O'Keefe must make Pakistan tour

No! We are never going back to that disgrace of a test bowler.

Totally agree that established performance is the most important factor in deciding whether to pick a player. Unless there is a talent shortage, a player should not be considered if they have not performed at a particular base line level in terms of batting or bowling at FC level over a period of time and on current form. Some may disagree with where to draw the line, but I think that baseline should be as follows: 1 - FC bowling average around 25 for pace bowlers and around 30 for spinners; 2 - FC batting average around 45 for batsmen; 3 - Batting all rounders (ie. top 6 batsman, 5th bowler) should bat at around 40 and bowl at around 30. 4 - Bowling all rounders (ie. number 8 batsman, front line bowler) should bat at around 25 and bowl at around 28 for pace bowlers / 32 for spinners. 5 - Keepers should bat at around 40 and be able to keep adequately. In my mind, if a player reproduces those numbers at test level, he'd be unlucky to get dropped. And if every player in the test side performs at that level, you have a world champion team. These are minimum baseline levels. If a player substantially exceeds these benchmarks, they should in most cases get priority selection if they are in form (regardless of age). I say 'in most cases' because there are other less tangible factors which need to be considered as part of the overall package a player brings to the table. These less tangible factors make a big difference between winning and losing. Examples include leadership or tactical nous, part time bowling, power hitting, grafting in unfavourable conditions, bowling long spells, filling a fielding niche, getting under the opposition's skin, bringing variety to the batting/bowling line up, etc. There are plenty more. I remember there was a time not so long ago where Australia briefly ran out of specialist slip fielders - which may be why they persisted with Marcus North for so long. Eventually, Ponting and Clarke had to field in the slips because despite 5 hundreds and handy part time bowling and good leadership/tactical nous North did not score enough runs to stay in the team. Ponting and Clarke in the slips was not ideal as it made the ground fielding less dynamic. On my above criteria, the only spinner outside the test team that deserves a look in is SOK. The only batsman worth a look Hughes but he only just gets there. The problem with Hughes is I don't know what else he brings to the table, but he seems to be all we've got right now David Hussey is the only alternative but has not shown the necessary form and may be past his best (but that should not be presumed). Based on batting stats alone, the only keeper deserving of selection is Neville (although I don't know what his keeping standards are like). There are plenty of pace bowlers and bowling all rounders in the mix - so who ultimately gets picked should depend on form and the less tangible factors. I can't think of any batting all rounders worthy of selection. This is why I think talk of Australia being the number one test side is a bit premature as other than fast bowling (including bowling all rounders), I don't think there is much depth in Aussie cricket.

If, as Dizzy seems to be implying, he is seen as being a trouble maker or not up to it, that is a shame because in my mind he looks to be a ready made test spinner in the Dan Vettori mould. He's clearly better than the dozen or so spinners (including Lyon) in the post Warne/Macgill era. The most impressive thing about his stats is that he has been bowling on green tops over the last 4-5 years. If you are talking about merit based selection based on performance (ie. Argus review), he deserves a shot because nobody else is even close. It shouldn't matter if the selectors have doubts about him - his stats are vastly superior to all other spinners and on that basis alone he is worth a try. Ignoring performance and relying on gut instinct in making selections also sends the wrong message to the other players in FC cricket that they do not need to be accountable in order to be selected (eg. Marsh, Quiney, Doolan, get picked whereas better performing players are consistently ignored eg. Rogers, D. Hussey, and SOK).

OK. Excuse the delay. had a punch up with my computer for some of the time and had to spend a day with a plumber overseeing work on a block of units in which I am resident and Body Corp chair (happens when you retire). I accept there are other factors that need to be considered and I think I've indicated that before. Certainly weaknesses against certain types of bowling is a factor as is Marsh's problem early in his innings. I dont dispute that. But what I guess I'm saying is that averages over an extended period tend to give you an idea of consistency. It may be consistency there a batsman scores almost all his scores between 40 and 60 with very few centuries. It may be where a batsman scores a large number of centuries but is out cheaply often. But at least you have a sense that the player will produce often enough to justify a test place. But a player who scores a lot of zeros or scores under 10 and then a century every 15 or so immings is not offering the team sufficent consistency. Nor does a batsman who consistently scores 20-35 but rarely above. Thing is with averages is that over a long period of time, all those fluctuations, such as poor play against certain bowlers, poor form periods, injuries etc balance out with the better times. And it is that figure that gives you a sense of how reliable the batsman is going to be. Weaknesses can usually be rectified, especially when a batsman is young. That's why I think Hughes will succeed. He's got weaknesses, but still has a good average eve despite that, and he is making efforts to improve. Marsh, as you pointed out is a fine batsman, who has been around a lot longer than Hughes and has had a lot of time to fix his faults, and yet getting close to 31, he is still struggling for any sort of consistency. It suggests he will find it very hard to learn new tricks as they say. But hey tennis players are forever getting new coaches and learning new styles of play to raise their chances. Good athletes seem able to show the determination and application to succeed and you'll usually see that when they are quite young. The selectors, I accept, have been in an almost no win situation in recent years because of the retirement of so many champions. But to me they seem to snatch names out of the air based often on one good game. Think of the number of spin bowlers they used and who have failed. By the way none of them had good first class averages. They were lucky with Lyon, and I think it is luck, because they had tried half a dozen already unsuccessfully before him, because Lyon also was no outstanding in Shield. But Lyon has that tigerish spirit and has obviously worked hard on his game to the extent where his test average is 4 runs lower than his FC average...that doesnt happen too often. I raised the issue of O'Keefe, because his average is streets better than the rest and I'm not alone in pushing his case. Many top commentators and retiired cricketers are asking the same question. And then there have been there choice of batsmen over several years that most of us see as a poor choice, and their performances justify that position. I am not choosing favourites when I push a player. I'm choosing who is the consistently best performed at FC level. Its players like Hughes and O'Keefe today. It was Khawaja and Wade a while back. It may be Lynn and Behrendorff tomorrow. I'm to pragmatic to choose a favourite these days. If Marsh was scoring like Hughes, I would support his claims. It comes down to the best performed as I see it and also whether they are in form. And that means of assessment most of the time is vindicated...but not always. But you're right. There are other factors to consider. I just think starting with performances and outcomes is the safest means of determining a players potential

They can hardly hold a gun to anyone's head. How do you force someone to give an answer?

Some interesting and worthy comments there. I'm by the way not getting into the heavy statistical stuff. Leave that for the mathematicians. My argument is only relating to outcomes and consistency over an extended period. Your comment about the manner players get out is quite valid, and yes Hughes has in fact two significant flaws in that regard, though I think he's satisfactorily addressed the first, that being getting consistently caught in slips (he should try a different outfit maybe...sorry couldnt help that one). His response to good spin bowling is being worked on I understand, but I can understand also why they wouldnt pick him for the sub continent yet and certainly that is an aspect stats dont clearly read at least in the short to medium term..Doolan I think has a concentration problem, and its even worse with Marsh. Both impressive looking and can take an attack apart, but they consistently get out early. Maybe its because they rely so much on timing and are very good at that, but havent learned to tough it out consistently early in the innings and to maintain concentration beyond 20-30. Each have done it but consistency is the issue. Cowan had the same problem, though he's improved markedly this Shield season. I think though these factors are correctable if the batsman is committed enough. Hughes is young enough to learn. No sure if Marsh has left it too late and Doolan is on the cusp in my opinion. But hey great response and I'll ruminate over your comments in the second paragraph a while longer. The first paragraph I'll leave alone because I wasnt meaning to get to that level of complexity. But this is what I was looking for Aransan. Thanks.

