Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt79
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.
|
I'm never a fan of picking teams because "so-and-so might get injured". If injuries, or rest requirements, happen, you deal with them when they do, not pick a weakened team at the start of a series (or intense programme) in order to get the better players in later.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I don't think there's any sound reason to think such a thing though. From what I've seen in these few overs, Siddle actually looks quite a similar bowler to Noffke.
Quote:
|
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?
|
That's a different matter. Selection should never be judged in hindsight, otherwise any old guess could potentially turn-out to look like an inspired judgement. What matters as far as judging how good a selection was is not what ends-up happening (though obviously bad selections produce a poor result more often than good selections) but how good the reasoning was.
BTW, how well did he bowl today? Not that well. How well would Noffke have done? Absolutely no possible way to have the slightest clue.