Page 170 of 180 FirstFirst ... 70120160168169170171172 ... LastLast
Results 2,536 to 2,550 of 2691
Like Tree35Likes

Thread: *Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

  1. #2536
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,155
    We clearly see different things.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  2. #2537
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    6,219
    Siddle goes the journey, not just about pace and accuracy and all those things we talk about in fast bowlers, it's about the second innings of a pressure match where Siddle is still charging in giving it his absolute all, and somehow he is still taking wickets when other bowlers aren't. Siddle doesn't sound like much compared to the rest of our pace battery, but he brings something to the able that other bowlers don't IMO.
    There are two colours in my head

  3. #2538
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Well assuming you watched the two games Bird played, I'd be curious as to what you did see then, and how that was worse than Siddle?

  4. #2539
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl;lsFJg/s
    Posts
    28,428
    Starc is not better than Siddle. He has bucketloads of ability but as a bowler right now he is terrible. All Siddle needs to be better than Starc is not bowl three half volleys or long hops every over.

    Bird has been on the international scene for two and a half seconds. We haven't seen enough to get a good gauge.

    Harris is better but can't put together two series in a row so it's irrelevant.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh


  5. #2540
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,155
    See, here's the problem; you're looking to judge the better quick like it's a game of ICC, who bowls the bigger outie, faster, etc. So much more to the profession and who should be selected than that. Bird has potential but there's a lot to be said for a bloke who takes 150-odd Test wicket and averages < 30 when everyone's had a good look at him and knows exactly how he operates. He's no genius but neither is Bird, their methods are very similar. So what if he outbowled Siddle for a couple of Tests; Siddle's been doing it for years now. That alone deserves respect at the selection table.

    You can't put Bird above Siddle because of two Tests. He bowled well, no doubt, but he's far less accomplished than Siddle at the moment. And, as I said before, the younger blokes can come in and throw everything at the oppo because they have the reliable **** at the other end. Siddle's plenty quick enough and if he had someone reliable at the other end, he'd arc up. But it's clearly not his role.
    Last edited by Top_Cat; 03-07-2013 at 03:57 AM.

  6. #2541
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,051
    Stop making sense.

  7. #2542
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post

    Bird has been on the international scene for two and a half seconds. We haven't seen enough to get a good gauge.

    Harris is better but can't put together two series in a row so it's irrelevant.
    That's a fair enough point with regards to Bird, but if you wanna go down that path, by the same token you can't say he isn't as good as so and so. You can only say he's an unknown quantity. I personally don't think you need much time at all though (at least relatively) to know if a bowler is going to be the goods. It's not like judging batsmen, where they can play 30 games before you know if they have what it takes. It's hard to tell just how good a bowler could be, but I definitely think someone like Bird will be of test standard, and probably a fairly high standard at that.

    I thought the context was going into this first test (maybe I'm wrong), so the Harris point would be a bit moot then. If he is a better bowler for any given test, then you play him over Siddle if it comes down to it.

  8. #2543
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    See, here's the problem; you're looking to judge the better quick like it's a game of ICC, who bowls the bigger outie, faster, etc. So much more to the profession and who should be selected than that. Bird has potential but there's a lot to be said for a bloke who takes 150-odd Test wicket and averages < 30 when everyone's had a good look at him and knows exactly how he operates. He's no genius but neither is Bird, their methods are very similar. So what if he outbowled Siddle for a couple of Tests; Siddle's been doing it for years now. That alone deserves respect at the selection table.

    You can't put Bird above Siddle because of two Tests. He bowled well, no doubt, but he's far less accomplished than Siddle at the moment. And, as I said before, the younger blokes can come in and throw everything at the oppo because they have the reliable **** at the other end. Siddle's plenty quick enough and if he had someone reliable at the other end, he'd acr up. But it's clearly not his role.
    This **** right here.

    So he bowled too short in a tour game, so has everyone. He knows when the critical moments are and when to take his game to the next level.

    Remember Adelaide last year? Clarke bowled him into the floor knowing he was our best bet to get du Plessis and de Villiers. He was limping off by the end.

    It might be worth noting that neither Harris nor Bird have bowled a ball in anger at a first-class oppo this tour. Let's see how they go.
    Last edited by LongHopCassidy; 03-07-2013 at 04:05 AM.
    "The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.

  9. #2544
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Top_Cat View Post
    See, here's the problem; you're looking to judge the better quick like it's a game of ICC, who bowls the bigger outie, faster, etc. So much more to the profession and who should be selected than that. Bird has potential but there's a lot to be said for a bloke who takes 150-odd Test wicket and averages < 30 when everyone's had a good look at him and knows exactly how he operates. He's no genius but neither is Bird, their methods are very similar. So what if he outbowled Siddle for a couple of Tests; Siddle's been doing it for years now. That alone deserves respect at the selection table.

    You can't put Bird above Siddle because of two Tests. He bowled well, no doubt, but he's far less accomplished than Siddle at the moment. And, as I said before, the younger blokes can come in and throw everything at the oppo because they have the reliable **** at the other end. Siddle's plenty quick enough and if he had someone reliable at the other end, he'd acr up. But it's clearly not his role.
    Yeah I can totally appreciate that perspective, but I don't see how you can use that to say "Nah no way are Starc and Bird ahead of him {from a wicket-taking pov]". You can only say Siddle is a more tried-and-tested option, and use that as the primary reason for selection, but that doesn't say anything about Bird's potential to take more wickets.

  10. #2545
    School Boy/Girl Captain
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    under
    Posts
    102
    Pattinson, Harris and BIrd as the frontline quicks is a risk on evidence, all three having broken down of late and one, we know, needing to manage a chronic injury. If Harris goes down mid-test, a workhorse to pick up overs would be a huge help. But preparing for a rainy day ahead of fielding your most dangerous quicks is a negative mindset and I can't imagine under Boof they'll be thinking this way, unless our numbers are telling us it's odds on. But then, catch 22. Fascinating selection quandaries everywhere.

  11. #2546
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    Yeah I can totally appreciate that perspective, but I don't see how you can use that to say "Nah no way are Starc and Bird ahead of him {from a wicket-taking pov]". You can only say Siddle is a more tried-and-tested option, and use that as the primary reason for selection, but that doesn't say anything about Bird's potential to take more wickets.
    Point taken but there's a lot of unanswered questions about Bird that we already have in Siddle. Bird has never faced a clutch situation, we don't know about his temperament when batsmen are on top, and a great deal of this argument is based in conjecture that we're holding back the next McGrath by sticking with a very good bowler of whom our last memory of is bowling at a dominant opposition in entirely unhelpful conditions.

    EDIT: I thought Bird played in Hobart, my bad.
    Last edited by LongHopCassidy; 03-07-2013 at 04:20 AM.

  12. #2547
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    6,219
    Quote Originally Posted by 3703 View Post
    Pattinson, Harris and BIrd as the frontline quicks is a risk on evidence, all three having broken down of late and one, we know, needing to manage a chronic injury. If Harris goes down mid-test, a workhorse to pick up overs would be a huge help. But preparing for a rainy day ahead of fielding your most dangerous quicks is a negative mindset and I can't imagine under Boof they'll be thinking this way, unless our numbers are telling us it's odds on. But then, catch 22. Fascinating selection quandaries everywhere.
    I read somewhere that the back injury bird had was the first major breakdown he ever had, so he is probably not too risky. As for the negative mindset, an injury cost us one test against SA and almost another against SL, I don't think it's that negative tbh.

  13. #2548
    International Captain Ruckus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    7,108
    Quote Originally Posted by 3703 View Post
    Pattinson, Harris and BIrd as the frontline quicks is a risk on evidence, all three having broken down of late and one, we know, needing to manage a chronic injury. If Harris goes down mid-test, a workhorse to pick up overs would be a huge help. But preparing for a rainy day ahead of fielding your most dangerous quicks is a negative mindset and I can't imagine under Boof they'll be thinking this way, unless our numbers are telling us it's odds on. But then, catch 22. Fascinating selection quandaries everywhere.
    Well that's the thing for me. It's a risk, but I would be taking it. I think the result of the first game is going to be pretty crucial, and it will be very bad if we lose it. I really think we need to win the first game to stand a chance, because confidence levels and old demons will return very quickly after a loss. Our team really needs to get into a winning mentality again and to do that I would be playing, what I think, are the three bowlers most likely to take wickets cheaply. Don't have much faith in our batsmen putting up match winning totals, so to counter that we will have to prevent England doing so as well.

  14. #2549
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,155
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    Stop making sense.
    Then like my post, ****. I have so few!

  15. #2550
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruckus View Post
    Yeah I can totally appreciate that perspective, but I don't see how you can use that to say "Nah no way are Starc and Bird ahead of him {from a wicket-taking pov]". You can only say Siddle is a more tried-and-tested option, and use that as the primary reason for selection, but that doesn't say anything about Bird's potential to take more wickets.
    Yes it does!



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Home Ashes to return to free-to-air TV
    By four_or_six in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 17-11-2009, 10:11 AM
  2. Ashes Coming Home
    By SurreyFan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28-09-2009, 05:41 AM
  3. Herald Sun's Top 50 Ashes Legends
    By The Sean in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 17-07-2009, 01:53 PM
  4. The Google Ashes
    By superkingdave in forum Ashes 2009
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 30-06-2009, 01:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •