"The almighty Flintoff" and "the below test standard Lee"

[Swervy]

Well I wouldn't think what I think if I thought it was wrong, now, would I? Duur.
As far as I'm concerned selecting Clarke was wrong and I'm not changing my mind just because he happened to start well.

but can you not accept that as selectors they are paid (if they are paid to select) to spot test calibre players other than just going off domestic stats or whatever. They spot talents and qualities in players based on the quality of the play, not just on things you seem to think are important

[Richard]

well he has done ok actually..his innings the other day (despite being dropped on 21) was a real gem, that enabled Australia to really get into a winning position from a position of uncertainty...you could see he was ****ed off to have given a chance and after that he really buckled down and produced the goods..a great knock

In India in his first test, under a lot of pressure , he came in with Australia not in the best position and proceeded to win the man of the match award..two matches later, he scored 90 odd and 70 odd

Vs NZ, he came in with Australia 120-4 and scored a quick fire 140..

ok after that he had a bit of a rough trot, but if he continues to play for the next 10 years (which i am sure he will), those 6 or 7 tests will be seen as a mere blip.

he is obviously a very talented player..the selectors saw that in him,and decided to put him in the team..whats the problem

He obviously has some incredible talent - he also obviously has some incredibly basic flaws which are nowhere near as simple to iron-out as some might think.
If Clarke goes on playing the way he has so far in his career he'll not last too much longer and a flawed selection will be seen for what it was. Decent seam and swing bowling will sort him out every time, though I quite see what everyone means about how good he is against slow bowlers after Lord's. And amazingly enough, that's probably the reason he has such an average First-Class record, and anyone who refused to acknowledge that that fact just might mean something is a little foolish.

[Richard]

but can you not accept that as selectors they are paid (if they are paid to select) to spot test calibre players other than just going off domestic stats or whatever. They spot talents and qualities in players based on the quality of the play, not just on things you seem to think are important

And generally if someone is talented they will do well in domestic cricket.
Almost without fail, in fact.
This is so fundamental I fail to believe so many people don't realise it.
A good player will almost certainly excel at any level of cricket he plays at, and someone who doesn't do well in domestic cricket is almost certain not to have it in them at the Test level either.

[Swervy]

And generally if someone is talented they will do well in domestic cricket.
Almost without fail, in fact.
This is so fundamental I fail to believe so many people don't realise it.
A good player will almost certainly excel at any level of cricket he plays at, and someone who doesn't do well in domestic cricket is almost certain not to have it in them at the Test level either.

but selectors should recognise qualities in players that wont translate always into domestic success..we are done this one loads in the past on this subject.

Selectors will be watching the player, will be talking to coaches, will be watching the player in training, speaking to other players, getting an all round picture of the strengths and weaknesses of that player.

[Richard]

Just a few examples.

Accurate bowling combined with good field placing resulting in a restriction of runs and pressure building on the batsman, resulting in the batsman trying to score and getting out.

Short-pitched bowling forcing the batsman to play, eventually resulting in a ball being gloved in the air, or hooked to a fieldsman in the deep.

A ball which goes straight on when it may well be expected to move. McGrath regularly gets wickets in this way.

Obviously, a yorker can quite certainly get wickets without moving off its trajectory if it beats the batsman.

Beating a batsman for pace. Either more pace than could be comfortably played, or less.

There are countless others, but all of those can involve no lateral movement or uneven bounce and also do not rely on poor shots.

There are not countless others - and what you refer to in the final example is change of pace, not simply "pace", and that can indeed take wickets with good bowling (Andy Roberts, for example, with his two-paced Bouncers), but it doesn't happen too often.
Straight Yorkers rarely cause that many problems to top-class batsmen, it needs to be a swinging Yorker, then obviously it becomes deadly.
Balls which go straight on when you'd expect them to move tend to imply that the ball has been moving, which is what I've said all along - no movement, no wicket-taking deliveries.
Accurate bowling and slow scoring-rate in the limitless-over game are utterly irrelevant, as I've said countless times, slow runs are better than no runs, and no runs is what you'll get if you try to score against accurate bowling. Good batsmen, contrary to popular belief, are actually generally quite good at realising that.
And short balls that get gloved to short-leg or Hooked to square-leg are exceptionally rare. Short-leg is by-and-large a waste of a fielding position, and short-balls are more a defensive weapon than an attacking one. Of course, good players of the short ball are very good at waiting for the right ball and then hitting a stroke along the ground. Short bowling on an uneven pitch can be effective, but not on a true one.

