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

[chaminda_00]

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.

Well his domestic achievements were actually quite outstanding, he was averaging in the mid to low 20s with the ball for the season before he got selected. He was selected on the basics of his domestic performances. He overall record might not look flash, but thats a lot do with the start of his career. If you look at his record in domestic cricket in the back part of last season and during this season, its pretty clear he was selected on the basic of domestic performances. He was the leading wicketer this season and the best bowler in the 2nd half of last season. I don't see how you can say his domestic performances weren't the basic of his selection.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well his domestic achievements were actually quite outstanding, he was averaging in the mid to low 20s with the ball for the season before he got selected. He was selected on the basics of his domestic performances.

Fairly certain Hilfenhaus was selected on potential far more than anything proven on the domestic circuit. Bowlers have had good seasons in Aussie cricket before and not gotten close to the team. Hilfenhaus was picked because he looks a good bowler, rather than being a proven good bowler.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this point. All I was demonstrating was Hilfenhaus as a bowler with decent pace, picked despite a mediocre domestic record. I never once called him a bad bowler.

 

[chaminda_00]

Fairly certain Hilfenhaus was selected on potential far more than anything proven on the domestic circuit. Bowlers have had good seasons in Aussie cricket before and not gotten close to the team. Hilfenhaus was picked because he looks a good bowler, rather than being a proven good bowler.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this point. All I was demonstrating was Hilfenhaus as a bowler with decent pace, picked despite a mediocre domestic record. I never once called him a bad bowler.

He was selected for A side infront of the 'proven' Griffith (2nd highest wicket taker behind Bichel) on potential, but since then his selection in the national team was based on his domestic performance. He was by far the best domestic bowler this season. Also his record not really mediocre its on par or better then most bowlers in Australia.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

He was selected for A side infront of the 'proven' Griffith (2nd highest wicket taker behind Bichel) on potential, but since then his selection in the national team was based on his domestic performance. He was by far the best domestic bowler this season. Also his record not really mediocre its on par or better then most bowlers in Australia.

In what was is Adam Griffith even worth of the title of 'proven', let alone proven? Picking Hilfenhaus ahead of Griffith is just picking one bowler with a poor domestic record ahead of another, more experienced, bowler with a poor domestic record. Griffith is about as far from a proven bowler as Saj Mahmood.

One good season doesn't generally get a player into the Australian side. Recently there have been exceptions to that general trend which, I again emphasize, was the extent of my initial point.

 

[chaminda_00]

In what was is Adam Griffith even worth of the title of 'proven', let alone proven? Picking Hilfenhaus ahead of Griffith is just picking one bowler with a poor domestic record ahead of another, more experienced, bowler with a poor domestic record. Griffith is about as far from a proven bowler as Saj Mahmood.

One good season doesn't generally get a player into the Australian side. Recently there have been exceptions to that general trend which, I again emphasize, was the extent of my initial point.

Griffith was given the title as proven as he had more then one good season, about two and 3 or 4 poor seasons.

Most of the bowlers selected for Australia recently have been selected basically after one good season. Its been like that for while, with the exception of recalls to Bichel, Kasprowicz, Lee and Gillespie. Even all those four were basically selected after one good season to start of with. I guess Clark, Lewis and Harwood are really the only exceptions.

Also i fail to see how Hilfenhaus, how many domestic bowlers in Australia have better records?

 

[jammay123]

overated not as good as lee. but lee is also overated. saying that tait will probably get 5 against england in the super 8's(if we get that far!)

 

[Goughy]

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.

Would probably agree with you but the sample group of 145-150 kph bowlers is too small to draw a definative conclusion from (especially those with bad domestic records).

Saj doesnt qualify for that pace level. Off the top of my head the group includes a couple of recent West Indians (Edwards especially), Devon Malcolm, Andre Van Troost (though never played Int. cricket). Bowling 150 is rare enough and being a failure at that speed is even rarer, therefore one or 2 players performing poorly can sway the whole sample disproportionately.

However, real pace on its own is a weapon, in so much as it changes the nature of the game. A team is more aggressive in the field, a buzz goes round and opponents talk about genuine pace in the dressing room. It changes the entire tempo and ambience of a game. Like aggressive batting (eg my faith in Mal Loye at the top for England) it goes a little deeper than pure averages, changes how the game is played and is a statement of dominance. Even at test level it makes an impression.

Malcolm has one of the worst averages in test history (over 100 wkts) yet his inclusion always sent whispers around the opponents dressing room and batsmen didnt like facing him. He was the classic combination of very fast but couldnt bowl.

I see where you are coming from though. Id take Lewis over Saj every day and Angus over Malcolm.

TBH, after writing all that Im not convinced of the relative importance of pace. I wouldnt discount it as an important weapon but I do think it can be overvalued. I cant make my mind up

 

[Richard]

Only 1 thing I'd disagree with in that post - I'm pretty sure I have seen Saj hit the 145-150 sort of mark. Certainly he's bowled 90mph+ (144.5kph????) of times, and I'm pretty sure he was right up there the only time I've seen his speeds quoted in kph (the pipe-opener on the recent Ashes tour).

 

[Goughy]

Only 1 thing I'd disagree with in that post - I'm pretty sure I have seen Saj hit the 145-150 sort of mark. Certainly he's bowled 90mph+ (144.5kph????) of times, and I'm pretty sure he was right up there the only time I've seen his speeds quoted in kph (the pipe-opener on the recent Ashes tour).

