Should we play 4 quicks and no spinner in 3rd Test against India?

Should we go into the 3rd test match with 4 quicks and no spinner?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mr Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Posts
16,001
Likes
7,608
AFL Club
Richmond
I reckon Stsrc has more upside than all of them.

Apparently there are some other good young bowlers like McDermott on the way to. Looking good!!
 

Blue and Gold Blood

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Posts
5,133
Likes
1,813
Location
perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
west coast
Thread starter #131
NO NO NO AND NO

I'm sick and tired of changing the side due to knee jerk reactions over one innings...pathetic.

MCG is a hole for spinners, and India plays spin like shelling peas. SCG is the best ground for spinners in the country and you want to drop one? Nice logic

Imagine if we had this attitude when Warnie started - wouldn't get a game...
Wrong
Won't be near as green as it was for the Ashes series. Even if, absolutely not.
Wrong
We've played 4 Fast men in Perth twice in the past 4 years - against India and England. Didn't work against India, although you could argue Tait was a poor selection then. Whilst we won against England, 2 bowlers took 18 wickets between them. Whilst it worked for the Windies for a long time, history shows that there's very little 4 fast bowlers can do that 3 cannot. A spinner provides an excellent point of difference and can give the quick men a break.
wrong
We need Lyon to develop into a quality test spinner.

And that means one who is able to bowl against the best opposition and in a variety of conditions.

These test against India and the game in Perth are crucial for his development. If he can survive and contribute at times this series then we've got a keeper. Plus he'll improve no end bowling in this series.

Hide him away and we're taking the wrong path IMO.
wrong
Awful thread, even if Lyon does get some tap in Sydney/Perth.
wrong.


Starc claims tendulkar. And now has twice as many wickets as Lyon, in half the amount of innings.

Gee who would have thought 4 pace bowlers at the WACA would work? :eek::):thumbsu:
 

Mr Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Posts
16,001
Likes
7,608
AFL Club
Richmond
Seriously guys going forward 5 bowlers is not out of the question.

Siddle can bat a bit, Watson, Starc looks like he can bat, Pattison likewise apparently so a few more bowlers that can chip in like Harris and Hilfenhaus is not stupid as it may think if we can find a good weekykeeper that can bat!!

I think in 4 years time when Pattison and Starc improve this is not out of the question particularly if some other star allrounders emerge!!
 

aussierulesrules

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Posts
27,001
Likes
45,888
Location
Heaven. I mean Victoria.
AFL Club
St Kilda
The simple fact is that we could have gone in with 4 "quicks" in every test so far this summer (as all 5 pitches have really suited pace over spin) and if we had done so, we probably wouldn't have lost in Tassie and would most likely have won all the other games (bar the Brisbane test, where Nathan Lyon got some wickets and here, where we have the 4) in even more convincing fashion.
It's a great option to have up our sleeves and I hope we employ it much more from now on (unless Lyon, or someone else who bowls spin, starts bowling "out of their skin").
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DaRick

Premiership Player
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Posts
3,520
Likes
2,075
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
(See avatar)
I did have misgivings about having Starc play (probably due to memories of Shaun Tait), but he's proven me wrong this time around - good for him. He's been erratic at times, but he's also swung the ball fairly regularly. He's probably not yet worthy of being more than the fourth quick in the lineup (as NZ proved), but that will change if he delivers more of these performances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom