Shaun Tait- Could he be the man for Australia in this WC?

[Matt79]

The same can be said of every bowler in the squad. Why pick Tait to say such a thing now?

Because McGrath and Bracken are pretty much known quantities, while Hogg and Watson have no realistic chance of having the potential to be the bowler of the tournament. We don't know how Tait will go, but his potential is such that if he does well, he could well end up being the revelation of the tournament. Not saying its likely, but its a definite possibility, and an interesting one to discuss.

And how good was Lee? Not very good.

He had a pretty successful introduction to international cricket IIRC...

All bowlers add "new" dimensions, it's just a case of what that dimension is. If it's repeatedly going for 5-6-an-over, it's a dimension the side can do without.

You will obviously be correct if that's what happens. If he goes for 4.5 an over and averages two top-order wickets a match, that would be an entirely different outcome though wouldn't it? That's why its interesting to speculate...

 

[Richard]

Because McGrath and Bracken are pretty much known quantities, while Hogg and Watson have no realistic chance of having the potential to be the bowler of the tournament. We don't know how Tait will go, but his potential is such that if he does well, he could well end up being the revelation of the tournament. Not saying its likely, but its a definite possibility, and an interesting one to discuss.

I'd say there are any number of players who you could say the same thing about. IMO Tait's being over-talked by *certain Aussies*. I'd say you could say the same thing about Beau Casson if he'd happened to have been picked.

He had a pretty successful introduction to international cricket IIRC...

Not ODIs. His ODI form actually went the other way to his Tests - started off average, then started getting a load of wickets.

You will obviously be correct if that's what happens. If he goes for 4.5 an over and averages two top-order wickets a match, that would be an entirely different outcome though wouldn't it? That's why its interesting to speculate...

But what I suggested seems the more realistic possibility.

 

[Matt79]

I'd say there are any number of players who you could say the same thing about. IMO Tait's being over-talked by *certain Aussies*. I'd say you could say the same thing about Beau Casson if he'd happened to have been picked.

Except, again, Casson wouldn't be a realistic prospect for being the surprise bowler of the tournament. Tait is.

You're point about him being hyped up may be valid, so why not just say that, rather than say that the whole conversation is not worth having?

Not ODIs. His ODI form actually went the other way to his Tests - started off average, then started getting a load of wickets.

I just always presume you're talking Tests

But what I suggested seems the more realistic possibility.

I'd say if so, its not the case by much. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Tait made quite a big contribution. It will probably be in the form of a group of wickets in a couple of big games, rather than sustained excellence throughout the tournament, but I can see him winning a key match for us with the ball.
And if we all agreed to not discuss anything that didn't seem the most realistic possibility, we'd only have a third as many posts on this site. What's wrong with pondering the uncertainties - the anticipation of the surprising answers to outstanding questions is what makes being a fan fun...

 

[pup11]

At the end of the day its important that McGrath,Bracken,and Watson compliment Tait's style of bowling.
Tait could be expensive with the new ball but he pulls back things pretty well in the middle overs and at the death (because of the reverse), IMO.

And one has got to realize that an attacking fast bowler can't have an economy below 4 rpo (especially when fast-bowlers are bowling with 20 overs of Power-Play and then during death overs).

 

[Richard]

Except, again, Casson wouldn't be a realistic prospect for being the surprise bowler of the tournament. Tait is.

You're point about him being hyped up may be valid, so why not just say that, rather than say that the whole conversation is not worth having?

I'm certainly not saying the conversation is not worth having. I am saying, however, that Tait is much more of a longshot than a high-ranking contender.

I just always presume you're talking Tests

I'm not Manan. Heck, you remember, I founded the T2IBS (it will be restored to my sig at some time, just fades from prominence for the moment), I think ODIs are great.

I'd say if so, its not the case by much. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Tait made quite a big contribution. It will probably be in the form of a group of wickets in a couple of big games, rather than sustained excellence throughout the tournament, but I can see him winning a key match for us with the ball.
And if we all agreed to not discuss anything that didn't seem the most realistic possibility, we'd only have a third as many posts on this site. What's wrong with pondering the uncertainties - the anticipation of the surprising answers to outstanding questions is what makes being a fan fun...

Nothing's wrong at all - but expect the likes of me to come in at some point and point-out that some people are talking as if likelihoods are higher than they actually are.

 

[Richard]

And one has got to realize that an attacking fast bowler can't have an economy below 4 rpo (especially when fast-bowlers are bowling with 20 overs of Power-Play and then during death overs).

But one has also got to realise that attack and economy are not poler-opposites. Good bowlers do both together.

One also has to realise that you have to take wickets to be an "attacking" bowler - not just bowl quickly and be perceived as "a wicket-taker".

 

[Matt79]

fair enough...

Re the tests comment, I had a memory that you'd said something like "unless stated otherwise I'm talking tests" to me recently, hence the comment with the wink, but I can't find it now to link, and maybe I was mistaken...

 

[Richard]

Ah, right... well I just presumed that because we were talking about ODIs with the Tait thingy, it linked to Lee and ODIs... oh, well.

 

[Matt79]

 

[pup11]

Richard, Tait has not been picked just because he bowls quick (yeah thats also a factor because rest of aussies bowlers are pretty similar in pace) but the criteria for his selection has been his form in the domestic circuit where has taken a lot of wickets.


And Casson has had a shocker of a season and has hardly picked a single wicket this season, so it is pretty obvious that nobody would talk about him.

 

[Richard]

There have been other bowlers who've taken good domestic figures but struggled to make the step-up.

Such bowlers are especially common when they take wickets at the domestic-one-day level but go for runs in the meantime...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I really can't understand all this talk of Pidge not being not the same bowler he was, i mean he is not talking the new ball anymore but still he was the ( or,one of the most) highest wicket-taker in the CB series and Australia's most economical bowler in NZ.

Being the best of a bad bunch means little, especially when considering one of the greatest bowlers the game has seen. It's very very obvious that McGrath is not the bowler he once was, but that doesn't mean he's a bad bowler. He's just a fair bit more vulnerable than he was in his prime, but he's still among the top 10 ODI bowlers in the world.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

There have been other bowlers who've taken good domestic figures but struggled to make the step-up.

But that doesn't determine a formula as such. You still pick bowlers based on domestic performance with the hope that they can carry that success to the international stage. Unlike England, Australia tend to pick their fast bowlers with pace as well as domestic impact in mind. Hilfenhaus is an exception to this tendency though.

 

[chaminda_00]

But that doesn't determine a formula as such. You still pick bowlers based on domestic performance with the hope that they can carry that success to the international stage. Unlike England, Australia tend to pick their fast bowlers with pace as well as domestic impact in mind. Hilfenhaus is an exception to this tendency though.

I think i saw Hifenhaus bowl high 130s and low 140s before. I don't think he is really that slow.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I think i saw Hifenhaus bowl high 130s and low 140s before. I don't think he is really that slow.

Reference his domestic record.

 

[Richard]

But that doesn't determine a formula as such. You still pick bowlers based on domestic performance with the hope that they can carry that success to the international stage. Unlike England, Australia tend to pick their fast bowlers with pace as well as domestic impact in mind. Hilfenhaus is an exception to this tendency though.

Of course you still do, but being a wicket-taking-expensive bowler in domestic cricket is about the most unreliable of ways of domestic performance on which to pick a bowler for ODIs.

As for England not picking bowlers with pace rather than domestic impact in mind... I'd question what you've been watching over here for the last 5 years at the very least. Saj is just the tip-of-the-iceberg.

You're more likely to make an international impact if you've made a domestic impact bowling in the 129-132kph range than if you've made no domestic impact bowling in the 145-150kph range. Pace alone is no great weapon.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As for England not picking bowlers with pace rather than domestic impact in mind... I'd question what you've been watching over here for the last 5 years at the very least. Saj is just the tip-of-the-iceberg.

Evidently I wasn't referring to the last 5 years then. It was a far more recent consideration.

And it also wasn't the bold hard-hitting and serious part of my point.

 

[Richard]

It's even more strong now than it was in 2002.

 

[chaminda_00]

Reference his domestic record.

When you consider the flat nature of pitches in domestic cricket in Australia and in particular Hobart, an average of 30 is not bad. Most domestic bowlers in the Australia have simialr averages. Clark averaged over 30 before his call up. Bichel has averages 26 in both form and his the best domestic bowler in the last decade.

Johnson is probably a better example of a player being picked on potential rather then domestic performances.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

When you consider the flat nature of pitches in domestic in Australia and in particular Hobart, an average of 30 is not bad.

How does that change the fact that his domestic achievements were hardly outstanding? It doesn't matter why they weren't; the fact is that they weren't. And yet he was picked. Hence it's an exception to my initial statement. Mitchell Johnson is equally an exception.