson?
With Watsons latest injury I'd say yes. I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see him in test cricket again. He is not good enough to be in the side as a batsman alone and their is that doubt over whether he can bowl, so if their is a decent replacement their for him, he might be done IMO.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,472
That's interesting.
So you now agree with my suggestions, made over the past few months, that we should be looking at the alternatives?
Depends what they do with the ball too. They'd have to average over 40 to negate any damage done with the ball. 35 would be ok if they were useful with the ball too.
If the selectors won't allow Watson to bat only, they'll want decent input with the ball from his replacement.
If useful with the ball, lets say picking up at least 4 wickets in 2 matches at under 40 and averaging over 40 with the bat, then I'd say he'd have trouble getting back in regardless of what is said in the press.
The problem is that I don't know how to judge someone on a 2 match series. Players need a decent run when first stepping up to test cricket but I'd be surprised if either Maxwell or Marsh get more than this series for now if whichever of them plays, does poorly. Unless Watson gets injured again which is of course not at all beyond the pale of possibility.
There are variables at play though. If one of them does very well with the bat and Doolan doesn't, then Watson might be drafted back in at Doolan's expense.
Ian Dargie
Premiership Player
- Jun 14, 2011
- 4,838
- 1,511
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #1,474
Since the start of 2012, Watson has taken 13 wickets at 48 and made 1273 runs at 33.
So averaging 35 with the bat and 40 with the ball would constitute an improvement on that.
Why?
Because they may want Watson back in the team if he can bowl. Doolan's first class record doesn't lead you to think that he's going to be any better at scoring tons than Watson and who knows what they want to do with Hughes?
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
