• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Michael "Frosty" Beer

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Lol @ that Chris Simpson comment earlier by the way
The funny thing is that he would probably offer the team more, he's an outstanding first slipper a very astute captain and at times he can be a handy batsman, not much of a spin bowler though but who is these days?
 

straw man

International Coach
It's clearly the Selectors who are trying to prove a point, more so than the players they're picking. The point is "We know better than you" - the obvious selection seems to be Hauritz or O'Keefe so instead the selectors pick a complete unknown, perhaps to demonstrate their superior intellect and knowledge. 8-)
 

outbreak

First Class Debutant
If selectors claim there's a huge gap between shield cricket and tests thesedays, doesn't it make sense to pick ONLY the top players in the shield who have good techniques and skills? Surely with a spin bowler if he was any good he'd be taking wickets in the supposably poor quality player filled shield? Like O'Keefe is doing? MIght be awhile for him to improve to test level but how will he do it playing in the shield if they consider that **** quality? Should all out players flock overseas to play and impress?
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It's clearly the Selectors who are trying to prove a point, more so than the players they're picking. The point is "We know better than you" - the obvious selection seems to be Hauritz or O'Keefe so instead the selectors pick a complete unknown, perhaps to demonstrate their superior intellect and knowledge. 8-)
Well the thing is, there are times when left-field selections do work. The thing is though it's a very rare thing, and when they do it's usually after some persistence (Healy for example). If Beer fails early on, I don't know if this panel has enough patience to persist with him. They certainly haven't shown any with any spinners they've picked so far.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
Hilditch reckons that there's a huge gap between the Shield and Test cricket now, so he wouldn't let Johnson go back to WA, so what are we supposed to gauge players on ? Net Form ? Now they want to get rid of the Shield Final in favour of more t20... *shakes head*

And to think they sacked Merv
I hope he's not basing that on Johnson getting 100 and taking 5 wickets for WA, but scoring 0 and taking 0 wickets in Brisbane. There's a huge gap in consistency between what Johnson does ball-to-ball when he's bowling.
 
Last edited:

Ruckus

International Captain
I hope he's not basing that on Johnson getting 100 and taking 5 wickets for WA, but scoring 0 and taking 0 wickets in Brisbane. There's a huge gap in consistency between what Johnson does ball-to-ball when he's bowling.
I have to agree somewhat with Hilditch there. I don't think using very recent shield form at least, is a good gauge of how someone will go in tests. Johnson's failure could be explained just by his bipolar style of bowling, but Bollinger also failed both form and fitness wise, despite producing some very good Shield results. I still think picking Bollinger was the right decision though, because his overall FC and test performances are impressive as well. If it was up to me, the top criterion for selection would be good overall FC performances. Then if there are two players who have similar records, you'd pick the one who has better recent Shield form, but I'd never use that as a criterion alone.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
I have to agree somewhat with Hilditch there. I don't think using very recent shield form at least, is a good gauge of how someone will go in tests. Johnson's failure could be explained just by his bipolar style of bowling, but Bollinger also failed both form and fitness wise, despite producing some very good Shield results. I still think picking Bollinger was the right decision though, because his overall FC and test performances are impressive as well. If it was up to me, the top criterion for selection would be good overall FC performances. Then if there are two players who have similar records, you'd pick the one who has better recent Shield form, but I'd never use that as a criterion alone.
Johnson has been worked out on an international level - That explains the differences
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Johnson has been worked out on an international level - That explains the differences
There might be some element of truth to that, but the fact is Johnson bowled garbage even by his standards - it wasn't just that the English batsmen were wary of, and leaving, deliveries outside off, he was also completely wayward and failed to produce any pressure.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
I have to agree somewhat with Hilditch there. I don't think using very recent shield form at least, is a good gauge of how someone will go in tests. Johnson's failure could be explained just by his bipolar style of bowling, but Bollinger also failed both form and fitness wise, despite producing some very good Shield results. I still think picking Bollinger was the right decision though, because his overall FC and test performances are impressive as well. If it was up to me, the top criterion for selection would be good overall FC performances. Then if there are two players who have similar records, you'd pick the one who has better recent Shield form, but I'd never use that as a criterion alone.
True, but in the case of selecting Beer he's relied on no shield form at all...maybe he considers form from the level below the shield to be a greater indicator.

