Tait: Test return "not out of the question

[Cooldude]

Well, if Tait strings together a couple of games and maintain his fitness then he would add variety to the attack. There's one thing though, we cannot play with only four bowlers if Tait's in the side. He should be used in short bursts and bowl less than most of the other bowlers.

 

[ShearMagic9]

Test's don't really suit him.

He's at his most effective in short four or five over bursts.

He'd only be able to bowl 13 or 14 overs in a day that were of any use.

 

[baba ganush]

He's been beset by injury for most of the time throughout the last few years, though, making that achievement not as impressive as fanboys like you would have me believe.

He's played a lot of games for someone injured most of the time.

Like I said, his injury-prone ways make him more difficult to select, not less. Do you comprehend that?

Nope.

Besides, you said that he's been the most consistent and dangerous bowler in the shield for several years. He hasn't. He would probably take that title in 2004/05, but in no other season.

Take the stats over that period of time and he most definitely has.

At any rate, those stats alone don't indicate that he's been consistent from game-to-game. His 2007/08 stats are indicative of this. He was immensely destructive in one game, taking 10/98 and taking 1/185 in the next.

Bowlers get spanked sometimes. It happens. McGrath had off games.

Let's face it, his bowling style makes him enormously inconsistent and injury prone. If I have to hammer this into your head, I will. It makes him difficult to select, unless a supersub rule is introduced.

Yet Lee's managed 300 Test wickets with no ability to swing the ball and plenty of shit Tests. Your argument is weak.

This coming from somebody who speaks about Tait as if he's bereft of any flaws? Give me a break.

Oh, rubbish. Tait isn't ready now, but this talk that he's not a Test prospect is ridiculous.

Besides, Mitchell Johnson's Test performances are much better.

Mitch's first couple of Tests weren't much better than Tait's. He was actually embarrassing against India in Australia.

 

[DaRick]

He's played a lot of games for someone injured most of the time.

Really?

He took under 15 wickets in 2005/06 and 2007/08. This must be indicative of him often getting injured a lot of the time over the past few years (or otherwise absent). In fact, he might've gotten injured before the 2006/07 Ashes too.

His injury record, admittedly, looks better before 2005/06.

Nope.

Well, I'm a persistent bugger.

Take the stats over that period of time and he most definitely has.

I'd have to look thoroughly into that.

Bowlers get spanked sometimes. It happens. McGrath had off games.

True. However, in general, you'd have to say that Glenn McGrath didn't have very many off games. He's a paradigm of consistency.

Shaun Tait, on the other hand, is the kind who'll have one spectacular game and have many games where he looks terrible.

To prove my point, I'll line him up with Mitchell Johnson, who has a roughly similar FC record (difference is <1) and who himself still lacks consistency.

Shaun Tait: 50 FC games - 198 wickets at 28.59 - 17 4fers, 7 5fers and 1 10fer. He has an impressive 4 fer rate, yet an average which is merely good. Like I said, the boy has severe problems with consistency.

Mitchell Johnson: 43 FC games - 159 wickets at 29.47 - 9 4fers, 4 5fers and 2 10fers. A similar FC average to Shaun Tait, yet far fewer 4fers and above.

Yet Lee's managed 300 Test wickets with no ability to swing the ball and plenty of shit Tests. Your argument is weak.

Funny. I didn't realise that this discussion was about Brett Lee.

However, Lee could certainly generate outswing (although not much), inswing (though often poorly directed) and reverse swing.

Brett Lee also averages 31 and took 300 wickets over 75+ games. We should probably expect more from Shaun Tait.

Brett Lee was never as injury prone as Shaun Tait has been in recent years (although he did have plenty of problems) and he has a classical bowling action, not an unorthodox one.

Shoaib Akhtar is another one with an unorthodox action and another who gets injured a lot.

Making Shaun Tait more difficult to select is his lack of worth with the bat and in the field. At least Brett Lee can hold a bat and field competently in the outfield.

Oh, rubbish. Tait isn't ready now, but this talk that he's not a Test prospect is ridiculous.

