What happened to Australia?

[Jono]

Moneyball is awesome. Love that book.

But "the look" isn't what Goughy was suggesting tbf. I would argue that at school level Michael Clarke would have stood out as "the Golden Boy" look, i.e. this guy is going to be a star. He still looked like a pansy.

Yet alternatively Chris Gayle when young would have had the "powerhouse" look. This guys is going to absolutely dominate opposition teams.

Both had looks that stood out. Daresay most would take pansy Clarke over manly Gayle.

 

[Uppercut]

I know "the look" described in Moneyball isn't quite the same as the one Goughy would go for but the concept's pretty similar.

One thing that might be a bit of a difference between the two is that "muscular cricket" ties in with fielding whereas "the look" doesn't. I definitely think fielding's an underappreciated part of the game, and the bigger, fitter, better all-round athletes in cricket are almost always better fielders. It's been an area where Australia have, somewhat depressingly from a neutral perspective, really let themselves go.

If I was a selector the biggest difference I'd make would probably be leaving out poor catchers altogether almost regardless of their run-scoring ability- in the short-run it might hurt the team's chances of winning the next match but in the long run it could well make a big improvement because players up and down the country would work like dogs on their catching, knowing that without it they'd have no chance of making the test side. A side-effect of such a policy might well be seeing a lot more tough-looking, athletic cricketers in test cricket.

 

[Jono]

You reckon Ponting, Jonty Rhodes and Michael Clarke look tough and athletic?

 

[Uppercut]

It's a broad trend rather than a hard-and-fast rule, obviously. There'll always be exceptions, and while they don't look the toughest they still fit his idea of an athletic, competitive-looking player much better than Sourav Ganguly and Mohammad Yousuf.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Mohammad Kaif.

 

[Uppercut]

Mohammad Kaif.

On the subject, I really wouldn't be up for picking players based on exceptional fielding- I'd just be dropping some perfectly decent batsmen and bowlers purely on the grounds of exceptionally bad catching. There should be a well-defined lower limit with very few exceptions, and anything beyond that is normally just a healthy bonus.

 

[vcs]

It's all subjective. No one in his right mind is going to leave out Imran Khan, even if he was Australian, just because he didn't meet some minimum fielding benchmark.

BTW, Kaif was a highly, highly overrated fielder. Dropped so many catches.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Didn't suggest he was exceptional, just wanted to dismiss the notion of the fielder stereotypical 'look' that's being touted.

 

[vcs]

Didn't suggest he was exceptional, just wanted to dismiss the notion of the fielder stereotypical 'look' that's being touted.

Yeah, agree. Mark Taylor and Allan Border were also great fielders without looking naturally athletic.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yeah, also reed thin Ajit Agarkar has never dropped an outfield catch or speared in a poor return that I know of.

 

[Spark]

You reckon Ponting, Jonty Rhodes and Michael Clarke look tough and athletic?

Add to that Michael Hussey, Steve Smith, Marcus North...

 

[Xuhaib]

SA has had some of the toughest looking blokes Smith,Kallis,Boucher, Donald yet time and again when it has come to crunch they **** their pants.

 

[Burgey]

SA has had some of the toughest looking blokes Smith,Kallis,Boucher, Donald yet time and again when it has come to crunch they **** their pants.

This was sarcastic, yeah?

 

[Xuhaib]

This was sarcastic, yeah?

no really maybe was harsh on Smith since he does stand up to be counted during difficult times but time and again you see these so called tough blokes bottling a big game which they should have won.

 

[Burgey]

Oh yeah I agreed with that but I just didn't think those blokes "look tough" in the context of this thread