Australian Prelimanary squad of 30

[Rusty]

The answer, then, is "yes", no need for the

I do remember the 2001 instance now, mind.

I think there was every need for the , given the trivial nature of your reply, no one would really care, you were just trying to be a smartass, and it back fired.

 

[Richard]

Bulls*** was I.

I was pointing-out something that very few people ever take note of, and something that isn't remotely difficult to take note of.

With only 2 exceptions, Gilchrist and Hayden bat that way around, so you wouldn't think it too difficult to place them that way around in a team-list.

 

[andyc]

 

[Richard]

Celebrating the defining moments of CW

 

[Rusty]

Bulls*** was I.

I was pointing-out something that very few people ever take note of, and something that isn't remotely difficult to take note of.

With only 2 exceptions, Gilchrist and Hayden bat that way around, so you wouldn't think it too difficult to place them that way around in a team-list.

They were the first to matches that came up on my search.

Also, in Haydens last two one dayers he has been listed first, so who's to say that won't continue.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bulls*** was I.

I was pointing-out something that very few people ever take note of, and something that isn't remotely difficult to take note of.

With only 2 exceptions, Gilchrist and Hayden bat that way around, so you wouldn't think it too difficult to place them that way around in a team-list.

Who cares though? There really is little difference between #1 and #2. I just can't imagine a selector saying "We've opted for Player A ahead of Player B because he has more experience batting at #1, while Player B has spent most of his domestic career at #2."

No-one cares Richard. The roll-eyes emoticon was very apt.

 

[Richard]

They were the first to matches that came up on my search.

Also, in Haydens last two one dayers he has been listed first, so who's to say that won't continue.

Well... mainly I'd suggest the fact that Gilchrist (who didn't play in those games) will presumably return, but either way... there have been more important things discussed.

Mark Waugh and Michael Slater always used to rotate the first-facer - I presume, certainly with Slats, that that was due to supersuspicion. Hope they didn't annoy Hayden\Tubby and Gilchrist too much.

 

[Richard]

Who cares though? There really is little difference between #1 and #2. I just can't imagine a selector saying "We've opted for Player A ahead of Player B because he has more experience batting at #1, while Player B has spent most of his domestic career at #2."

No-one cares Richard. The roll-eyes emoticon was very apt.

I doubt selectors make the choice. I've heard many examples of opening batsmen deciding amongst themselves. As I mentioned above, Mark Waugh and Michael Slater used to rotate it all the time.

Some - like Graham Gooch - always wanted to face first. Some - like Alec Stewart and Alastair Brown - hated it. Some - like Marcus Trescothick - showed no preferance whatsoever. Some - like Michael Atherton - preferred to face first but was happy to do whatever their partner chose if they had a strong preference.

Either way, most regular opening-pairings always do the same thing (it was always Trescothick-Struass and Trescothick-Vaughan, for instance, and to date it's always been Strauss-Cook) and I wouldn't think it'd be too difficult to list them the way they ALWAYS line-up yet it amazes me how often people list them the wrong way around.

 

[Prince EWS]

I doubt selectors make the choice

Exactly. Which shows how irrelevant it is. It's not even worth considering at selection, so why devote several posts to it?

 

[Richard]

Because, as I mentioned, it is very important to some opening-batsmen.

 

[Prince EWS]

Because, as I mentioned, it is very important to some opening-batsmen.

But considering we were discussing selection and not the careers of opening batsmen, it clearly wasn't very important to the conversation.

 

[Richard]

No, it wasn't. But in case you haven't noticed, it's something I routinely pick-up on. Rather as moderators routinely pick-up on posters who consistently break forum rules.

 

[Prince EWS]

No, it wasn't. But in case you haven't noticed, it's something I routinely pick-up on. Rather as moderators routinely pick-up on posters who consistently break forum rules.

Considering it was a brand new member looking to contribute though, you don't think cutting him some slack would have been beneficial? For all you know you could have scared away a potential goldmine of quality posts by attacking his reply over something completely irrelevant and unimportant.

 

[Rusty]

Considering it was a brand new member looking to contribute though, you don't think cutting him some slack would have been beneficial? For all you know you could have scared away a potential goldmine of quality posts by attacking his reply over something completely irrelevant and unimportant.

He could have, if he wasn't wrong about it that is I guess......

 

[luffy]

My final 15

Ricky Ponting TAS 32
Adam Gilchrist WA 35
Andrew Symonds QLD 31
Brett Lee NSW 30
Glenn McGrath NSW 36
Michael Hussey WA 31
Michael Clarke NSW 25
Stuart Clark NSW 31
Brad Haddin NSW 29
Mitchell Johnson QLD 25
Shaun Tait SA 23
Matthew Hayden QLD 35
Nathan Bracken NSW 29
Ben Hilfenhaus TAS 23
Cameron White VIC 23

Ok i had 17 and it wouldn't let me edit it so i got rid of Hogg and Voges

 

[luffy]

Nice counting....

Jeez you just have to keep correcting me don't you??

 

[Richard]

Considering it was a brand new member looking to contribute though, you don't think cutting him some slack would have been beneficial? For all you know you could have scared away a potential goldmine of quality posts by attacking his reply over something completely irrelevant and unimportant.

Not "completely irrelevant and unimportant", at all, but yes, maybe I'd have done well to examine the post-count and add a smiley or 2. Post-counts are not something I routinely examine when replying.

 

[Richard]

He could have, if he wasn't wrong about it that is I guess......

I wasn't "wrong" about anything - I asked a straightforward question, because I wasn't sure whether it'd ever happened.

Turned-out it had.

 

[James90]

Hayden, Gilchrist, Ponting, Watson, Clarke, Huss, Symonds, White, Hogg, Clark, Lee, Bracken, Johnson, McGrath, Haddin.

Good looking team.

 

[James90]

Does he deserve a place? Haddin and Jaques serve as cover for Gilchrist and Hayden, respectively. Correct me if I'm wrong but White is a leg-spinning, batting all-rounder.
The squad already has cover for the seamers (another seamer), Hogg (another seamer) and the middle-order batsmen (Jaques). I suppose White would be cover for Watson then.

White is required as second spinner and a good batting option. Jaques make room for him. Hayden's opening position is covered by Watson. If worst comes to worst I'm sure Clarke or Hussey wouldn't let anyone down at the top of the order.