Changes for 2nd Test

[The Falcon Strike]

This isn't the glory days anymore, there's no Law, Love, Lehmann, Katitch, Maher, Elliott, Hodge, Hussey around piling on metric tonnes of shield runs.

Everyone one of those blokes would be in the side now. In fact 2 of them could be right now.

You could add Cox, Moody, Blewett, Siddons to that list as well

 

[Zach Package]

Everyone one of those blokes would be in the side now. In fact 2 of them could be right now.

You could add Cox, Moody, Blewett, Siddons to that list as well

Indeed, i could have gone on. Point is, pointing out Steve Smith averages 32 at test level means shit all when he's competing with guys who can barely get a run against the 'babweans

 

[The Passenger]

Siddle, with the bat, looks every bit a number 11.

poor call. he is the weakest of the tail enders, but a guy with 11 test scores above 30 including 2 half centuries doesn't "look every bit a number 11"

it'll be him and harris at 10/11 this test. both are good number 10 bats and excellent number 11's.

 

[Caesar]

I reckon a lot of those Shield guys from the late 90s / early 00s are a bit overrated. Most had some pretty glaring weaknesses that their tons of FC runs hide. Blewett was everybody's bunny at international level once he got figured out. Elliott was one of the biggest mental cases I've seen play Test cricket. Dussey is very ordinary against the bouncing ball.

Even Lehmann had big issues with spin early in his career. IMO he probably would have failed at international level if he'd been selected for the Test team in the 90s. Not being selected meant that he worked exceptionally hard on becoming a complete batsman.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Well at least we know the Australia A batting lineup is just as shit as the regulars. Only took 11 overs.

Most domestic shield followers know the cupboard is pretty damn bare already.

 

[bluespooner]

I reckon a lot of those Shield guys from the late 90s / early 00s are a bit overrated. Most had some pretty glaring weaknesses that their tons of FC runs hide. Blewett was everybody's bunny at international level once he got figured out. Elliott was one of the biggest mental cases I've seen play Test cricket. Dussey is very ordinary against the bouncing ball.

Even Lehmann had big issues with spin early in his career. IMO he probably would have failed at international level if he'd been selected for the Test team in the 90s. Not being selected meant that he worked exceptionally hard on becoming a complete batsman.

The one that was unfortunate for mine was Jamie Siddons, in his prime (not as he was at the end of his career when he was slogging a lot of the time) he was an imperious batsman with a beautiful technique.

 

[Pykie]

Everyone one of those blokes would be in the side now. In fact 2 of them could be right now.

You could add Cox, Moody, Blewett, Siddons to that list as well

You can add Bevan and another 50 tests from Mike Hussey too.

Bevan 237 FC matches @ 57 with 68 tons and 120 wickets to boot. He had a pretty ordinary start to his test career, but in the current side he would of gotten alot more opportunity.

I'd give my left nut for a batting lineup of Rogers, Law, Hodge, Lehmann, Clarke, Bevan, Haddin in this match.

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

Bring back Martin Love...

 

[frankrizzo]

bevan got 18 tests, some against some very ordinary opponents at a time when we were strong, if he failed then im not sure why he would have had success now when we are a poor team constantly under pressure.

 

[The Passenger]

Bring back Martin Love...

fantastic technique. i reckon he was the best of the guys that didn't get much of a chance.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Bevan couldn't handle quality short pitch bowling though which is why he was so successful in ODIs where bouncers were virtually outlawed.

If he wasn't such a bunny against short pitch bowling he probably would have had a pretty good test career.

I'm not sure how much of that was technical and how much psychology. He handled faster and better bowlers at Shield level bowling short stuff than many of those who troubled him in Tests.
More short stuff being allowed in ODIs toward the end of his career didn't seem to have that great an impact either. From memory it did have small one, if judged by the numbers.

 

[Pykie]

bevan got 18 tests, some against some very ordinary opponents at a time when we were strong, if he failed then im not sure why he would have had success now when we are a poor team constantly under pressure.

Lol, do people just sprout crap like this for the sake of it when talking about the players in the mid 90's?

In 14 of his 18 tests he faced Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Mushtaq Ahmed, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Alan Donald and Shaun Pollock...

Who the hell have our current batsmen faced?

 

[Phone]

uh Steyn.

10 years ago, though, the point was spot on. It's no surprise Hayden struggled in the 90's against those guys and when he came back in the 00's, with most of those guys retired or declining, cashed in

 

[frankrizzo]

Fair enough he faced some quality bowling, recently he would have faced steyn and philander, ashwin and co in india and anderson and co in england.

Why would he have had success against them any more than he did vs the 90's bowlers?

At least in the 90's he wouldn't have been constantly coming in during batting collapses, you bat in our middle order in our current team and thats why you face more often than not.

I guess when i was thinking ordinary attacks i was remembering the ashes, bevo averaged just 11 in the ashes and that was against a struggling england side that our batting prospered against.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Lol, do people just sprout crap like this for the sake of it when talking about the players in the mid 90's?

In 14 of his 18 tests he faced Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Mushtaq Ahmed, Curtley Ambrose, Courtney Walsh, Alan Donald and Shaun Pollock...

Who the hell have our current batsmen faced?

I'd suggest the batsmen of the 90's faced better quicks, whilst the batsmen of the 00's faced better spinners.