Room For Symonds in Aus test side?

[Perm]

Strike rate isn't irrelevant when it is as markedly different as Hussey and Kallis' would be AND when other aspects are at least roughly equal. Other things being equal, its better to score your runs quickly. And rather than other things being equal, other things also point to Hussey being a better batsman over this period.

This is Test cricket, you've got 5 days to score your runs. I don't think that Kallis having a strike rate of 42.75 and Hussey having a strike rate of 52.72 is that important, but if they were scoring their runs as fast as Gilchrist or Afridi score them, then strike rate would be a factor that you should take into consideration. As it is, the difference isn't large enough. Obviously Hussey has been scoring more runs, hence your argument, but strike rate isn't a factor.

 

[Matt79]

Clarke's record over the same period (since 2005/6) suggests that Kallis has been better, but maybe by not as much as I'd have thought:
10 matches (15 innings), 508 runs, 46.18 average, 2 centuries, 1 half century

Despite Kallis only playing 4 additional tests, he played 27 innings compared to Clarke's 15. That said Kallis has obviously been the better batsman - though whether he'll continue to be remains open to be seen.

 

[iamdavid]

If the Aus Test side needs an allrounder, isn't the first question what he would bring to the bowling attack?

I guess Stuart Clark is a certainty, and in all probability he'll continue to be excellent. But then there's Brett Lee, who simply doesn't take his wickets quickly enough to be a genuine opening strike bowler, and the third seamer will probably be someone like Tait (if fit) or Johnson who could be successes but have proven little at Test level so far (As an aside, the idiot selectors should of course revert to Gillespie, but they won't). MacGill as specialist spinner, I guess?

That attack doesn't strike me as being overly formidable. Is there a case then for selecting an allrounder who is primarily a bowler who can bat a bit, say someone in the Pollock / Vaas mould? I know England have suffered from tailitis going down this road, but Australia have the Gilchrist insurance, which should make all the difference.

No idea who that'd be, btw. Maybe give Andy Bichel a call, eh

That is a very interesting suggestion, and you'd think certainly on paper the Australian batting lineup would be strong enough to accomodate a bowling allrounder at 7 and Gilchrist at 6, but its not something I can realistically see happening.

Firstly because on the occasions when five frontline bowlers have been picked in the past, one tends to be very underbowled, and also because of the risk it involves on the batting front.
I dont think it'd be such a bad idea to explore, just dont see it happening.

Arent really a whole lot of bowling allrounders about atm either, surely they wont resurect Bichel because this is probably his last season. Damien Wright would be an option but while his bowling is pretty good I dont think it'll be a great threat at test level and he's getting on a bit aswell. Matthew Nicholson's batting isnt quite good enough for number 7, same goes for Gillespie. Mark Cleary would have been a candidate but he's fallen away terribly over the last couple of seasons with bat and ball.
The three remaining contenders are Ashley Noffke, his batting is a little up and down but he clearly has plenty of ability and his bowling dosent look as good as it once was but hey he might have a great start to the season. Moises Henriques who this role looks tailor made for if only he were a coupla years older, but he clearly isnt ready yet so not worth a mention. And George Bradley Hogg who is imo the only realistic candidate, FC average of 35 so we know he wont be a complete liability with the bat and good enough to be classified as a frontline bowler.

 

[Perm]

Clarke's record over the same period (since 2005/6) suggests that Kallis has been better, but maybe by not as much as I'd have thought:
10 matches (15 innings), 508 runs, 46.18 average, 2 centuries, 1 half century

Despite Kallis only playing 4 additional tests, he played 27 innings compared to Clarke's 15. That said Kallis has obviously been the better batsman - though whether he'll continue to be remains open to be seen.

Kallis is the much better batsman though and ten matches is an indication of form, not class. Based on his career, reputation and solidity, Kallis would likely get picked in the Australian Test team before Hussey and Clarke.

Also, are you suggesting Kallis will start to decline and Michael Clarke will become a better batsman?

 

[Matt79]

That is a very interesting suggestion, and you'd think certainly on paper the Australian batting lineup would be strong enough to accomodate a bowling allrounder at 7 and Gilchrist at 6, but its not something I can realistically see happening.

And George Bradley Hogg who is imo the only realistic candidate, FC average of 35 so we know he wont be a complete liability with the bat and good enough to be classified as a frontline bowler.

Interesting - something like?
Jaques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Hogg
Lee
Johnson
Clark
Tait

It looks light for batting. While I don't think we want Gilly at 6 then the tail, Gilly is still probably a better bat than Symonds, and Hogg AND Johnson/Tait is a better bowling combo than Symonds AND MacGill.

 

[Perm]

Hogg isn't a good enough bowler to make it into the Test side, why won't people see this? His exploits in ODI cricket mean virtually nothing when it comes to Test selection, especially for somebody whose effectiveness is so different in the two different formats.

 

[iamdavid]

Agree re Watson/Symonds. He's probably better than Clarke. He's not better than Hussey in the time that Hussey has been playing tests.

