*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[flibbertyjibber]

If Bollinger is going to be left out for fitness reasons then what is he in the 13 in the first place for?

[Marcuss]

To give him as much time as possible to prove his fitness.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber

If Bollinger is going to be left out for fitness reasons then what is he in the 13 in the first place for?

It might be why the squad is 13 and not 12.

Honestly though, the only speculation I've seen to suggest Bollinger might not play in on CricketWeb. I'm pretty sure he'll be lining up with the new rock.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yeah, he does take it to absolute extremes sometimes, but I think people only find it infuriating because it makes it absolutely impossible for him to be proven wrong.

Siddle's a good bowler so if he's picked he could well perform well, but Bollinger's an even better bowler so it's more likely he'd perform well. Siddle getting picked and performing well wouldn't change the fact that Bollinger was the more likely of the two to do so originally - all it'd prove was that Siddle wasn't ****. If it's for fitness reasons it's fine, otherwise Bollinger should (and IMO will) play. I'd actually be more inclined to leave Hilfenhaus or Doherty out than Bollinger, personally.

Yeah, I think I'd agree. Hilfenhaus was a properly good (and very much underappreciated) bowler before his injury last year. It could be that I've only seen his bad spells since but he really hasn't been at the same level.

Doherty, meh. I'm not sure any of the spin bowlers available are better than Marcus North by enough to justify their inclusion ahead of Siddle at the Gabba. If it's a mistake not to play a specialist spinner it certainly wouldn't be as big a mistake as leaving out Bollinger altogether.

[flibbertyjibber]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

It might be why the squad is 13 and not 12.

Honestly though, the only speculation I've seen to suggest Bollinger might not play in on CricketWeb. I'm pretty sure he'll be lining up with the new rock.

I expect him to play and Hilf,Johnson,Watson and Doherty to be the rest of the attack.Anything different and i'd be surprised.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

There's still no reason to confirm that Doherty will play. Yes that's the likely plan but I could easily see them picking four seamers plus North/Smith. You'd say Siddle would be more likely to take wickets than Doherty regardless of the make-up of the attack.

I get the feeling North will essentially just bowl Watson's overs if Doherty doesn't play though, which is a step back in the quality of the fifth bowler.
To me it comes down to this: what's the best set of two bowlers out of Watson/Doherty and Siddle/North?
It's extremely close IMO but I'd lean towards the former in most conditions.

[Howe_zat]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I get the feeling North will essentially just bowl Watson's overs if Doherty doesn't play though, which is a step back in the quality of the fifth bowler.
To me it comes down to this: what's the best set of two bowlers out of Watson/Doherty and Siddle/North?
It's extremely close IMO but I'd lean towards the former in most conditions.

That's where we differ then, I still don't really rate Watson as a bowler to be honest.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

I'd have to agree with Dicko to some extent though, you have to be willing to criticise selections even if they turn out well or you'll give selectors with good players to choose from too easy a ride. You never get to see what the other guy would have done.

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Yeah, he does take it to absolute extremes sometimes, but I think people only find it infuriating because it makes it absolutely impossible for him to be proven wrong.

Sorry chaps, but that's bollocks and big hairy ones at that. It presupposes the correctness of one's own personal preference and, as Poos concedes, makes it impossible to be shown to be wrong. Bloke takes 10? My chap would've taken 15.

I'm quite prepared to criticise selections (would've gone for Ramprakash over Trott for the 5th test last year as an example), but when the chap I didn't pick performs I'm forced to concede that (hey) maybe I don't know it all and (yes) was wrong.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Howe_zat

That's where we differ then, I still don't really rate Watson as a bowler to be honest.

Watson's gone through lots of different phases and actions as a bowler but as it stands he's a bowler who's going to be really effective on a seaming deck or if the ball's reversing. He's not the fast, bouncy, aggressive bowler he was, who'd come on as a seriously good frontline ODI option and bowl back of a length in the middle overs, but I think he could be the most useful Test bowler he's ever been now (assuming something resembling full fitness). His spell for NSW the other day was a gem.

