Changes for the Melbourne Test.

Remove this Banner Ad

No - you know test cricket goes back 140 years? Here's team from 1997 https://www.espncricinfo.com/series...d-test-south-africa-tour-of-australia-1997-98
It wasn't an unreasonable question by stillatlarge. Don't see why it needed a passive aggressive reply. The combined batting average of the bottom four in the 1997 team was 77. The combined batting average of the likely boxing day bottom four is 80. It's a valid discussion. Not to mention that the 1997 tail didn't really start until 9, as Healy wasn't a tail ender. It was just a deep batting line up.
 
I wouldn’t have Abbott anywhere near test selection either but I don’t think the selectors would agree with those rankings. He’s clearly a player of interest for them, with his Aus A selection and short form selection. I reckon they see it something like this: Cummins, Hazlewood, Starc, Pattinson, Neser, Siddle, Richardson, Abbott, Meredith.
I think the Aus A selection was entirely based on the fact that NSW were already in WA when Richardson (I think) pulled out and he wasn't going to get selected with Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins all playing for NSW that game.
C'mon, you don't believe that - Bell, Winter, Bird etc.
Abbott: 53 matches, 139 wickets (2.62 per match), average 34.58, economy rate 3.18, strike rate 65.1
Bell: 19 matches, 72 wickets (3.79 per match), average 24.54, economy rate 2.98, strike rate 49.3
Winter: 19 matches, 74 wickets (3.89 per match), average 28.29, economy rate 2.81, strike rate 60.4
Bird: 88 matches, 372 wickets (4.23 per match), average 24.42, economy rate 3.02, strike rate 48.4

Abbott is vastly inferior to all three in nearly every area, with the only area that he's somewhat competitive in is his strike rate compared to Winter, and even then that's a bit of a stretch. He's not even in the top 5 seamers in his state anymore, Conway has surpassed him.
 
I think the Aus A selection was entirely based on the fact that NSW were already in WA when Richardson (I think) pulled out and he wasn't going to get selected with Starc, Hazlewood and Cummins all playing for NSW that game.

Nah Richo played as well. Abbott named in the initial squad.

 

Log in to remove this ad.

It wasn't an unreasonable question by stillatlarge. Don't see why it needed a passive aggressive reply. The combined batting average of the bottom four in the 1997 team was 77. The combined batting average of the likely boxing day bottom four is 80. It's a valid discussion. Not to mention that the 1997 tail didn't really start until 9, as Healy wasn't a tail ender. It was just a deep batting line up.
 
Still, he was never getting selected for NSW that game which was my main point. He should be nowhere near test selection.
Considering the strength of the rest of the team named, I highly doubt they picked Abbott for the convenience of it when they were happy to pull players from their shield team. As I've said above, I agree that he should be nowhere near selection but I reckon it's pretty clear the selectors rate him.
 
Why are you so against calling this a very strong tail? It's a stronger tail than the 97 one because any tail that has a player who averages under 10 part of it is clearly isn't a great one. Plus having Healy as part of the "tail" is disingenuous given he was a recognized keeper/bat that just so happened to bat at 8. Same with having Peter Burge, who had an average of 38 test cricket playing as a pure batsman.
Considering the strength of the rest of the team named, I highly doubt they picked Abbott for the convenience of it when they were happy to pull players from their shield team. As I've said above, I agree that he should be nowhere near selection but I reckon it's pretty clear the selectors rate him.
That's your opinion. Also I was disputing the fact that Abbott "deserves" a shot. He's had one okay season amongst many below par ones.
 
Why are you so against calling this a very strong tail? It's a stronger tail than the 97 one because any tail that has a player who averages under 10 part of it is clearly isn't a great one. Plus having Healy as part of the "tail" is disingenuous given he was a recognized keeper/bat that just so happened to bat at 8. Same with having Peter Burge, who had an average of 38 test cricket playing as a pure batsman.

That's your opinion. Also I was disputing the fact that Abbott "deserves" a shot. He's had one okay season amongst many below par ones.
abbott is an average fast medium. a long way down the list of test candidates imo.

thinking the kiwis will make it 1-1.
 
kiwi's never won in melb.

played 3 - won 0 lost 1 drawn 2

haven't played in melb since '87.

last 8 tours they have missed out on melb with SA (4), paks (2) india (1) and WI (1) getting preference.

ian smith crapping on that they deserve melb (and fair enough too), but they want to be home too as it's their summer.
 
ian smith crapping on that they deserve melb (and fair enough too), but they want to be home too as it's their summer.

They can have a Boxing Day Test at home every year if they want to … it just won't be against Australia. South Africa has the same problem, but the economic climate in cricket demands the Boxing Day Test is played in Melbourne.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

EMg3QuvUUAAUFhI
 
Pitch looks quite brown underneath - though a little fairer closer to the popping crease

Just hope there is something in it for all players.

Another can't score runs, can't take wickets pitch will be a snorefest - which the occasion needs better.
 
Think of a few other things to waste cash on!

Yeah, I reckon having a punt on this game is a bit of a lottery.

Depends massively on who wins the toss. Then you just never know what the weather will do. I realise the forecast says hot but who among us hasn't seen the Melbourne weather do weird stuff before.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top