Current pecking order?

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

Why is Bracken so low down the pecking order. Has he been pigeon holed as an ODI performer only?

Granted, I'm of the school that ODI performances shouldn't have too much impact on selection on other forms of the game, but the fact that he's performed so well in international cricket should be a factor in my opinion.

If it was just his ODI performances, I wouldn't be in favour of picking him at all, but his First Class performances over a long period put him right up there. He doesn't have a great Test record but I think he could be really useful on the subcontinent at very least. Should be in India right now IMO - not because of his ODI performances, but because of his FC performances and ability to both swing the new ball and bowl very effective cutters with the old one.

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by Richard

You know, having just checked back on the figures, Siddle has in fact been picked for the Test squad on the back of 6 First-Class games. Because that's all he played last season, and in the 3 previous games he was very poor.

6 games is funnily enough the exact same number of games Darren Pattinson had played in 2008 prior to his Test selection.

Horses for courses

[Richard]

You'd struggle to see why anyone but a batsman would be picked as a hourse for this corse of a pitch, ITBT.

[Redbacks]

Was more a slight dig at the Pattinson selection. It was quite funny to hear Atherton's opinion when he was selected. "I've got no idea who he is"

Has anyone else noticed how Aus bowlers who go for runs in a ODI and we lose as a result, will almost invariably be dropped from the team, bar the untouchables?

Lewis after the SA game
Kaspa after going for 15odd v NZ
Stuart Clark suffered a similar fait IIRC

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Redbacks

Was more a slight dig at the Pattinson selection. It was quite funny to hear Atherton's opinion when he was selected. "I've got no idea who he is"

Aye, and the point I'm kinda making is that Siddle's selection here deserves something of a similar opprobrium. At least he's got some amount of rep as an up-and-coming bowler, rather than being a Brit who's been playing mostly club cricket up to his 29th birthday. But even so, 6 First-Class matches (however impressive) and you're into the Test squad when there are better-qualified candidates? It's very poor.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

1. Brett Lee
2. Stuart Clark
3. Doug Bollinger
4. Nathan Bracken
5. Mark Cameron
6. Mosies Henriques
7. Grant Lambert
8. Shane Watson

For a moment i thought you were naming down the NSW pecking order, Watto just broke the sequence, i think you could have named Dominic Thornely ahead of Watto...

[Redbacks]

Agree, It's almost ridiculous to pick him with his record to date. However,

I get the feel that he will be given the chance to sink or swim, by the media in Australia, or in maybe as with Michael Clark given an oxygen supply for his stay under water. Victoria will be happy he got picked just to keep up the feudal tensions that still plaugue Australia

The best the Aus media could offer us regarding both Siddle's and White's selections were a 'comparision trap' showing how Warne faired in his first test match and then look what happened......

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Richard

Aye, and the point I'm kinda making is that Siddle's selection here deserves something of a similar opprobrium. At least he's got some amount of rep as an up-and-coming bowler, rather than being a Brit who's been playing mostly club cricket up to his 29th birthday. But even so, 6 First-Class matches (however impressive) and you're into the Test squad when there are better-qualified candidates? It's very poor.

Fairly different situation actually. a) he's someone who's come up through his country's own system, rather than parachuting in via a parent's passport or whatever, having failed to crack it in his 'own' country. b) he's, as you say, an up-and-comer, being a 23 year old in the early stages of his FC career, rather than a 29 year old journeyman, so there's at least some logic about testing him as a potential long term prospect and some prospect that the seasoning he'll gain will pay dividends. and c) I think Siddle's shown more than Pattison in the last couple of seasons.

He did enough to earn a spot on the squad, and maybe his youth helped in that regard, with the selectors having an eye to the future. Once on the squad, he did enough to impress the selectors and captain that he was a better bet in the conditions than the alternatives, so its hard to say that it's an appalling decision.

Siddle is a much more reasonable selection than White, in terms of records justifying selection, although in White's case the selectors' hands were somewhat forced by the amount of injuries, thin-ness of the spinnings ranks, and Kresja's poor showing in the tour match coupled with his equally average record.

[pup11]

I don't think there is any pecking order as such in terms of Australian fast bowling ranks atm, Clark, Lee and Johnson are the top three prefered options for test cricket atm, but other than it seems selectors are picking blokes on current form, or sometimes on bit of gut feeling, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing Siddle playing test cricket ahead of likes of Noffke and Bollinger.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Fairly different situation actually. a) he's someone who's come up through his country's own system, rather than parachuting in via a parent's passport or whatever, having failed to crack it in his 'own' country. b) he's, as you say, an up-and-comer, being a 23 year old in the early stages of his FC career, rather than a 29 year old journeyman, so there's at least some logic about testing him as a potential long term prospect and some prospect that the seasoning he'll gain will pay dividends. and c) I think Siddle's shown more than Pattison in the last couple of seasons.

I realise - indeed mentioned - that. But one thing remains: he's been selected on the back of 6 First-Class games. That is simply nowhere near enough unless there literally is no-one else performing, which there isn't.

He did enough to earn a spot on the squad, and maybe his youth helped in that regard, with the selectors having an eye to the future. Once on the squad, he did enough to impress the selectors and captain that he was a better bet in the conditions than the alternatives, so its hard to say that it's an appalling decision.

I don't think it is. Bollinger's done better than him (in the middle - and we all know this counts for more than in the nets) on the tour; and as I say, Noffke has done far more beforehand.

Unless your resources are obscenely thin, you've no excuse to go picking people based on 6 First-Class games.

And quite why it's supposed to be an advantage to Siddle to be in over his head before he's ready is a mystery to me. Playing before your time has come never did anyone any good, and will always remain a taint on your record to those (and you know full well they are many) who insist that games played which should not have been played are the same as games played that should have been.

Siddle is a much more reasonable selection than White, in terms of records justifying selection, although in White's case the selectors' hands were somewhat forced by the amount of injuries, thin-ness of the spinnings ranks, and Kresja's poor showing in the tour match coupled with his equally average record.

They weren't forced at all - there are many better-qualified candidates to play Test cricket for Australia as bowlers. Forget spinners - there is no rule that a specialist spinner has to play Test cricket. Picking Krejza and White is poor, neither of them deserve to come anywhere near international level.

[pup11]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Fairly different situation actually. a) he's someone who's come up through his country's own system, rather than parachuting in via a parent's passport or whatever, having failed to crack it in his 'own' country. b) he's, as you say, an up-and-comer, being a 23 year old in the early stages of his FC career, rather than a 29 year old journeyman, so there's at least some logic about testing him as a potential long term prospect and some prospect that the seasoning he'll gain will pay dividends. and c) I think Siddle's shown more than Pattison in the last couple of seasons.

He did enough to earn a spot on the squad, and maybe his youth helped in that regard, with the selectors having an eye to the future. Once on the squad, he did enough to impress the selectors and captain that he was a better bet in the conditions than the alternatives, so its hard to say that it's an appalling decision.

Siddle is a much more reasonable selection than White, in terms of records justifying selection, although in White's case the selectors' hands were somewhat forced by the amount of injuries, thin-ness of the spinnings ranks, and Kresja's poor showing in the tour match coupled with his equally average record.

AWTA, there is hardly anything to compare between Siddle and Pattinson, Siddle is a young fast bowler who looks like a good prospect in the making and is someone we would see a lot more of even in the future, you can easily make that out watching him bowl, as in Pattinson's case it was a meaningless selection, with Sidebottom's injury it was almost as if England selectors didn't knew what to do so they just picked this 29 year old bloke from nowhere and then started justifying his selection, as some stroke of genius.

White' selection is something that still makes no sense to me (even though to White's credit he seems to be trying to bowl the best he could in the current test series in India, and tbf he hasn't exactly embarrassed himself yet), but White hardly bowled any overs in FC cricket in the last two seasons, so to send him to India primiraly as a spin bowling option was a decision that i found hard to digest, i personally would have prefered Casson being sent as the replacement (no matter how lowly he is rated), but the Aussie selectors had a different way of thinking regarding this, so they did what they did.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by pup11

AWTA, there is hardly anything to compare between Siddle and Pattinson, Siddle is a young fast bowler who looks like a good prospect in the making and is someone we would see a lot more of even in the future, you can easily make that out watching him bowl, as in Pattinson's case it was a meaningless selection, with Sidebottom's injury it was almost as if England selectors didn't knew what to do so they just picked this 29 year old bloke from nowhere and then started justifying his selection, as some stroke of genius.

