Cameron Green

[Falconista]

He's probably a little safer than he normally would be too as there aren't many middle-lower order bats/allrounders playing well enough in red ball conditions to replace him atm. Fitness permitting, I'd give him the whole Ashes to show his worth but wouldn't be afraid to drop him for future tours if he's still an occasional bowler and averaging sub-30 with the bat. M.Clarke, S.Waugh and S.Smith are recent examples of players picked early and played ok but who returned after being dropped as elite once they'd sharpened their game.

 

[frankrizzo]

We might as well give him some time to develop with the bat if we dump him its not going to be for a frontline batsman anyway we would be dumping him for mitch marsh, green has a far bigger upside than marsh in tests so if we carry somebody for a year would still rather its him.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

I'd certainly persist, I know the numbers aren't great but the ceiling is very high, especially with the bat.

 

[Sonny Hayes]

I am not talking about scoring speed, for fu**'s sake.

Langer's policy for batters who have just walked out is to only play the ball on the stumps for a period of time, unless your name is Steven Smith. You could see it clearly in this test match, when after Harris went out both Warner and Labuschagne played completely defensively, only scoring or playing at balls they perceived as threatening the stumps.

This is not a good approach for some players, like Green, who need the freedom to go for those bad balls. He has every shot in the book, and his size gives him greater reach.

Which brings me back to what I said: I think he would've flourished under Lehmann, who would've encouraged him and was rather laid back, instead of intense and tries to micromananage.

This board could do with more reading, ahead of reading between the lines.

Can you show me anywhere that he has confirmed that is his 'policy' and he forces that on his players? Can you show me of proof that he tries to micromanage his batsmen?

It is not exactly a JL exclusive philosophy to try and play with a straight bat early on in an innings, i have watched a fair bit of Green at Shield level and all his test innings. I don't see any change in his game between the two levels outside of the difference in quality he is facing.

 

[Gethelred]

Can you show me anywhere that he has confirmed that is his 'policy' and he forces that on his players? Can you show me of proof that he tries to micromanage his batsmen?

It is not exactly a JL exclusive philosophy to try and play with a straight bat early on in an innings, i have watched a fair bit of Green at Shield level and all his test innings. I don't see any change in his game between the two levels outside of the difference in quality he is facing.

I have been pretty clear throughout this conversation that all this is my opinion; opinion supported by evidence, but still opinion. If you do not like opinion and want to read solely facts, I have a number of journals I can recommend, but for the time being this is the cricket forum of Bigfooty.

 

[Tugga27]

I have been pretty clear throughout this conversation that all this is my opinion; opinion supported by evidence, but still opinion. If you do not like opinion and want to read solely facts, I have a number of journals I can recommend, but for the time being this is the cricket forum of Bigfooty.

TBF, you keep going on about "Langer policies" and now you say "supported by evidence".

Unless you have read a quote or heard Langer say it, your opinion is hardly evidence.

To say Green would flourish under Boof is pie in the sky stuff.

 

[Gethelred]

TBF, you keep going on about "Langer policies" and now you say "supported by evidence".

In one of the posts above, I said this:

Langer's policy for batters who have just walked out is to only play the ball on the stumps for a period of time, unless your name is Steven Smith. You could see it clearly in this test match, when after Harris went out both Warner and Labuschagne played completely defensively, only scoring or playing at balls they perceived as threatening the stumps.

... which is me supporting my opinion with evidence.

Do I have to explain the concept of argument to you further?

Unless you have read a quote or heard Langer say it, your opinion is hardly evidence.

... maybe I do.

To say Green would flourish under Boof is pie in the sky stuff.

Do you have any quotes or a performance from Green under Lehmann that would prove that it is 'pie in the sky stuff'?

Until you do, your opinion is hardly evidence.

 

[Tugga27]

In one of the posts above, I said this:

... which is me supporting my opinion with evidence.

Do I have to explain the concept of argument to you further?

... maybe I do.

Do you have any quotes or a performance from Green under Lehmann that would prove that it is 'pie in the sky stuff'?

Until you do, your opinion is hardly evidence.

