By Greg Buckle
November 19th 2009 @ 2:13am
View The Roar's top cricket writers.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Join Australia’s community for solo & micro business at FlyingSolo.com.au
Related coverage
Pick Krejza for first Test, says Mark Waugh
Australia are set to include Nathan Hauritz in their squad for next week’s first Test but Mark Waugh says Jason Krejza would be a better option.
Cricket Australia’s selection boss Andrew Hilditch will on Thursday name the squad for the series-opener against the West Indies starting in Brisbane on November 26.
Waugh and former Test teammate Damien [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(13)
Both the sydney clubs seem to be pitching for the more committed...
Freud of Football said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:20am | Report comment
Does anyone know what ME Waugh is doing with himself now? I think Vinay mentioned he was doing some commentary work (hard to imagine as he’s not suited to the role at all) but I can’t see him in an administrative role, he was never known for his analytical thinking really so why is he coming out and giving his opinion on selections?
Doesn’t he know we have 21.4 Million selectors already?
vinay verma said | November 19th 2009 @ 6:57am | Report comment
And very capable commentary on Fox,too,Freud. His comments have credence. Greg quotes his preference for Kezja as you have done. But fiery does not translate into attacking in my book. It shows you are not in control of your emotions. Hence his profligacy. The selectors have got it right with Hauritz and if they persist with him this summer he will develop further.
Jameswm said | November 19th 2009 @ 8:30am | Report comment
I can’t agree vinay.
Krejza had two tests. In his first, he was attacked mercilessly by Indian batsmen on their home turf, intent on taking him apart and denying the Aussies the chance to use a spin bowler. Krejza won that battle. In India. In his first test.
His second test was on about as un-spin friendly a wicket as you’ll get, and he was again attacked. This time he didn’t do so well.
He’s a better bowler now than he was a year ago. He gets much more turn than Hauritz, as well as drift and drop. How he doesn’t get a look-in amazes me.
Hauritz is a good bowler, don’t get me wrong. Vettori and Kumble have shown you don’t have to be a big spinner of the ball to be a top test bowler. Vettori does it with change of pace mainly. Kumble moved it a bit each way.
Hauritz won’t let you down, but he’s no big 4th innings wicket-taking option.
Fisher Price said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:03am | Report comment
In Krejza’s first Test the Indians got themselves into such a strong position that they could afford to hit out willy nilly and the result was the anomaly of Krejza taking many a scalp, which had no bearing on the match.
He ain’t no ‘big wicket-taking option’.
Name ONE occasion he has taken a bag of wickets for NSW or Tasmania?
Michael C said | November 19th 2009 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Agreed on Krejza – - he leaks runs and buggers up a balanced bowling attack.
He had 3 for 200 off 40 overs, then got lucky to get 5 for 15 at the end of the innings,
followed with 4 for 143 off 31,
and only other test 1 for 102 or 0 for 102 off another 49 overs.
Take out that 5 for 15 and he’s provided 8 for 547 off 120 overs……..
Greg Russell said | November 19th 2009 @ 11:50am | Report comment
A few years ago there was a vacancy on the national selection panel, and there was a push from NSW for Mark Waugh to put his name forward. I thought this was an excellent idea. On the basis of the above report, I cannot believe how wrong I was.
Maybe he should take up umpiring? Kerry O’Keeffe once explained that the easiest way to know if an umpire had got a decision right or wrong was just to watch Mark Waugh at 2nd slip. He said if Waugh appeals vociferously, whether for a catch or a lbw, then you know it’s out, whereas if he only appeals half-heartedly or not at all, then you know it’s not out.
But the problem with Mark Waugh as an umpire is that then he wouldn’t be able to bet on cricket …
vinay verma said | November 19th 2009 @ 12:55pm | Report comment
Sagacious, Greg.
Freud of Football said | November 22nd 2009 @ 8:34am | Report comment
Oh Greg, thin ice there.
Mark Waugh was an enigma in many ways. I remember hearing something like this and I think it was pretty true, then again I’d say the same for Taylor, he only ever appealed when he was 100% sure unlike Healy or many of the current crop, the Indians in particular annoy me nowadays while Australia had a time about 10 years ago when Warne would appeal for anything and everything and then sigh afterwards as if every delivery almost took a wicket.