For him to be a Test prospect, there'd have to be a whole spate of injuries all at once and he'd have to retain fitness and interest in the game for an extended period of time. I'm not sure that'll happen.

Mitch's first couple of Tests weren't much better than Tait's. He was actually embarrassing against India in Australia.

Shaun Tait and Mitchell Johnson debuted under vastly different circumstances. Shaun Tait had to lead a bowling line-up during a losing Ashes series, while Mitchell Johnson was a third wheel behind Brett Lee and Stuart Clark. Johnson's stats were much better, but Tait had tougher circumstances to contend with.

I don't believe that Mitch was embarrassing against India in Australia. He was, overall, middling. He did have a few embarrassing moments (i.e - Sydney first innings and Perth second innings), but not enough to draw that long a bow.

Now, Shaun Tait was embarrassing against India in Australia, in both innings of the Perth test match.

I must add that I have nothing against Shaun Tait. If he proves me wrong about his lack of suitability to Test matches, then more power to him (and you). I won't be dissappointed.

 

[baba ganush]

Really?

He took under 15 wickets in 2005/06 and 2007/08. This must be indicative of him often getting injured a lot of the time over the past few years (or otherwise absent). In fact, he might've gotten injured before the 2006/07 Ashes too.

Wow, two seasons were he had injuries. Remarkably bad.

True. However, in general, you'd have to say that Glenn McGrath didn't have very many off games. He's a paradigm of consistency.

Shaun Tait, on the other hand, is the kind who'll have one spectacular game and have many games where he looks terrible.

That hasn't been true of his FC career at all.


To prove my point, I'll line him up with Mitchell Johnson, who has a roughly similar FC record (difference is <1) and who himself still lacks consistency.

Shaun Tait: 50 FC games - 198 wickets at 28.59 - 17 4fers, 7 5fers and 1 10fer. He has an impressive 4 fer rate, yet an average which is merely good. Like I said, the boy has severe problems with consistency.

Mitchell Johnson: 43 FC games - 159 wickets at 29.47 - 9 4fers, 4 5fers and 2 10fers. A similar FC average to Shaun Tait, yet far fewer 4fers and above.

Seems to me I'd prefer a strike bowler who actually strikes.

Funny. I didn't realise that this discussion was about Brett Lee.

However, Lee could certainly generate outswing (although not much), inswing (though often poorly directed) and reverse swing.

Brett Lee also averages 31 and took 300 wickets over 75+ games. We should probably expect more from Shaun Tait.

Should we? Not the way you've been talking.

Brett Lee was never as injury prone as Shaun Tait has been in recent years (although he did have plenty of problems) and he has a classical bowling action, not an unorthodox one.

Holy shit. Are you joking? Lee has been as prone to injury as they come.

Shoaib Akhtar is another one with an unorthodox action and another who gets injured a lot.

And yet you'd pick him every day of the week (off-field problems aside)

Making Shaun Tait more difficult to select is his lack of worth with the bat and in the field. At least Brett Lee can hold a bat and field competently in the outfield.

He's no worse than Siddle or Hilfy.

Shaun Tait and Mitchell Johnson debuted under vastly different circumstances. Shaun Tait had to lead a bowling line-up during a losing Ashes series, while Mitchell Johnson was a third wheel behind Brett Lee and Stuart Clark. Johnson's stats were much better, but Tait had tougher circumstances to contend with.

Mitch's stats actually weren't 'much better'. But anyway.

I don't believe that Mitch was embarrassing against India in Australia. He was, overall, middling. He did have a few embarrassing moments (i.e - Sydney first innings and Perth second innings), but not enough to draw that long a bow.

He was embarrassing, and he got savaged worse even than Tait on this board.

Now, Shaun Tait was embarrassing against India in Australia, in both innings of the Perth test match.

Not at all. Ponting's use of him was embarrrassing, and most commentators have recognised that.

I must add that I have nothing against Shaun Tait. If he proves me wrong about his lack of suitability to Test matches, then more power to him (and you). I won't be dissappointed.

