Should we play 4 quicks and no spinner in 3rd Test against India?

[frankrizzo]

It's not just offies, they don't really struggle against any type of spin.

warne and macgill were top draw leggies and they combined for 57 wickets at an average of 48 vs india.

 

[theyellowsash]

watson for marsh. stick him at 1st drop as a reliable backup to an early wicket but still giving him time to rest after bowling. marsh's t20 form is irrelevant. i would say either ponting or hussey but outside haddin marsh was the only batsmen who totally failed. warner needs to calm down though.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I see no reason why off-spinners can't be successful at the WACA.

Offies will get lovely drift from the Fremantle Doctor in the afternoon and the pitch provides plenty of bounce too.

 

[Selective Retention]

Awful thread, even if Lyon does get some tap in Sydney/Perth.

 

[The_Reaper]

The WACA will be a bowlers wicket.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Awful thread, even if Lyon does get some tap in Sydney/Perth.

I didn't think of all that. With all those good points you've made, as to why Lyon would be better in Perth than say, Harris, I change my mind. In fact, he should open the bowling and maybe we could squeeze Hauritz or Beer into the team as well.

Seriously though, Lyon has played almost no part in these past two matches, as they suited fast bowling and has pretty much only bowled to take a load off the "quicks" for a while, because there was virtually no-one else to do so and yet you say "even if he also cops tap in the next match" as well, they should still not even consider leaving him out for a single match, on a pitch that could be another fast bowling paradise? WTF?

 

[aussierulesrules]

I see no reason why off-spinners can't be successful at the WACA.

Offies will get lovely drift from the Fremantle Doctor in the afternoon and the pitch provides plenty of bounce too.

True, but do you seriously believe Lyon would give India, who LOVE playing spin, more grief than Harris (who lets not forget has a test bowling average of 21 and gets a wicket every 41 balls ) would on that pitch?
And if not, are you happy enough to risk losing a test to India just for the sake of keeping things the same? We're talking about not picking him for one game, because the conditions will be much better suited to someone else (if they are), not banning him from ever playing again, or pulling out his fingernails one by one.

 

[The_Reaper]

True, but do you seriously believe Lyon would give India, who LOVE playing spin, more grief than Harris (who lets not forget has a test bowling average of 21 and gets a wicket every 41 balls ) would on that pitch?
And if not, are you happy enough to risk losing a test to India just for the sake of keeping things the same? We're talking about not picking him for one game, because the conditions will be much better suited to someone else (if they are), not banning him from ever playing again, or pulling out his fingernails one by one.

I do have concerns about playing only four fast bowlers if one of them is Harris. Especially if Watson isn't fit.

 

[Hellgood]

I think aussierulesrules has got a very good point.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

watson for marsh. stick him at 1st drop as a reliable backup to an early wicket but still giving him time to rest after bowling. marsh's t20 form is irrelevant. i would say either ponting or hussey but outside haddin marsh was the only batsmen who totally failed. warner needs to calm down though.

Gee there are some ruthless selectors around here. First match he stuffs up in and 'YOU'RE OUT!

But timing is all in this world and if Watson is fit, I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen as it's always the newbies heads on the chopping block, never the old guys and even our selectors must be want to see Watson away from opening. Maybe Punter back to 3? Watson at 4 makes sense.

I think Lyon needs to bowl in at least 3 of these 4 matches. If they want him to develop, there's no point in hiding him from decent batsmen. He has to learn how to work people out.

 

[theyellowsash]

Gee there are some ruthless selectors around here. First match he stuffs up in and 'YOU'RE OUT!

But timing is all in this world and if Watson is fit, I wouldn't be surprised to see that happen as it's always the newbies heads on the chopping block, never the old guys and even our selectors must be want to see Watson away from opening. Maybe Punter back to 3? Watson at 4 makes sense.

I think Lyon needs to bowl in at least 3 of these 4 matches. If they want him to develop, there's no point in hiding him from decent batsmen. He has to learn how to work people out.

wasnt having a go at marsh, but the team needs to be picked on form and both ponting and hussey have it over him. like i said, t20 form is irrelevant to test form. if marsh can hold the gloves ide have him in for haddin. warner is also shakey, he didnt look good at all against india he needs to calm down and remember its a test, but ide have him over marsh because i think watson needs to be protected from opening even if just by 1 spot.

also watson is one of the few blokes who atm needs to be in the team whenever he is fit. when he is fit someone needs to make room. unfortunately that can only really be marsh atm.

 

[The_Reaper]

wasnt having a go at marsh, but the team needs to be picked on form and both ponting and hussey have it over him. like i said, t20 form is irrelevant to test form. if marsh can hold the gloves ide have him in for haddin. warner is also shakey, he didnt look good at all against india he needs to calm down and remember its a test, but ide have him over marsh because i think watson needs to be protected from opening even if just by 1 spot.

also watson is one of the few blokes who atm needs to be in the team whenever he is fit. when he is fit someone needs to make room. unfortunately that can only really be marsh atm.

Unfortunately Watson is going to have the same 'twenty20 match prep' as Marsh.

It's ridiculous.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Gee there are some ruthless selectors around here. First match he stuffs up in and 'YOU'RE OUT!

You just don't seem to get it. It has nothing to do with Lyon and it's not that he's "stuffed up" and he's "out". He's done perfectly well and looks to be the one we've been looking for since Warne departed, but there will be certain occasions where we're going to be better off with an all out pace attack, rather than picking someone who's going to have very little influence on a game, simply for the sake of what, stability? Protecting his fragile ego? Surely he's tougher than that and smart enough to realise it's just about what's best for that game (which I'm sure they would tell him, if he didn't realise).
They wouldn't be saying dude "you're fired", like Donald Trump, they'd be saying "Nathan we've loved what you've done so far for us, but this is a game where we feel we'll be a much stronger chance of winning if we have a four pronged pace attack, as it's a fast bowling paradise and we want to help our chances of winning, so we're not selecting you. You're still our no.1 spinning option, though and we want you to be ready to step back in when the conditions are more likely to suit spin." If he's not man enough to handle that, he probably doesn't have what it takes to handle test cricket, but I believe he does, so he'd be fine.
It would be just like when the manic interchange rotations came into AFL. In the beginning it was seen as almost an "insult" to be sent to the bench and some probably sooked about it, but now that they realise it's necessary for the benefit of the team and that it's not personal, they're apparently pretty much all for it and are happy to come off.
If it became common for Australia to pick our team based on the conditions (and with the pace arsenal we look like having in coming years (Patto, Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc, Coulter Nile, Siddle, Hilfy, etc) there could be heaps of occasions where we'll be better off with 4 "quicks"), everyone would get used to that as well and no-one would take it personally, or sook, or fall to pieces, like some seem to think they will.
Also, with all the cricket being played these days, everyone will probably have to get used to the team changing on a regular basis, unless we can find a way to have the best ones play every game without breaking down, due to playing so much. We're probably going to have to get used to having a squad to pick from, who are getting rotated, rather than just an 11 that we'll be relying on for every single game. It will be OK, though. We're all going to be OK.

 

[Dixie Flatline]

I would rather have Lyon bowl a few overs, at least for the purpose of maintaining the necessary over-rate, than someone like Clarke, Warner or Hussey, and risk them doing an injury by overbowling.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I'll be ok with Lyon missing out at the WACA but not at Sydney like the media are suggesting. 4 quicks in Sydney please, they must be joking.

 

[BACCS]

Again, Lyon is not a bunny with the bat. 47 and the Hobart Test should pretty clearly show that. He is a more than handy number 11.

And aussierulesrules, he was talking about Marsh with that last post, not Lyon... A for effort though!

 

[Esky Lid]

You Have to play a Spinner ! WACA or anywhere .. its about balance !

The WACA is a Very Good Pitch for spinners who can use the bounce .. Michael Beer might be a very nice option - Horses for Courses !! But if Lyon has a Ball tearer of a Test In Sydney , he must stay .

Hilfy is perfect for the WACA.
Patto and Siddle have just done the job. So if all fit & Firing ... Harris misses out.