The thing is, though, this is Test cricket. It's not about what might be in future, it's about what is now.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Richard

I don't think it is. Bollinger's done better than him (in the middle - and we all know this counts for more than in the nets) on the tour; and as I say, Noffke has done far more beforehand.

Unless your resources are obscenely thin, you've no excuse to go picking people based on 6 First-Class games.

Unless you think they'll succeed, and turn out to be correct in that supposition.

And quite why it's supposed to be an advantage to Siddle to be in over his head before he's ready is a mystery to me. Playing before your time has come never did anyone any good, and will always remain a taint on your record to those (and you know full well they are many) who insist that games played which should not have been played are the same as games played that should have been.

He'll learn a hell of a lot from the experience and possibly develop faster as a result. A player's record is something that only non-participating fans of game care about, the players and selectors don't give a monkey's about their record, what matters to them is whether they'll get another game, and whether the player is doing the job they were selected for, respectively. The selectors couldn't care less if his average ends up 2 runs higher than would otherwise be the case because they pick him now rather than in a year's time. Especially if doing so brings along his development and results in him having a longer career.

They weren't forced at all - there are many better-qualified candidates to play Test cricket for Australia as bowlers. Forget spinners - there is no rule that a specialist spinner has to play Test cricket. Picking Krejza and White is poor, neither of them deserve to come anywhere near international level.

Given they, like 99% of the cricket world, think that having some variety in your attack is a highly desirable aim, and especially that having a slow bowler in India is essential, their hand was forced.

And the rule regarding over-rates does virtually force you to have at least one spinner in your attack.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by pup11

AWTA, there is hardly anything to compare between Siddle and Pattinson, Siddle is a young fast bowler who looks like a good prospect in the making and is someone we would see a lot more of even in the future, you can easily make that out watching him bowl, as in Pattinson's case it was a meaningless selection, with Sidebottom's injury it was almost as if England selectors didn't knew what to do so they just picked this 29 year old bloke from nowhere and then started justifying his selection, as some stroke of genius.

White' selection is something that still makes no sense to me (even though to White's credit he seems to be trying to bowl the best he could in the current test series in India, and tbf he hasn't exactly embarrassed himself yet), but White hardly bowled any overs in FC cricket in the last two seasons, so to send him to India primiraly as a spin bowling option was a decision that i found hard to digest, i personally would have prefered Casson being sent as the replacement (no matter how lowly he is rated), but the Aussie selectors had a different way of thinking regarding this, so they did what they did.

Originally Posted by Richard

The thing is, though, this is Test cricket. It's not about what might be in future, it's about what is now.

Not the case here actually. The Aussies are playing 9 tests in the next 3 months and a shedload of cricket in the next 18 months. The selectors have to make selections with one eye on how they're going to juggle the team, especially the fast bowlers, to keep strong teams out on the park.

But besides that, he's got good recent form and is a style of bowler they think will do better on the pitch in question compared to some of the alternatives - there are sound immediate reasons for preferring him.

And ultimately, this is all just theoretical discussion. Looking at the reality, did he bowl well or badly today? And can we say that any of the alternatives would definitely done better?

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Not the case here actually. The Aussies are playing 9 tests in the next 3 months and a shedload of cricket in the next 18 months. The selectors have to make selections with one eye on how they're going to juggle the team, especially the fast bowlers, to keep strong teams out on the park.

I'm never a fan of picking teams because "so-and-so might get injured". If injuries, or rest requirements, happen, you deal with them when they do, not pick a weakened team at the start of a series (or intense programme) in order to get the better players in later.

But besides that, he's got good recent form and is a style of bowler they think will do better on the pitch in question compared to some of the alternatives - there are sound immediate reasons for preferring him.

I don't think there's any sound reason to think such a thing though. From what I've seen in these few overs, Siddle actually looks quite a similar bowler to Noffke.

And ultimately, this is all just theoretical discussion. Looking at the reality, did he bowl well or badly today? And can we say that any of the alternatives would definitely done better?

That's a different matter. Selection should never be judged in hindsight, otherwise any old guess could potentially turn-out to look like an inspired judgement. What matters as far as judging how good a selection was is not what ends-up happening (though obviously bad selections produce a poor result more often than good selections) but how good the reasoning was.

BTW, how well did he bowl today? Not that well. How well would Noffke have done? Absolutely no possible way to have the slightest clue.