Why slag him so much then?

 

[DaRick]

Wow, two seasons were he had injuries. Remarkably bad.

Two seasons out of three, which is quite bad. In fact, I think he may've even gotten himself injured in 2006/07.

Seems to me I'd prefer a strike bowler who actually strikes.

Strike rate is a funny thing. Not only it is not a reliable indicator of average, but the lower your strike rate, the higher your economy rate. For instance, Patterson Thompson (really wayward West Indian bowler) has a wonderful Test strike-rate.

The thing is, that stat proves Tait's lack of consistency. He's quite capable of taking a big haul, but then he'll go for runs without taking many wickets.

Should we? Not the way you've been talking.

Look, if Tait isn't part of our best Test XI (in other words, if he can't exceed Lee's overall average of 31 when others can), then why have him in the side? He should be able to exceed that average, given his FC stats and all.

Holy shit. Are you joking? Lee has been as prone to injury as they come.

Hey, I'm not denying that he's had his problems with injury - but he still looks durable next to Tait.

From what I recall, Lee has required surgery or had season-disrupting injures once every 2 or 3 years (2000/01, 2003/04, 2006/07, 2008/09). Tait has had a season-disrupting injury nearly every season since 2005/06.

The workload on Brett Lee, having to play international cricket, has arguably been greater, too.

And yet you'd pick him every day of the week (off-field problems aside)

If available, then yes. The fact is, he's missed more Tests than he's played. I fear that the same will apply to Tait.

He's no worse than Siddle or Hilfy.

Actually, Siddle has a better FC average and has looked a semi-decent tailender in Test matches. Tait, AFAIK, hasn't. You're right about Hilfenhaus, though.

Mitch's stats actually weren't 'much better'. But anyway.

Um, yes they were.

Mitch averaged 30 after two tests against SL whilst Tait averaged 42 after two tests against England. However, Tait debuted in far more difficult circumstances than Mitch, having to lead an ailing bowling line-up during an Ashes series, so its difficult to compare their Test matches.

He was embarrassing, and he got savaged worse even than Tait on this board.

Again, I maintain that he had his embarrassing moments, but that he was generally sound. Cricinfo, a website which has never really had a pro-Australian outlook, agrees.

I am aware that he was savaged mercilessly on here, but that's as more of an indictment of the knee-jerk nature of this board, if you ask me. He got savaged more than Tait because he played more, BTW.

Not at all. Ponting's use of him was embarrrassing, and most commentators have recognised that.

Ponting's captaincy in that match was embarrassing in general. He handled all of the bowlers badly, not just Tait. Why? Because he was constrained by over-rates.

However, Brett Lee and Stuart Clark rose above that and bowled admirably. Tait was unable to.

I feel that the last over he delivered on the second day summed up how he bowled during the match - erratic and generally toothless. It was truly depressing to see rabbits like RP Singh feast on him on the 3rd day.

Why slag him so much then?

I have a right to criticise Tait. I just don't see him being a viable Test bowler right now, because he gets injured easily, is highly inconsistent and is not particularly good in the field or with the bat. He'd be hard to select, TBH.

I still recommend his inclusion in the 20/20 and ODI formats, though. His performance in Melbourne recently solidifies that argument. Why reduce the number of potential ODI's he can play by forcing him through Test matches where there is more chance of him getting injured?

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Not convinced with Tait at Test Level although when you have arsy tail enders batting all day you wouldnt mind having him in the side to shake some these arsey bastards up.

 

[baba ganush]

Two seasons out of three, which is quite bad. In fact, I think he may've even gotten himself injured in 2006/07.

He's played more than 3 seasons. Do you know how many injuries Johnson has had?

Strike rate is a funny thing. Not only it is not a reliable indicator of average, but the lower your strike rate, the higher your economy rate. For instance, Patterson Thompson (really wayward West Indian bowler) has a wonderful Test strike-rate.

The thing is, that stat proves Tait's lack of consistency. He's quite capable of taking a big haul, but then he'll go for runs without taking many wickets.

