Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
Well the point that they're trying to make - well, at least, the point I would try to make if I was using the FC record argument - is that there's not much evidence that Doherty is actually better than Hauritz. So if you had to pick between the two, why wouldn't you go for one who has a decent amount of test experience, has a decent test record despite his horrific FC one and already done well at test level against this very team?
Originally Posted by Peter Mooresforever 63*
I'd probably favour Smith at this stage, given the squad, as long as we didn't over-bowl him. Failing that I'd pick Doherty over Siddle - not because he's a better bowler (he's not even close) but because I don't think Siddle would offer much that more than bowling Watson as a genuine fourth seamer. Essentially, I think Watson/Doherty is a better set of bowlers than Siddle/North.
People seem to be acting as if Hauritz is conclusively the best spinner in the country and has been unfairly scapegoated for the loss in the India, but while the latter may be true, the former definitely isn't. All of them are a fairly similar level - I personally actually believe that Doherty's a little better than Hauritz, particularly given the recent change in his action - but there's not much in it either way. It's not like Hauritz spent five seasons in the Shield proving his worth by holding his place and averaging 30 odd - he's done just as little as all these other ****s.
I think it came down to a confidence thing in the end. Doherty's is sky high at the moment while Hauritz's is shot, and I said before, Doherty's a naturally confident cricketer even when things like grim anyway. If you get on top of Hauritz he can really lose it.
Last edited by Prince EWS; 20-11-2010 at 06:57 PM.
Yeah, I don't mind seeing Hauritz out. I think Doherty will go ok, but probably would've preferred a glance to the future with O'Keefe given a shot. If they're going judge someone purely on the last year and one decent international game, then O'Keefe did well against the England line-up and has been going pretty well in the shield.
Would prefer a bowler that will be more aggressive than Hauritz was. The idea that he was the 'incumbent', and thus should be given first go if a spinner is selected, is the exact mistake the selectors have been making over the past year or so.
Last edited by Son Of Coco; 20-11-2010 at 07:34 PM.
"What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
Someone soooo needs to make a Wheel of Mediocrity for Australian spinners....
RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012
Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
When you go 70 years with no pace averaging less than 29, come back and talk to me. The wheel came about because people were hyping the Next Big Thing despite having 70 years of history and the same cycle...with not a single success in terms of an 'elite' fast bowler. Dev the only one and he was very good rather than great or elite bowler.
In other words...two years is not a drought. And a few spinners is not a wheel.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)