Its all about Earning your spot in the side ! Cummins and Harris are no Walk up starts right at the moment !

This was the real strength of Australian Cricket over last 20 years.
Good solid back up players who never got a real taste of international cricket - Martin Love !!

Sorry Ryan Harris , I think you will have to work harder to get your spot back !!

 

[Jimthegreat]

Awful thread, even if Lyon does get some tap in Sydney/Perth.

It's not about the thread it's actually what's being considered by the selectors.

 

[Hellgood]

Again, Lyon is not a bunny with the bat. 47 and the Hobart Test should pretty clearly show that. He is a more than handy number 11.

No he isn't a bunny like say a Chris Martin or someone like that, but our other three bowlers are significantly better batsmen than him and it was absolutely baffling why he was promoted ahead of them when we actually have some very solid batsmen in the tail. Siddle's defensive technique looks like a top order batsmans at times, Pattinson is being discussed as a potential all-rounder and Hilfenhaus has an eye like a dead fish and has scored a test match half century as well as a few handy innings over his test career. Lyon is by far and away the obvious candidate to bat at 11.

 

[CAS79]

People talking a typical WACA wicket.

The WACA has served up some batting belters in Shield cricket over the last 5 years and it hasn't presented a typical anything.

A lot of people talking the glory days of the 80s early 90s when it was the bounciest fastest track in the world. It's been a long way from that pitch for some time.

You wont hang Lyon on one performance and lets see if he can adjust his length for the Indian batsman who want to play him a lot more of the front than he's experienced so far.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

You just don't seem to get it. It has nothing to do with Lyon and it's not that he's "stuffed up" and he's "out". He's done perfectly well and looks to be the one we've been looking for since Warne departed, but there will be certain occasions where we're going to be better off with an all out pace attack, rather than picking someone who's going to have very little influence on a game, simply for the sake of what, stability? Protecting his fragile ego? Surely he's tougher than that and smart enough to realise it's just about what's best for that game (which I'm sure they would tell him, if he didn't realise).
They wouldn't be saying dude "you're fired", like Donald Trump, they'd be saying "Nathan we've loved what you've done so far for us, but this is a game where we feel we'll be a much stronger chance of winning if we have a four pronged pace attack, as it's a fast bowling paradise and we want to help our chances of winning, so we're not selecting you. You're still our no.1 spinning option, though and we want you to be ready to step back in when the conditions are more likely to suit spin." If he's not man enough to handle that, he probably doesn't have what it takes to handle test cricket, but I believe he does, so he'd be fine.
It would be just like when the manic interchange rotations came into AFL. In the beginning it was seen as almost an "insult" to be sent to the bench and some probably sooked about it, but now that they realise it's necessary for the benefit of the team and that it's not personal, they're apparently pretty much all for it and are happy to come off.
If it became common for Australia to pick our team based on the conditions (and with the pace arsenal we look like having in coming years (Patto, Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc, Coulter Nile, Siddle, Hilfy, etc) there could be heaps of occasions where we'll be better off with 4 "quicks"), everyone would get used to that as well and no-one would take it personally, or sook, or fall to pieces, like some seem to think they will.
Also, with all the cricket being played these days, everyone will probably have to get used to the team changing on a regular basis, unless we can find a way to have the best ones play every game without breaking down, due to playing so much. We're probably going to have to get used to having a squad to pick from, who are getting rotated, rather than just an 11 that we'll be relying on for every single game. It will be OK, though. We're all going to be OK.

I don't think it's me that didn't get it as my comments about ruthless selectors were referring to the quote in my post about Marsh.

Lyon is a 50/50. As I said I'd like to see him bowl against decent batsmen and not get hidden on the grounds that he has to learn to do that but I get the point about the seaming pitches.

 

[Jimthegreat]

I need a "dunno" option.

The splinter option....if the fence is wooden of course.

Sydney traditionally helps the spinners but quicks have done the job there of late. Like having a spinner in the side but also Harris is the best quick in the country, so that's tempting too. India look lost on pitches that bounce and if Sydney's going to do that again the 4 quick option is tempting. Harris would add to their misery as well as giving him important match conditioning for the last 2 Tests. On the other hand the spinner gives balance, especially if there's some turn. Like a look at the pitch first though before deciding.

