Precambrian
Banned
Unrelated to the general stream of discussion, but is Krejza better than Casson?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
If Symonds does not return to the Aussie squad...
- Thread starter Bees
- Start date
pup11
International Coach
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Unpopular opinion, but yes IMO.
Precambrian
Banned
Why the heck Casson is not in India then?
And if yes, why Krezja isnt playing?
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
All true, but as i'm advocating i don't think it will affect Australia that much. The only legitimate problem with the XI is that having Watto in the middle-order gives obvious jitters because he doesn't have the runs at test level yet.
But then again so was placing Katich to open ahead of Jaques because it was felt that "The Kat package"could offer more in Indian conditions even though Jaques had done nothing wrong performance wise. I had no issue with it of course, it was an obvious decision for the balance of the side for Indian conditions. But why couldn't Jaques just open in the first test, its not like he's poor againts spin?
So in the coming months when McGain returns to give variety to the bowling attack, if potentially Katich would face the same fate that got him into the side, i think "The Watson package" would be better. We can't deny Ponting has wants to have both in the test side soon even if he doesn't have the same XI in mind.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Apparently, the selectors didnt want to risk long-term damage to Casson by exposing him to Indian conditions before he was ready and also thought that he bowled a bit slowly for their pitches.
As for Krezja, because he sucks
Dont try to work out Oz selectors logic, they suck BIG TIME
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
That has got to be the worst logic for not playing someone. Just come out and say you rate the other guy better. Casson would have taken absolutely no comfort from that statement (would most likely have taken it as knock, in fact) because his next question would have been "Well, how will you know whether I'm ready or not if you won't play me in the first place?"
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That's over-egging it, considerably.
pup11
International Coach
Well there is this another theory doing rounds too about why they didn't send Casson to India, they think Casson is just too slow through the air and of the pitch (as Social pointed) and on Indian tracks that he would be easily picked of for runs, well Casson has always been slow through the air and that has been one of the major negatives in his bowling and something he has struggled with, but he has improved a bit in that regard in the last season and that was also somewhat evident in the only test he played earlier in the year.
Aussie selectors have tried to display that they have used a lot of brains in picking up this current squad, but that's just far from the truth, Australia just doesn't have a decent finger-spinner atm so to send one in Krezja just because they believe finger spinners tend to do well in sub-continental conditions was a bit of joke, and if they had such faith in Krezja' ability despite his very ordinary FC record then that dismal tour match performance either shouldn't have stopped them from picking him in the XI for the first test itself ahead of a man (White) who just bowled 80 odd overs in the last FC season, i think frankly speaking Australian selectors should have picked the best 15 players possible rather than being too cheeky in selecting the current squad.
IMO, this should have been Australia's intial squad:
1.M.Hayden
2.S,Katich
3.R.Ponting
4.M.Hussey
5.M.Clarke
6.S.Watson
7.B.Haddin
8.B.Lee
9.M.Johnson
10.B.McGain
11.S.Clark
12.A.Noffke
13.D.Bollinger
14.B.Casson
15.P.Jaques
Since later both McGain and Jaques pulled out of the series due to injury, i would have had Hauritz or maybe Krezja as McGain' replacement and David Hussey or Brad Hodge as replacement for Jaques, i think that would have been the best possible side Aussie selectors could have picked under the circumstances.
Last edited:
pup11
International Coach
Ok so lets just say this is the best depth Australia has had in terms of fast-bowling options for a while now.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm really not sure it is TBH.
In, say, 1999 there was:
Reiffel, Fleming, McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Bichel, Dale, Angel, Wilson, Inness, Dawes and Nicholson. All of whom were quite a bit superior to the likes of Rofe, Magoffin, Cleary, Geeves, Bollinger, Denton, Nannes, etc. Then there was the likes of Harvey, Williams and Wright who were certainly not bad at all and at least on a par. And Lewis, Clark, Bracken and Noffke who were soon to appear on the scene.
Hilfenhaus and Siddle are both certainly promising and especially in Hilfenhaus' case I can quite easily see him being as good as possibly all of those 1999 names apart from McGrath. But Siddle hasn't even played a full state season yet, and Hilfenhaus has so far had just 1 particularly good one, though obviously he's started well again this term. All of the above 1999 names proved their quality over a long time period. Tait there's still no knowing what the situation with his mind is yet. Johnson for all his promise over a loooooong time now has yet to deliver anything particularly substantial at Pura or Test level.
Right now there are just three names, Clark, Brett Lee and Noffke, who I'd say are Australian seam-bowlers whose skill is firmly established, and Noffke seems to have done something wrong to someone somewhere.
In, say, 1999 there was:
Reiffel, Fleming, McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Bichel, Dale, Angel, Wilson, Inness, Dawes and Nicholson. All of whom were quite a bit superior to the likes of Rofe, Magoffin, Cleary, Geeves, Bollinger, Denton, Nannes, etc. Then there was the likes of Harvey, Williams and Wright who were certainly not bad at all and at least on a par. And Lewis, Clark, Bracken and Noffke who were soon to appear on the scene.
Hilfenhaus and Siddle are both certainly promising and especially in Hilfenhaus' case I can quite easily see him being as good as possibly all of those 1999 names apart from McGrath. But Siddle hasn't even played a full state season yet, and Hilfenhaus has so far had just 1 particularly good one, though obviously he's started well again this term. All of the above 1999 names proved their quality over a long time period. Tait there's still no knowing what the situation with his mind is yet. Johnson for all his promise over a loooooong time now has yet to deliver anything particularly substantial at Pura or Test level.
Right now there are just three names, Clark, Brett Lee and Noffke, who I'd say are Australian seam-bowlers whose skill is firmly established, and Noffke seems to have done something wrong to someone somewhere.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
I'm forced to disagree with your blind assumption that, for example, Wilson was a superior bowler to Bollinger. To be expected though, I suppose.
duffer
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
When did I say he was "so obviously better"?
The point is you just rattled off a list of names and said they were all "quite clearly superior" to another list of names, when the second list of names includes some pretty talented young bowlers that I doubt you've actually seen play.
Wilson was nothing particularly exceptional as a bowler IMO and Bollinger has shown a lot more over the last couple of seasons to indicate he could be a successful test bowler, though I'm not a massive fan of his as such. Someone like Paul Rofe for example is pretty mediocre and I wouldn't lump in a group with Bollinger, Magoffin, Hilfenhaus etc who are pretty talented, or someone like Denton who could have been a really good bowler if it wasn't for injuries.
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Haha Joey Dawes is a blast from the past. Great average, never looked close to getting any further recognition.
I'm going to say that 1999 was slightly better then now, but yeah I'm excited by the 13 bowlers mentioned in my pecking order thread - they are [in no order] Clark, Lee, Johnson, Noffke, Magoffin, Hilfenhaus, Geeves, Harris, Nannes, Bollinger, Bracken, Tait and Siddle.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
Would feel comfortable going into a Test with pretty much any of those players.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm sure none of them would be completely out-of-depth, but more of them than not I don't see ever being Test-class, and Siddle especially there's simply no way we know for certain how good he is yet, though I imagine those involved with the Victorian setup know exactly how big his domination of grade scenes has been which obviously gives something of a clue.