• 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.

*Official* Third Test at the WACA

pup11

International Coach
The debate here really isn't whether Beer would perform or not, as an Australian fan I hope he does well but the point is he has done absolutely nothing to justify this selection, whereas likes of Hauritz and O'Keffe have been in smokin' form considering the Australian spin standards off late.
So as an average Australian fan, I can't help but think that the ego of Hilditch and Co. has become bigger than Australian cricket itself and to satisfy their egos they are not only denying deserving cricketers a chance to play for their country, but also are making a mess of Australian cricket while doing so.
Its a shame that people around Australia are running ''Bring Warnie Back'' campaigns, when the need of the hour is to jointly protest against this selection panel.
 

Spikey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I don't see how Adil Rashid would force his way past the likes of Michael Beer and Jon Holland tbh
 

Howe_zat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
In related news, Hampshire spinner Danny Briggs has just taken a 7-wicket haul for the EPP.
 

Rant0r

International 12th Man
I have no idea what Beer is like as a bowler, but don't you just get the feeling that with so many changes in spin bowlers, one will by chance put up a good first performance? Then it will mean the selectors will be patting themselves on the back and they will be retained, even if they suck in the long-term. Can just see it happening a la Marcus North...century on debut, and then retained for ****ing two years.
Didn't work for Krejza

I'm protesting against the inclusion of Beer by drinking wine tonight. Seriously this is such a bizarro selection, does anytime know how he is in the field?

FMD I don't get why the selectors like bringing in a rookie spinner, no way would a batsman come into the Sid after playing just 5 matches.
:laugh: Wicked

Gotta wait for the day/night tests first :ph34r:

I actually want Australia to lose by another innings in Perth. Shake the foundations and make sure Andrew Hilditch is never able to show his face in public ever again. Not even drawing the longest of bows over the past few hours in playing devils' advocate have I been able to rationalise this selection decision.
Surprised he doesn't wear a top hat to be honest

Well I read that they sense Beer could become a really good spinner in the near future. I don't know why though.

Hughes is very lucky to get in one feels after a very poor domestic season. Hope he rises to the occasion, he's known as a big match performer.
I like the way Andrew Hilditch says at the press conference "We considered other batsmen, but Hughes deserved his chance" Averages 20 something this season...

Yeah, but O'Keefe can bowl too.
It seems like Ponting sure has had a problem with all the spinners he's had under him, including Warne.

Wouldn't really expect a team as professional as Australia to decide based on personal prejudices given the situation they're in ATM.

I do think Ponting may want to consider giving up the captaincy. There is no shame in that - Tendulkar was captain for a bit, couldn't do it, stepped down.

Maybe Watson? Smith for SA and Dhoni for India - very young when they became captains - truly paid off. Salman Butt also "paid off", but in a rather different way.
I also enjoyed Peter Taylor and he really stepped up....but this seems like total desperation and there is no explanation on why he is picked....Hauritz or O'Keefe should have been ahead, or D. Hussey/Khawaja and Smith would have been a more logical selection.
To be fair, Peter Taylor did little after his first test.

Not really, all Aussie spinners are 3rd rate so you may as well pick one who can bat.
Once again, that's an English type selection policy, one that drained them to mediocrity for about 20 years. Lets stick to picking 6 batsmen to get runs, a keeper who can catch, and 4 bowlers to bowl a team out. If the batsmen can't make runs why count on numbers 8, 9, and 10 ?
 

flibbertyjibber

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Should've selected one of them rather than Monty
No problem with Monty being selected for this tour, not as if he is going to play anyway, rather him than desperately pick rookies who are useless and inexperienced like Australia are doing.
 

Furball

Evil Scotsman
I like the way Andrew Hilditch says at the press conference "We considered other batsmen, but Hughes deserved his chance" Averages 20 something this season...
To be fair, that's the one selection they've gotten right. Hughes has scored mountains of runs at FC level, averaging over 50, and also averages over 50 in Test cricket. It's a far more sound selection than someone like Shaun Marsh, who is in better form right now but might just be a flash in the pan when it comes to stringing some good scores together.
 

flibbertyjibber

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
.
Once again, that's an English type selection policy, one that drained them to mediocrity for about 20 years. Lets stick to picking 6 batsmen to get runs, a keeper who can catch, and 4 bowlers to bowl a team out. If the batsmen can't make runs why count on numbers 8, 9, and 10 ?
Well why don't Australia do that then?

Oh forgot, the players aren't good enough to score enough runs or take 20 wickets.:laugh:
 

Rant0r

International 12th Man
To be fair, that's the one selection they've gotten right. Hughes has scored mountains of runs at FC level, averaging over 50, and also averages over 50 in Test cricket. It's a far more sound selection than someone like Shaun Marsh, who is in better form right now but might just be a flash in the pan when it comes to stringing some good scores together.
I'm a bit of a fan of picking players in form, Hughes is far from it, and is still in the middle of remodelling a flawed technique. So no, I don't believe a man who averages 20 this season is the right choice. And i've never thought Marsh should be batting anywhere in the top 4. If they so desperately want a specialist opener, and I don't know why considering they've been using makeshift openers for 7 years, then Hussey has opened at FC level for 10 years then they could pick Khawaja or whoever else they want in the middle order.

Well why don't Australia do that then?

Oh forgot, the players aren't good enough to score enough runs or take 20 wickets.:laugh:
In a perfect world where there's no opposition, there IS in fact an opposition, and England haven't just been facing a bowling machine with no fielders, they've played quite well. My point is that you should pick your 4 best bowlers, not pick a lesser bowler because he can bat a bit, if your 4 best bowlers are all number 11's then so be it.
 

flibbertyjibber

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
In a perfect world where there's no opposition, there IS in fact an opposition, and England haven't just been facing a bowling machine with no fielders, they've played quite well. My point is that you should pick your 4 best bowlers, not pick a lesser bowler because he can bat a bit, if your 4 best bowlers are all number 11's then so be it.
I agree, but O'Keefe is better than Doherty so why pick the Tasmanian in the first place?

You might have the right idea but your selectors don't as i don't think they have been picking the best 4 bowlers anyway, if they are going to pick lesser bowlers they may as well pick ones who can bat too.
 

Top