Originally Posted by pup11
AWTA, there is hardly anything to compare between Siddle and Pattinson, Siddle is a young fast bowler who looks like a good prospect in the making and is someone we would see a lot more of even in the future, you can easily make that out watching him bowl, as in Pattinson's case it was a meaningless selection, with Sidebottom's injury it was almost as if England selectors didn't knew what to do so they just picked this 29 year old bloke from nowhere and then started justifying his selection, as some stroke of genius.
White' selection is something that still makes no sense to me (even though to White's credit he seems to be trying to bowl the best he could in the current test series in India, and tbf he hasn't exactly embarrassed himself yet), but White hardly bowled any overs in FC cricket in the last two seasons, so to send him to India primiraly as a spin bowling option was a decision that i found hard to digest, i personally would have prefered Casson being sent as the replacement (no matter how lowly he is rated), but the Aussie selectors had a different way of thinking regarding this, so they did what they did.
Originally Posted by Richard
The thing is, though, this is Test cricket. It's not about what might be in future, it's about what is now.
Not the case here actually. The Aussies are playing 9 tests in the next 3 months and a shedload of cricket in the next 18 months. The selectors have to make selections with one eye on how they're going to juggle the team, especially the fast bowlers, to keep strong teams out on the park.
But besides that, he's got good recent form and is a style of bowler they think will do better on the pitch in question compared to some of the alternatives - there are sound immediate reasons for preferring him.
And ultimately, this is all just theoretical discussion. Looking at the reality, did he bowl well or badly today? And can we say that any of the alternatives would definitely done better?