Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[God Save Max King]

Bailey or White would perform better than Doolan against Pakistan

I thought Doolan performed quite well as a No. 3. His role is to buy the middle order batsmen time and consolidate and he did that well. Obviously the whole arsenal of shots isn't there yet, but he wasn't as bad as Bailey in the Ashes. Junaid Khan ain't no joke.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I thought Doolan performed quite well as a No. 3. His role is to buy the middle order batsmen time and consolidate and he did that well. Obviously the whole arsenal of shots isn't there yet, but he wasn't as bad as Bailey in the Ashes. Junaid Khan ain't no joke.

That is an openers role not a number 3's
A number 3's role is to do it all

Consolidate when needed
Hit quicks runs when needed
Hit big scores when needed

 

[B-Bomber]

Why stick to the tradition if we dont have the cattle? The batting order isnt concrete why behave as if its so?

Need quick runs? Promote Watson to 3. The only thing holding you back is your mind.
The aus team has shown they want one batsman attacking and one rotating the strike.

 

[HalloweenJack]

That is an openers role not a number 3's
A number 3's role is to do it all

Consolidate when needed
Hit quicks runs when needed
Hit big scores when needed

Correct on all points but the real problem is we don't have a batsmen who can really do this. Ponting was our last great number 3 and quite frankly he stayed too long in that role.

I think we need to stick with Doolan not discard him which has happened to Hughes and a few others. I would give him at least another series (maybe 2) to see whether his potential can be realised. I think it can be realised.

 

[Phone]

people care way too much about batting positions.

 

[peternorth]

irfan pathan is a knob.

sorry that should be in the popular opinion thread

 

[Damon_3388]

I think we need to stick with Doolan not discard him which has happened to Hughes and a few others. I would give him at least another series (maybe 2) to see whether his potential can be realised. I think it can be realised.

I don't see why he's any more deserving of chances than Hughes is TBH.

 

[HalloweenJack]

I don't see why he's any more deserving of chances than Hughes is TBH.

He isn't but he is the incumbent and needs to be given a chance otherwise he may well end up in the wilderness which is what happened to Hayden, Langer and Martyn and now Hughes. They came back better which is what I hope will happen with Hughes.

Unlike those 4, Doolan is older so the analogy is a little bit out.

For your information I like Hughes. I would have him in the team but as an opener. He will need to displace Rogers to get that role. I do not rate Hughes as a number 3. Having said that the stocks are bare so Doolan needs to be given a chance IMO.

 

[the_interloper]

people care way too much about batting positions.

Fair enough call I reckon. IMO there are two batting positions: top order (1, 2 or 3) and middle order (4-7). But if you can bat surely it doesn't matter where you do, you'd have to think Clarke could do well as an opener if he had to.

 

[Torz]

Darren Sammy would be in Australia's ODI and T20 sides.

 

[JP Sauce]

people care way too much about batting positions.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Damon_3388]

He isn't but he is the incumbent and needs to be given a chance otherwise he may well end up in the wilderness which is what happened to Hayden, Langer and Martyn and now Hughes. They came back better which is what I hope will happen with Hughes.

Unlike those 4, Doolan is older so the analogy is a little bit out.

For your information I like Hughes. I would have him in the team but as an opener. He will need to displace Rogers to get that role. I do not rate Hughes as a number 3. Having said that the stocks are bare so Doolan needs to be given a chance IMO.

I've just got my doubts as to whether Doolan is genuinely in the top 6-10 batsmen in the country. His Shield record isn't exactly eyepopping:

2008-09 - 130 runs @ 21.66 (0 hundreds, 0 fifties)
2009-10 - 636 runs @ 37.41 (2 centuries, 4 fifties)
2010-11 - 554 runs @ 39.57 (1 century, 4 fifties)
2011-12 - 415 runs @ 29.64 (0 centuries, 2 fifties)
2012-13 - 715 runs @ 42.05 (1 century, 4 fifties) - #4 runscorer in Shield cricket
2013-14 - 393 runs @ 35.72 (1 century, 3 fifties)
-----
Total - 2,843 runs @ 36.45 (5 centuries, 17 fifties)

Here's what Phil Hughes (three years younger than Doolan, BTW) has done in Shield cricket by comparison:

2007-08 - 559 runs @ 62.11 (1 century, 6 fifties)
2008-09 - 891 runs @ 74.25 (4 centuries, 3 fifties) - #3 runscorer in Shield cricket
2009-10 - 953 runs @ 56.05 (3 centuries, 5 fifties) - #3 runscorer in Shield cricket
2010-11 - 628 runs @ 41.86 (2 centuries, 3 fifties)
2011-12 - 257 runs @ 28.55 (0 centuries, 2 fifties)
2012-13 - 673 runs @ 56.08 (2 centuries, 3 fifties) - #5 runscorer in Shield cricket
2013-14 - 597 runs @ 54.27 (3 hundreds, 1 fifty)
-----
Total - 4,558 runs @ 53.62 (15 centuries, 23 fifties)

