Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourthcricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
Personally i think Hilfenhaus over Clark was an excellent decision. For a start, he's a full 10mph faster at the moment. Second, there was plenty of swing around and very little seam. Third, Hilfenhaus is bowling brilliantly at the moment. Fourth, his fitness is a lot less suspect.
It's not what I'd have done (although I may have felt differently if I had the knowledge the selectors had) but it's still looking like a great call (and very ballsy too, as the reaction on CW demonstrates).
It's not an error, it's that the selectors have knowledge that we, and the world's press don't have, eg how is Clark's fitness, how has he been bowling in the nets, how has Hilfy been bowling etc. Just because something is a 'surprise' to most informed opinion doesn't make it an error.
And while you can dismiss 'hindsight', the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and so far Hilfy has bowled very well, so no way has this been an error.
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
I've maintained all my life that picking someone on net form is pure folly. The nets are a place to improve your game, not to assess how good your game is. Clark bowled damn well in the Lions tour game; Hilfenhaus was, rightly, adjudged to be sufficiently far down the pecking-order to not play.
The only acceptable reason for Clark's non-selection is that he's not up to the desired fitness levels.
I've seen you argue this before. I disagree completely. A selection should be judged on what it has going for it at the time said selection is made, with no consideration given to what happens thereafter because no-one can ever have any means of coming close to knowing that. Otherwise picking Graeme Hick in 1996 would be adjudged to be a mistake, when it quite patently wasn't.And while you can dismiss 'hindsight', the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and so far Hilfy has bowled very well, so no way has this been an error.
Hilfenhaus bowling very well is to his full credit, but in no way to the selectors' or indeed anyone else's.
Last edited by Richard; 08-07-2009 at 05:10 PM.
Completely disagree on both your points there. The selectors owe no one any explanation - the only accountability that they are subject to is whether the team they choose plays well. We KNOW they are privy to info we don't have, and the only sensible conclusion is that something in that info led them to prefer one bowler over the other. The only way
to judge wheter that preference was correct is what the
preferred player produces.
As much as we like to play at being selectors from our armchair, in the early stages of a tour we simply don't have the info to do it as well as the selectors, or to condemn them for their calls. It's a bit different on issues of team balance, like taking two or one spinner or five or six batsmen, but even then it's fraught.
How can this be justified? No-one knows how a player is going to perform. Are you honestly suggesting that if a player performs poorly he was a poor selection and if he performs well he was a good one?We KNOW they are privy to info we don't have, and the only sensible conclusion is that something in that info led them to prefer one bowler over the other. The only way to judge wheter that preference was correct is what the preferred player produces.
That's akin to saying that someone who walked into a minefield knowing it was a minefield when he could have walked somewhere he knew wasn't made the right decision just because he happened not to step on one and get blown to bits.
I don't accept that the selector always knows better and that the armchair pundit should never criticise. Not at all. That someone is paid to do a job doesn't mean they're always better at it than someone who isn't.As much as we like to play at being selectors from our armchair, in the early stages of a tour we simply don't have the info to do it as well as the selectors, or to condemn them for their calls. It's a bit different on issues of team balance, like taking two or one spinner or five or six batsmen, but even then it's fraught.
**** me, glad someone got it.
I dont think there should be a debate on whether the selectors picked Hilfenhaus ahead of Clark. Hilfy should have always been Lee's replacement & Clark should have been playing ahead of Hauritz.
As unlikely as it is, if Panesar takes 12 wickets, and England win the game, it makes it the right decision
I don't see how anyone could say to the face of the selectors and say "you were wrong" if that happened.
Same with Hilfenhaus. At the end of the test, if he's taken 9-for, and been very tight, and Australia win largely because of his bowling, even if Clark was 100% fit, it was the right move... providing that Clark wouldn't have likely done better.
Its not always hindsight, sometimes its just "wow, they figured this would happen whilst we didn't".
For the record I wouldn't have done either, but I find it hard to call out the selectors when what they do is proven right. So if it does happen, you can't have a go at them for it.
Last edited by Jono; 08-07-2009 at 10:24 PM.
"I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."
Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)