I think there were also other factors to Bollinger not performing, i.e: fitness. In both Bollinger and Johnson's cases they've also been around for a while and played for Australia before. It's not the same as selecting someone for the first time from the shield competition.

There's certainly a case to be made for the selectors being allowed to pick someone based on a hunch. It's what I was crying out for before, so it'd be hypocritical to say they shouldn't now...but you do have to wonder why you'd bypass a guy who had played better in twice as many matches as Beer (and who bowls with the arm Hilditch has apparently identified as being 'the way forward').

Maybe the selectors do see something the stats and performances so far don't show though. I hope Beer does well in this test, but it's still a slightly unusual selection.

You also have to wonder what message Hilditch is sending to players in the shield competition now when he says what he said about it.
 

straw man

International Coach
Well the thing is, there are times when left-field selections do work. The thing is though it's a very rare thing, and when they do it's usually after some persistence (Healy for example). If Beer fails early on, I don't know if this panel has enough patience to persist with him. They certainly haven't shown any with any spinners they've picked so far.
Exactly, the selectors are hoping they'll stumble on a silver bullet. If they do with these left-field selections, they'll look like geniuses, and if they don't they'll blame lack of talented options.
 

Ruckus

International Captain
Yeah the selection of Beer is pretty damn bizarre, but I just can't force myself to believe the decision has been made with any serious thought going into it. Now that Doherty has come and gone (and failed), you have to wonder what the reasoning was behind that decision. The main reason I can think of was because of his good performance against the Sri Lanka's in the ODI's (and perhaps the alleged left-arm orthodox advantage he poses over Pietersen). You have to ask, is that a good reason to debut someone in the Ashes? It clearly isn't, and many on CW condemned the decision (which turned out to be justified). If that kind of reasoning is being used, then it is only natural to doubt whether this decision about Beer is any more sound. The fact that Warne backed him out of the blue (with some pretty biased justification mind you), and then the selectors suddenly chose him, seems too much of a coincidence to me. However, I am with you, in that I hope he does well in Perth, and that the reason for his selection had more substance behind it...
 
Last edited:

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
cricket with balls Australia pick up a random player from bus stop, Michael Beer picked for the WACA - join sehwagology

Having run out of cricketers in shield cricket due to injury, T20 contracts and general uselessness, Cricket Australia has made a shock decision to pick a player from a local bus shelter in Perth.

Michael Beer is this lucky man’s name.

Beer, 26, a tall blonde chap formerly of the Democratic Republic of Victoria, was waiting for the number 87 bus to go down to the beach when Greg Chappell was driving by.

Chappell, an amazing judge of cricketers, saw something in Beer as he was tapping on his legs waiting for the bus to arrive.

Those seconds of tapping were enough to show Chappell that Beer could be the spinner that Australia have been waiting for.

Chappell said, “You can tell a great spinner by his fingers, it doesn’t matter if he is bowling or not, it’s just a case of looking at them and feeling that they have the magic in them. Beer’s fingers certainly felt magical to me”.
:laugh:
 

andyc

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
cricket with balls Australia pick up a random player from bus stop, Michael Beer picked for the WACA - join sehwagology

Having run out of cricketers in shield cricket due to injury, T20 contracts and general uselessness, Cricket Australia has made a shock decision to pick a player from a local bus shelter in Perth.

Michael Beer is this lucky man’s name.

Beer, 26, a tall blonde chap formerly of the Democratic Republic of Victoria, was waiting for the number 87 bus to go down to the beach when Greg Chappell was driving by.

Chappell, an amazing judge of cricketers, saw something in Beer as he was tapping on his legs waiting for the bus to arrive.

Those seconds of tapping were enough to show Chappell that Beer could be the spinner that Australia have been waiting for.

Chappell said, “You can tell a great spinner by his fingers, it doesn’t matter if he is bowling or not, it’s just a case of looking at them and feeling that they have the magic in them. Beer’s fingers certainly felt magical to me”.

......


Later on Andrew Hilditch was informed of the selection, “Look, I didn’t have that much to do with this selection, but Matthew Beer is an exciting prospect, Warnie told me about him, and Warnie is not known to talk up players from his former clubs”.

Nathan Hauritz’s shoelaces have been taken off him as a precaution.
:laugh:
 
Last edited:

Rant0r

International 12th Man
even though Nathan was poor in India but his performances in the last Ashes and last home summer surely meant he should have been starting atleast the first 3 tests.
Short memories, Hauritz doesn't seem to have to do much wrong really, he's a bit unfashionable, perhaps he should consider a blonde streak ?

The funny thing is that he would probably offer the team more, he's an outstanding first slipper a very astute captain and at times he can be a handy batsman, not much of a spin bowler though but who is these days?
He'd fit right in haha

I hope he's not basing that on Johnson getting 100 and taking 5 wickets for WA, but scoring 0 and taking 0 wickets in Brisbane. There's a huge gap in consistency between what Johnson does ball-to-ball when he's bowling.
Not sure what you can base it on then, but he is rather erratic yes

Of course Shane Warne's going to say he likes beer!

I think there was a bit of a mix-up in communication.
:laugh:

Yeah the selection of Beer is pretty damn bizarre, but I just can't force myself to believe the decision has been made with any serious thought going into it. Now that Doherty has come and gone (and failed), you have to wonder what the reasoning was behind that decision. The main reason I can think of was because of his good performance against the Sri Lanka's in the ODI's (and perhaps the alleged left-arm orthodox advantage he poses over Pietersen). You have to ask, is that a good reason to debut someone in the Ashes? It clearly isn't, and many on CW condemned the decision (which turned out to be justified). If that kind of reasoning is being used, then it is only natural to doubt whether this decision about Beer is any more sound. The fact that Warne backed him out of the blue (with some pretty biased justification mind you), and then the selectors suddenly chose him, seems too much of a coincidence to me. However, I am with you, in that I hope he does well in Perth, and that the reason for his selection had more substance behind it...
Not sure about this fixation on using a left arm spinner just because Pietersen supposedly struggles against them, he's just one batsmen, use Clarke if that's the case, he's no worse than Doherty, then you're not hedging your bets against one batsman
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
As a rule Australia has always preferred spinners who take the ball away from right handers.

That's why I'm backing myself for Melbourne.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
The selectors have obviously selected Beer by looking at him play and liking what they see. I certainly wouldn't have done the same, however I've seen SFA of him, whereas they, presumably, have had a few good looks at him and liked his game.

Seeing him live > Looking at his cricinfo page and passing judgment.
Maybe but its hard to get away from the fact that a lot of people have seen him play many times and he hasnt exactly been selected for a lot of FC cricket. Those that have been watching him for years have not been picking him for FC cricket and he hasnt done anything to prove them wrong.

Picking an unproven club cricketer that has never done anything at the level below Tests is strange. Im loving it from an Englishmans POV

What is the under/over on his Test career? Ill set the line at 2 Tests.
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Maybe but its hard to get away from the fact that a lot of people have seen him play many times and he hasnt exactly been selected for a lot of FC cricket. Those that have been watching him for years have not been picking him for FC cricket and he hasnt done anything to prove them wrong.
The funny thing is, he probably would've been selected for Victoria last season had Australian Cricket not put pressure on them to pick Jon Holland.
 

Top