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

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Swervy

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

You're just pushing it there. That'd be foreign territory for Richard which would be a sin.

[Richard]

Nope, it'd not be.
Believe it or not it's not possible to watch every player.

[honestbharani]

Originally Posted by Richard

The weather.
Something you can't punish.

You know, there was unseasonal rain in Mumbai too, but a lot of the guys here were quick to bash the groundsmen of that ground too.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by honestbharani

You know, there was unseasonal rain in Mumbai too, but a lot of the guys here were quick to bash the groundsmen of that ground too.

thats only because australia lost.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

the question is how much success?
its quite possible for someone to have an overall average of 35 in domestic cricket but still have looked the part in his last 2-3 seasons and therefore deserved to be given a go in the test side.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

33 balls from Giles on a wicket that didn't suit him - that's enough to tell you how good he is against slow bowlers?

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

Even the players who've actually experienced it and said so?

You still claim to know more than them?

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

Nope, it'd not be.
Believe it or not it's not possible to watch every player.

And believe it or not it is possible to reserve judgement on a player you haven't seen, rather than writing them off.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

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

umm, there was this player called kasprowicz who was putting in season after season of exceptional performances.

Originally Posted by Pratyush

Watson: the jury is still out on him

well hes looked quite incapable, and hes certainly not ready yet. the point is that he was included in the test side not so long ago as a 'bowling all rounder' to back up mcgrath and gillespie, despite the fact that hes been absolutely miserable in domestic cricket after his injury.

Originally Posted by Pratyush

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

so howcome macgill wasnt picked then?
and if you think that theres no better spinner in australia than someone who averages 48 in FC cricket, not to mention never taken a 5 wicket haul all his career then well you're just not paying enough attention. not to mention the fact that his last 2 seasons in australia before his first test with the ball came at averages of 62 and 93.
hauritz for me is easily the worst selection i have ever seen by any selector anywhere in the world.

Originally Posted by Pratyush

Symonds:Under rated player.

what in test matches??
he wasnt good enough, and it wasnt his selection in particular that bothered me, it was the fact that he was selected ahead of katich, who in his last test match as you will probably remember played kumble and karthik with the best footwork and hands seen in australia for quite a while and saved australia from what would have been a very very big upset. what a surprise too, katich came back 3rd test in SL for symonds and scored a very important 86

Originally Posted by Pratyush

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.

well maybe not as bad as dropping tendulkar, but still it was unacceptable. i dont care who you are, you dont drop the best ODI player in the history of the game after 2 poor series. the excuse they gave was that hes 34, and wont make it to 2007, umm hayden one year younger went through a similar trot of poor form, and hes still in the ODI side. and to add insult to injury, bevan scored a truckload of runs in domestic cricket after that.

Originally Posted by Pratyush

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.

to me they are not. they simply get away with their selections because of the quality of some of their players. if they were the selectors of any other team in the world, most of them wouldnt have a job IMO.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by aussie

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.

he bowled well in ODIs granted, but his first class bowling average of 32, suggests that he isnt very likely to be good in tests, and more importantly how in the world can you select him over kaspa?

Originally Posted by aussie

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....

oh come off it, bracken cant bowl to save his life when the ball isnt swinging or seaming, its obvious to anyone who watched him bowl. and he proved that, when he bowled the biggest load of tripe in the tests that he played. and lets not forget that he was picked to play tests after he'd had about half a good season, despite being rubbish in the 2 seasons before that.

Originally Posted by aussie

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

test matches

Originally Posted by aussie

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....

thats an excuse for dropping him then?
and you'd think they could have used him in the ODIs over in england, it might well haved saved them from the ignominy of losing to b'desh.

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by marc71178

And believe it or not it is possible to reserve judgement on a player you haven't seen, rather than writing them off.

Stole the words out of my mouth there

[aussie]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

he bowled well in ODIs granted, but his first class bowling average of 32, suggests that he isnt very likely to be good in tests, and more importantly how in the world can you select him over kaspa

oh come off it, bracken cant bowl to save his life when the ball isnt swinging or seaming, its obvious to anyone who watched him bowl. and he proved that, when he bowled the biggest load of tripe in the tests that he played. and lets not forget that he was picked to play tests after he'd had about half a good season, despite being rubbish in the 2 seasons before that.

thats an excuse for dropping him then?
and you'd think they could have used him in the ODIs over in england, it might well haved saved them from the ignominy of losing to b'desh.

well at the time he was selected it was fair since Kasper started bowling well later on in the season for season and was pikced for the axed Bichel & eben then people still questioned whether Kasper would have been good at the highest level as well since his record at that time in test cricket wasn't anything to sing praises about....

I'm standing on my point with Bracken, ur just writing off has rubbish.

I would be so sure that the even the Great Bevan could have saved Australia on that day tec....

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Richard

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

Another example of you being so ridiculously wrong you make yourself look like a complete fool, and being so stubborn and bloody minded that no matter what happens you will cling to this belief like lifes blood for the rest of your time on this forum. Consistent high pace is troublesome. EVERY SINGLE BATSMAN IN THE WORLD SAYS SO. It makes you rush your shots, it makes the ball hurt more when it hits you, it gives you a higher chance of not getting your shot quite right, and it makes any movement significantly harder to play.

Originally Posted by Richard

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

That depends. Particularly good yorker bowlers (like Brett Lee for example) can get wickets without them moving, and do so. These are wicket taking deliveries.

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

I'm not going to bother with this one again. It's been done to death.

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

What, so you the most recent evidence doesn't completely contradict your ridiculously inaccurate view? That pitch was somewhat uneven (although not nearly as much as you seem to think), but not one of the short ball wickets Lee took (three of them) had anything at all to do with uneven bounce. One of them being caused by a particularly excellent bouncer which followed the batsman down the slope combined with good field placings, one being caused by pace and the other being caused by a batsman who was simply clueless at how to play fast, accurate short bowling.

[social]

Originally Posted by tooextracool

thats an excuse for dropping him then?
and you'd think they could have used him in the ODIs over in england, it might well haved saved them from the ignominy of losing to b'desh.

Bevan was dropped because:

a. he was not going to be considered for the next world cup; and

b. if you had seem him play recently, you'd know that he has no throwing arm to speak of and is a wekness in the field.

The decision to drop him could be justified then and can still be justified today.

[King_Ponting]

Originally Posted by social

Bevan was dropped because:

a. he was not going to be considered for the next world cup; and

b. if you had seem him play recently, you'd know that he has no throwing arm to speak of and is a wekness in the field.

The decision to drop him could be justified then and can still be justified today.

Especially with his replacement doing so well.