Selection errors tally thread

[Uppercut]

People are actually forgetting that Hilfenhaus was the man in possession - not Clark, so did Clark really deserve to be selected?

I never understand why the hell people take who the "incumbent" or "man in possession" is when picking a team. You just pick the best team. It's not like the selectors sit and go, "Hmmm. Well Clark's far better than Hilfenhaus, but we'll pick Hilfenhaus anyway, because we picked him last time when Clark was injured."

 

[Top_Cat]

I never understand why the hell people take who the "incumbent" or "man in possession" is when picking a team. You just pick the best team. It's not like the selectors sit and go, "Hmmm. Well Clark's far better than Hilfenhaus, but we'll pick Hilfenhaus anyway, because we picked him last time when Clark was injured."

I think you're aguing against something that doesn't happen, though. Incumbency isn't just and shouldn't be 'he played the last Test therefore he plays the next', more nuanced than that. Works when you're talking about similarly credentialled players, not when one is clearly better than the other. For example, you'd never have used incumbency with McGrath vs Brad Williams in 2004; as soon as McGrath was fit, he played.

As far as Clark vs Hilf goes, Clark had a fantastic start to his career, no doubt, but in the last year has either barely played or been arse when he has. The perception is that Hilf's bowling wasn't adequately reflected by his figures in SA. And, when you select a bloke, you want to back him a bit, especially when you reckon he's bowling okay but just not getting the returns yet. There's no reason to believe that Hilf's bowling is any different to that which got him in the squad to begin with whereas with Clark, there were (and are) heaps of doubts. That's why I reckon the selectors went with what they know rather than a combo of guesses about where Clark is at in terms of form/fitness + form from at least a year ago. To me at least, that's what incumbency is all about.

 

[Richard]

Seems quite strange then that the only wickets he took were a couple of lower order wickets. Even the cricinfo authors werent convinced: "However, Stuart Clark has some doubts, especially if slow and low pitches like this one are on offer around the country over the next two months. Like Johnson, he was unable to break through and tried not to grow frustrated at his lack of penetration, bounce or seam movement. Ponting loaded his fielders straight and until Lee started steaming the slip cordon was heavily trimmed."

Not sure when that report was written because he certainly had some spells of bowling moderately, but he had Moore dropped off a decent ball in his opening spell and bowled superbly without luck in his 3rd or 4th or so, before coming back to claim a couple of tail-end wickets which he frankly deserved.

He certainly bowled inestimably better than Johnson did. Johnson was utterly woeful.

Which is irrelevant because Clark grew up and played cricket in Australia not England.
And I can tell you for certain from experience that Bangalore in October (which was where he played the first test in India) is almost certainly not much warmer and perhaps cooler than a summer day in London.

If he cant handle bowling near the winter season in India, then one has to question whether he is in the right profession.

OK fair enough, as I say I'm no expert, but I wasn't suggesting that he had valid reason to not be able to handle it, merely that warm temperature and flat pitch = more difficult than moderate temperature and flat pitch. Which I don't see is really disputable.

You cant really be very nagging, if the wicket keeper is standing up to you and you dont have the requisite skills to get past the outside edge. Me and my grandpa could have scored runs against Clark in India, it has nothing to do with the quality of India's batting lineup.

I have to very much doubt it TBH. I didn't think Clark bowled dreadfully in India, he lacked penetration yes, but batsmen short of the outstanding (which India possessed very few if any of, even with Dravid in a rut at that time) might well still have got out to that sort of bowling.

 

[Richard]

As far as Clark vs Hilf goes, Clark had a fantastic start to his career, no doubt, but in the last year has either barely played or been arse when he has. The perception is that Hilf's bowling wasn't adequately reflected by his figures in SA. And, when you select a bloke, you want to back him a bit, especially when you reckon he's bowling okay but just not getting the returns yet. There's no reason to believe that Hilf's bowling is any different to that which got him in the squad to begin with whereas with Clark, there were (and are) heaps of doubts. That's why I reckon the selectors went with what they know rather than a combo of guesses about where Clark is at in terms of form/fitness + form from at least a year ago. To me at least, that's what incumbency is all about.

