- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined December 2012
0
Views
0
Published
6
Comments
Published
Comments
I don’t understand this bias against slow scorers or ‘scratchy’ batsmen. Bill Lawry, Alastair Cook, Jackie McGlew, Bruce Mitchell, Sunil Gavaskar, Geoffrey Boycott. All extremely talented opening batsmen who played the exact role their teams needed. Nobody ever dropped Rahul Dravid for his strike rate.
If anything, Cowan is a better opening batsman that Warner because you know what you’re getting. Sure, the odds are lower of him getting a big ton, but he’s far more likely to chew up balls and protect the middle order. With Warner you get a big, fast 50+ score or next to nothing. He’s worth persisting with, but he needs a more dour partner alongside.
Does the Australian Test team have the right openers?
Harris has looked pretty good in the little I’ve seen of him. He needs to get some consistency behind him however.
Scott Henry and Sam Whiteman aren’t serious contenders, in my opinion. Somewhat like Liam Davis in that they can do very, very well domestically when in form, but won’t be capable of transitioning up a level.
Does the Australian Test team have the right openers?
Don,
I think there is far more at stake that meets the eye when it comes to preparation. To be perfectly honest (and somewhat blunt), I don’t think that preparation has anything to do with the failures of Quiney, Ponting or Hastings – they just aren’t good enough to play Test cricket. Hussey, Warner and Starc are just far better players at the moment.
In terms of injury as well, Pattinson, Cummins and Watson have lengthy injury histories, and fans were counting down the hours until they broke down again anyway. That doesn’t come down to ‘red ball’ or ‘white ball’ preparation, just that their bodies don’t hold up to stress (which is a whole article in itself).
You claim Rob Quiney as proof of the failings of red ball preparation, but Quiney first came to the fore as a T20 specialist. He got himself into trouble, and the 9 @ 3.00 comes down to his desire to get bat on ball early – a very T20 notion. It hurt David Warner this series as well, playing with an angled bat and minimal footwork to balls outside his off stump instead of leaving, and wondering why he’s given Graeme Smith catching practice.
Since 01 Jan 2008, there have been 44 scores of 200+ made in Test match cricket, of which only 3 were made at a strike rate below 50, and 12 at more than 70. In the period between 01 Jan 1997 and 31 Dec 2007, there were 100 such scores. 29 of them were made at 70 per 100 balls or more, and 13 were made at a strike rate below 50. Essentially the quicker big scores have stayed the same proportionately, there’s significantly less ‘slow’ innings.
And there is definitely no correlation between the expansion of T20 and a spate of bigger scores.
I have absolutely no issue with the Big Bash League, in fact I am glad it has happened. Getting our domestic players experience with big-name internationals can only be a good thing (provided it is balanced with the FC game). I will be watching and supporting, but far more of my attention will be squared on the Test series running parallel.
It's true, BBL razzle-dazzle is here to stay
I’m not a fan of variety for variety’s sake. If your best 3 pacemen are right arm outswing bowlers, there is no reason not to select all three. That is what we did with the attack of Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Pattinson.
Then at the WACA, we went for variety for the sake of variety – two left armers, one who is tall and swings it in; the other shorter and angling it away, balanced with a right arm military medium workhorse bowling all-rounder. And we see how that went on Day 3. It doesn’t matter if you’re a left arm swing bowler or a right arm spearhead; if you bowl pies you will go at 5 an over on a flat track.
Every bowler is different – different angles, slightly different release points, subtle pace variation, the amount of movement they extract in the air and off the pitch – so going “we need a left armer and someone who is 6 foot 8” ends up in selecting bowlers who don’t deserve to be there. In my opinion, Australia should walk into the Test match at Hobart with an attack of Siddle, Starc and Jackson Bird. Not because it provides ‘variety’, but because they are the three bowlers most likely to take wickets in those conditions, against the Sri Lankan batting line-up.
To me, the basic selection philosophies come down to this:
1. Form is temporary, class is (mostly) permanent.
Selecting and dropping players on a whim is not fun for anyone. If you think they have the goods, stick with them through a rough patch. It’s what we did with Michael Clarke, and we’re reaping the rewards of it. We’ve done it with Hussey, and he’s making runs now.
2. Stop-gap solutions are defined by the numbers.
When someone breaks down injured, grab the most in-form player you can find. Even if he isn’t Test quality long-term, you only need him until your first XI player comes back. Take the runs while they’re there.
3. Select for the next Test…but keep one eye on the future.
While it is important to try and win every game you play, you do still want to develop youngsters to build for future success. It is a definite balancing act.
4. Don’t experiment in ‘grand final’ Tests.
I understand why John Inverarity did what he did in Perth, but damn, when a series with South Africa is locked at 0-0 and the last game defines who’s number 1 in the world, don’t pick John Hastings! With Watson back and Johnson/Starc able to bowl a lot of overs, the risk of picking Siddle may have been worth it. Experience is key in that sitiuation.
So what does this tell us? That selection is contradictory and very, very difficult to do well. Sometimes good decisions fail miserably, and other times bad selections can come off. There is definitely an element of luck to what is a completely inexact science.
What should be the basic selection philosophies?
The cynic in me suggests this is nothing more than a publicity stunt to feed Warne’s ego.
Even if he did suddenly decide to come out of retirement, the performances of Nathan Lyon would keep Warne out of the team, on merit at least.
Warne says he'd play Tests again if asked
The issue with Hughes is that he is still settling on his changed technique. Yeah, he’s making Shield runs, but you don’t want to throw him back into the international game while he’s still adjusting. I could see c.Jayawardene b.Eranga on the scorecard quite a bit if he gets put under pressure.
He has a leg side game now; the pull shot is a great addition to his technique, but I’d rather let him get completely settled with it before he gets another Test gig. He’ll definitely be a great player in the future, I’m sure.
Does the Australian Test team have the right openers?