Also, consider what someone like Mark Cosgrove (just 18 months older than Doolan) has done in Shield cricket over the years, and never come close to Test selection:

2002-03 - 88 runs @ 22.00 (0 hundreds, 1 fifty)
2003-04 - 639 runs @ 45.64 (2 centuries, 2 fifties)
2004-05 - 223 runs @ 18.58 (0 centuries, 3 fifties)
2005-06 - 736 runs @ 66.90 (2 centuries, 4 fifties)
2006-07 - 703 runs @ 37.00 (1 century, 6 fifties)
2007-08 - 340 runs @ 26.15 (0 centuries, 3 fifties)
2008-09 - 303 runs @ 60.00 (2 centuries, 0 fifties)
2009-10 - 511 runs @ 42.58 (2 centuries, 2 fifties)
2010-11 - 806 runs @ 53.73 (2 centuries, 3 fifties) - #1 runscorer in Shield cricket
2011-12 - 347 runs @ 34.70 (0 centuries, 2 fifties)
2012-13 - 784 runs @ 39.20 (1 century, 7 fifties) - #2 runscorer in Shield cricket
2013-14 - 577 runs @ 33.94 (1 century, 4 fifties)
-----
Total - 6,057 runs @ 39.85 (13 centuries, 37 fifties) 152

 

[HalloweenJack]

I've just got my doubts as to whether Doolan is genuinely in the top 6-10 batsmen in the country. His Shield record isn't exactly eyepopping:

2008-09 - 130 runs @ 21.66 (0 hundreds, 0 fifties)
2009-10 - 636 runs @ 37.41 (2 centuries, 4 fifties)
2010-11 - 554 runs @ 39.57 (1 century, 4 fifties)
2011-12 - 415 runs @ 29.64 (0 centuries, 2 fifties)
2012-13 - 715 runs @ 42.05 (1 century, 4 fifties) - #4 runscorer in Shield cricket
2013-14 - 393 runs @ 35.72 (1 century, 3 fifties)
-----
Total - 2,843 runs @ 36.45 (5 centuries, 17 fifties)

Here's what Phil Hughes (three years younger than Doolan, BTW) has done in Shield cricket by comparison:

2007-08 - 559 runs @ 62.11 (1 century, 6 fifties)
2008-09 - 891 runs @ 74.25 (4 centuries, 3 fifties) - #3 runscorer in Shield cricket
2009-10 - 953 runs @ 56.05 (3 centuries, 5 fifties) - #3 runscorer in Shield cricket
2010-11 - 628 runs @ 41.86 (2 centuries, 3 fifties)
2011-12 - 257 runs @ 28.55 (0 centuries, 2 fifties)
2012-13 - 673 runs @ 56.08 (2 centuries, 3 fifties) - #5 runscorer in Shield cricket
2013-14 - 597 runs @ 54.27 (3 hundreds, 1 fifty)
-----
Total - 4,558 runs @ 53.62 (15 centuries, 23 fifties)

Also, consider what someone like Mark Cosgrove (just 18 months older than Doolan) has done in Shield cricket over the years, and never come close to Test selection:

2002-03 - 88 runs @ 22.00 (0 hundreds, 1 fifty)
2003-04 - 639 runs @ 45.64 (2 centuries, 2 fifties)
2004-05 - 223 runs @ 18.58 (0 centuries, 3 fifties)
2005-06 - 736 runs @ 66.90 (2 centuries, 4 fifties)
2006-07 - 703 runs @ 37.00 (1 century, 6 fifties)
2007-08 - 340 runs @ 26.15 (0 centuries, 3 fifties)
2008-09 - 303 runs @ 60.00 (2 centuries, 0 fifties)
2009-10 - 511 runs @ 42.58 (2 centuries, 2 fifties)
2010-11 - 806 runs @ 53.73 (2 centuries, 3 fifties) - #1 runscorer in Shield cricket
2011-12 - 347 runs @ 34.70 (0 centuries, 2 fifties)
2012-13 - 784 runs @ 39.20 (1 century, 7 fifties) - #2 runscorer in Shield cricket
2013-14 - 577 runs @ 33.94 (1 century, 4 fifties)
-----
Total - 6,057 runs @ 39.85 (13 centuries, 37 fifties) 152

I agree entirely with you about Hughes. I had him in the team batting at 3 in the Ashes even though I still think he is better suited to opening. Mainly because I didn't think we really had a suitable number 3 and Watson is certainly not suited.

But they have gone with Doolan and I just think they need to give him an extended stay. They gave Watson an extended stay when he should have been dropped.

