I can see the logic in dropping him, though. Yes he took a bag in India but there was little in his bowling that game to suggest he'd turned a corner. Mainly he did as he's done elsewhen, take advantage of great conditions for spin (which does make him valuable in and of itself, of course). On a pudding slow deck as at Trent Bridge, I'm sure the Aussies thought Agar wouldn't offer much less with the ball (true) but offer much more with the bat and in the field (true again).
England used to do the same with Tufnel; he started his Test career already a obviously good bowler but never evolved to bowl well in conditions that didn't suit him. If he had, he'd have played 100 Tests I'm sure.
Last edited by Top_Cat; 30-07-2013 at 05:41 PM.
Yeah. MacGain shouldn't have played at all until he proved his shoulder was right.
Daniel Brettig: "Siddle is the vital glue for a bowling attack that needs experience and consistency to balance the talent of Hazlewood, Starc, James Pattinson and Pat Cummins. Hopefully Lehmann and company will now remember this"
Rogers should share his prescription with the other batsmen as a hint. While he's at it he might get his checked again.
Bryce McGain has to have one of the most painful test 'careers' ever really doesn't he. Jade Dernbach is laughing at his economy rate.
McGain was very poorly treated, but did himself no favours by saying to the press that he was bowling as well as ever in that innings.
Still probably should have gotten a second shot though.
Agar seemed to give the ball a bit more of a tweak but I still think Lyon should have played. Failing that, Agar shouldn't have played the second test while so obviously not fully fit- OK they were crushed anyway but given how the pitch played it could have really cost the team. Maybe Agar hid it from the selectors, which would be understandable if not excusable, but it is sort of their job to know these things. Honestly the whole thing has been a bit of a fiasco and I think Agar's brilliant batting in the first test has saved them an awful lot of justified criticism.
So it's not possible that they'd have seen him bat in the nets, seen an obviously better bat but still batted the new kid at 11?
Didn't Clarke say he batted at 11 to try and keep as much pressure off him as possible on his debut (considering the other selected bowlers could all also handle a bat)
marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!
Anyone want to join the Society?
Beware the evils of Kit-Kats - they're immoral apparently.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)