Think the selectors are very tempted by the 4 quicks option though.

 

[Peter maxwell]

Would be silly to take three quicks into SCG Test. Lyon is doing OK and needed for team balance.

 

[aussierulesrules]

People talking a typical WACA wicket.

The WACA has served up some batting belters in Shield cricket over the last 5 years and it hasn't presented a typical anything.

A lot of people talking the glory days of the 80s early 90s when it was the bounciest fastest track in the world. It's been a long way from that pitch for some time.

You wont hang Lyon on one performance and lets see if he can adjust his length for the Indian batsman who want to play him a lot more of the front than he's experienced so far.

I agree that it hasn't been the WACA pitch of old in recent years, but hasn't it been getting back closer to what it was?
What was it like last year, for the Ashes test? We went in there with 4 "quicks", compared to England's 3 (Swann- widely regarded as the "best spinner in the world" at the time, got just 2 for 103 for the match for them) and despite getting smashed in the 3 matches before and after it, in that series, we won that match easily, with Ryan Harris taking NINE WICKETS. Does anyone really believe Lyon is capable of taking anything like 9 wickets there? And if not, are you happy to go in to that match with less firepower? Do we not particularly want to win this series?

 

[aussierulesrules]

I don't think it's me that didn't get it as my comments about ruthless selectors were referring to the quote in my post about Marsh.

Lyon is a 50/50. As I said I'd like to see him bowl against decent batsmen and not get hidden on the grounds that he has to learn to do that but I get the point about the seaming pitches.

Sorry dude, my bad and my post certainly wasn't directed all at you, but also to those who seem to think the world will end if we go into a test match without a front line spinning option. (Like we did in Perth last year, or like NZ did on the green pitch in Tassie a couple of weeks ago, when Vettori pulled out. Rare occurences for both teams, but which also helped result in rare wins for both teams.)

And again, it's not about "hiding" him on those grounds, it's about picking a better option for those conditions. "Playing each ball on its merits", from a selection point of view. It has nothing to do with him, it's about picking the most appropriate team for the situation. I believe what's best for the team is supposed to come first. Tassie, especially, was an obvious one (green pitch, rain forecast for all 5 days= seam/swing paradise). And why does he have to "learn to bowl in those conditions"? Why would we he ever have to play in those sort of conditions for Australia again?

With the likes of Patto, Cummins, Siddle, Hilfy, Harris, Hazlewood, Starc, Coulter Nile, etc, looking like giving us an outstanding fast bowling arsenal for the forseeable future, why can't we just pick 4 "quicks" for matches where it's going to clearly suit pace, from now on? There is no rule that says "you have to pick a spinner". It's a free country, we can pick whoever we believe will be best for us in the conditions for that match. And with the policy change meaning they're producing pitches with more "juice" in them in Australia now (to help get more results and more interesting matches) there are likely to be plenty of occasions where we play on pitches like in Tassie and the MCG, that clearly suit fast bowling and seam/swing. On pitches that don't, like Sydney may be, or when we play in the sub-continent, West Indies, etc, then we pick a team appropriate for those conditions.

It makes little sense to pick someone who, like in the last two matches, will take up up to 25% of our bowling spots in the team, yet take only 10% of the wickets, (with all of those 10% being the "tail" of the opposing batting line-ups, which are far less valuable than top order wickets) because the conditions don't suit him and the opposition (at least in India's case) like facing what you bowl (spin, in this case). That is an innefective use of your "resources". If this was a major company, wanting to be the best in their field, I doubt they'd tolerate that and I don't believe we ought to, either. It's not necessary.

We'd all like to be able to squeeze a high quality spinning option (which Lyon looks to be) into our side for every game, just as we'd like to have a genuine "all rounder" as well, but despite what some seem to think, they're not ESSENTIAL, especially when the conditions don't suit them at all and suit someone else that you have available, far better. There are only 11 spots available and when you have a whole squad to choose from, you don't have to limit yourself to the 11 who played the last game.