What a ridiculous and desperate comparison. Thompson? A strike-rate over two Tests is not comparable to a 50-game first-class career.

If you're going to dole up that absolute shit and claim it's a valid argument, don't bother coming back.

Look, if Tait isn't part of our best Test XI (in other words, if he can't exceed Lee's overall average of 31 when others can), then why have him in the side? He should be able to exceed that average, given his FC stats and all.

Well do you expect him to come in and dominate instantly?

Hey, I'm not denying that he's had his problems with injury - but he still looks durable next to Tait.

From what I recall, Lee has required surgery or had season-disrupting injures once every 2 or 3 years (2000/01, 2003/04, 2006/07, 2008/09). Tait has had a season-disrupting injury nearly every season since 2005/06.

The workload on Brett Lee, having to play international cricket, has arguably been greater, too.

Lee hardly looks durable next to Tait.

If available, then yes. The fact is, he's missed more Tests than he's played. I fear that the same will apply to Tait.

Yet you'd still pick him. That's the point.

Actually, Siddle has a better FC average and has looked a semi-decent tailender in Test matches. Tait, AFAIK, hasn't. You're right about Hilfenhaus, though.

Siddle's FC career is not really long enough to make a decision on that.

Um, yes they were.

Mitch averaged 30 after two tests against SL whilst Tait averaged 42 after two tests against England. However, Tait debuted in far more difficult circumstances than Mitch, having to lead an ailing bowling line-up during an Ashes series, so its difficult to compare their Test matches.

Which was my point. So 'no, they weren't'.

Again, I maintain that he had his embarrassing moments, but that he was generally sound. Cricinfo, a website which has never really had a pro-Australian outlook, agrees.

I am aware that he was savaged mercilessly on here, but that's as more of an indictment of the knee-jerk nature of this board, if you ask me. He got savaged more than Tait because he played more, BTW.

They based it more on feeling sorry for him, if you read that. If you bowl someone relentlessly, often they'll pick up a wicket or two.

Ponting's captaincy in that match was embarrassing in general. He handled all of the bowlers badly, not just Tait. Why? Because he was constrained by over-rates.

However, Brett Lee and Stuart Clark rose above that and bowled admirably. Tait was unable to.

You're comparing a third gamer with a long time out to Lee and Clark? Lee and Clark were treated a hell of a lot better. Tait was in a tough enough situation as it was, he wasn't given any chance to get into a rhythm and when he was brought on he was made to bowl into the wind.

He was treated by far the worst, and you'll find most commentators agree.

I feel that the last over he delivered on the second day summed up how he bowled during the match - erratic and generally toothless. It was truly depressing to see rabbits like RP Singh feast on him on the 3rd day.

He was well and truly lacking confidence, it was obvious.

Rabbits sometime do feast on quality fast bowlers, look at Murali. Silly point.

I have a right to criticise Tait. I just don't see him being a viable Test bowler right now, because he gets injured easily, is highly inconsistent and is not particularly good in the field or with the bat. He'd be hard to select, TBH.

I still recommend his inclusion in the 20/20 and ODI formats, though. His performance in Melbourne recently solidifies that argument. Why reduce the number of potential ODI's he can play by forcing him through Test matches where there is more chance of him getting injured?

Because he's a once-in-a-generation bowler. Like Akhtar, you pick him when fit because of what he offers. Particularly when Lee is gone. Which, hopefully, is very soon.

 

[DaRick]

He's played more than 3 seasons. Do you know how many injuries Johnson has had?

Of course Tait has played more than three seasons. I was talking about his three most recent seasons.As for Mitchell Johnson, he is an interesting case. He did get injured a hell of a lot when he was younger, but I cannot remember him getting injured for a prolonged period of time since 2006 or so, when he first appeared in the side. He's been dropped, but that's obviously not the same thing. He hasn't been as bad as Tait in that regard, as of late. In terms of injury record, he reminds me of Jason Gillespie.

What a ridiculous and desperate comparison. Thompson? A strike-rate over two Tests is not comparable to a 50-game first-class career.

Hey, way to knock down a straw-man there.I wasn't even trying to compare Tait to Thompson. Like you say, it'd be lunacy to do so.I was trying to point out how overrated a bowler's strike rate is. I mean, it tells you practically nothing about how good a bowler's test career has been. It just tells you how quickly a bowler takes wickets. It is not a reliable indicator of economy rate, average or anything else, really.I mean, looking at Patterson Thompson's strike rate without examining the number of Tests he played, you'd think that he had a great career, right?

If you're going to dole up that absolute shit and claim it's a valid argument, don't bother coming back.

The way you twist and obfuscate my arguments, its a wonder why I dole up anything, TBH.Seriously, calm the hell down.

Well do you expect him to come in and dominate instantly?

No, but he's been very disappointing so far.

Lee hardly looks durable next to Tait.

LOL.

Yet you'd still pick him. That's the point.

I also failed to point out (as I should've) that Shoaib Akhtar is generally a superior bowler to Tait, IMO. For instance, Shoaib is more accurate and has more variety (i.e - his slower balls are far more effective).

Siddle's FC career is not really long enough to make a decision on that.

Hmm...I still think that Siddle looks more assured at the crease than Tait. He's certainly more aggressive.

They based it more on feeling sorry for him, if you read that. If you bowl someone relentlessly, often they'll pick up a wicket or two.

I'm not so sure. They didn't show any mercy to Stuart Clark or Matthew Hayden, who were both saddled with ridiculous ratings. Mitch also (Sydney and Perth second-innings excepted) tended to pick up four or so wickets when bowled relentlessly, explaining his OK (but not great) average.

You're comparing a third gamer with a long time out to Lee and Clark? Lee and Clark were treated a hell of a lot better. Tait was in a tough enough situation as it was, he wasn't given any chance to get into a rhythm and when he was brought on he was made to bowl into the wind.

True in the first innings, but not in the second, when Ponting treated every bowler badly (remember that period when he bowled Clarke/Symonds instead of Clark/Lee due to over rates?). Then again, the way that Tait bowled during those spells, he did little to inspire confidence, either.

He was treated by far the worst, and you'll find most commentators agree.

Yes, but who are these commentators?

Rabbits sometime do feast on quality fast bowlers, look at Murali. Silly point.

Well, it must be said that Murali is (for all his lack of batting sense and technique) a far more effective and destructive batsman than RP Singh.RP Singh is, TBH, a rabbit in the McGrath class. A special kind of rabbit, in other words. But never mind. It was still very depressing to watch.

Because he's a once-in-a-generation bowler. Like Akhtar, you pick him when fit because of what he offers. Particularly when Lee is gone. Which, hopefully, is very soon.

He is at his best, yes - which is rather infrequent. As for Lee, I hope he returns to his best, but the possibility of that is slight, TSTL.

 

[Zarrix]

Tait is a shock bowler, and of course, an extremely inaccurate one. However, I think this is just as suited, if not more suited to tests. Because first of all, his rubbish won't be called for wides (well except the REAL bad stuff), so 5 mediocre deliveries probably wont cost too much and if that other delivery is absolutely brutal, thats a few wickets right there. Also swing.

However fitness is a major question. ATM he cant seem to bowl more than 1 over at full boil, so thats no good at all. Fit, he may be an asset to the test team, but until he is, he shouldnt be considered.

 

[aussie1st]

Rubbish can still be hit to the fence as we have seen during the Ashes and what happens with Lee and Johnson. Pace can work in your favour but also against you as all they need to do is put bat on ball and it can race to the fence. He would have to return to his Shield form that saw him taking a lot of 5 fers to even be considered and then there is still a question if he can succeed at the next level.

 

[Zarrix]

Pace in ODI'S can work against you, as an edge can very often go straight to the boundary, but if you get an edge in tests, or only a little bit of bat on it, unless its going down leg side, it should be going straight to the slips.

 

[scooterselwood]

hopefully he bounces back fast.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Not fit enough, not even close to fit enough, cant bowl 4 overs in a row FFS.