Again, your opinion about Langers so called polices is hardly evidence.
You have just given your opinion which is fair enough.

Normally if you want to argue a point, you provide evidence which you haven't done.

You think Green would flourish under Boof, I don't.
Green has had access to probably the best coaches in Australia.

He's played a handful of tests and shown promise, that's all at this stage.

 

[Gethelred]

Again, your opinion about Langers so called polices is hardly evidence.
You have just given your opinion which is fair enough.

Normally if you want to argue a point, you provide evidence which you haven't done.

You think Green would flourish under Boof, I don't.
Green has had access to probably the best coaches in Australia.

He's played a handful of tests and shown promise, that's all at this stage.

This is objection for the sake of objection.

 

[Around the Wicket]

He's probably a little safer than he normally would be too as there aren't many middle-lower order bats/allrounders playing well enough in red ball conditions to replace him atm. Fitness permitting, I'd give him the whole Ashes to show his worth but wouldn't be afraid to drop him for future tours if he's still an occasional bowler and averaging sub-30 with the bat. M.Clarke, S.Waugh and S.Smith are recent examples of players picked early and played ok but who returned after being dropped as elite once they'd sharpened their game.

When Mitch Marsh got 32 Tests with neither a great bowling record or batting record a bloke with a FC batting average of 53 is safe as it comes.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

I love Cam Green and think he has the potential to be a generational talent for our country.

But he's a young player working out his game at the international level - if he gets droppe d- so be it - he ha smany years ahead to force his way back in the side.

Not sure he will need to be dropped mind you.

 

[Pippen94]

Wait, is this another "drop this player" topic?! Thought ppl would be discussing how he's come along with his bowling..

 

[Blue1980]

I like him, but I am realistic. He’s only 22, loads of potential and better raw tools than any all rounder we have tried in recent memory.

Watson I liked as a 5th bowler but never converted his starts enough into big scores, even at his best 2009-10.

Being a decent all rounder is bloody hard, hard enough to be good at one thing in test cricket, let alone both things.

Certainly gets a fair bit of latitude, he looks technically pretty good with the bat, just needs to learn his own game a bit more.

Bowling wise, he has the height, just needs to develop a few more tricks, and obviously managed properly re injuries.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

One of the things I like about him is that he's looked like a gifted and athletic fielder so far which for someone of his height isn't easy. He'll be a brilliant gully fielder if he isn't already. It's like having an octopus in that position.

The commentators on TMS - BBC radio were very impressed with him.

 

[Agent93]

Being a decent all rounder is bloody hard, hard enough to be good at one thing in test cricket, let alone both things.

'Decent' has a pretty high standard to most casuals. We've recently come away from Watto who would be comfortably top 20 all-time (around the Cairnses and Flintoffs) and viewed arguably the greatest in Kallis from afar.

As an aside, according to ICC player rankings we've got the 6th and 7th best test all-rounders in the world already in our side (Cummins and Starc).

 

[Blue1980]

'Decent' has a pretty high standard to most casuals. We've recently come away from Watto who would be comfortably top 20 all-time (around the Cairnses and Flintoffs) and viewed arguably the greatest in Kallis from afar.

As an aside, according to ICC player rankings we've got the 6th and 7th best test all-rounders in the world already in our side (Cummins and Starc).

Main issue for watts was he was around and at his peak when the side was in decline, so he had to plug batting gaps at the top of the order.

Get 2009-10 standard Watto playing in 2005 ashes we probably still win, even with McGrath going down and various other random things which weren’t wrong.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Get 2009-10 standard Watto playing in 2005 ashes we probably still win, even with McGrath going down and various other random things which weren’t wrong.

I'm as on board with the post-retirement reappraisals of Watto as anyone, but 2005-era Jones and Flintoff would have had him for breakfast.

 

[The Passenger]

'Decent' has a pretty high standard to most casuals. We've recently come away from Watto who would be comfortably top 20 all-time (around the Cairnses and Flintoffs) and viewed arguably the greatest in Kallis from afar.

All rounders also seem to be viewed on their peak more than any other role in the game, which inflates the overall career of someone like Flintoff and devalues someone like Watson.

