The lack of variation is the weak link there. Fortune does not favour the wussy and both Pattinson and Harris do have off days.
Think picking Starc in a three man pace attack is more verging on the stupid that wussy, given the other options (let's not forget this is a guy who averages 34 in test cricket, and for the most part has looked every bit that mediocre). Variation for the sake of it shouldn't ever be the priority. First and foremost, pick the best attack possible, and if there's room to allow for variation (as in a 4 man attack) that's all the better.
How exactly has Bird proven himself better than Starc? It's pretty obvious the selectors don't agree.
Bird is still very much a work in progress (simply because he has only played 2 matches). But in those 2 matches he played, he did everything required of him and looked very much a proper, mature test match bowler with a plan. That's already more than Starc has shown in his handful of matches. Starc undoubtedly has shown glimpses of brilliance (and maybe what we can expect somewhere down the line), but he has never shown the consistency that is so crucial.
Yeah, I'm thinking you're going to be very disappointed come selection for the first Test. Short of Bird taking a bag in every warm-up he gets, he's very much a squad bowler and will remain so while Starc's taking wickets.
I'd like Bird to be picked, but regardless of what Starc does, I think they are probably going to pick Siddle anyway. I.e. Harris, Pattinson, Siddle.
Two more globes at the end of that Somerset scoreboard were my bugged out eyes. Wow. Pattinson, Siddle and one of Starc or Bird for the 1st test.
I'd think Starc's chances of playing increase with the knowledge Watson will be selected. Unless Starc plays there'll be four right arm seamers in teh attack with a right arm finger spinner, albeit Watson might not bowl many overs.
WWCC - Loyaulte Mi Lie
"People make me happy.. not places.. people"
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." - Samuel Johnson
"Hope is the fuel of progress and fear is the prison in which you put yourself" - Tony Benn
Wouldn't it be funny* if the XI we are playing in this game is the XI that we plan on playing in the First Test.
* This funny
I actually kind of thought that was funny for a little moment there.
Just on Starc taking too long to be a danger...
He has opened the bowling now in 11 test innings. In those 11 innings he never taken a wicket in his first spell.
In those 11 innings he has taken a wicket inside 30 overs twice, and inside 80 overs only 6 times. (22.4, 23.1, 32.3, 42.1, 51.6, 56.2)
2 of those 6 times he went on to take a 5-fer. In each instance his second wicket came after the 100th over.
To be fair he did take wickets in his first spell in three of 6 innings where he has come on as a first change bowler (his first three tests v NZ and WI) but failed to take any in two others.
When he gets it right there's no doubt he can destroy a lower order, but for mine he just doesn't do enough to threaten top order bats yet. He's got a future, but he's not the finished item yet and I think we have more dangerous options at the moment.
Last edited by adub; 27-06-2013 at 02:09 AM.
Patto, Siddle and Starc as the trio puts all the pressure on Patto to make inroads with the new ball. If Siddle has to play then Starc can't imo. Harris or Bird has to be the 3rd seamer because there no way we win with our batting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)