Not good enough either to be honest

 

[likka]

Pathetic how Tait refused to play shield cricket when fit, but now is determined to play in the IPL despite currently being injured.

Cricket Australia have had to step in and ban the selfish greedy prick from playing injured for the Warnie's Royals.

 

[grizzlym]

I’d like to think that if you’re playing first class cricket, fit and consistently getting results then you’ll be a considered for test selection.

Obviously a handful of other criteria comes into it too. Like you’ve kicked your free-basing problem. And short pitch bowling is now only slightly less scary than scamming a Russian mobster’s granny out of her life savings.

All that being said, I know who I’d want in my side out of a fully fit Siddle or Tait.

And if I was king of the world - I’m working on that at the moment, so expect an announcement soon - for Tait to get anywhere near the test squad he’d need to be playing a cart-load of 4-day cricket and getting good results. I won’t write him off, but gee, he’s got a lot of ground to cover before he'd get anywhere near it. Let alone challenging a guy like Siddle.

 

[baba ganush]

Pathetic how Tait refused to play shield cricket when fit, but now is determined to play in the IPL despite currently being injured.

Cricket Australia have had to step in and ban the selfish greedy prick from playing injured for the Warnie's Royals.

Someone is jealous and sweaty.

 

[likka]

Someone is jealous and sweaty.

Nah, I felt nothing but contempt when I read the story.

Absolutely shameful that he let his SA team mates down during the season by opting out of shield matches when fit, but is willing to play injured and risk long term injury for IPL cash. This sort of person shouldn't play a team sport. His only concern purely himself, nobody else.

Selfish prick has the integrity of Bernie Madoff, especially after CA stuck by him financially after he walked away from the game mid season cos he was tired.

 

[davey_magik]

I used to like Tait but he's a pea-hearted fool who obviously doesn't care about playing for his country.

 

[Chris25]

Because there is no chance he wanted to play in the IPL, in order to prove his fitness and get a spot in the Australian squad for the 20/20 World Cup.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Actually he wanted to play in the IPL but Cricket Australia ruled him out.

 

[Chris25]

Yes, Cricket Australia ruled him out because they didn't think he was fit enough. Which hopefully means they don't want to risk him ahead of the World Cup.

I just think it's stupid to be saying Tait only wanted to play in the IPL for the money, because Tait seems like he would be one of the last people to do things just for money. Otherwise I doubt he would walked away from the game, as he would have lost a fair bit of money in match payments and sponsorship then. I don't see what him missing some games for SA months ago has to do with anything, as that was a fair while back.

Obviously the money is a big part for everyone in the IPL, but I'd think Tait was wanting to play to get a spot in the World Cup squad. I suppose when you don't like a player, you jump at every opportunity though.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Yes, Cricket Australia ruled him out because they didn't think he was fit enough. Which hopefully means they don't want to risk him ahead of the World Cup.

I just think it's stupid to be saying Tait only wanted to play in the IPL for the money, because Tait seems like he would be one of the last people to do things just for money. Otherwise I doubt he would walked away from the game, as he would have lost a fair bit of money in match payments and sponsorship then. I don't see what him missing some games for SA months ago has to do with anything, as that was a fair while back.

Obviously the money is a big part for everyone in the IPL, but I'd think Tait was wanting to play to get a spot in the World Cup squad. I suppose when you don't like a player, you jump at every opportunity though.

I think most players are playing in the IPL for the money, and why shouldn't they be allowed to ply their trade?

What is this notion that players "are only doing it for the money". Cricket careers don't last forever and the players should be allowed to get as much money as they can before they move on to the next stage of their life. Anyone else in the normal workforce would jump at the chance for a pay-rise, why should cricketers be treated any differently?

Tait isn't in the game purely for the money, as shown when he walked away to recover both mentally and physically. Tait is a gun though, i hope he plays for us in the 20/20 world cup, im hanging out for a fixture against India. I want revenge.

 

[Andronicus]

tait is the sally robbins of cricket.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Well, that adds a lot to the topic.

Thank You Very Much Indeed Sir.