[Johnners]

Listening to an ABC grandstand interview with Hilditch on Saturday, I'm 95% certain Doherty will play. Basically said if a spinner's picked it will be Doherty, and that they'll almost certainly play a spinner at the Gabba. That said, it is Hilditch so who knows.....

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Sorry chaps, but that's bollocks and big hairy ones at that. It presupposes the correctness of one's own personal preference and, as Poos concedes, makes it impossible to be shown to be wrong. Bloke takes 10? My chap would've taken 15.

I'm quite prepared to criticise selections (would've gone for Ramprakash over Trott for the 5th test last year as an example), but when the chap I didn't pick performs I'm forced to concede that (hey) maybe I don't know it all and (yes) was wrong.

Well obviously you can't be "shown" to be wrong. There's no such absolute, unless you said something like "Siddle will take less than five wickets".

You definitely need to re-evaluate your initial judgments if the test presents some pretty good evidence that they weren't good. Hilfenhaus's performance in the first Ashes test last time out is a pretty good example. No one thought it was the right decision to pick him initially him a few overs in we all instantly saw why the selectors had done it. Except Dicko, who sticks rigidly to his initial judgments.

It's a pretty huge mistake to outright reject them too, though. There's an infinitely small chance that I would take ten wickets were I to find my long-lost Aussie father and turn out for the side badly jetlagged on Thursday- if that came to pass it would in no way make my selection correct.

Or to put it technically, you're just as much a fool as Dicko if you discard a hypothesis on the basis of one trial. One trial which you only know half the results of because no one gets to see the alternative.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by DeusEx

I think Doherty meets that criterion. He bowls a lot quicker than Hauritz, without sacrificing any turn and drift.

Yeah, I think I phrased that badly. Doherty seems more attacking than Hauritz.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Or to put it technically, you're just as much a fool as Dicko if you discard a hypothesis on the basis of one trial. One trial which you only know half the results of because no one gets to see the alternative.

Yeah, that's called having your cake and eating it. Until alternate realities are discovered we're just stuck with the old fashioned idea that when selectors pick players who perform they've made a good call. It takes a Dickinsonesque arrogance to then maintain the decision was wrong because the selection differed from the one he would have made.

Moreover, "one trial" is often all selectors have. I don't see anyone seriously contesting the selection of Trott for Bopara which was by necessity a call for one test only.

Re the matter at hand, I think, assuming full fitness, I'd be inclined to select Bollinger, however I still don't think it's as cut and dried as all that; we aren't talking about leaving out McGrath for Mick Lewis here.

[Spark]

It's probably worthwhile (2:30am and it shows, four attempts to spell that correctly and eventually had to resort to spell check, for shame) to distinguish between a selection itself - whose merits can only really judged on the results - and the justifications for it, which may be complete nonsense at the same time. A potential example could be North's last test.

This could also be nonsense, but again - it's twenty to stupid o'clock here.

---

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225958002792

Media are packing it in, aren't they? Expected to see something of substance, instead get a few vague lines and statements-of-the-obvious based on one fairly benign, predictable, and rather unimportant event. Then goes and makes other tired statements-of-the-obvious and vagueness/

EDIT: Haha it gets worse... quick snooping reveals their one source for their one statement of any substances is probably this. Sad that I was able to predict that so easily if so.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

Yeah, that's called having your cake and eating it. Until alternate realities are discovered we're just stuck with the old fashioned idea that when selectors pick players who perform they've made a good call. It takes a Dickinsonesque arrogance to then maintain the decision was wrong because the selection differed from the one he would have made.

Moreover, "one trial" is often all selectors have. I don't see anyone seriously contesting the selection of Trott for Bopara which was by necessity a call for one test only.

You're looking at this from a strange angle.. why are you so concerned with whether Dicko's initial prediction was wrong or not? We're just trying to judge whether the selectors' decision was good or not, and the point is that if you want to find out, it's best to look at more than just the results of it.