Since the start of season 2005/6:
Hussey: 16 Matches, 1597 Runs, 79.85 Average, 5 Centuries, 8 Half-Centuries
Kallis: 14 Matches, 1093 Runs, 45.54 Average, 2 Centuries, 7 Half-Centuries

Plus there's the difference in strike rates between Hussey and Kallis.

Hussey's performances over the last two years have been superb and Clarke had an excellent Ashes series. But I find it laughable to suggest either would be selected ahead of Kallis, Hussey's had a great 16 test career and so far he's done everything asked of him and more.
But Kallis has played 100+ tests, scored 8000+ runs and been in the top couple of most consistent and highly regarded batsman in the world since 2000.
His last two years may not have been superb but they've hardly been terrible and his overall record shows his calibre as a player.
Hussey at present is not in his league.

 

[Pup Clarke]

How's about...

Jaques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Bichel
Lee
Clark
MacGill
Tait

 

[Matt79]

Kallis is the much better batsman though and ten matches is an indication of form, not class. Based on his career, reputation and solidity, Kallis would likely get picked in the Australian Test team before Hussey and Clarke.

Also, are you suggesting Kallis will start to decline and Michael Clarke will become a better batsman?

I think Clarke will certainly become a better batsman - I think he showed a new level of skill and maturity with the blade in the last few tests he played (almost 9 months ago, but hey). Whereas, those stats show that Kallis has in the last couple of seasons not matched his own very high peak, and the guy is the wrong side of 30. I'm certainly not writing him off as a quality batsman, but its likely he's not going to dramatically improve, or indeed recapture his peak form.

Form/class aren't distinct things, at some point they blend into each other. Those figures take in at least a couple of series, so I don't think they tell the story of who's the better batsman full stop, but they do show how both guys are going. And that shows that the last couple of seasons for Clarke have been better than his overall career, whereas the last couple of seasons for Kallis have been not quite as good as his overall career for him.

 

[Goughy]

I find the issue of strike rates interesting in Test cricket.

On the face of it scoring quickly is a big plus. The are definate advantages, it can take the initiative away from the opposition and can impose the will of the batting side.

However, there are downsides.

Firstly, a batsman that scores their runs quickly faces less balls per innings. In these cases a fielding team knows that a wicket is in the offing and on the horizen. Almost as disheartening as getting smashed around the park is not knowing whether you will ever be able to get the guy out. High strike rates means that they lose their wickets in less balls face and there is always a glipse of hope for the bowling team

Secondly, it can lead to smaller partnerships and partnerships are key to success in Test cricket.

If a guy averages 50 at SR 100 (numbers used for ease of calculation) he will last on average 50 balls.

Assuming, equal share of the bowling a partnership between this player and another would on average 100 balls.

If the other player has a strike rate of 50 and a batting average of 50, then he would score 25 runs in that time.

Partnership = 50+25 = 75 run partnership.

Now if both players had SR of 50 and batting averages of 50 then the partnership would last 200 balls (on statistical average).

Each player would contribute 50 runs in that period.

Partnership = 50+50 = 100

Now the same would be true of 2 fast scorers together. However, one fast scorer and a mid/slow scorer = smaller partnerships.

 

[Matt79]

Hussey's performances over the last two years have been superb and Clarke had an excellent Ashes series. But I find it laughable to suggest either would be selected ahead of Kallis, Hussey's had a great 16 test career and so far he's done everything asked of him and more.
But Kallis has played 100+ tests, scored 8000+ runs and been in the top couple of most consistent and highly regarded batsman in the world since 2000.
His last two years may not have been superb but they've hardly been terrible and his overall record shows his calibre as a player.
Hussey at present is not in his league.

I'm certainly not suggesting Clarke would get selected ahead of Kallis. I don't think its at all laughable to suggest Hussey would get selected ahead of him. Debatable, but not laughable. (might to a separate thread with a poll - and will get slammed no doubt )

 

[iamdavid]

Hogg isn't a good enough bowler to make it into the Test side, why won't people see this? His exploits in ODI cricket mean virtually nothing when it comes to Test selection, especially for somebody whose effectiveness is so different in the two different formats.

His first class record certainly agree's with you, but I dont.
His success in ODI's has been interesting, because he's not one of those one day spinners who bowls flat innocuous stuff with very little turn and gets wickets because people target him and he's mixing his pace up.
He's actually taken plenty of wickets in the one day game with genuine wicket balls, bowling a googly/straight one which the batsman dosent pick or occasionally beating the bat with turn. And that sort of bowling is going to reap rewards in test cricket just as surely as in ODI's, he wont be a Warne/Murali.....but I reckon he has it in him to be a Danish Kaneria lol.

 

[Perm]

I think Clarke will certainly become a better batsman - I think he showed a new level of skill and maturity with the blade in the last few tests he played (almost 9 months ago, but hey). Whereas, those stats show that Kallis has in the last couple of seasons not matched his own very high peak, and the guy is the wrong side of 30. I'm certainly not writing him off as a quality batsman, but its likely he's not going to dramatically improve, or indeed recapture his peak form.