It'd be fair enough to bring out the "pick him and back him" mantra for Hilfenhaus if he'd played as a first-choice in SA, but he didn't - he (like Siddle) was only in the side because of the injuries to Lee and Clark.

As for his bowling in said SA series, it's amazing how opinion is divided. Some are adament he was very poor indeed, wasting helpful conditions by bowling too short and swinging the ball too early (optical illusion or not), some are adament he bowled very well and didn't enjoy the luck the rest did.

As for Clark being average when he has played, well, that's essentially been against India's high-class batting. I don't think you can expect anyone else around to play him as well as India - and in fact they haven't.

 

[Richard]

I never understand why the hell people take who the "incumbent" or "man in possession" is when picking a team.

Generally, the implication is that if someone is the incumbant, they're a part of the best team. Which is why as I said to Liam a few posts back, being "the incumbant" implies being a first-choice, not a makeshift injury replacement.

 

[aussie]

March, April and May are usually the warmest and most humid months of the year. Most schools in India have their summer breaks between March and May.

October comparable to April, here in Mumbai. November to February are most pleasant.

Fair enough, but looking at AUS 4 tours & England's 3 tours that i've seen since 98. For some reason Oct/Nov always seems hotter than Feb-Apr...

 

[Top_Cat]

As for Clark being average when he has played, well, that's essentially been against India's high-class batting. I don't think you can expect anyone else around to play him as well as India - and in fact they haven't.

McGrath found a way to bowl well in India without Warnie (essentially). He wasn't rank but didn't look like he was going to take serious wickets either. India batted fairly well last series but, for the most part, Clark was innocuous.

 

[Uppercut]

McGrath found a way to bowl well in India without Warnie (essentially). He wasn't rank but didn't look like he was going to take serious wickets either. India batted fairly well last series but, for the most part, Clark was innocuous.

Yeah, I think Richard's struggling to accept that Clark could (and I'm not saying this for certain, but it's a possibility) be completely past it. He knows that Clark was a better bowler than Hilfenhaus has ever been pre-injury, but that could have little bearing on where he is now.

 

[Richard]

McGrath found a way to bowl well in India without Warnie (essentially). He wasn't rank but didn't look like he was going to take serious wickets either. India batted fairly well last series but, for the most part, Clark was innocuous.

McGrath > Clark. However much they have in common, anyone who honestly thought Clark was going to be a reincarnate was always going to be disappointed.

McGrath is a once-in-several-generations bowler.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I think Richard's struggling to accept that Clark could (and I'm not saying this for certain, but it's a possibility) be completely past it. He knows that Clark was a better bowler than Hilfenhaus has ever been pre-injury, but that could have little bearing on where he is now.

I'd be quite happy to accept it if there were serious evidence pointing that way - I've said before that of times bowlers can simply lose it in almost an instant. But, as of yet, there's no evidence this has happened in Clark's case. I certainly don't rule it out, and if he ever gets picked again we'll see whether it has or not.

 

[Uppercut]

I'd be quite happy to accept it if there were serious evidence pointing that way - I've said before that of times bowlers can simply lose it in almost an instant. But, as of yet, there's no evidence this has happened in Clark's case. I certainly don't rule it out, and if he ever gets picked again we'll see whether it has or not.

Of course there has- that's why Australia aren't picking him. If it's clear that he's useless from net bowling and sub-standard warm-up games, why would they throw him into a test match to play badly there before dropping him? Particularly when in Hilfy there's such a capable replacement.

 

[Richard]

If it's clear that he's useless from net bowling and sub-standard warm-up games

I seriously hope this is an ironic comment. There's no way you can discern whether someone is bowling especially well or poorly from net form - nets are the place to learn new skills and repeat your existing skills thus making sure you keep them. Not to judge how good someone is or isn't.

And as I say Clark actually bowled pretty damn decently in the Lions tour game (far better than Johnson and, for a fair bit of the time, Lee, and absolutely certainly than Hauritz); how he bowled at Sussex I'm not sure nor do I especially care as it was a meaningless 12-a-sider. If he'd been hopeless in the tour games I'd not be repeatedly stating that he had a near-unequivocal place to play. I've always said "don't introduce\recall out-of-touch players".

