The selectors

[Hayesuel]

Snip

I think you've just address mine and a lot of people's concerns surrounding squad/team selection. If the selections spoke for themselves and we still failed then there wouldn't be nearly as much discussion.

Regarding SO'K, interesting sub plot there surrounding him being a bit of a dick. Wouldn't surprise me. Cricket is also very political even at the lowest echelons of grass roots level cricket, im talking like under 12's/14's etc. Often it's who your mates are/with that determines a lot of rep level sides. Systematic of most codes and levels really. SO'K may have found himself on the wrong side so no matter his results he will never get a look in.

 

[The_Reaper]

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.

He'd be the second best behind Hauritz and certainly still better than Doherty.

I do think it's valid to take one match against WA out because WA are completely hapless.

 

[Hayesuel]

He'd be the second best behind Hauritz and certainly still better than Doherty.

I do think it's valid to take one match against WA out because WA are completely hapless.

Can only play what's put in front of you. Try telling Matty Hayden his 380 v Zimbabwe doesnt count.

 

[The_Reaper]

Can only play what's put in front of you. Try telling Matty Hayden his 380 v Zimbabwe doesnt count.

Yeah
Point remains that WA are the only side that O'Keefe has played particulary well against this year.

He has 8 wickets in one game against WA and 9 in 6 games against everyone else. This is not encouraging. There is a reason there are no Western Australians in even our weak test batting lineup.

 

[The Passenger]

Can only play what's put in front of you. Try telling Matty Hayden his 380 v Zimbabwe doesnt count.

uggghhh, i was so happy when brian lara reclaimed that record against england.

nothing against hayden, although he comes across as very self important, but it just looked shit having that record score against zimbabwe

 

[Hayesuel]

Yeah
Point remains that WA are the only side that O'Keefe has played particulary well against this year.

He has 8 wickets in one game against WA and 9 in 6 games against everyone else. This is not encouraging. There is a reason there are no Western Australians in even our weak test batting lineup.

I take your point, consistency must be the cornerstone for any selection. But when you're already scraping the bottom of the barrel, overlooking his results based upon the strength or lack there of of WA, let alone overlooking him for Doherty in the first place is simply ludicrous.

It's also at odds with Inverarity's public policy (which i think is a good one and should have been re-implemented long ago) of rewarding young players with consistent results with squad selections like the recalling of Hughes and Khawaja.

I think we need to get away from trying to blood Australian players in the ODI side as a curtain raiser to their ability to play test cricket however that's another story altogether. Doherty isn't in form, and his ODI and 20/20 form should not count towards his test selection imo.

 

[The_Reaper]

I take your point, consistency must be the cornerstone for any selection. But when you're already scraping the bottom of the barrel, overlooking his results based upon the strength or lack there of of WA, let alone overlooking him for Doherty in the first place is simply ludicrous.

It's also at odds with Inverarity's public policy (which i think is a good one and should have been re-implemented long ago) of rewarding young players with consistent results with squad selections like the recalling of Hughes and Khawaja.

I think we need to get away from trying to blood Australian players in the ODI side as a curtain raiser to their ability to play test cricket however that's another story altogether. Doherty isn't in form, and his ODI and 20/20 form should not count towards his test selection imo.

Don't get me wrong. I amazed that Doherty was selected over O'Keefe.

Doherty would kill to be able to take more than a wicket a game.

I just don't think O'Keefe is going to be the savior that some think he will.

 

[courtjester]

Selection for a team in India is pretty easy imo. Must play two spinners. With Henriques in the team, you only need two quicks:

Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
A batsman who can play spin
Henriques
Paine/Hartley+ (a keeper who can keep to spin)
O'Keefe
Pattinson
Siddle/Bird
Lyon

 

[The_Reaper]

Selection for a team in India is pretty easy imo. Must play two spinners. With Henriques in the team, you only need two quicks:

Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
A batsman who can play spin
Henriques
Paine
Hartley+ (a keeper who can keep to spin)
O'Keefe
Pattinson
Siddle/Bird
Lyon

Paine and Hartley?

 

[Hayesuel]

Don't get me wrong. I amazed that Doherty was selected over O'Keefe.

Doherty would kill to be able to take more than a wicket a game.

I just don't think O'Keefe is going to be the savior that some think he will.

Agreed. Doherty comes across as a limited but honest campaigner, a good bloke trying to make the best of where he's at. Not his fault he got selected.

Questionable whether SOK would make a significant impact, however i think you'd have to say he would go better than Doherty.

 

[courtjester]

Paine and Hartley?

Meant one or the other

Paine/Hartley

 

[Outshined]

I just don't think O'Keefe is going to be the savior that some think he will.

Hopefully not too many people think this, but it boils down to the fact that he's the best we have. The outright refusal to pick a guy who averages 27 in the Shield and to instead pick Doherty on the back of 3 wickets in a game against SL (while averaging 80.00 this season in FC cricket) is perplexing. SOK might have also got pasted, but at least he'd have a reasonable claim to actually being in India.

Either Inverarity etc are just as idiotic as the previous regime, or there is something below the surface that is preventing an obvious choice from getting a chance.

 

[The Passenger]

SOK might have also got pasted, but at least he'd have a reasonable claim to actually being in India.

ultimately this.

cue doherty coming in and taking 6 for -_-

 

[Team DJ]

Selection for a team in India is pretty easy imo. Must play two spinners. With Henriques in the team, you only need two quicks:

Warner
Cowan
Hughes
Clarke
A batsman who can play spin
Henriques
Paine/Hartley+ (a keeper who can keep to spin)
O'Keefe
Pattinson
Siddle/Bird
Lyon

Surely Watson opens ahead of Cowan.
Aside from that, spot on. Apart from the fact that Birds tour is done.

 

[Caesar]

Surely Watson opens ahead of Cowan.

Why? He's currently scoring less runs than Cowan, and Cowan has a very successful opening partnership with Warner.

 

[Team DJ]

Why? He's currently scoring less runs than Cowan, and Cowan has a very successful opening partnership with Warner.

Because Watson isnt a middle order player, hes an opener. Put him at the top and his average goes up by 10.
Cowan looks like hes going to get out every ball. No matter how "set" he is. And he cant play spin.

 

[Outshined]

ultimately this.

cue doherty coming in and taking 6 for -_-

I've been trash talking him that much that I'm fully expecting a Clarke-like debut.

Because Watson isnt a middle order player, hes an opener. Put him at the top and his average goes up by 10.
Cowan looks like hes going to get out every ball. No matter how "set" he is. And he cant play spin.

The can't play spin argument applies just as much to Watson as it does to Cowan. Not sure why people are so keen to break up the statistically best opening partnership in cricket.

 

[Team DJ]

I've been trash talking him that much that I'm fully expecting a Clarke-like debut.



The can't play spin argument applies just as much to Watson as it does to Cowan. Not sure why people are so keen to break up the statistically best opening partnership in cricket.

Statistics mean eff all if you arent winning
Watson is a better bat then Cowan. So if you can only have one in the team Watson wins every time.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

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.

Given some of those in the team who come across as total douchebags (most especially Warner), maybe you have to be a total dick to be "in the club".
Sort of the reverse of the Swans "no dickheads" policy, CA might have "dickheads only" policy. That would at least explain their sports science people.

 

[Outshined]

Statistics mean eff all if you arent winning
Watson is a better bat then Cowan. So if you can only have one in the team Watson wins every time.

We haven't exactly been doing terribly. Going from the start of Clarke's captaincy, we've tied with RSA in South Africa, beaten India 4-0, lost 1-0 in a series we had plenty of opportunity to win, beaten all others we were supposed to (except for NZ). Not too many people thought such an inexperienced and poorly selected squad would prosper in India.

And Watson is barely a better bat than Cowan atm. His last century was in 2010, and his average over the last few years has been poor for a supposed top order batsman. Not defending Cowan in that regard either, but I have my doubts over Watson being the leap up that some people think he will be, especially when Warner and Cowan have done quite well together.

 

[Team DJ]

We haven't exactly been doing terribly. Going from the start of Clarke's captaincy, we've tied with RSA in South Africa, beaten India 4-0, lost 1-0 in a series we had plenty of opportunity to win, beaten all others we were supposed to (except for NZ). Not too many people thought such an inexperienced and poorly selected squad would prosper in India.

And Watson is barely a better bat than Cowan atm. His last century was in 2010, and his average over the last few years has been poor for a supposed top order batsman. Not defending Cowan in that regard either, but I have my doubts over Watson being the leap up that some people think he will be, especially when Warner and Cowan have done quite well together.

Not like Cowan is turning 30s into hundreds either.
Watson offers far more to the team as a whole and with the bat then Cowan. Cowan is a good shield player.

Watson would average about 10 more runs batting 1 then he does 4.

 

[Caesar]

Because Watson isnt a middle order player, hes an opener. Put him at the top and his average goes up by 10.
Cowan looks like hes going to get out every ball. No matter how "set" he is. And he cant play spin.

Does it really?

In his last year as an opener (2011) Watson:
- averaged 24 runs off 41 balls per innings
- made one 50
- failed to reach 10 in 50% of his innings.

In his first year as an opener (2012) Cowan:
- averaged 34 runs off 79 balls
- made one 100 and five 50s,
- failed to reach 10 in 20% of his innings.

Also in Cowan's favour is that:
- Cowan and Warner have a very successful partnership
- Cowan is a more complimentary partner for Warner

Now if Watson had experienced some sort of massive renaissance in form in the last year that suggested putting him back at the top of the order would have him averaging 45 again, then I'd be all for it. But if anything, his form has just got worse.

In his first 3 innings back in the middle order, Watson made 39, 52 and 56. So he can clearly make runs there - in fact, it initially looked like moving him to the middle order was a good move, taking the pressure off him and allowing him to score more freely. But since then he has only made it past 30 twice (41 against the WI and 83 against Sri Lanka in Melbourne).

Watson had an amazing opening partnership for several years with Katich, no doubt. But that was a long time ago. I'm not a big fan of selecting players based on runs they made 2 years ago, when they've done very little since. Even if they are the vice-captain.

 

[The Passenger]

Given some of those in the team who come across as total douchebags (most especially Warner), maybe you have to be a total dick to be "in the club".
Sort of the reverse of the Swans "no dickheads" policy, CA might have "dickheads only" policy. That would at least explain their sports science people.

you could be on to something there. just wanting to get my weekends back was primary reason for giving up cricket in the middle of last decade. but there was a lot of blokes floating around grade cricket thinking they were the absolute shit. if i'm going to dedicate every summer weekend to the game i'd rather spend it playing with and against good blokes.

some of the stories you hear of grade cricketers not going to coaching clients unless they're slung a few hundred bucks for 2 hours work. give me a break. we used to run an under 6 (or 8's, can't remember) coaching clinic every saturday morning and each week one grade had to supply 3 players. 25 weeks a year meant every grade had 5 weekends a year so you'd cover the entire club over a season. when i first got left school we would have an 80%+ turn up rate. Less than five years later it below 50% and the last I heard this had been scrapped cause players weren't turning up.

 

[Outshined]

Not like Cowan is turning 30s into hundreds either.
Watson offers far more to the team as a whole and with the bat then Cowan. Cowan is a good shield player.

Watson would average about 10 more runs batting 1 then he does 4.

Caesar has pretty much summarised my whole argument. This 10 run figure is coming from a good 4-5 seasons ago, and can't be used as justification for his inclusion over Cowan. More to the point, his most recent form as an opener is disappointing to say the least. I'd also like to know what exactly it is that Watson is offering despite his batting. He's not bowling, he's an average slipper, and most of us cringe at the thought of him even as VC leading the side.

He and Cowan are in exactly the same boat, they both need to start converting, but Cowan benefits from the fact that he and Warner have forged a successful opening partnership.

 

[BarneyBent]

So...