Form/class aren't distinct things, at some point they blend into each other. Those figures take in at least a couple of series, so I don't think they tell the story of who's the better batsman full stop, but they do show how both guys are going. And that shows that the last couple of seasons for Clarke have been better than his overall career, whereas the last couple of seasons for Kallis have been not quite as good as his overall career for him.

You seriously think Michael Clarke will end up a better batsman than Jacques Kallis?

The thing is though, we've been looking at his last 14 games, or the last couple of seasons. If we stretch it back to 20 games then we can see that he's averaged 53.23, almost matching his career. The point of what I'm saying? I'm not quite sure TBH I think what I'm trying to prove is that a player of Kallis' class, skill and mental ability will very rarely struggle for the runs, even if he's hit somewhat of a downward slope. You have to take more things into consideration than just the runs he has scored. Over the last couple of seasons he's played the best team in the world six times, and scored two centuries whilst keeping an average of 50+. Now to me that says he still has the goods to suceed, and has done so.

Clarke benefited greatly from coming back into the Australian side for the 2007 Ashes, no doubt about it, and he looked a much better player. I still think it's ludicrous to suggest that he will turn out to be better than Kallis, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

 

[Matt79]

You seriously think Michael Clarke will end up a better batsman than Jacques Kallis?

Agree with most of your post. But to clarify, I'm not saying that I think at the end of his career, Clarke's record will be better overall than Kallis' record overall. I'm saying that over the next couple of years, Clarke could well perform better than Kallis. That's not a function of class, or at least not only of class, its also the fact that Kallis is a fair bit older than Clarke and is realistically in the latter half of his career, whereas Clarke is just emerging as the Test player we all hope he'll become.

 

[Perm]

His first class record certainly agree's with you, but I dont.
His success in ODI's has been interesting, because he's not one of those one day spinners who bowls flat innocuous stuff with very little turn and gets wickets because people target him and he's mixing his pace up.
He's actually taken plenty of wickets in the one day game with genuine wicket balls, bowling a googly/straight one which the batsman dosent pick or occasionally beating the bat with turn. And that sort of bowling is going to reap rewards in test cricket just as surely as in ODI's, he wont be a Warne/Murali.....but I reckon he has it in him to be a Danish Kaneria lol.

His First Class bowling is so poor that he was barely selected for Western Australia last year, and Aaron Heal was preferred as the spinner. I agree with you about his ODI bowling, he does bowl wicket taking balls, but a lot of this comes from the need to score quickly and maximise the amount of runs the batsman can take off the spinner. A lot of the time we see batsman trying to drive when they shouldn't, and also Hogg picks up a few lower order wickets when the teams are trying to accelerate.

He won't be a sucess as a Test spinner, his FC record has shone as much. I know you can't judge a player purely on numbers, but if he doesn't have the performances and record to back up his bowling, then he isn't good enough. Also, the issue of the red ball is something that could aid batsman in playing Hogg, as it will nullify his wrong'un to an extent.

 

[Matt79]

But the thing is, we might not have a test standard spinner this year, unless MacGill reverses his form. None of the young blokes really look ready yet, so Hogg might be as good an option for a slow bowler as any.

 

[Pup Clarke]

None of the young blokes really look ready yet, so Hogg might be as good an option for a slow bowler as any.

Why pick a spinner just for the sake of it though?. You might be better of putting aside MacGill and Hogg and picking another seamer.

 

[Perm]

Agree with most of your post. But to clarify, I'm not saying that I think at the end of his career, Clarke's record will be better overall than Kallis' record overall. I'm saying that over the next couple of years, Clarke could well perform better than Kallis. That's not a function of class, or at least not only of class, its also the fact that Kallis is a fair bit older than Clarke and is realistically in the latter half of his career, whereas Clarke is just emerging as the Test player we all hope he'll become.

I see. I do hope Clarke performs as well as you expect him to, he's a nice batsman to watch when the runs are flowing. I'd like to see how he fares against some better bowling attacks though, because England were pretty demoralised during the Ashes, it has to be said.

Meanwhile I think Kallis will continue to pile on the runs. He has two Tests to plunder the Pakistani bowling attack on some roads, and should smash the rubbish that New Zealand dish out to him. After that it's only a small matter of facing a West Indies team who have forgotten how to bowl and field, and then he'll face a decent test against England. Should have plenty of runs on the board by then

 

[Perm]

But the thing is, we might not have a test standard spinner this year, unless MacGill reverses his form. None of the young blokes really look ready yet, so Hogg might be as good an option for a slow bowler as any.

There's no point picking a sub-standard spinner purely for variety, especially when you have somebody with the talent off Mitchell Johnson, Shaun Tait or Ben Hilfenhaus sitting on the sideline.

 

[Pup Clarke]

What about this team then...

Hayden
Jaques
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Hodge
Gilchrist
Lee
Clark
Hilfenhaus
Tait