Bearfax, I will focus on batting as I have thought more about the way statistics can be used there. In statistics the term "average" is ambiguous as it is a measure of central tendency and three such measures are the arithmetic mean, the median or central value, and the mode or most common value. In cricket the average is commonly meant to be the mean. A measure of dispersion is the standard deviation which in practice is complicated by a batsman's not out scores, a rough way of dealing with a not out score is to add the batsman's mean which I suspect is not as bad as it sounds but some adjustment does need to be made in order to calculate the standard deviation. A couple of contributors to the Roar have used these parameters with the normal distribution for a batman's individual scores and that is a nonsense as the individual scores do not follow the normal, or bell shaped curve. The mean and standard deviation however can be used to give a range for the long term mean batting score for a batsman. Unfortunately I am sure it would take too many innings of a batsman to narrow the range to give us a good idea of a batman's long term mean just using statistics. I am sure that selectors use more than "averages" to determine the likely future success of a batsman. It would be interesting to get the selectors to specify aspects of performance that they take into account in assessing batsmen, I suspect it is largely intuitive but does have a logical basis. I am sure they could compile a list with a significant amount of thought. Two aspects of performance that I have always thought about are: 1) Does a batsman tend to get out too frequently in the same way? I think Hughes in the past and Doolan currently fall into this category although it can be seen how Doolan can correct that. 2) Does a batsman unravel to the extent where you can just about pick the ball when they are going to go out? This might be just to one particular bowler. I am sure if the selectors and experts thought about it they could come up with many more but I can understand why they might not want to share their thoughts with the public at large but there is no reason why they couldn't give players the benefit of their observations. One statistic that I believe should be used more commonly than it is is the median. An example here is Marsh, in 15 innings he has had 6 ducks and 2 threes. The eighth or middle value, the median, is 3. That is obviously very poor and I feel sorry for Marsh as he is obviously very talented but appears to be a nervous beginner. Even at age 30 I believe he still has a chance to turn that statistic around, this might become evident in the shorter forms of the game. I do believe you have too much confidence in "averages" in determining the likely future success of a cricketer, and I am sure they have never been used exclusively by selectors because they have other information at their disposal even if they can't translate this information into numbers. The danger with your method is the complexity where averages can't be relied on and your seemingly ad hoc manner of dealing with these problems. You would then be at risk of being accused of being biased by framing your exceptions to suit a particular individual whom you favour. Let me stress I am not accusing you of doing that.

Aransan dont get upset. I'm quite serious about what I'm asking of you. I like to be challenged and if you've got a cogent argument I want to hear it. Everyone gains from hearing diverse opinions. Its not about who wins. Fr example how did I misinterpret your comment about Doolan. I thought I addressed that but maybe I missed something? I agreed with you that short term stats tell you very little. And you're right its not about numbers, its about performances over a long period of time. Forget the numbers mate. This is about how a batsman or bowler have been performing and their outcomes (scores per innings or wickets taken per runs scored). Forget the word statistic if you like and replace it with long term performances and outcomes. Can we rely on a particular player to consistently score 40 + and can we consistently rely on a fast bowler to take wickets every 20-30 runs and spinners every 25-35 runs. I can only know that by what they have produced in the past full stop. Now please present your position.

Bearfax, you have missed the point about the example I gave of Doolan. The only facts you seem to be prepared to accept are numbers and averages and you have to use a very convoluted logic to overcome their limitations. I will let you have the last word with your inevitable response.

Aransan again you are taking my comments out of context and misusing what I am saying. Geez. How about reading what I say generally before making a comment. Firstly, though I thought Doolan was a little down the list of batsmen who should have been initially chosen, I clearly said he deserved his chance and supported his selection because he was still young enough to develop further and his present FC averages may improve. I also said after the SA test series just past that I would select both Doolan and Marsh, despite their uncertain performances, because they deserved a number of more tests to show their wares. I have always said, if you had read what I say, that averages are meaningless under about 20 to 30 innings and even then they can be distorted, such as by a series of not out scores. I compared Hughes with Steve Waugh in that context trying to show that a couple of huge not out scores together can distort an average. Averages are most effective when there is a large sample group and it is for that reason I questioned Marsh's original selection. The same applies to O'Keefe, who has played a large number of innings and therefore his averages have strong validity. I have also said that for example batsmen in the early to mid 20s need to be afforded some flexibility in respect of averages because they have played fewer games and are in the process of development. I indicated that a 21 year old with an average in the high 30s to early 40s suggested promise of being a top test player. But I also said that players who've been playing FC cricket for a lengthy period and are 30 years of more have pretty much reached their potential...what you see is what you will get in future. They may go through highs and lows but their averages tend to remain static or move only one or two points either way until their late 30s. For that reason, a batsmen with an average in the 30s, is logically not going to be a test player averaging in the 40s is he. If anything, most batsmen over 30, and please check the international stage as proof, have test scores below their FC average. Clarke is one of the few exceptions with his recent amazing purple patch over the past two years.. Now its not rocket science Aransan. It is just pure logic based on past performance/outcomes, and I have no special gift as I say in this regard. I am merely looking impartially at outcomes and potential as everyone can if they remain unbiased and forget impressions, favouritism, being impressed by single top scores, flashy stroke making, claimed correct battig style etc. Its just about performances over a long period of time and a players test potential is best determined using those figures (check the batting line up of top test sides batsmen's FC averages and you will see there is a correlation between averages and test selections). My use of the court scene issue was merely trying, obviously unsuccessfully it seems, to impress on you that factual information is always more reliable than feelings and impressions. Again I pointed out there are times when feelings will tell you things that facts wont. But feelings as I said are always coloured by personal leanings or partiality so they have to be examined for what they are truly telling you. That takes a lot of honesty. Facts are just facts, separate from you, and though they can be limited especially when seen in a small sample group, they are less prone to bias then feelings, and therefore more likely to be more accurate. Aransan this is basic Psychology ! stuff. But if you disagree with me then fine. But what I want you to do is step by step as I have been doing present your argument with examples to refute what I am saying. If you do that, focussing only on the issue and ignoring me personally, just concentrating on the argument, I would love to read what you have to say and I will respect far more what it is that you considered flawed in the argument. Debate is not personal, its subject focussed.

