Bracken puts a new spin on bid for Test selection.

[Smudge]

How about the opening para, quoted for your convenience.

Oh forgive me, I must have missed the 15 paragraphs in the linked story where he said he was giving up the seam bowling totally for spin. I really must get my eyes checked.

Try again.

 

[Precambrian]

Try again.

Oh, he must be trying to develop spin bowling as leisure then.

 

[Smudge]

Oh, he must be trying to develop spin bowling as leisure then.

Yep, that must be it.

 

[Burgey]

I agree with the posters on this thread who aren't impressed with Bracken's decision. I mean, how dare he even contemplate the thought of trying something different to break into the test team - a dream he obviously hasn't given up on? Who is he to do what he feels is best for himself rather than what a bunch of no-names on an internet want him to do?

This.

What's wrong with him trying to add a string to his bow to help him get selected?

If it doesn't work, he's still a decent enough seam/ swing bowler and a fine ODI one.

If the story said he was trying to work harder on his batting to make himself an all rounder, would there be as much fuss?

That, and the fact I said months ago they should have used him a a slow/ cutter bowler in India in the test series makes me hope he gets it right and has a crack.

 

[pup11]

While not disputing the fact that this is a perfectly viable possibility (and certainly it was clearly what happened with him all career 1998/99 to 2003/04, and thus his First-Class record was very moderate) you'd think he'd deserve a bit more than 2 Tests to try to show it wasn't the case.

Since becoming a genuinely good rather than middling performer in Pura\SS cricket, 2 Tests is all that Bracken's had. Seems a bit unfair given that relatively moderate bowlers like Johnson and Tait, who've done far less, get gigs. Then you look at Siddle doing so... well, Bracken must be sick as a pig. Heck, even Stuart Clark, who did pretty well for a fairly long time (2000/01 to 2005/06 he averaged 27) didn't do quite so well as Bracken has.

Completly agree with you, Bracken' recent FC bowling record is as good as any bowler in Australia atm, but still blokes like Bollinger, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Noffke, etc all seem to way ahead of him in the pecking order, i don't think he should neccesarly be in the test team atm but atleast he should be in the mix of things, Ponting last week said how Australia need to employ a horses for courses approach now, but if they were really thinking like that then they would have picked a bloke Bracken for the Indian tour in conditions where he could have done better than most Aussie bowlers.

The worrying thing for me is that the Aussie selectors in recent times seem to be ignoring solid domestic performances and picking guys more on potential, which just isn't fair on all the consistent domestic performers, and one of reasons behind Bracken' decision to switch to spin could be that he probably knows or realises he has completly gone off the radar for the Aussie selectors and no matter how well he does in the shield competiton he won't be in contention for a test spot.

 

[Richard]

Yeah but it's pretty obvious selection isn't done just on the basis of stats. You just get a sense for when a player is a big-match cricketer and there's issues of balance, which personalities seem to work best with each other, etc. Blokes like Siddle are that type which is why he got a game in India and hardly disgraced himself. That he pinged Gambhir on the helmet first ball with a bumper tells you about the sort of competitor he is. On stats, his selection wasn't warranted but he did enough in that game to enhance his chances of playing again immeasurably.

If you go on your senses rather than the game itself, you're going to make more mistakes than inspirations. Many more. Going on the game itself is much more reliable. Being a big-match player, meanwhile, is not sufficient until you've developed your game. Bracken Noffke and Bollinger have all given far more evidence of doing that than Siddle had in September '08, and thus should have been selected ahead of him. No excuses.

For all we know, both Noffke and Bolly were arrogant ****s at training or a senior player had a word to Ponting saying "Reckon you need to have a look at Siddle, he's bowling good stuff/better than Noffke/Bolly right now" and that sealed the deal.

If the latter, that's poor. No excuse for going on brevity rather than longevity. And if the former, then frankly, I think someone in selection needs to come out and say that. If a player has taken a poor attitude he needs to be told it's not good enough, and if the selectors want to keep their jobs they need to be held accountable - ie, if you make a decision that seemingly has little going for it, the public deserves some reasoning.

Either that or Merv threw his weight behind a fellow aggressive Victorian fast bowler.

Funny, first thing that struck me about Siddle was that his action was more like Hughes' than anyone else I've ever seen.

They erred with the treatment of White and Krezja (and spinners in general for a while now, picking Casson at all then treating him like a leper hasn't been great) so they don't get it right all the time but picking Siddle over Bolly and Noffers was an attacking move at least. It didn't pay off entirely in Mohali but probably will down the track.

