The selectors

[Black Diamond]

Easy to be wise after the event but many warned we had an unbalanced side given the the facts are India played 2.5 and we played 1 and got duly butt screwed as a result.

From what I saw Pattinson was our only quick to bowl with any sustained control, and he took 6 wickets. You can't say the conditions are the reason we didn't bowl them out faster when we sprayed it all over the shop.

The selections were fine; their performances were not.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Best post on this thread by a mile.

Disagree. Look what happens to India when they pick fast bowlers on pitches like the WACA. They routinely get spanked because apparnetly Pissant Sharma is their best fast bowler...They're better off picking tweakers.

 

[Black Diamond]

If you're agreeing with me, I might have to rethink things.

You made a rubbish comment about Chris Rogers earlier today which I ignored. Balance restored.

 

[The_Reaper]

Disagree. Look what happens to India when they pick fast bowlers on pitches like the WACA. They routinely get spanked because apparnetly Pissant Sharma is their best fast bowler...They're better off picking tweakers.

They beat us in Perth a few years back right?

 

[Caesar]

You made a rubbish comment about Chris Rogers earlier today which I ignored. Balance restored.

Go Bushrangers!

 

[Bradesmaen]

They beat us in Perth a few years back right?

5 years ago yeah. But they picked a tweaker instead of 4 pacemen like we did. He took 4 wickets and our 4th paceman took 0.

 

[The Speaker]

Remember the days when the SCG turned? Some of you probably can't but I certainly can. We would regularly roll out a spinner hell any spinner and we would usually win. Peter Sleep, Murray Bennett, Dutchy Holland, Peter Taylor, hell even Border himself - all good bowlers in their own right but hardly in the Test Spinners Hall of Fame - yet they always played in tandem when we played on a deck that was going to turn.

Easy to be wise after the event but many warned we had an unbalanced side given the the facts are India played 2.5 and we played 1 and got duly butt screwed as a result.

It's the equivalent to turning up to a green wicket at Headingly on an overcast day and saying "spin bowling is our strength - let's play three" -it wouldn't happen and it shouldn't of happened here - pick sides according to form and conditions.

Except when we've tried multiple spinners in India it hasn't resulted in victory. Our only series victory came in a series with one spinner per Test.

 

[The_Reaper]

5 years ago yeah. But they picked a tweaker instead of 4 pacemen like we did. He took 4 wickets and our 4th paceman took 0.

They played Pathan as well though right?

IIRC he was opening.

 

[Bradesmaen]

They played Pathan as well though right?

IIRC he was opening.

They played 4 bowlers, RP, Pathan, Pissant and Kumble. Pathan batted 3 in the second innings.

 

[western royboy]

Ignoring stats is one thing - ignoring conditions is another and one we seem to keep making errors on. When in Rome...

 

[sherb]

Ignoring stats is one thing - ignoring conditions is another and one we seem to keep making errors on. When in Rome...

If you are not going to pick two spinners on that (goat) track, you are never going to pick two spinners.

History or no history.

It's the equivalent to turning up to a green wicket at Headingly on an overcast day and saying "spin bowling is our strength - let's play three" -it wouldn't happen and it shouldn't of happened here - pick sides according to form and conditions.

It certainly used to happen.

You would be familiar with the days when India used to roll out a trundler or two to take the shine off the new ball so that their 2/3/4 man spin attack could do their stuff?

Pretty much regardless of conditions.

 

[western royboy]

It certainly used to happen.

You would be familiar with the days when India used to roll out a trundler or two to take the shine off the new ball so that their 2/3/4 man spin attack could do their stuff?

Pretty much regardless of conditions.

I take your point - but we certainly haven't done it in my lifetime - up until now. Is it arrogance, lack of faith or pure stupidity and ignorance? I'm not sure.

 

[sherb]

I take your point - but we certainly haven't done it in my lifetime - up until now. Is it arrogance, lack of faith or pure stupidity and ignorance? I'm not sure.

I guess the West Indies used to do it in India, but their pace attack was exceptional.

I'm with you on this, surely you pick a side based on conditions, regardless of history.

If they serve up another track like that for the second test, we've got to take in a second spinner.

 

[Marshland]

Playing another spinner is a must.

 

[King Elvis]

ITT: People who overrate the impact of team selection.

I tend to think it's extremely important.