[Richard]

but selectors should recognise qualities in players that wont translate always into domestic success..we are done this one loads in the past on this subject.

Selectors will be watching the player, will be talking to coaches, will be watching the player in training, speaking to other players, getting an all round picture of the strengths and weaknesses of that player.

Almost always the ability to succeed in international cricket will be caused by the same things that cause the ability to succeed in domestic cricket.
Selectors should recognise that basic fact, and act accordingly.

[Pratters]

how are the selectors doing such a brilliant job, when out of all the talent in australia they somehow manage to pick out bracken, williams, watson, hauritz and symonds?

Bracken and Williams: The aussie backup pace bowling was not really exceptional a year ago. Tait has made some strides since then.

Watson: the jury is still out on him

Hauritz:Spin backup in Australia beyond Macgill isnt that great.

Symonds:Under rated player

how can a bunch of selectors who drop michael bevan from the ODI side be considered anything other than a bunch of idiots?
what would you say about the indian selectors if they decided to drop tendulkar from the ODI side after 2 bad series?

Bevan and Tendulkar would reach the all time one day XI if I was chosing mine. But both have varying roles in their teams and the comparison is not true. Tendulkar is a vital cog in the Indian team as they have lesser very good players. Australia has shown they can win world cups even without a Warne(in 2003). They have a much bigger talent base as far as batsmen are concerned. This is why the selectors may go for some option they may feel is better than a Bevan in 2007 like a Clarke in 2007. I too did support logic in the dropping of Bevan but i wouldnot say it is as bad a decision, though still poor.

I am surprised no one has said for or against the Aussie selectors. I have been seeing the selections since 1996 closely. South Africa made very good selections before they started supporting coloured players even if they werent as talented. Australian selections have usually been good and that is good enough to call it a good bunch of selectors according to me.

[aussie]

how are the selectors doing such a brilliant job, when out of all the talent in australia they somehow manage to pick out bracken, williams, watson, hauritz and symonds?
how can a bunch of selectors who drop michael bevan from the ODI side be considered anything other than a bunch of idiots?
what would you say about the indian selectors if they decided to drop tendulkar from the ODI side after 2 bad series?

i'd give you Hauritz but not the wrest come on Brad Williams bowled pretty well during the period in the Australian team & due to good domestic form he deserved his chance.

Bracken didn't have the greatest initial to test cricket but has done pretty darn good in ODI's. But dont write him off to possibly being a good test bowler in the future, because if Kasper could recover form not having a wicket in his first 2 test and then with consistent performaces in state cricket & CC got back into the aussie side and has done so well in, just give Bracken a chance...

Well i am fed up defending Watson but for the sake of clarity i'll continue, the australian selectors saw the immence talent in Watson and has picked him & i expect them to stick with him.

Now what in god's name was wrong with Symo's selection Tec

Well in a way i do agree with you with Bevan's axing, he wasn't that superb in the 2004 VB seris & was definately below par in SRI it was definately an unfortunate axing for one of OD crickets all-time greats.But its not as if Australia have done badly without him....

If the Indian selectors drop Sachin after 2 bad series they do deserve a smack in the head no doubt....

[FaaipDeOiad]

There are not countless others - and what you refer to in the final example is change of pace, not simply "pace", and that can indeed take wickets with good bowling (Andy Roberts, for example, with his two-paced Bouncers), but it doesn't happen too often.

Obviously I was referring to pace generally as a factor which can take wickets, be it a change of pace or being rushed into a shot or beaten outright by too much pace.

Straight Yorkers rarely cause that many problems to top-class batsmen, it needs to be a swinging Yorker, then obviously it becomes deadly.

Obviously a swinging yorker is harder to keep out, but straight yorkers still get wickets as an impact ball.

Balls which go straight on when you'd expect them to move tend to imply that the ball has been moving, which is what I've said all along - no movement, no wicket-taking deliveries.

How many times have you said that what leads up to a delivery is irrelevant? If that was true, a straight ball could not be a wicket taker by your criteria.

