Selection errors tally thread

[Richard]

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.

There is no unequivocal right and wrong answer - was merely stating that I'm not in a minority of one in considering what I consider. Are there really SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT!! of Yank'o's who believe that?

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Yeah, it's eerily similar to Gillespie's pre-Ashes '05 work. Was bowling accurately/economically but not taking wickets either. Was exposed by good batting and it's possible that's what would have happened to Clark here.

 

[Richard]

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.

My point though is that he's struggled under said circumstances only against India. Against lesser batting, he's still come, seen and conquered. Because lesser batsmen aren't always capable of repelling even something that's no more than good lines and lengths with no movement.

 

[Top_Cat]

There is no unequivocal right and wrong answer - was merely stating that I'm not in a minority of one in considering what I consider. Are there really SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT!! of Yank'o's who believe that?

That's the lowest figure, tbh. Up around 85% for a while. It's what prompted Vince Bugliosi to write his book. Amazing read, 1600+ pages and around 900+ in end-notes.

 

[Uppercut]

My point though is that he's struggled under said circumstances only against India. Against lesser batting, he's still come, seen and conquered. Because lesser batsmen aren't always capable of repelling even something that's no more than good lines and lengths with no movement.

You could be right, but there's hardly "no case" for picking Hilfy ahead of him. Clark bowling in India- a series I watched a lot of- certainly didn't look like good bowling being overcome by better batting. It looked like ineffective bowling being easily blocked.

On the subject of Clark, I feel much the same towards him as I do Sidebottom- that I'd be very disappointed if we never saw the best of him again, but we may just have to accept it. It's a shame when such a quality bowler is only good for a very short period of time.

 

[Richard]

With Sidebottom I see genuine reason to believe that. With Clark, I don't - at this minute. It is of course possible that this is so only because I've seen the overwhelming majority of Sidebottom's Test bowling in the last year; I didn't watch an enormous amount of the series in India. I did however watch Clark in West Indies in 2008 a decent bit and at home against New Zealand in 2008/09 (and as I say in the New Road tour game), and I wasn't unduly concerned - he seemed to me to be bowling moreorless as he always had. It's only against India in 2007/08 and 2008/09 that he's been genuinely innocuous.

If the rest of Australia's attack continue to bowl this dreadfully then he'll almost certainly get a recall at some point this series, and then we can maybe get a good and proper look.

 

[Uppercut]

With Sidebottom I see genuine reason to believe that. With Clark, I don't - at this minute. It is of course possible that this is so only because I've seen the overwhelming majority of Sidebottom's Test bowling in the last year; I didn't watch an enormous amount of the series in India. I did however watch Clark in West Indies in 2008 a decent bit and at home against New Zealand in 2008/09 (and as I say in the New Road tour game), and I wasn't unduly concerned - he seemed to me to be bowling moreorless as he always had. It's only against India in 2007/08 and 2008/09 that he's been genuinely innocuous.

If the rest of Australia's attack continue to bowl this dreadfully then he'll almost certainly get a recall at some point this series, and then we can maybe get a good and proper look.

We certainly will- and ftr, if we ever do get a real seaming track this series, I'll be much in favour of a recall in place of Hauritz.

 

[aussie]

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.

Clark role in India was never going to be the reverse swing bowler though, going into the series. Lee was the man intrusted with that role.

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.

The main reason why Clark looked lartargic in IND was because he had that elbow injury. Based on how he bowled on the equally flat decks in WI a few months earlier, that affecrted him in IND.

 

[Richard]

Clark role in India was never going to be the reverse swing bowler though, going into the series. Lee was the man intrusted with that role.

If Clark was really told "we want you to bowl with no threat whatsoever and just get blocked to high heaven" then you have to question both the strategism and Clark's failure to say "err, no, I don't think so somehow".

No, Clark did not bowl well in India (nor did he bowl appallingly mind), and he has to take a fair amount of the blame for that (there is some mitigation in the elbow injury). However, I don't think India alone proves Clark has lost it.

 

[aussie]

If Clark was really told "we want you to bowl with no threat whatsoever and just get blocked to high heaven" then you have to question both the strategism and Clark's failure to say "err, no, I don't think so somehow".

No, Clark did not bowl well in India (nor did he bowl appallingly mind), and he has to take a fair amount of the blame for that (there is some mitigation in the elbow injury). However, I don't think India alone proves Clark has lost it.

Haa, nah man. Clark role in IND has i said, would be just to do what he did in WI a few months before. That elbow injury clearly affected the zip he normally has in his bowling. He looked like McGrath in WI 03 in the two test he played in IND.

Too early to say whether Clark has lost anything. Seeing him in UAE & the Ashes warm-up are too vague to judge.

 

[Richard]

Well it's still to be absolutely confirmed but apparently Hughes has been dropped for Watson, who will open.

OK, before Watson has the chance to score 287* and make this diabolical decision appear a masterstroke in the minds of those who judge a selection purely on whether it was successful or not... who seriously believes that this decision is the right one?

Personally I can barely think of something that has less going for it in preferring as a Test opener a man who has done nothing of note on the tiny handful of occasions he's opened for his state to someone who has had basically a single bad Test after scoring runs at every level he's ever played at, as an opener?

 

[Burgey]

This is a massive, epic, humungous fail, and I don't care if Watson breaks Lara's record for the highest Test score in this game.

 

[Top_Cat]

What a tragedy; Aus's run of gruff looking opening batsmen has ended.

Oh yeah, they might lose the Test too. If they get on the park, that is.

 

[Jamee999]

Watson for Hughes is bad, Watson coming into the team isn't terrible. I wouldn't have done it, but it's not terrible. Would have made these changes overall:

Clark for Johnson
Harmison and Bell (/Tresco ) for Broad and Pietersen

 

[Top_Cat]

Watson for Hughes is bad, Watson coming into the team isn't terrible. I wouldn't have done it, but it's not terrible. Would have made these changes overall:

Clark for Johnson
Harmison and Bell (/Tresco ) for Broad and Pietersen

Sounds like an ice-cream company.

 

[andyc]

Well it's still to be absolutely confirmed but apparently Hughes has been dropped for Watson, who will open.

Get ****ed. Link?

Edit: Never mind, seen it. WTF Australia!???

 

[Jamee999]

Sounds like an ice-cream company.

Lol. Ian and Stevie's.

 

[vicky]

Strikes me as a massive fudge to keep Johnson in the side... Bringing in Watson gives Punter a bit of cover if johnson continues to struggle to hit the mown strip and Hughes' ilittle dip seems to have given the selectors the perfect excuse to shoehorn him in there

 

[Burgey]

Well I 've just posted a question on Neilson's blog asking him to confirm these ridiculous rumours are nothing more than media malarky. Of course, it's about 2 in the morning there so he won't reply. And I suspect I won't get the answer I'm after anyway.

 

[NUFAN]

I could understand Watson for North, but not Watson for Hughes.

Phillip is a champion, he'd come good, I have no doubt about it.