From memory (perhaps Kersi will help us out here) Waugh had taken more than 100 catches before he dropped his first one, I’m not sure if dropped catches are recorded (if cricket is serious about statistics they would be) but I’d wager he would have gone the longest without dropping one, he simply had the best hands in the game, Rhodes was more athletic but you wouldn’t want to nick a ball in Waugh’s direction – certain death.
Jameswm said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Seriously guys get your facts straight before you spout off.
So Krejza mopped up the tail in his first test, heh? You call Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, Ganguly and Dhoni the tail? He got Dravid for a duck, too. He then cleaned up three tailenders cheaply (1 run between three of them), something Hauritz struggles to do.
In the 2nd innings he tied down Laxman and got him and Ganguly very cheaply. And that was his first test, remember. How many goes has Hauritz had?
In the 1st innings of that test, India were 5 for 422 before Krejza mopped them up, so the wickets DID matter. They were on track to score 600. They were 3 for 113 at one stage, which is hardly a position of authority enabling a team to hit out wildly. As I said – the Indian batsmen hit out at Krejza as part of an pre-meditated strategy – it was bleedin obvious if you were watching it at the time.
In the Pakistan A tour of Australia earlier this year, in the 1st game, he came in at 6 for 211 and scored a not out ton. Bowling wise he went wicketless in the 1st innings and only got one for the match.
In the 2nd game, Krejza took 2 for 76 in the 1st innings (4 per over) and 4 for 54 in the 2nd (3 per over).
In his most recent Shield game, he took 2 for 58 off 23 overs.
Hauritz?
He’s played 50 1st class games and 7 tests – and has NEVER taken a 5 wicket haul. His 1st class bowling average is 46 FFS. In his latest test he took 1 for 57. In the one before that he took o for 27 and 3 for 80 @ 5 an over in the 2nd.
How can Krejza be accused of not being up to it?
Justin said | November 20th 2009 @ 11:44am | Report comment
Agree completely. Not much more to add other than they have got it wrong…again and again and again!
Jameswm said | November 19th 2009 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Greg – what was so odd about what Mark Waugh said?
Greg Russell said | November 19th 2009 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
James, I just completely disagree with M Waugh’s opinion that Krejza is a better bet for the test team than Hauritz, that’s all. It’s only an opinion, and obviously you are on Waugh’s side rather than mine.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Hauritz is any great shakes as a test bowler – I merely see him as the best of a weak lot, but someone who can at least tie down an end. I hope as much as anyone else that a better spinner arrives along relatively soon.
I think your analysis of Nagpur is reasonably accurate, but it stands out like a beacon in Krejza’s entire first-class career. If there was any evidence whatsoever from his first-class record that he could reproduce, even occasionally, performances even half as good as Nagpur, then I’d be happy to see him given more chances. But there is no such evidence, e.g. see the figures you quote – a couple of wickets here, a couple there, that’s all. Sure, Hauritz is no better at first-class level – admitted. But at least he has shown that he can tie down an end in test cricket, and thus be an effective part of an overall bowling strategy. Krejza does not offer even that.
Jameswm said | November 19th 2009 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
Greg you said “I can’t believe how wrong I was” – these are strong words. A difference of opinion is fine, but it’s not like Waugh’s suggestion was revolutionary. And remember – he never had a lot of time for off spinners.
I think Hauritz has had a fantastic year and is much underrated, but I do think long term Krejza will be a better test performer and deserves a chance. Hauritz has hardly cemented his spot.
That spinner you yearn for will be Stephen Smith, in about 3 years. I hope they let him learn in Shield cricket till then and don’t feel forced to rush the prodigy in. From what I’ve seen of him, he’s an excellent and strong batsman and already a very good spinner, with some variation. If only we could put Warney’s wise old head on his shoulders – well, the bowling part of the brain, anyway.
I think he could be the most genuine all rounder (could be picked for batting or bowling) we’ve had since, well, Keith Miller perhaps. Has there been anyone since who could lay claim to that?