Accurate bowling and slow scoring-rate in the limitless-over game are utterly irrelevant, as I've said countless times, slow runs are better than no runs, and no runs is what you'll get if you try to score against accurate bowling. Good batsmen, contrary to popular belief, are actually generally quite good at realising that.

The evidence of what actually happens in cricket (as opposed to what you think SHOULD happen) goes against you here. Slow scoring in a test match is obviously not as vitally significant as it would be in an ODI, but the fact is that if you play out four maidens in a row you WILL be looking to score, particularly if the bowling is good and is tying you down. Tight bowling builds pressure, it's as simple as that. A lot of it is mindset as well... and this is how McGrath gets many of his wickets. By consistently bowling in the corridor and keeping the batsman in two minds about what the ball might do, he keeps the batsman spending all his time thinking about McGrath and how to not get out to him, particularly with his reputation for getting players out wafting outside off-stump. When the batsman spends all his time thinking about the bowler and how to not get out rather than how to advance his own innings, it allows pressure to build to the point where the batsman feels he needs to score, has a flash at something and gets himself out. Once again it is good bowling and not poor batting, it's just that the good bowling comes in the form of a whole spell rather than one impact ball which swings 4 metres and knocks out two stumps, which appears to be the only way you think a bowler can deserve his wicket.

And short balls that get gloved to short-leg or Hooked to square-leg are exceptionally rare. Short-leg is by-and-large a waste of a fielding position, and short-balls are more a defensive weapon than an attacking one. Of course, good players of the short ball are very good at waiting for the right ball and then hitting a stroke along the ground. Short bowling on an uneven pitch can be effective, but not on a true one.

You are quite simply wrong here. Short balls getting gloved to short-leg or in the air to the keeper or slips or bowler are not particularly rare at all, and if a bowler is bowling good short stuff there is a fair chance of it happening. Short leg is certainly not a waste of a fielding position, as it keeps the batsman aware of the location of the field, and makes them wary when playing the short ball. As you saw with Lee in the first test, a significant part of getting wickets with the short ball is getting a batsman in two midns about what to do. Putting men out for the hook and a short leg for the gloved ball assists in this, as batsmen will be more wary about allowing the ball to hit their gloves or bat, and be less willing to play the hook shot. The hilarious thing about this of course, if that if Geraint Jones hadn't pulled out of that hook shot late on day 1 at Lords, and had hooked it down the throat of the fielder in the deep, you would be discounting Lee's wicket as one obtained from a poor shot. Instead, he changed his mind and didn't hook, the ball followed him down the slope and struck him and he got out, and of course that's a wicket gained through the pitch.

[FaaipDeOiad]

He obviously has some incredible talent - he also obviously has some incredibly basic flaws which are nowhere near as simple to iron-out as some might think.
If Clarke goes on playing the way he has so far in his career he'll not last too much longer and a flawed selection will be seen for what it was. Decent seam and swing bowling will sort him out every time, though I quite see what everyone means about how good he is against slow bowlers after Lord's. And amazingly enough, that's probably the reason he has such an average First-Class record, and anyone who refused to acknowledge that that fact just might mean something is a little foolish.

Sorry, did I just see Richard admit he was wrong about something? You mean, when we were telling you that Clarke played the spinners exceptionally in the matches in India which you did not watch and you disagreed with us, you actually had no idea what you were talking about? Oh my!

[Richard]

I didn't have "no idea what I was talking about" otherwise I wouldn't have said anything at all.
But yes - descriptions of Clarke's play against slow bowling didn't fully reveal how well he is equipped to play it, which was revealed to me at Lord's.
Of course, I've not said anything about him against the turning ball because, as I mentioned at the time, on the two turners in India Clarke didn't do especially well.

[Richard]

Now what in god's name was wrong with Symo's selection Tec

Err, the fact that he was picked ahead of Katich who'd scored 202 for one dismissal in his most recent Test?
It was surely the most utterly ludicrous selection in Test history - beating even Fred Tate in 1902.

[Swervy]

But yes - descriptions of Clarke's play against slow bowling didn't fully reveal how well he is equipped to play it, which was revealed to me at Lord's.

Oh right..its the fault of those who described his play vs slow bowlers ..ok.

