Remove this Banner Ad

Bollinger>Siddle

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

dan warna said:
Clarke shouldn't have played true but looking at the brittleness of our batting line up clarke was pretty much our second best bat...

watto, solid 40 average bat, katich moderate form but slowing down, punter, the best, hussey, this innings may have pulled him out, but has been in dog form recently, north, his last century probably saved him but has been average at best.

I don't think clarke should have played but from the selectors perspective punter would have been the only gun batsman in the side.

as it was watto and kattich set us up reasonably well, and haddin is hanging on by a thread while hussey scores.
Click to expand...

He fielded mid-off/on. What message does this send England? It says we don't rate our next in line and are willing to risk aggravating an injury further than getting a batsman in, who literally couldn't have done any worse and been far better in the field. Should have learnt from playing Symonds and Lee in Melbourne, but haven't. Yes we still might win the test but it does nothing for the integrity and development of the side nor shows consistency or rationale from the selectors/coaches.

lemon chicken said:
How do you know that was the reason? I tend to think there might be a few in the high places that dont like Doug's laid back attitude. Purely speculative of course.
Click to expand...

Well as Dougy says, he was ready to go, so there is obviously an issue of some sort. The selectors are jokes, so it wouldn't surprise me if they started using Bollinger's character (which is what the Australian team need as much as his bowling) to give credence to his non-selection.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Ill Chicken said:
He fielded mid-off/on. What message does this send England? It says we don't rate our next in line and are willing to risk aggravating an injury further than getting a batsman in, who literally couldn't have done any worse and been far better in the field. Should have learnt from playing Symonds and Lee in Melbourne, but haven't. Yes we still might win the test but it does nothing for the integrity and development of the side nor shows consistency or rationale from the selectors/coaches.



Well as Dougy says, he was ready to go, so there is obviously an issue of some sort. The selectors are jokes, so it wouldn't surprise me if they started using Bollinger's character (which is what the Australian team need as much as his bowling) to give credence to his non-selection.
Click to expand...
Of course he says he is fit, never known a player to say otherwise, but his performance last shield game doesnt back that up
 
eddiesmith said:
Of course he says he is fit, never known a player to say otherwise, but his performance last shield game doesnt back that up
Click to expand...

The first innings went for 43 overs. The second went for 53 overs. He bowled 10 in each. That's match fit.
 
Ill Chicken said:
The first innings went for 43 overs. The second went for 53 overs. He bowled 10 in each. That's match fit.
Click to expand...
He was completely ineffective in the 2nd innings, that suggests he was struggling to back up and after only bowling 10 overs!

Siddle on the other hand had 140 overs this summer behind him...
 
eddiesmith said:
He was completely ineffective in the 2nd innings, that suggests he was struggling to back up and after only bowling 10 overs!

Siddle on the other hand had 140 overs this summer behind him...
Click to expand...

Or that the first change bowlers took wickets. Which they did.
 
Ill Chicken said:
Or that the first change bowlers took wickets. Which they did.
Click to expand...
So Australia is supposed to pick someone who has bowled less overs all summer than what would be expected in probably the 1st innings of a test match and who in the 2nd innings couldnt get a single breakthrough, went for 4 an over and when brought on to knock over the no11 he instead went

3.462

Yeah, no idea why they ignored him...
 
eddiesmith said:
So Australia is supposed to pick someone who has bowled less overs all summer than what would be expected in probably the 1st innings of a test match and who in the 2nd innings couldnt get a single breakthrough, went for 4 an over and when brought on to knock over the no11 he instead went

3.462

Yeah, no idea why they ignored him...
Click to expand...

Obviously the selectors have your mentality with one over being the defining point of picking a player or not, rather than being up there as the top four quick bowlers in the world for the last year.
 
Ill Chicken said:
Obviously the selectors have your mentality with one over being the defining point of picking a player or not, rather than being up there as the top four quick bowlers in the world for the last year.
Click to expand...
Oh yes the last year, assuming you ignore the series right in the middle where he got smashed by Pakistan! But yeah he did brilliantly in the always tough environment of NZ in NZ ;)

Bollinger hasnt done enough to be considered an automatic selection whenever he is half fit
 

Remove this Banner Ad

NSW media were outraged at Bollingers treatment...:D

That said in form he is the best and most consistent of our fast bowlers on current form.

I actually don't mind Bollinger and given the brittleness of our bowlers fitness its not bad having a pool of 4 or 5 bowlers to rotate through.
 
eddiesmith said:
Oh yes the last year, assuming you ignore the series right in the middle where he got smashed by Pakistan! But yeah he did brilliantly in the always tough environment of NZ in NZ ;)

Bollinger hasnt done enough to be considered an automatic selection whenever he is half fit
Click to expand...

Of course not, he is automatic selection when he is fully fit, which he is.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom