changes for boxing day test.

[nobbyiscool]

Who should come in then? Bird?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Could I not have been any clearer in the series of posts that you were responding to? The case for Bird compared to Boland has been clearly stated. I'm not going to repeat myself because you're a noob who is apparently devoid of reading comprehension.

 

[Trob]

Could I not have been any clearer in the series of posts that you were responding to? The case for Bird compared to Boland has been clearly stated. I'm not going to repeat myself because you're a noob who is apparently devoid of reading comprehension.

Settle down nobby lets not get personal

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[nobbyiscool]

Settle down nobby lets not get personal

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Try reading then, rather than expecting people to repeat stuff from the same page from which you originally quoted a post.

 

[Trob]

Try reading then, rather than expecting people to repeat stuff from the same page from which you originally quoted a post.

Let's just hope we get a decent test match on boxing day. Dont like the chances though haha

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[Bradesmaen]

Give us a spell. Bolands been a consistent shield bowler for the last 2 years im all for giving him a crack and seeing what he can do. Especially against this pathetic so called competition we are up against



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Consistently shit right? In his first two full shield seasons (9 and 8 matches) he took a grand total of 44 wickets. Has a Shane Watson bowling average and a horrible strike rate in the long form of the game. A strike rate of 65... so he takes a wicket every 11 overs. Meanwhile James Hopes has taken more wickets than Scott Boland.

James Hopes for the Aussie Test Team!

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Let's be honest, the only reason Boland is being considered is because of the current obsession with pace.

I have no issue with selectors preferring bowlers with pace... but they still need to be Test standard. Boland may go on to be a wonderful player... but to date, he hasn't demonstrated he's even remotely close to Test standard.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Let's be honest, the only reason Boland is being considered is because of the current obsession with pace.

I have no issue with selectors preferring bowlers with pace... but they still need to be Test standard. Boland may go on to be a wonderful player... but to date, he hasn't demonstrated he's even remotely close to Test standard.

I have a problem with the pace obsession. You don't need to bowl fast to take wickets. The high wicket takers in the Shield tend to be the lower pace bowlers. Guys like Hopes, Sayers, Mennie, Bird etc. If you can move the ball, at whatever pace you will be effective. If you bowl 140kph but can't consistently move the ball or move it where you want (Mitchell's Starc and Johnson) then you won't be an effective bowler outside of Australian conditions.

 

[nobbyiscool]

I have a problem with the pace obsession. You don't need to bowl fast to take wickets. The high wicket takers in the Shield tend to be the lower pace bowlers. Guys like Hopes, Sayers, Mennie, Bird etc. If you can move the ball, at whatever pace you will be effective. If you bowl 140kph but can't consistently move the ball or move it where you want (Mitchell's Starc and Johnson) then you won't be an effective bowler outside of Australian conditions.

I guess the other thing that annoys me about this obsession with pace is that it largely ignores the legacy of Australian bowlers which are dictated by the pitches we develop in this country.

For as long as I've been following cricket in Australia, assuming you can bowl a decent clip, your ability to generate bounce has been criteria 1a, and because of the conditions in Australia your ability to move the ball off the seam has been criteria 1b. I always come back to the Glenn McGrath example - if he were a 24 year old now, the greatest fast bowler in Australian history would never be picked. And he was a guy that bowled 135 flat out (and rarely hit 130 in his later years), but used steep bounce and movement off the pitch. It's the same kind of bowler that Bird could've and should've been.

But we're still allowing repeat failures in England to dictate who "we" want our fast bowlers to be - we now want them to bowl in a way that should be successful in England ie. with pace and swing, and hopefull reverse swing.

 

[Nuke Fremantle]

The more I think about it the more I feel we don't need an allrounder at no.6. We won't we need a 5th bowler agianst the Windies and given the expected greentops in NZ (they don't have a viable spinner), 3 specialist pacemen should be more than enough. If worst comes to worst then Voges can bowl some offies and Smith is a chance to burgle a wicket.

 

[Hellgood]

Wait, where has this myth that Boland is being selected due to his pace spawned from?

 

[Bradesmaen]

Wait, where has this myth that Boland is being selected due to his pace spawned from?

Rod Marsh, Chairman of Selectors.

 

[Borisdog]

I always come back to the Glenn McGrath example - if he were a 24 year old now, the greatest fast bowler in Australian history would never be picked. And he was a guy that bowled 135 flat out (and rarely hit 130 in his later years).

Come on - now you ARE talking poo. Glenn McGrath at 24 in this current era would have so many shield wickets against this pack of "incompetent against moving ball " batsmen that it'd be impossible to do anything but pick him.

 

[Hellgood]

Rod Marsh, Chairman of Selectors.

Is there a quote? Have honestly never heard anyone describe him as fast.

Come on - now you ARE talking poo. Glenn McGrath at 24 in this current era would have so many shield wickets against this pack of "incompetent against moving ball " batsmen that it'd be impossible to do anything but pick him.

One of the things that people are ignoring in their straw-man arguments is the balance of the attack. Selectors have made it clear that they wish to only play one medium-fast specialist bowler with the other containing role being fulfilled by the all-rounder. If McGrath was around he would clearly have this position wrapped up ahead of Siddle and Hazlewood.

 

[The_Reaper]

Come on - now you ARE talking poo. Glenn McGrath at 24 in this current era would have so many shield wickets against this pack of "incompetent against moving ball " batsmen that it'd be impossible to do anything but pick him.

I guess the other thing that annoys me about this obsession with pace is that it largely ignores the legacy of Australian bowlers which are dictated by the pitches we develop in this country.

For as long as I've been following cricket in Australia, assuming you can bowl a decent clip, your ability to generate bounce has been criteria 1a, and because of the conditions in Australia your ability to move the ball off the seam has been criteria 1b. I always come back to the Glenn McGrath example - if he were a 24 year old now, the greatest fast bowler in Australian history would never be picked. And he was a guy that bowled 135 flat out (and rarely hit 130 in his later years), but used steep bounce and movement off the pitch. It's the same kind of bowler that Bird could've and should've been.

But we're still allowing repeat failures in England to dictate who "we" want our fast bowlers to be - we now want them to bowl in a way that should be successful in England ie. with pace and swing, and hopefull reverse swing.

Glenn McGrath, as a 24 year old was not 135 flat out. He had no issues getting over 140 km.

Josh Hazlewood, who made his debut under this selection panel, is no faster than McGrath at the same age.

 

[Big Bryza]

So we're just handing out baggy greens now to bowlers who don't meet the selectors own criteria to "give them a crack" against poor opposition?

As I stated previously, he has a pretty ordinary 13 wickets in the Shield so far this season; when you consider that 7 of those came in one innings, he's otherwise been shithouse.

Take your Victorian blinkers off for 5 minutes - Boland is not good enough to play for Australia.

Shithouse? Lol. Shocking post.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Shithouse? Lol. Shocking post.

Am I the only person living in this state that doesn't have Victorian blinkers? I should figure out where to get some of those.

You take out that 7for, he has 6-192 this season across 4 matches.

So 1) he hasn't even played every match this season for Victoria, and 2) he's averaging 32 in Shield cricket if you take out the anomoly.

Since when does that get you picked?

Probably not as bad a selection as NCN, but a poor one none the less. Mennie, Bird and Bollinger are all going significantly better on exposed form.

 

[eddiesmith]

Always laugh at the argument, take out the innings when they did well and they have been poor...

 

[nobbyiscool]

Always laugh at the argument, take out the innings when they did well and they have been poor...

Why should you laugh at that? You said it yourself - "take out THE innings..."

Should you not be required to perform well in more than one innings in a season before getting picked?

After all, that is the entire point people are making when they say that more than half his wickets this season came in one innings.

 

[vicpride]

You guys amaze me. Boland will become a quality bowler. Heard the same argument when Johnson was picked. Have a bit of faith guys, Bird isn't some unfounded gem. I like Boland and I like NCN. Let's just back our selectors in. They're usually pretty Ok picking "long term" bowling talent.

Sent from my GT-I8730 using Tapatalk

 

[Bradesmaen]

You guys amaze me. Boland will become a quality bowler. Heard the same argument when Johnson was picked. Have a bit of faith guys, Bird isn't some unfounded gem. I like Boland and I like NCN. Let's just back our selectors in. They're usually pretty Ok picking "long term" bowling talent.

Sent from my GT-I8730 using Tapatalk

Long term talent? So we win the World Cup of Tests in a few years? Oh wait that doesn't exist. Also the reason you get the same argument as Johnson is because he didnt deserve a call up either and to be honest was only an average bowler overall for Australia. Performances were generally beat up way too much when he bowled well which was two out of 8 years and only in South Africa and Australia.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Let's just back our selectors in. They're usually pretty Ok picking "long term" bowling talent

Yeah Xavier Doherty was a fantastic selection or how about Maxwell as a test number 3...these selectors are wonderful...

 

[Van_Dyke]

You guys amaze me. Boland will become a quality bowler. Heard the same argument when Johnson was picked. Have a bit of faith guys, Bird isn't some unfounded gem. I like Boland and I like NCN. Let's just back our selectors in. They're usually pretty Ok picking "long term" bowling talent.

Sent from my GT-I8730 using Tapatalk

There has been zilch to say that Boland will become a quality bowler. Boland has had one good performance this summer and has been nowhere near that standard otherwise

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There has been zilch to say that Boland will become a quality bowler. Boland has had one good performance this summer and has been nowhere near that standard since.

This. Although at least he isn't as bad as the NCN selection....that's the positive

 

[HBF]

There has been zilch to say that Boland will become a quality bowler. Boland has had one good performance this summer and has been nowhere near that standard otherwise

He's come from nowhere that's for sure. Under the circumstances he's performed at the right time with Johnson retiring and Starc being injured. And now NCN being out for the summer.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

You guys amaze me. Boland will become a quality bowler. Heard the same argument when Johnson was picked. Have a bit of faith guys, Bird isn't some unfounded gem. I like Boland and I like NCN. Let's just back our selectors in. They're usually pretty Ok picking "long term" bowling talent.

Sent from my GT-I8730 using Tapatalk

Johnson does not a good argument make. He deserved maybe one third of the caps he got. Most of his career was getting lucky bowling tripe.

Boland may well become a quality bowler, but he isn't there yet and Test match selection should always be about picking the best eleven for the opposition and conditions for the now. Its not building a squad for ODIs, every Test is important. I admit I haven't seen Boland in the Shield, but his numbers don't stack up and I've never heard anyone except a Victorian say his ability does at this point.
Picking for the long term are what "A" tours and the like are about. Not Tests.