How about in future, making judgements about players after you have actually watched them play

[Richard]

Obviously I was referring to pace generally as a factor which can take wickets, be it a change of pace or being rushed into a shot or beaten outright by too much pace.

Change of pace is completely different from consistent high pace.
Change of pace is a useful weapon - consistent high pace in itself is not.

Obviously a swinging yorker is harder to keep out, but straight yorkers still get wickets as an impact ball.

They get wickets yes (especially those of tailenders) but non-moving Yorkers generally get played with fair ease.

How many times have you said that what leads up to a delivery is irrelevant? If that was true, a straight ball could not be a wicket taker by your criteria.

No, I've never once said what leads up to a delivery is irrelevant. All I've said is that slow scoring before a poor stroke is irrelevant.

The evidence of what actually happens in cricket (as opposed to what you think SHOULD happen) goes against you here. Slow scoring in a test match is obviously not as vitally significant as it would be in an ODI, but the fact is that if you play out four maidens in a row you WILL be looking to score, particularly if the bowling is good and is tying you down. Tight bowling builds pressure, it's as simple as that. A lot of it is mindset as well... and this is how McGrath gets many of his wickets. By consistently bowling in the corridor and keeping the batsman in two minds about what the ball might do, he keeps the batsman spending all his time thinking about McGrath and how to not get out to him, particularly with his reputation for getting players out wafting outside off-stump. When the batsman spends all his time thinking about the bowler and how to not get out rather than how to advance his own innings, it allows pressure to build to the point where the batsman feels he needs to score, has a flash at something and gets himself out. Once again it is good bowling and not poor batting, it's just that the good bowling comes in the form of a whole spell rather than one impact ball which swings 4 metres and knocks out two stumps, which appears to be the only way you think a bowler can deserve his wicket.

No, the evidence of what actually happens supports me, the problem most people have is the - not uncommon - factor that when something takes a wicket you remember it, on the countless occasions it doesn't you don't.
I, however, generally ignore consensus and investigate for myself. Sometimes consensus is found to be correct. In this instance, it's not. And everyone who thinks that a period - however long - of slow scoring in the limitless-over game causes most or every batsman to feel some sort of pressure - and this numbers I admit most of the cricketing fandom - is wrong. Because most of the time a good batsman knows that it doesn't matter if he scores slowly - the worst thing he can do is not score slowly, but not score at all.

You are quite simply wrong here. Short balls getting gloved to short-leg or in the air to the keeper or slips or bowler are not particularly rare at all, and if a bowler is bowling good short stuff there is a fair chance of it happening. Short leg is certainly not a waste of a fielding position, as it keeps the batsman aware of the location of the field, and makes them wary when playing the short ball. As you saw with Lee in the first test, a significant part of getting wickets with the short ball is getting a batsman in two midns about what to do. Putting men out for the hook and a short leg for the gloved ball assists in this, as batsmen will be more wary about allowing the ball to hit their gloves or bat, and be less willing to play the hook shot. The hilarious thing about this of course, if that if Geraint Jones hadn't pulled out of that hook shot late on day 1 at Lords, and had hooked it down the throat of the fielder in the deep, you would be discounting Lee's wicket as one obtained from a poor shot. Instead, he changed his mind and didn't hook, the ball followed him down the slope and struck him and he got out, and of course that's a wicket gained through the pitch.

Or, on the other hand, he might have connected and it might've gone down.
This conversation might be best had when Lord's is not fresh in the mind, and normal cricket on relatively even pitches has been resumed.
Because that will clear the picture in the mind. Lord's contained many anomalies - the short ball being a threat one of them.

[Richard]

Oh right..its the fault of those who described his play vs slow bowlers ..ok.

It's no-one's "fault" - you could say equally it's my "fault" for not thinking enough about the fact that not all foot-movement is premeditated.
Simply, lines get crossed in the totally inevitable event that it's not possible to watch every cricket match.
I didn't even have the time to do my normal read-5-reports thing - maybe if I had I might've got a better picture, but I had other things to deal with around the time.

How about in future, making judgements about players after you have actually watched them play

Quite often, I do.
In this instance, of course, I was unwise to do so.
Nonetheless, there's no way around the fact that I never said "Clarke's clearly rubbish against spin".
Because that really would have been stupid.