Flintoff was a complete liability for the first 30-ish tests of his career and a passenger for the last 25-ish tests, many of which he was captain for.

The 25 tests in the middle, however, were absolute dynamite and at a level of performance Watson never got close to hitting but conversely Watto's troughs didn't get near as deep or as long.

Currently, English media and many of the fans I've spoken to believe Mooen Ali was given a raw deal but ultimately he has a sub-30 average with the bat and a 35+ average with the ball over 64 tests. They want to give props for his dynamic centuries or his bowling against South Africa in 2017 which is fine, but don't want to acknowledge the many poor series who played.

Mitch Marsh is an obvious counterpoint to the above, but by and large I think all rounders get the "rose coloured" treatment more than any other role in the game.

 

[Agent93]

All rounders also seem to be viewed on their peak more than any other role in the game, which inflates the overall career of someone like Flintoff and devalues someone like Watson.

"When he was on, he was unstoppable"

I think all rounders get the "rose coloured" treatment more than any other role in the game.

Of course they do. Good all-rounders are basically a bonus player in your side.

I've always liked the batting average minus bowling average metric for judging all-rounders. Jason Holder, who is the current ICC top ranked all-rounder, has a test career metric of roughly +3, whereas Starc and Cummins are both around -5; which is not terrible as they're generally classed as bowlers. Marsh is -13, and thus far in his career is a below average test batsman, and a below average test bowler.

The question always is (and this exists for Green as well) whether you'd be better served by picking a 6th batsman and going with 4 bowlers. Or, if your 'keeper is Gilchrist, pick 5 bowlers.

 

[Gethelred]

I'm as on board with the post-retirement reappraisals of Watto as anyone, but 2005-era Jones and Flintoff would have had him for breakfast.

Jones would've, but lefties were more Flintoff's thing.

 

[Gethelred]

All rounders also seem to be viewed on their peak more than any other role in the game, which inflates the overall career of someone like Flintoff and devalues someone like Watson.

Flintoff was a complete liability for the first 30-ish tests of his career and a passenger for the last 25-ish tests, many of which he was captain for.

The 25 tests in the middle, however, were absolute dynamite and at a level of performance Watson never got close to hitting but conversely Watto's troughs didn't get near as deep or as long.

Currently, English media and many of the fans I've spoken to believe Mooen Ali was given a raw deal but ultimately he has a sub-30 average with the bat and a 35+ average with the ball over 64 tests. They want to give props for his dynamic centuries or his bowling against South Africa in 2017 which is fine, but don't want to acknowledge the many poor series who played.

Mitch Marsh is an obvious counterpoint to the above, but by and large I think all rounders get the "rose coloured" treatment more than any other role in the game.

Ali's problem was that they couldn't decide what they wanted him to be. Was Ali an opening bat? Was he a middle order bat? Could he bat at 3 or 4? Was Ali's ceiling as a spinner good enough to hold down the position of 8 as a frontline offie?

Ali is hard done by because they wanted him to be all things. They never let him settle into a single training regime that would've seen his batting or bowling improve, and so he simply became a master of none. He is almost precisely as raw right now as he was at the beginning of his career; he still slashes at wide balls, where a player of his age should leave them alone; he still bowls long hops beside jaffas.

If they played him at 3- 5 and forced him to train solely as a bat while only occasionally rolling the arm over to keep some of his skills, that would've been fine. I don't think he'd ever have been the top flight offie that Swann or Harbhajan was. But you cannot constantly keep using a player as a bandaid.

 

[The Passenger]

Ali's problem was that they couldn't decide what they wanted him to be. Was Ali an opening bat? Was he a middle order bat? Could he bat at 3 or 4? Was Ali's ceiling as a spinner good enough to hold down the position of 8 as a frontline offie?

Ali is hard done by because they wanted him to be all things. They never let him settle into a single training regime that would've seen his batting or bowling improve, and so he simply became a master of none. He is almost precisely as raw right now as he was at the beginning of his career; he still slashes at wide balls, where a player of his age should leave them alone; he still bowls long hops beside jaffas.

If they played him at 3- 5 and forced him to train solely as a bat while only occasionally rolling the arm over to keep some of his skills, that would've been fine. I don't think he'd ever have been the top flight offie that Swann or Harbhajan was. But you cannot constantly keep using a player as a bandaid.

Yep, being thrown around didn't help him at all and English selection policy through that period was really atrocious. It really felt like they were coming up with some sort of total cricket selection scheme analogous to Johann Cruyff's total football. It worked on occasions and was spectacular when it did, but I thought it cost them a lot more tests than it won them. I also thought it underutilised Ben Stokes a lot of the time, mostly because there were test matches were he effectively became the #6 bowler and got sidelined a bit. No team needed that many bowlers, and 100% not when they have Anderson and Broad taking the new ball.

As for Ali, I'm not sure I can think of anyone who has made an international career out of bouncing around relentlessly between batsmen, bowler and all rounder. Most of the players I can think about who "adopted" a second role (as opposed to guys who were natural all rounders), were still picked first and foremost for their primary skillset. As an example Daniel Vettori was a regular top seven batsmen in the last few years of his test career, but he was picked as a bowler.

All the above being said, I genuinely don't think Ali was a long term consistent test level cricketer. I've no doubt he would have done better with a more defined role, but I don't think it was the difference between him being a frustration and a tease, or a top line test cricketer.

 

[Gethelred]

Yep, being thrown around didn't help him at all and English selection policy through that period was really atrocious. It really felt like they were coming up with some sort of total cricket selection scheme analogous to Johann Cruyff's total football. It worked on occasions and was spectacular when it did, but I thought it cost them a lot more tests than it won them. I also thought it underutilised Ben Stokes a lot of the time, mostly because there were test matches were he effectively became the #6 bowler and got sidelined a bit. No team needed that many bowlers, and 100% not when they have Anderson and Broad taking the new ball.

As for Ali, I'm not sure I can think of anyone who has made an international career out of bouncing around relentlessly between batsmen, bowler and all rounder. Most of the players I can think about who "adopted" a second role (as opposed to guys who were natural all rounders), were still picked first and foremost for their primary skillset. As an example Daniel Vettori was a regular top seven batsmen in the last few years of his test career, but he was picked as a bowler.

All the above being said, I genuinely don't think Ali was a long term consistent test level cricketer. I've no doubt he would have done better with a more defined role, but I don't think it was the difference between him being a frustration and a tease, or a top line test cricketer.

That's the thing; we'll never know.

I think he would certainly have been a much better bat than much of England's upper order right now had he been developed to bat 3-5, and I certainly think they needed to have a word with Ben Stokes a few years back and got him to work on his batting ahead of his bowling.

The bloke could average above 45 in test cricket if he could figure out offspin and could focus each time he walked out to bat, instead of only when his back was against the wall.

 

[The Passenger]

That's the thing; we'll never know.

Cricket is one of the great sliding doors sports.

Not like football where if someone isn't making it as a midfielder, you can move them to a flank and see what happens. The basic skills are still the same.

Combined with less places in a team for cricketers, and it makes - IMO anyway - cricket one of the great "what if" sports out there.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

"When he was on, he was unstoppable"


Of course they do. Good all-rounders are basically a bonus player in your side.

I've always liked the batting average minus bowling average metric for judging all-rounders. Jason Holder, who is the current ICC top ranked all-rounder, has a test career metric of roughly +3, whereas Starc and Cummins are both around -5; which is not terrible as they're generally classed as bowlers. Marsh is -13, and thus far in his career is a below average test batsman, and a below average test bowler.

The question always is (and this exists for Green as well) whether you'd be better served by picking a 6th batsman and going with 4 bowlers. Or, if your 'keeper is Gilchrist, pick 5 bowlers.

You just keep Green in.

He has so much potential both with bat and ball and at the moment his performances are borderline enough to keep his spot anyway so you keep picking the bloke with potential.

The biggest bonus with Green is that he swings the ball which is a massive bonus for us adding essential variety on flat wickets given our focus on extreme pace with our 3 pace bowlers.