Bolwer rotation for tests

[Richard]

Just shows what a poor player he is, really.
That spell said something about Lee the bowler, too.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Here is the article:

Test rotation planned

Cricket Australia cannot be serious, surely? Now, I know I get critisised a lot for doing the old 'Qld v N.S.W.', but I'm sorry, for years Qld fans have had to watch Kasprowicz and Bichel (and bowlers from other states) carry out drinks to bowlers that have either been performing well or even not performing well. I'm sorry Brett Lee, you are going to have to wait your turn like thousands of other players have throughout test history. Ask someone like Kasprowicz if he would like to be 'rested', I don't think you'll find he'll say 'yes'.

This is purely a reason just to play Brett Lee, last time I checked he wasn't needed, we beat India in India for the first time in 35 years, and thoroughly dismantled the Kiwis in Brisbane without the aid of Brett Lee, and quite frankly Kasprowicz has played a major hand in all the victories. I will only accept bowler rotation in tests if players of the calibre of McGrath & Warne are included, you cannot have one rule for some players and another for others.

While we're at it why don't we rest the batsman and keepers...

We don't need Brett Lee, let the state batsman smash him all around the park.

I agree with you in regards to Kasper being rested for Lee. If they're trying to sneak him in by resting one player then that smells terribly, however if all are rested at some stage then fair enough. I'm not sure that it'd work in test matches though.........

It wouldn't just be QLDers who thought something funny was going on if Kasper took an enforced rest for Lee.

 

[Buddhmaster]

I don't see why they want Lee so much, he isn't that good. Leave the team how it is. I don't hear the bowlers complainign about needing a rest.

 

[Eclipse]

I find it hard to understand how the selectors even consider Lee..

He is an awsome feilder and has a great arm so maybe thats why he is 12th man so much atm..

 

[Eclipse]

Just shows what a poor player he is, really.
That spell said something about Lee the bowler, too.

I agree that lee is crap but how did that spell prove it ??

if anything it would indicate he is better than in real life and was just unlucky..

 

[Crazy Sam]

I hate the idea of rotation for tests, if there is any rotation to be done it should be in one dayers only.

The idea of Australia picking less than our best side is fraught with danger.

 

[marc71178]

if anything it would indicate he is better than in real life and was just unlucky..

Oh no, there's no such thing as unlucky bowlers - only lucky ones (think McGrath and Pollock!)

 

[Richard]

Bad luck can only last a short time before it has to be considered that something is actually being done wrong.
Good luck, as we all know, can last... well, a career.

 

[Richard]

I agree that lee is crap but how did that spell prove it ??

if anything it would indicate he is better than in real life and was just unlucky..

Well, yes, to be fair he was unlucky with the bad decisions and the dropped catch but it just showed how he compounded any bad luck with the most heinous crime of them all (wickets off no-balls).
Shame - but for the no-ball all four would have been pretty good balls.

 

[Richard]

I don't see why they want Lee so much, he isn't that good. Leave the team how it is. I don't hear the bowlers complainign about needing a rest.

Apparently the need for Lee is all to do with sponsorship and typical people getting excited about pace.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Bad luck can only last a short time before it has to be considered that something is actually being done wrong.
Good luck, as we all know, can last... well, a career.

I wouldn't claim to be speaking for all of us on the good luck thing mate....

 

[Richard]

No, neither would I - some people exist in the snug generalisation that luck is something that need not be worried about. That's fine - I can't always do much about that.

 

[marc71178]

Bad luck can only last a short time before it has to be considered that something is actually being done wrong.
Good luck, as we all know, can last... well, a career.

One man's good luck is another's bad luck, so therefore it is as likely for bad luck to have as long a run as good luck.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Richard]

No, not at all - a batsman can have good luck while a bowler has no bad. A batsman who smashes a Long-Hop to point is lucky to survive, the bowler is not unlucky not to have a wicket.
Luck does not have to be something that automatically works both ways whenever it occurs.

 

[marc71178]

A dropped catch is bad luck for the bowler.

 

[Richard]

No, it is not.
Only if it is off a good ball is it bad luck for a bowler.
Otherwise it's poetic justice.

 

[marc71178]

If a catch goes down, the bowler experiences bad luck.

 

[Richard]

No, he doesn't.
He experiences loss, but bad luck only if he deserved a wicket.
He didn't unless the ball was a wicket-taking ball.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Bad luck can only last a short time before it has to be considered that something is actually being done wrong.
Good luck, as we all know, can last... well, a career.

Or.................good luck can only last a short time before it has to be considered that what a certain player is doing/achieving may not be solely due to a perceived amount of luck on your part.

Despite all this forward thinking about the game Richard I doubt that even you can be entirely objective when considering different players and their respective careers. I'd suggest that in certain cases you've also made up your mind in one direction or the other based on a very small sample of what's happened over a player's entire career.

As I've said before, you can't explain away 400 wickets + by saying a player has been lucky.......and I think you know who I'm referring to in this particular instance. If you watched the test the other day, you might have seen why this player gets so many wickets in cases where other bowlers of his ilk struggle. The ball that got Fleming and the ball that got Oram in the second innings are two such examples.........look to how NZ bowled in this test for examples of how not to bowl on a batsman's paradise.

 

[Mr Casson]

No, he doesn't.
He experiences loss, but bad luck only if he deserved a wicket.
He didn't unless the ball was a wicket-taking ball.

If someone drops one of your catches, you are unlucky, whether it is a good ball or not. You'd be lucky to get the wicket, and unlucky to have it dropped.

Incidentally, I'd like to see you say "oh well, I didn't deserve it anyway" after the deep square leg fielder dropped an easy catch off one of your long hops.