 

[Caesar]

Look, I love debating selection as much as anyone. But the truth is that a Test team with Bird instead of Starc or Maxwell instead of Henriques is, objectively, very very similar in terms of talent. You can make arguments about one player being a bit better than the other, or one player being more suited to conditions than the other, or one player batting at 3 instead of 5 being better, or this balance of players being better, but this is pissy little stuff in the grander scheme of things.

The truth is that regardless of what team you pick, the biggest difference at this level is who plays well on what day. And trying to predict that prior to the match when you're deciding between 2/3/4 pretty evenly matched players (i.e. 90% of disputed selection decisions) is, frankly, mostly voodoo.

Everything is sliding doors.

 

[The Passenger]

god i hope we pick doherty in the next test just so this argument can be put to bed.

i'll be happy to be proven wrong cause it means we might have a chance but i'd be shocked if doherty goes at less than 60 runs a wicket in the next test. i wouldn't be shocked if he goes at 100+

 

[King Elvis]

Doherty, bleh.

What the hell is the deal with S'OK's non-selection?

 

[The_Reaper]

Doherty, bleh.

What the hell is the deal with S'OK's non-selection?

Take away his match against WA and he has 9 wickets in 6 games at 39.

Still better than Doherty but hardly the figures that suggest he will suceed in India.

 

[western royboy]

Doherty, bleh.

What the hell is the deal with S'OK's non-selection?

There is a feeling that he's not the greatest bloke in the world - and I got that from a State Coach. I keep stressing that the faces have to fit to get into the set up and if you are offside with say the Captain or you are not noted as being a good tourist / team man then you might find your chances within the systen limited.

 

[MinerBoy]

187/9. All 19 wickets taken by spinners.

That's because India has good spinners and our batsmen can't play the stuff.

We could pick 11 spinners and still wouldn't bowl them out.

They beat us in Perth a few years back right?

And got done by an innings there last season.

 

[Hayesuel]

Take away his match against WA and he has 9 wickets in 6 games at 39.

Still better than Doherty but hardly the figures that suggest he will suceed in India.

I find that argument a total cop out. Take away anyones good performances and of course their stats arent as good as before.

Lets take away all of Clarke's 100's, his average isnt 50+ anymore. Wow what a surprise.

 

[The Passenger]

There is a feeling that he's not the greatest bloke in the world - and I got that from a State Coach. I keep stressing that the faces have to fit to get into the set up and if you are offside with say the Captain or you are not noted as being a good tourist / team man then you might find your chances within the systen limited.

it's interesting. whenever i've seen him interviewed he seems allright. but you don't know what they're like off the screen.

he was in my age group in the under age sydney comps. can't remember but i don't think i played against him. but IF he is a dickhead he would've fit right in with the NSW under age team culture of the time. There was a few blokes on this list that were very happy with themselves for a bunch of kids that had achieved 2/5ths of sweet **** all. (and ultimately only produced 2 first class cricketers. greg hunt is half a chance to pull a "timmy cruikshank" the way he has scored runs for st george in the last 24 months)

http://cricketarchive.com/Archive/E...002-03/New_South_Wales_Under-19s_Batting.html

 

[The Passenger]

I find that argument a total cop out. Take away anyones good performances and of course their stats arent as good as before.

Lets take away all of Clarke's 100's, his average isnt 50+ anymore. Wow what a surprise.

do agree with you to an extent but when it's one performance that brings up a persons performance it becomes a more valid argument. in saying that, you can take out o'keefe's game against WA and he is still probably the best performed spinner this season, and certainly over the last few years. lets not forget his 4/90-odd against England too.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

I don't necessarily have a problem with the selectors going with our strength and playing 3+1 fast bowlers. But it highlights the poor squad selection. We took over two specialist spinners, and 2 spin-bowling allrounders. But on a dry, dusty pitch that took spin from day one, we only played one of those spin-bowling options. What the hell are the others doing in the squad, then?

Ok, you could argue that Smith is there on the merits of his batting alone. But I'm pretty sure that doesn't apply to Maxwell. As for the specialists, if Doherty is so rubbish he can't get a game in the most spin-friendly conditions you could possibly find, then why is he even in the squad?

Notwithstanding the fact that Henriques ended up playing very well, but the team for the first test should have been either 3 pacemen + Lyon + Maxwell as the allrounder, OR 2 pacement + Lyon + Doherty + Henriques as the allrounder. If not, then either SOK or Hauritz should have been in the squad. Heck, maybe even Voges.