Apparently Warnie was kicked out of the Australian Cricket Academy before he played test cricket because he had an "attitude problem".

It takes four years of relentless work to become a test quality legspinner. Smith should have started the process when he was first picked for Aust in 2009. Instead he remains a part-time bowler.

Maxwell is not a spinner. Picking him would be throwing away a test series and undo the good work that we did to beat S Africa on their home patch.

Bearfax, I didn't say that you had maligned or criticised Lyon. I find little in common between the operation of a courtroom and the selection of a test side, however a court does accept facts that you can't put a numerical value on. I am sure we don't just base our assessment of cricketers on their averages. The example I will give is Alex Doolan, after 3 tests and 6 innings he is averaging 31. Of course the sample size is far too small for us to estimate what is long term average might be, however I believe the consensus is that he has made a reasonable start to his cricket career and this is based on what people have seen as well as where they can see how he can make improvements. You cannot use numbers or averages to make that assessment.

Aransan you really need to stop picking and choosing things said out of context to justify your case. Firstly I have never maligned or criticised Lyon and if you read my items I have consistently credited him for his improved performances. Gee it annoys me when people claim I'm saying something when I'm not. I personally dont think he is the best spinner we've got, but I have never disputed the fact that he has done a damn good job. I also suggested that he and O'Keefe should be in the test series to the UAE. Please read what I say and stop colouring your feelings about my opinions by distorting them, before making comments.. At least if both are there then they have a chance to show their wares at the top level. Secondly it is you who are caught up in this belief that we can assess people by some method other than factual information. Are you the sort of person in a court who would convict someone because he looks like he's guilty or you feel his is the most likely to have committed a crime?. I am saying that I dont have any special skill in guessing or basing an assessment on what I personally feel or perceive. And we have such a system in general because no one has that ability. I am saying that I have to rely on things apart from myself to be able to assess, and having come from the legal area, that is paramount in assessment. Like a juror I have to listen to the arguments put and in particular the factual material to make a dispassionate assessment, and its a decision made even if it is contrary to my personal feelings. That is because all feelings are coloured, whether you want them to be or not. All I am saying is that you MUST look at the facts first before making any assessment. Surely that is logical. It may be the facts dont tell you everything and I've already conceded that . But I would rely on factual information way way before I would rely on a personal impression, and that is what I am saying the selectors should also be doing.

Bearfax, the only way O'Keefe will be given 20 tests or so in the near future would be if Lyon was dropped from the side. If O'Keefe replaced Lyon there would be a very good chance that he wouldn't be given 20 tests or so to prove himself, we would have undermined Lyon and we would be back to the spinner being a revolving door selection. It seems to me that there are many people out there happy to criticise Lyon's performances when their main purpose is to promote O'Keefe. Cricketers playing at the top level and selectors have got a lot more to go on than first class averages. Just because you can't put a number on different aspects of performance and calculate an average doesn't mean those things not readily quantifiable are unimportant. Commentators and selectors taking those other aspects of performance into account aren't necessary acting on feelings or impressions. The selectors should be given some credit for the recent good performances by Australia.

2/84. They're ahead..Smith is scoring again.

Now 1/55

NSW have rolled WA for 82. Bollinger and Hazelwood with 4 each, Lyon 2 and SOK only bowled 1 over which was a maiden. NSW 1/17 of 15 overs....

Good one Matt. I like it.