The Future of International Cricket - Rohit Sharma, Suresh Raina, Ravi Bopara, Tim Southee, Ross Taylor, Shahriar Nafees, Raqibul Hasan, Salman Butt, JP Duminy
Proud Supporter of the Bangladeshi Tigers
Ryan ten Doeschate - A Legend in the Making
If the Aus Test side needs an allrounder, isn't the first question what he would bring to the bowling attack?
I guess Stuart Clark is a certainty, and in all probability he'll continue to be excellent. But then there's Brett Lee, who simply doesn't take his wickets quickly enough to be a genuine opening strike bowler, and the third seamer will probably be someone like Tait (if fit) or Johnson who could be successes but have proven little at Test level so far (As an aside, the idiot selectors should of course revert to Gillespie, but they won't). MacGill as specialist spinner, I guess?
That attack doesn't strike me as being overly formidable. Is there a case then for selecting an allrounder who is primarily a bowler who can bat a bit, say someone in the Pollock / Vaas mould? I know England have suffered from tailitis going down this road, but Australia have the Gilchrist insurance, which should make all the difference.
No idea who that'd be, btw. Maybe give Andy Bichel a call, eh
Last edited by Steulen; 28-09-2007 at 05:53 AM.
President of RTDAS - Ryan ten Doeschate - The Freddie Flintoff of Associate Cricket
Member of DNAS, ESAS - Dirk Nannes, Edgar Schiferli. Dutchmen can bowl.
Originally Posted by Pedro DelgadoOriginally Posted by Matt79
Since the start of season 2005/6:
Hussey: 16 Matches, 1597 Runs, 79.85 Average, 5 Centuries, 8 Half-Centuries
Kallis: 14 Matches, 1093 Runs, 45.54 Average, 2 Centuries, 7 Half-Centuries
Plus there's the difference in strike rates between Hussey and Kallis.
Last edited by Matt79; 28-09-2007 at 06:22 AM.
GOOD OLD COLLINGWOOD - PREMIERS IN 2010Originally Posted by Irfan
Is Cam White, Is Good.
Clarke's record over the same period (since 2005/6) suggests that Kallis has been better, but maybe by not as much as I'd have thought:
10 matches (15 innings), 508 runs, 46.18 average, 2 centuries, 1 half century
Despite Kallis only playing 4 additional tests, he played 27 innings compared to Clarke's 15. That said Kallis has obviously been the better batsman - though whether he'll continue to be remains open to be seen.
That is a very interesting suggestion, and you'd think certainly on paper the Australian batting lineup would be strong enough to accomodate a bowling allrounder at 7 and Gilchrist at 6, but its not something I can realistically see happening.
Firstly because on the occasions when five frontline bowlers have been picked in the past, one tends to be very underbowled, and also because of the risk it involves on the batting front.
I dont think it'd be such a bad idea to explore, just dont see it happening.
Arent really a whole lot of bowling allrounders about atm either, surely they wont resurect Bichel because this is probably his last season. Damien Wright would be an option but while his bowling is pretty good I dont think it'll be a great threat at test level and he's getting on a bit aswell. Matthew Nicholson's batting isnt quite good enough for number 7, same goes for Gillespie. Mark Cleary would have been a candidate but he's fallen away terribly over the last couple of seasons with bat and ball.
The three remaining contenders are Ashley Noffke, his batting is a little up and down but he clearly has plenty of ability and his bowling dosent look as good as it once was but hey he might have a great start to the season. Moises Henriques who this role looks tailor made for if only he were a coupla years older, but he clearly isnt ready yet so not worth a mention. And George Bradley Hogg who is imo the only realistic candidate, FC average of 35 so we know he wont be a complete liability with the bat and good enough to be classified as a frontline bowler.
Also, are you suggesting Kallis will start to decline and Michael Clarke will become a better batsman?
It looks light for batting. While I don't think we want Gilly at 6 then the tail, Gilly is still probably a better bat than Symonds, and Hogg AND Johnson/Tait is a better bowling combo than Symonds AND MacGill.
Hogg isn't a good enough bowler to make it into the Test side, why won't people see this? His exploits in ODI cricket mean virtually nothing when it comes to Test selection, especially for somebody whose effectiveness is so different in the two different formats.
But Kallis has played 100+ tests, scored 8000+ runs and been in the top couple of most consistent and highly regarded batsman in the world since 2000.
His last two years may not have been superb but they've hardly been terrible and his overall record shows his calibre as a player.
Hussey at present is not in his league.
Proud member of the Twenty20 is boring society
E-Mail - firstname.lastname@example.org
MSN - email@example.com
Form/class aren't distinct things, at some point they blend into each other. Those figures take in at least a couple of series, so I don't think they tell the story of who's the better batsman full stop, but they do show how both guys are going. And that shows that the last couple of seasons for Clarke have been better than his overall career, whereas the last couple of seasons for Kallis have been not quite as good as his overall career for him.
I find the issue of strike rates interesting in Test cricket.
On the face of it scoring quickly is a big plus. The are definate advantages, it can take the initiative away from the opposition and can impose the will of the batting side.
However, there are downsides.
Firstly, a batsman that scores their runs quickly faces less balls per innings. In these cases a fielding team knows that a wicket is in the offing and on the horizen. Almost as disheartening as getting smashed around the park is not knowing whether you will ever be able to get the guy out. High strike rates means that they lose their wickets in less balls face and there is always a glipse of hope for the bowling team
Secondly, it can lead to smaller partnerships and partnerships are key to success in Test cricket.
If a guy averages 50 at SR 100 (numbers used for ease of calculation) he will last on average 50 balls.
Assuming, equal share of the bowling a partnership between this player and another would on average 100 balls.
If the other player has a strike rate of 50 and a batting average of 50, then he would score 25 runs in that time.
Partnership = 50+25 = 75 run partnership.
Now if both players had SR of 50 and batting averages of 50 then the partnership would last 200 balls (on statistical average).
Each player would contribute 50 runs in that period.
Partnership = 50+50 = 100
Now the same would be true of 2 fast scorers together. However, one fast scorer and a mid/slow scorer = smaller partnerships.
If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there will be edits
West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)