From what I've seen off him I've not been overly impressed by his control but I have been impressed by his variety. He does reverse the ball and he does do a pretty good job going around the wicket (which is unusual for a left hander).
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I've been more impressed by him when he bowls over the wicket, to the left-handers, but that's not saying that much.
I was referring to the India- Australia series. I didnt watch the SL-Aus series.
Fair enough.
AFAIC, Clark was the only one who managed to reverse it for a consistent period in the whole series and that happened in the first test at Brisbane.
The thing is that the first Test against India was played in
Melbourne, not in Brisbane - that's why I thought that you were referring to the Sri Lankan series.
Besides, Clark hasn't struck me as being able to work up the pace needed to generate reverse swing. In the first innings, in particular, he troubled the Indian batsmen with off-cutters (Dravid and Dhoni) and 'wobblers' (Yuvraj). The slow outfield and the slightly uneven (although often low) bounce also helped him - not reverse swing, in particular.
Mitchell Johnson, FWIW, got reverse swing towards the end of that Test matches, which he used to dismiss lower-order batsmen and tailenders from around the wicket.
Mitchell Johnson may have got more reverse than conventional in the SL series but thats only because he doesnt get any conventional swing ITFP.
OK, but my point still stands.
Well one must remember that the bowler that you state has more potential averaged 59 for the series which goes to show that averages arent always an accurate indication of performance.
Yeah, that's true. However, while Ishant Sharma had rotten luck with umpires, had to bowl on Adelaide 'Road' and often beat the bat, RP Singh not only didn't have to bowl in Adelaide, but also had some luck with umpiring (i.e - Hussey in Perth). As it is, he often picked up wickets because the Australian batsmen treated him with some amount of contempt.
I can understand your POV, personally though I dont think there is a case for RP Singh to be dropped.
Well, I can't agree, I'm afraid.
It should also be understood that Johnson essentially took half of his wickets in the series by dismissing lower order batsmen and tailenders while RP Singh spent most of his time taking top order wickets before blowing cold and leaking runs.
Yes, that assessment is backed up by StatsGuru. However, that in itself doesn't necessarily indicate that one bowler performed better than the other. There's also the 'dropped catches' factor.
I cannot honestly see how anyone who watched the series can consider Mitchell to have bowled well that series. Yes he averaged 33, but the only reason he did that is because he bowled a line and length that encouraged no batsman to even bother playing a shot at him. The only time he caused problems was when an out of sorts Rahul Dravid tried to play at deliveries that he didnt really need to play at ITFP.
That's slightly harsh. He only really did what you accused him of doing for 3/8 of the Test series, at most. Besides, when he was
really erratic, he tended to get punished.
RP Singh on the other hand attacked the stumps more and ended up being more expensive. I think the fact that RP Singh has a better SR for the series is indicative of that.
SR is lowered when the economy rate rises. At any rate, an economy rate of 4.3 is unacceptable and indicates just how erratic RP Singh was for most of the time, save for a brief time early in the Sydney Test match and maybe in the 1st innings of the Perth Test match.
I was referring more to the selections that have been made this decade.
Oh, OK.
While Elliott did play 1 test a few years ago I dont think that was ever a long term selection.
No, it wasn't. He wasn't going to displace anybody in that side and batted slightly out of position.
Im not saying that there werent players that were picked that failed. Im jus saying that most players on the domestic scene in Australia (especially amongst the batsmen) are likely to do decently at the international level.
You seemed to be implying before that
any state batsman could do a decent job at the international level. Your argument above seems harder to fault, though.
Consider Symonds for example. Whether Symonds is more deserving of a place in the national side over someone like David Hussey is extremely questionable. However, even he has somehow managed to take the shame away from his selection by performing occasionally at the international level.
Saying that he's only performed occasionally is extremely harsh, given his ODI exploits and his recent (although fortuitious) Test success. Besides, Symonds has been selected thrice: the first time (2003/04), he didn't deserve it; the second time (2005/06), he was a replacement; the third time (2006/07), he was replacing a retiree.
Now, in 2003/04, David Hussey had his first good season (not enough for him to be selected) and in 2005/06, he scored 502 runs at an average of just 31. In 2006/07, he did very well, but it was his first good season for a while. At any rate, the Perth Test occured in early December and I'm not sure whether David had actually reached his peak at that point. Thankfully, Symonds justified the selection.
FWIW, I do think that David Hussey has gotten a raw deal with the Australian selectors lately, but that had more to do with Brad Hodge being preferred in the first Test against the West Indies.
As has been suggested, I was referring to his ODI dropping.
Yeah OK, that was harsh. Truth be told, though, he had struggled for the entire Australian summer and was pushing 34. His dropping paved the way for Michael Hussey's appearance (albeit a little while later) and for a while, the selector's decision to drop Bevan and recruit someone who acted like a Bevan-plus of sorts worked out.
I was referring to his test selection. His ODI selection was a rare good un by the Australian mgmt but his selection for the WACA test against SA was beyond logic as was his original selection over Kasprowicz in 03/04.
His selection over Kaspr in 03/04 was idiotic and his selection for the WACA test turned out to be ill-advised, but I don't think that the spinners did that much better on it, either. It was an utter road, except maybe for the express pacemen.
Cant see him doing a worse job than what Gillespie was doing throughout that series tbh.
True, that.
England were struggling against Warne, and the likes of Strauss, Flintoff and Jones have exactly struck me as being anything other than clueless against leg spin. Again its mere speculation, but I think it would have been a better selection than picking Tait and/or Gillespie that summer.
Yeah, I can't disagree with this - Gillespie looked utterly feckless and I've never rated Tait, either.
Martyn's footwork has never been particularly brilliant.
He wasn't the best with regards to footwork, although he did move his feet well enough to combat the spinners quite aptly in India, on a couple of poor pitches.
During the Ashes, his footwork was basically
non-existent for most of the time. There's a difference.
The handling of Martyn was very poor indeed. He was made scapegoat for what was a collective failure by all the Australian players during the Ashes series.
That's true, poor though he was.
He was one of a few players who wasnt worked out during the series and had several poor umpiring decisions that went against him.
I disagree that he wasn't worked out. If you ask me, he has always had a tendency to fish outside offstump with hard hands and little footwork early in his innings. The likes of Mohammad Sami have been known to exploit this - so did Simon Jones and Andrew Flintoff. I agree about the poor decisions, though.
Then, he was inexplicably brought back when he had done nothing of what he was supposed to have done to regain his place.
Yes, I agree with this. Brad Hodge, though disappointing a lot of the time, didn't deserve to be dropped.
Tbf he didnt get much of a chance to do so. From the little i saw of him he looked like he had the tools to succeed at the international level, but I am unsure how the likes of Katich, Clarke and even Symonds managed to get in line ahead of him.
Well, I only saw Martin Love in action very briefly (I didn't start watching cricket seriously until January 2004, by which time he had already been dropped from the side), so I can't comment on that. I can only relay what StatsGuru tells me.
I think that there are plenty of mistakes that the Aussie selectors have made this year.
Yeah, there are several selections which I have disagreed with. On the other hand, some of the supposed 'mistakes' (i.e - Katich opening, Brad Hodge>DJ Hussey) turned out to be the correct calls to make. It just goes to show that theoretically-based decisions don't always lead to success in practice, even though they ought to.
He didnt, but he succeeded with flying colors when he had the chance.
Hmm...he didn't in 2005/06. Now that I look back, he did at the turn of the millenium, but that's hardly relevant to Simon Katich opening. Phil Jaques was probably a better candidate (he really got messed around during that VB series, from memory).
