*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[MW1304]

Given the australian selectors logic, I'm surprised they didn't pick O'Queef ahead of Doherty. Left field selection; left armer; they have this in both. Plus Queefy has a better first class record and he can properly bat. Considering the spinner probs won't have much of a say at the Gabba, surely its best to have the 3 seamers plus Watto, and another bat in Queef, who seems a handy enough spinner. They even have decent part timers ffs. They obviously wanted to go somewhat left field, just seems like O'Queefy would be a much better option, by their logic.

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

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.

I don't give a **** about Dicko's initial prediction; I just find it wrong headed he continues to insist selectors are "wrong" when the evidence of the play suggests the contrary. We, the general public, aren't privy to selectorial meetings so we're only summising what the reasons might've been anyway.

To use the Oval test last year again as an example one could quite easily propose an argument along the lines of "Bopara was selected for the first four tests, if they thought he was the man for the job then, why change now?" but that's rendered rather redundant when the man who replaced him scores a debut 100. If you disregard the result (which is, ultimately the objective of sport) it becomes impossible to ever make a "right" or "wrong" call.

The problem is, when one looks at anything other than the bottom line, one makes a subjective judgement as to whether a selection was the "correct" one or not. Ultimately any selection is just an opinion; the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

To use the Oval test last year again as an example one could quite easily propose an argument along the lines of "Bopara was selected for the first four tests, if they thought he was the man for the job then, why change now?" but that's rendered rather redundant when the man who replaced him scores a debut 100. If you disregard the result (which is, ultimately the objective of sport) it becomes impossible to ever make a "right" or "wrong" call.

It is impossible to make a "right" or "wrong" call. That's the point. The "right" decision is the one that is most likely to turn out best for the team, right? We'll never even come close to knowing that most of the time, we can just make a vague estimate. An estimate that will generally be less accurate if all we look at is the result of the decision than it would be if we took other stuff into account. Such as whether the selectorial logic was sound or they just came out with bollocks like Bopara was selected for the first four tests, if they thought he was the man for the job then, why change now?

An acceptance that a decision that turned out badly wasn't necessarily a bad decision isn't the same thing as a stubborn refusal to accept that you might have been wrong.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Indeed. Lets not forget the Gabba pitch we saw a couple of seasons back when New Zealand toured.

India 03/04 too; pissed down all week, Zaheer Khan picked up 5 on a pitch where it was hard to differentiate the cut portion from the uncut portion, (ooer, missus, etc.* ).

Mind you, the Gabba ground has awesome drainage (QLD'ers know what they're doing when it comes to a deluge) so if the weather fairs up, the ground will dry out and the pitch will probably flatten quickly. Whether you bat first and endure a seamer's paradise on day 1 or bowl first and take advantage of good conditions will probably depends on the forecast for the week following Thu.

*(c)BoyBrumby 2009

[howardj]

Hardly a monsoon. ]

[Nnanden]

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.

Hilditch has essentially said that Doherty will definitely play. He will.

[sifter132]

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.

Michael Clarke in doubt for the first Test | The Australian

In this article it's mentioned that Dougie might be on the bench. I'm officially worried if Siddle and Smith replace Clarke and Bollinger...Please be fit guys. In that case there might even be a 4th quick bowler played (Harris? Cameron? Copeland?) with Smith and North the main spinners. Reason being...article also mentions Watson having a potential twinge as well. Along with Clarke's back and Katich's shoulder scare for NSW the other day, the backup bowling perhaps won't be all it could be.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Nnanden

Hilditch has essentially said that Doherty will definitely play. He will.

Haha yeah, he made it as obvious as possible. "If a spinner plays, it'll be Doherty." .... "We'll be picking a spinner."

[Burgey]

Said on the radio this morning that Dougeh is on the outer. FFS though, who knows? Worst time is the week leading up to the first test... Just dire as.

[GIMH]

Every time I read about aussie selection I get a bit happier

5-0 England

[Julian87]

Not playing Doug isn't just bending over, it's that + giving consent sans lube.

[robelinda]

Ive never seen so much team speculation and worry before any Aussie test match, ever! Insane. Thursday cant come quick enough so the damn cricket can start.

[howardj]

Siddle runs in all day though

Big heart

etc etc

lol

[simmy]

Re: Aussie selections... did I miss something?

O'Keefe looked really good with bat and ball and IIRC his bowling avg is less than 26 and his batting over 50!? Doesn't Doherty seem a bit ordinary with a FC average to prove it?

[GotSpin]

This selection process is so dire