If it pays-off down the track it'll probably pay-off at a time when Siddle's selection would have something going for it, the way it emphatically didn't at Mohali or for the tour at all. That Siddle might one day be a good bowler doesn't and never will make his selection for that tour a good one.

 

[Richard]

I agree with the posters on this thread who aren't impressed with Bracken's decision. I mean, how dare he even contemplate the thought of trying something different to break into the test team - a dream he obviously hasn't given up on? Who is he to do what he feels is best for himself rather than what a bunch of no-names on an internet want him to do?

He can do what he wants to, and a bunch of no-names on the internet can criticise him for it if they want to. In the exceedingly unlikely even that Bracken turns-out a decent spinner, then fair enough, well played to him. Otherwise, those saying it's an unwise decision will be shown to be right.

 

[pup11]

That, and he generally only swings the ball away from the right-hander so the feeling is that they can watch him go all day because he won't threaten their stumps. If he learnt to bowl around the wicket he could be a real handful in longer-form cricket anyway, but lefties never seem to like doing so.

I'd have surely had him play more tests than he has done to date, mainly because Johnson, Tait and Siddle aren't much better, but there's a lot of truth in what you say. Bracken's a rarity, a truly world-class one-day bowler unlikely to ever have any remote success in tests.

I think a lot of people are still stuck with the preception of what kind of a bowler Nathan Bracken was in test cricket a few years ago, he has come a long way as a bowler since then, after working with Bruce Reid he has also developed the ability to swing the ball consistently and even if there is no swing on offer he has developed cutters and other variations to add potentcy to his bowling, and that is the reason why he has improved as an ODI bowler since 2005 and his domestic performances also have got better since that period.

Its pretty unfair to say that won't be able to do well in tests even without giving him a fair run, i mean if Johnson can take close to 50 test wickets in a calender year then i can stick my neck out and say that Bracks can do the same if given a chance.....

 

[Goughy]

He can do what he wants to, and a bunch of no-names on the internet can criticise him for it if they want to. In the exceedingly unlikely even that Bracken turns-out a decent spinner, then fair enough, well played to him. Otherwise, those saying it's an unwise decision will be shown to be right.

How? If it doesnt work then why is it unwise?

I think it is unlikely that it will be a success but it is far more unwise to not attempt to improve himself.

Failure to be a decent spinner does not make it a bad decision. He is playing with house money here. He is risking nothing with a chance to win all.

If Brett Lee decided to quit fast bowling and turn to legspin them that would be unwise but on no level do I think Brackens decision can be faulted.

 

[Richard]

Obviously, trying something new with no expense of what you've currently got is never a bad idea.

The only reason for criticising him is the belief that attempting to bowl spin will cause his skill as a seamer to decline. If this wasn't a risk, people would try bowling new styles all the time. Unless his spin turns-out to be effective, it'll have been an unneccessary risk.

 

[Goughy]

The only reason for criticising him is the belief that attempting to bowl spin will cause his skill as a seamer to decline. If this wasn't a risk, people would try bowling new styles all the time. Unless his spin turns-out to be effective, it'll have been an unneccessary risk.

They do, all the the time.

Its a matter of a) wanting to b) being allowed to by the captain c) being good enough and d) being prepared for your career figures to take a bash.

Guys like Malcolm Nash, Craig White, Tony Grieg, Botha, Miller, Mark Waugh, Sobers etc just off the top of my head.

It is just easier for allrounders to get the nod to do it at a high level as they have more flexibility. If it doesnt work they can fall back on their batting for short term selection.

People experiment all the time, it is just that they are often not very good and it is not a worthwhile story. This is just newsworthy as Bracken can already bowl his slow cutters, he announced his intentions, he is on the outside looking in of the Test XI and there is a spinning need in the Australian team.

This is not going to hurt his seam bowling (it may hurt combined career averages) and carries effectively zero risk.

 

[social]

Oh, he must be trying to develop spin bowling as leisure then.

He is simply looking to add another string to his bow i.e. do exactly what Colin Miller did

There is absolutely no chance of him giving up seam bowling completely

 

[social]

They do, all the the time.

Its a matter of a) wanting to b) being allowed to by the captain c) being good enough and d) being prepared for your career figures to take a bash.

Guys like Malcolm Nash, Craig White, Tony Grieg, Botha, Miller, Mark Waugh, Sobers etc just off the top of my head.

It is just easier for allrounders to get the nod to do it at a high level as they have more flexibility. If it doesnt work they can fall back on their batting for short term selection.

People experiment all the time, it is just that they are often not very good and it is not a worthwhile story. This is just newsworthy as Bracken can already bowl his slow cutters, he announced his intentions, he is on the outside looking in of the Test XI and there is a spinning need in the Australian team.

This is not going to hurt his seam bowling (it may hurt combined career averages) and carries effectively zero risk.

Bingo!

 

[Top_Cat]

I agree with the posters on this thread who aren't impressed with Bracken's decision. I mean, how dare he even contemplate the thought of trying something different to break into the test team - a dream he obviously hasn't given up on? Who is he to do what he feels is best for himself rather than what a bunch of no-names on an internet want him to do?

Straw man. No-one has said he has no right to do what he wants.

 

[four_or_six]

If you go on your senses rather than the game itself, you're going to make more mistakes than inspirations. Many more. Going on the game itself is much more reliable. Being a big-match player, meanwhile, is not sufficient until you've developed your game. Bracken Noffke and Bollinger have all given far more evidence of doing that than Siddle had in September '08, and thus should have been selected ahead of him. No excuses.

In terms of Bollinger, he has a good case. Though for some reason I've never quite got, teams seem reluctant to pick two left-arm quicks.

Noffke has a long-standing back injury which iirc affected him on the Aus A tour to India and has hardly played this season, and when he has he has been hampered. I can't see him ever getting picked now given that injury and his age.

As for Bracken... why would the selectors want to try to develop a 32-year-old bowler when there's plenty of good youngsters coming through, and their established quicks are also in their 30's? I'm not saying anything against Bracken, he's got to do what he can to get picked. But I think there's good reason not to.

 

[Richard]

In Test cricket, you pick your best bowlers. 32 (is Bracken really that old? thought he was 30 - or 31 at best) or 25, best bowlers are best bowlers.

Test cricket is not the place to be picking players to "develop". Domestic and A-team cricket is the place for that.

 

[Richard]

They do, all the the time.

Its a matter of a) wanting to b) being allowed to by the captain c) being good enough and d) being prepared for your career figures to take a bash.

Guys like Malcolm Nash, Craig White, Tony Grieg, Botha, Miller, Mark Waugh, Sobers etc just off the top of my head.

It is just easier for allrounders to get the nod to do it at a high level as they have more flexibility. If it doesnt work they can fall back on their batting for short term selection.

People experiment all the time, it is just that they are often not very good and it is not a worthwhile story. This is just newsworthy as Bracken can already bowl his slow cutters, he announced his intentions, he is on the outside looking in of the Test XI and there is a spinning need in the Australian team.

This is not going to hurt his seam bowling (it may hurt combined career averages) and carries effectively zero risk.

If it doesn't hurt his seam bowling, all well and good. I can't see how anyone can feel particularly confident of that though.

 

[four_or_six]

In Test cricket, you pick your best bowlers. 32 (is Bracken really that old? thought he was 30 - or 31 at best) or 25, best bowlers are best bowlers.

Test cricket is not the place to be picking players to "develop". Domestic and A-team cricket is the place for that.

Apologies, Bracken is 31, not 32.

Most players take a bit of time to develop into good players after they first play tests though. And you do need to give youngsters opportunities, otherwise you're going to suddenly need to debut a whole new bowling attack together.

 

[Richard]

Not neccessarily. And one of the biggest reasons so many youngsters have a few bad games early in their Test career is that so many are picked when they're not yet that good. Mitchell Johnson for example has never done all that much of note in Pura\SS cricket. Tait had 1 good season and that's it. Siddle, well, he played something like 6 games in the season before he was picked and 3 in the 2 seasons before that.

If 3 good bowlers debut together it's perfectly possibly they'll all take like ducks to water. If they don't and if they all take 3-4 games to get better, it's really no different to if they did that separately. The result is the same.

It's just that if you picked someone (like Bracken) who was a few years older but a better bowler, you'd not cost the team as much success by playing players who, early on, weren't up to the job.

 

[four_or_six]

Not neccessarily. And one of the biggest reasons so many youngsters have a few bad games early in their Test career is that so many are picked when they're not yet that good. Mitchell Johnson for example has never done all that much of note in Pura\SS cricket. Tait had 1 good season and that's it. Siddle, well, he played something like 6 games in the season before he was picked and 3 in the 2 seasons before that.

If 3 good bowlers debut together it's perfectly possibly they'll all take like ducks to water. If they don't and if they all take 3-4 games to get better, it's really no different to if they did that separately. The result is the same.

It's just that if you picked someone (like Bracken) who was a few years older but a better bowler, you'd not cost the team as much success by playing players who, early on, weren't up to the job.

We're not talking about picking bowlers to debut together though, we're talking about putting a 31-year-old bowler into a team with Lee and Clark, rather than going for a younger player who may stay around and help usher in the new players when Lee and Clark go.