Current pecking order? - Page 5

aussie · 12-07-2009, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Yeah McKay is definitely one to keep an eye on, Geeves is up there too.

Can't agree with Geeves. He could pass in ODI's, but not test quality at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Can't see any reason why Nannes couldn't play for Australia if selected seeing as though Eoin Morgan switched to England.

Yea, but i think Morgan like Ed Joyce before him had to qualify over a period of time.

But then again he got picked for ENGs ODI team, only A month after representng Ireland. So i guess qualification rules only applies for test matches & not for associate team players. A bit confusing.

aussie · 12-07-2009, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pasag

Siddle would be second because of developmental reasons. He's seen as the future of the attack. Bollinger would be ahead of Nannes (talking Tests of course) and I think by getting selected Hilfenhaus has shown he's ahead of Clark though that can change pretty quickly and I think Clark is only one good match away from going right near the top.

Well yea. But the reason i layed them out like that is well i'm not 100% looking long-term. Just the Ashes & the home summer vs PAK & hopefully a strong WI. But overall your right.

On Bollinger ahead of Nannes. Well looking on what i've seen of them since SA where in AUS. I'd say Nannes should have played test cricket before Bollinger, even though Bollinger was in & around the squad for the majority of 2008.

Given that i hadn't seen him bowl until the IPL, i am surprised not many of your Australia's weren't really calling for him to be picked in either format (except T20s). He could have been superb in the tests in SA i feel.

BoyBrumby · 13-07-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Can't see any reason why Nannes couldn't play for Australia if selected seeing as though Eoin Morgan switched to England.

Nannes could play for Oz tomorrow if selected. Playing for associates in full limited overs internationals doesn't affect qualification for test nations. Only thing it would mean is he couldn't play for Middlesex (or whichever county) as a non-overseas player, but then he hasn't returned this year anyway, for whatever reason.

Like him a lot, actually. Swings it at pace and one of the more interesting blokes to play the game.

aussie · 13-07-2009, 01:05 PM

Fantastic info Brumby...

DaRick · 16-07-2009, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard

Vettori IIRR didn't disgrace himself early career.

Daniel Vettori is a strange case. From 1997-2003, he was actually quite good. But then he entered a terrible form slump and has only really gone back to his best sporadically (Bangladesh excluded) ever since. Usually spinners improve as they age (or so the tale goes).

Mushtaq Ahmed (who was excellent mid-career but mediocre to diabolical at all other times) and Stuart MacGill (who peaked before 2000) are other exceptions.

morgieb · 17-07-2009, 07:12 AM

FTR...
Johnson
Lee
Clark
Siddle
Hilfenhaus
Bollinger
Nannes
Noffke
Tait
Magoffin
McKay

For one-day cricket, Bracken, Geeves and Bird should come into contention.

FTR, this is my opinion, not the selectors.

Jakester1288 · 18-07-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morgieb

FTR...
Johnson
Lee
Clark
Siddle
Hilfenhaus
Bollinger
Nannes
Noffke
Tait
Magoffin
McKay

For one-day cricket, Bracken, Geeves and Bird should come into contention.

FTR, this is my opinion, not the selectors.

So you don't rate any of Australia's spinners? You don't rate Hopes for ODI's? Australia shouldn't have a spinner. Australia A shouldn't have a spinner. Australia B shouldn't have a spinner. 3 bowlers into Australia C shouldn't have a spinner.

Not to mention ODI cricket. Australia, Australia A, Australia B and Australia C shouldn't have a spinner.

Is this your opinion?

GIMH · 18-07-2009, 12:35 PM

Thread is about fast bowlers...

Jakester1288 · 18-07-2009, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GeraintIsMyHero

Thread is about fast bowlers...

Yeah I was just testing you.

You passed.

Jakester1288 · 18-07-2009, 07:13 PM

Johnson
Siddle
Hilfenhaus
Clark
Lee
Bollinger

After that isn't really important. That's just my opinion on it. Hopes and Bracken are high up the order for limited overs cricket.

NUFAN · 18-07-2009, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jakester1288

Johnson
Siddle
Hilfenhaus
Clark
Lee
Bollinger

After that isn't really important. That's just my opinion on it. Hopes and Bracken are high up the order for limited overs cricket.

Why isn't it important?

All it takes is an injury, retirement, loss of form and someone else will be going on tours with Australia, that makes it fairly important for mine.

Athlai · 18-07-2009, 08:48 PM

Tait got a CA contract didn't he?

NUFAN · 18-07-2009, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athlai

Tait got a CA contract didn't he?

He didn't initially, but Tait ended up getting a contract after Symonds lost his.

Tait isn't really a realistic option for Test Cricket at this stage but he's in the mix for ODI and T20.

Jakester1288 · 19-07-2009, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NUFAN

Why isn't it important?

Because we won't go down that low very often.

At the moment, we have an attack of Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Siddle and Hauritz.

Johnson
Siddle
Hilfenhaus
Clark
Lee
Bollinger

The bolded players are the ones we are using. If we were using 4 quicks, then we would need another player after Bollinger. But with 3 players, in cover, and Watson and McDonald as well, we have plenty of bowlers.

morgieb · 19-07-2009, 02:21 AM

Lee's not playing because he's injured. If he was fit he'd be 2nd in the pecking order, not 5th.

17-07-2009, 07:12 AM	#66 (permalink)
morgieb Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Paradise City Posts: 8,930	FTR... Johnson Lee Clark Siddle Hilfenhaus Bollinger Nannes Noffke Tait Magoffin McKay For one-day cricket, Bracken, Geeves and Bird should come into contention. FTR, this is my opinion, not the selectors. __________________ 4-0 RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012 Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.

18-07-2009, 12:35 PM	#68 (permalink)
GIMH Eternal Optimist Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Shake my tree where's the apple for me? Posts: 43,612	Thread is about fast bowlers... __________________ Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they’ll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Batting order in order of best to worst, rather than specialist position	Jono	Cricket Chat	26	10-02-2008 04:11 AM
Order, Order.	Matteh	Off Topic	4	12-09-2007 03:42 AM
Current players [on current form] making any side	silentstriker	Cricket Chat	14	09-07-2006 02:29 AM
postal order	triplejapp	General	9	25-08-2004 08:58 PM

13-07-2009, 01:05 PM	#64 (permalink)
aussie Hall of Fame Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Cricket Posts: 16,845	Fantastic info Brumby...

18-07-2009, 07:13 PM	#70 (permalink)
Jakester1288 International Regular Join Date: May 2008 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 3,533	Johnson Siddle Hilfenhaus Clark Lee Bollinger After that isn't really important. That's just my opinion on it. Hopes and Bracken are high up the order for limited overs cricket.

19-07-2009, 02:21 AM	#75 (permalink)
morgieb Cricketer Of The Year Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Paradise City Posts: 8,930	Lee's not playing because he's injured. If he was fit he'd be 2nd in the pecking order, not 5th.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)