 

[Top_Cat]

I seriously hope this is an ironic comment. There's no way you can discern whether someone is bowling especially well or poorly from net form - nets are the place to learn new skills and repeat your existing skills thus making sure you keep them. Not to judge how good someone is or isn't.

You're portraying your opinions as facts again......

 

[Top_Cat]

McGrath > Clark. However much they have in common, anyone who honestly thought Clark was going to be a reincarnate was always going to be disappointed.

McGrath is a once-in-several-generations bowler.

It's not rocket surgery. Not as if McGrath owns the secret to bowling well in India. Clark not being as good as McGrath doesn't fully explain his lack of wickets because Kasper, also inferior to McGrath and probably to Clark, found a way. Clark was just poor.

 

[Richard]

You're portraying your opinions as facts again......

Well I don't quite think so somehow - plenty of people can get away with saying precisely the sort of thing I just did without so much as one person complaining.

I just tend to provoke the "you're putting opinion accross as fact" response more than most.

Either way, it's well-acknowledged by many besides me that nets are places of learning not of trial. As well as some arguing otherwise.

 

[Uppercut]

You're portraying your opinions as facts again......

Indeed. I thought he looked completely ineffective and horribly down on pace in the warm-up game, and Hilfenhaus is evidently in good form. Richard's free to agree or disagree with that assessment, but he can't unequivocally state that "there was no case..." when there so blatantly is- just one he doesn't agree with.

 

[Richard]

It's not rocket surgery. Not as if McGrath owns the secret to bowling well in India. Clark not being as good as McGrath doesn't fully explain his lack of wickets because Kasper, also inferior to McGrath and probably to Clark, found a way. Clark was just poor.

Clark was moderate - I don't accept that he was out-and-out poor. Whether either McGrath or Kasprowicz would've especially excelled on the decks we were given and against the batting of that 2008/08 series we'll never know, because in 2004/05 things were different.

I maintain that to bowl well and be genuinely effective on those sorts of decks, against such a high standard of batting, would've been exceptionally hard. Zaheer Khan, and of times Ishant Sharma, bowled as well as I think anyone can really expect a seamer to in that series and still came out with a pretty high average.

Clark was far from outstanding in that series but there's no way he was as bad as some are making-out, IMO.

 

[Richard]

Indeed. I thought he looked completely ineffective and horribly down on pace in the warm-up game, and Hilfenhaus is evidently in good form. Richard's free to agree or disagree with that assessment, but he can't unequivocally state that "there was no case..." when there so blatantly is- just one he doesn't agree with.

I disagree completely that he was down on pace. He bowled several deliveries in the 86-87mph range - something I can't say I've ever noticed him do before. If anything he was up on pace.

And as for bowling well, as I say, I thought he gave it a pretty damn decent stab. No, he was never anywhere near as good as Lee was in that spell where he ripped through the top-order, but he was way better than anyone else, pretty much throughout.

 

[Top_Cat]

Either way, it's well-acknowledged by many besides me that nets are places of learning not of trial.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Means absolutely nothing to me. By that logic, the 75% of Americans who believe the CIA killed JFK are correct because there's lots of them.

 

[Uppercut]

Clark was moderate - I don't accept that he was out-and-out poor. Whether either McGrath or Kasprowicz would've especially excelled on the decks we were given and against the batting of that 2008/08 series we'll never know, because in 2004/05 things were different.

I maintain that to bowl well and be genuinely effective on those sorts of decks, against such a high standard of batting, would've been exceptionally hard. Zaheer Khan, and of times Ishant Sharma, bowled as well as I think anyone can really expect a seamer to in that series and still came out with a pretty high average.

Clark was far from outstanding in that series but there's no way he was as bad as some are making-out, IMO.

Shane Watson outbowled him too. Reverse swing was the key for Ishant and Zaheer, and Clark (along with Australia in general, bar that particular Watto spell) couldn't use it.

The concern regarding Clark is that he sometimes bowls perfectly well in terms of line and length but ends up with no wickets. It happens to him an alarming amount of late. You can blame it on conditions, and you'd have a point, but the first two tests of this series have been on exactly the type of surface's he's struggled on so there's certainly a case not to play him here.