Not regularly enough, and certainly not after his 1st spell, to qualify as someone who could be classed as in the bracket.

Saj is certainly FM rather than F.

EDIT- Seperate from this, how annoying and biased were the Aussie TV caption people during the Commonwealth Bank Series. I remember watching and Shane Bond was classed as RA FM Cheeky buggers.

 

[Richard]

I haven't taken extraordinarily close note of his speeds over a long period, so I'll take your word for it.

And I think incompetent rather than biased would best describe said producers. Ambrose and Walsh were still classed as RAF over here in 2000, despite Ambrose managing a top-speed of 86mph.

 

[thierry henry]

If Mahmood isn't RAF he is very close to it.

Bowling with the new ball in a couple of games in the CB series he bowled ball after ball between 145-151kph. That's 90-93mph. He's certainly a similar pace to Bond.

 

[social]

The thing about Tait is that he generally AVERAGES over 150 ks and can swing both the old and new ball.

IF (and it a huge "if") he can bowl accurately, that could be a potent combination

However, he'll go for plenty of runs as often as not because any ball fractionally wide of a fieldsman will gor for 4 because of the pace on the ball and the small grounds.

As a result, IMO, Oz cannot restrict themselves to 5 bowlers only. They must have servicable back-up if required to pick up slack on days when he's not on.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

The full strength team will include Symonds and Clarke, as well as Watson, so there's certainly backup bowling there.

The issue with Tait is simply that if he bowls as well as he can bowl, which most Australians will have seen in domestic cricket and perhaps once in an ODI, Australia's attack suddenly looks extremely good, even without Lee. Throw in what is (IMO) fairly comfortably the strongest ODI batting lineup in the world at the moment and you've got a team that should really win the WC. You can't say that about anyone, as has been implied, because few bowlers have the ability to turn a game which Tait has demonstrated from time to time in domestic cricket.

If Tait bowls badly, Australia's bowling comes right back to the field, not only because Australia lack a third quality seamer, but it also puts extra pressure on Hogg and the other bowlers. And of course, that makes Australia much easier to beat, batting strength aside.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Most of the bowlers selected for Australia recently have been selected basically after one good season.

It's amazing that you are practically agreeing with my point and yet seemingly taking offense as well. Forgive me if I misread you, but it baffles me that this is being argued, when what you're saying is practically what I was saying in the first place!

Also i fail to see how Hilfenhaus, how many domestic bowlers in Australia have better records?

Half of this doesn't make sense, but I think I can tell what you're meaning to say.

What Hilfenhaus has going for him in terms of his career record is a good economy rate. At a tick over 4, he's started very well. But there are several bowlers who average a fair bit less than he does - Simpson, Bichel, Edmondson, Hopes, Harwood to name a few. Doesn't make them better bowlers. Just means they've accomplished more. Obviously the reason Hilfenhaus was picked is his potential more so than what he's accomplished thus far.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here, because what I stated initially was fact - Hilfenhaus does not have an outstanding career record, but was picked anyway. I'm not calling Hilfenhaus a bad bowler. I'm not saying he shouldn't have been picked. What exactly are you opposing here?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

If Mahmood isn't RAF he is very close to it.

Bowling with the new ball in a couple of games in the CB series he bowled ball after ball between 145-151kph. That's 90-93mph. He's certainly a similar pace to Bond.

Kev's point is a valid one. Mahmood doesn't maintain that top pace after an opening burst of 2-3 overs. Unlike Bond, who can bowl at high pace for more than 70% of a spell. Mahmood doesn't appear to have that ability right now.

 

[thierry henry]

Kev's point is a valid one. Mahmood doesn't maintain that top pace after an opening burst of 2-3 overs. Unlike Bond, who can bowl at high pace for more than 70% of a spell. Mahmood doesn't appear to have that ability right now.

I've never seen any bowler who bowls as quick in a second spell with the older ball.

Bond usually (when his rhythm is good and the radar isn't a dodgy one like in the NZ-England game) is a 145-150 bowler with the new ball, same as Mahmood. Then, Bond is usually a 137-142 bowler in his later spells which I daresay is similar to Mahmood as well.

 

[vic_orthdox]

What they're talking about is more maintaining a speed throughout the one spell. Mahmood doesn't do that (according to them, anyways).

 

[thierry henry]

imo if you bowl consistently (as in, at least one or two balls game after game) over 150kph, and consistently (as in, 3 or 4 balls an over with the new ball) over 145kph, you can be regarded as RAF and probably "express" as well. Bond and Saj are borderline. Even Lee is borderline these days....Tait is the only certainty and possibly Malinga as well.

 

[thierry henry]

What they're talking about is more maintaining a speed throughout the one spell. Mahmood doesn't do that (according to them, anyways).

hmmmmm....I didn't notice any great difference in Mahmood's ability to maintain his pace compared to other bowlers of similar pace (e.g. or i.e. Bond). I mean, splitting hairs really- maybe Bond keeps it up for 5 overs and Mahmood for 3 or 4.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I've never seen any bowler who bowls as quick in a second spell with the older ball.

Bond usually (when his rhythm is good and the radar isn't a dodgy one like in the NZ-England game) is a 145-150 bowler with the new ball, same as Mahmood. Then, Bond is usually a 137-142 bowler in his later spells which I daresay is similar to Mahmood as well.

It's not merely about "as quickly". It's about bowling with genuine pace for a considerable amount of a full quota of overs. And Mahmood bowls fast medium for the majority of his quota.