I think Hughes will be back in the team when Rogers retires or is dropped.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Have a look at the list of Australia's best bowlers:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...?class=1;team=2;template=results;type=bowling

Brett Lee's average (30.81) is close to worst one on that list. There's at least a dozen guys that are clearly better than him (Warne, McGrath, Lillee, Davidson, Lindwall, Miller, Gillespie, etc) and quite a few more that are pretty debateable (Mitchell Johnson, Stuart MacGill, Merv Hughes,etc).

He was a quality test match bowler and arguably our best ODI bowler ever (I'd have McGrath ahead) but he's not a legend unless you use the term very liberally. For comparison, here's his career compared to James Andersons:

Brett Lee: 76 tests, 310 wickets, Ave: 30.81, SR: 53.3, BBI: 5/30, 5WI: 10, 10WM: 0
Anderson: 92 tests, 343 wickets, Ave: 30.67, SR: 59.3, BBI: 7/43, 5WI: 15, 10WM: 2

Fairly similar and I certainly wouldn't be calling James Anderson a legend.

Brett Lees average is pretty harsh on him tbh. He was injured or coming back from injuy from pretty much Ashes 2001-Ashes 2005. His performance once he was fit again to just before the end of his career were pretty good after that. took 42 wickets in 7 tests before that 2001 tour an when finally fit again, from the start of the ashes to just before the Indian tour, he took another 150 wickets at 27.6 or something. Broke down before the indian tour and bowled shite from there on in.

When he was fully fit he was a quality test bowler. He was just hit by injuries for unfortunately large patches of his career. Still took 300 wickets.

And being behind Warne Mcgrath Davidson Lillee Lindwall Miller and Gillespie is no real shame anyway tbh.

Plus, despite an annoying persona on the cricket show etc (which I put down to being near Michael Slater) he's a top bloke in real life.


Unpopular opinion? Langer>Hayden

 

[Zach Package]

I may have already posted this ITT, but: Moises is actually a very talented cricketer

 

[Hellgood]

Lee had a couple of pretty ordinary test series and tailed off quite a bit towards the end of his career, but in his prime he was an extremely good bowler who complemented McGrath beautifully. I never really bought into the mentality that he was only getting a game because of his marketability when he was picked ahead of guys like Kasprowicz, Bichel and Gillespie - it's arguable that Kaspa and Gillespie were better bowlers, but Lee offered what nobody else could and that was extreme pace with a degree of control that far exceeded Shaun Tait's.

Pretty comfortable with the Langer over Hayden call too. Langer was remarkably dominant at times once he taught himself to cover drive.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Lees drop off was very sharp IIRC, Indian and home tests in the second half of 2008 he was terrible, down on pace, got injured in Melbourne and that was it. I also heard he got pretty sick before the Indian tour and went in under done, which was why he was down on pace to start with.

In the same way that alot of modern batsmen have arguably inflated statistics from having far better bats, uniform grounds, much better pitches etc Glenn McGraths career record should be held up in even better light considering he had success in a time period where every innovation essentially favoured the batsmen

 

[eth-dog]

Lee was a very good bowler.

 

[Black Diamond]

McGrath is our greatest bowler ever. Better than Warne and Lillee.

 

[Wallaby]

McGrath is our greatest bowler ever. Better than Warne and Lillee.

That's a really tough call - and I've debated it a few times myself. I certainly thought for at least some their careers that McGrath was slightly better than Warne.

I'd throw Spofforth and maybe Davidson maybe into the argument.

 

[Partridge]

That's a really tough call - and I've debated it a few times myself. I certainly thought for at least some their careers that McGrath was slightly better than Warne.

I'd throw Spofforth and maybe Davidson maybe into the argument.

I'd still have Lillee ahead of either.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Spofforth is impossible to compare tbh, played in the 1890's in a completely different era of pitches and batting ability.

 

[Wallaby]

Oh bugger - forgot Grimmett - he's definitely in the argument.

FWIW, after the 1930 tour (when Bradman made 974 runs) - Woodfull said, 'We might have still won without Bradman - we wouldn't have won without Grimmett'.

I put Spofforth in, based on respect from his opponents (the English). They had ABSOLUTELY no doubt he was the best bowler of his era, and probably the best bowler up to the 1900s. Read some of the players from that time.

Davidson had a slow start to his career - but his second half was spectacular. Late 50s-early 60s (to retirement) he was fantastic.

Put a gun to my head - I'll go
1. McGrath
2. Spofforth
3. Warne
4. Lillee
5. Grimmett
6. Davidson.

Ask me tomorrow, and it will probably be different.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Oh bugger - forgot Grimmett - he's definitely in the argument.

FWIW, after the 1930 tour (when Bradman made 974 runs) - Woodfull said, we might have still won without Bradman - we wouldn't have won without Grimmet'.

Bill O'Reilly was better than Grimmett in most peoples eye.

There's also Lindwall and Miller as far as quicks go with McGrath and Lillee and Davidson (almost certainly our best five).

 

[Borisdog]

There are way too many "off-spinners" with very, very dodgy actions.
And 1 bloke caused it all.