*Official* Australia in decline thread

[GIMH]

What are you talking about, it's been well established by myself, zaremba, fredfertang and ind33d yourself that they failed to win a single match here in 1997

 

[Richard]

I jest, therefore I do.

 

[zaremba]

Sorry if this point has been made here in recent times, but Nathan Hauritz has a first class bowling average of 49.65. Has anyone ever played Test cricket as a specialist bowler for Australia with a worse first class record?

 

[Uppercut]

Sorry if this point has been made here in recent times, but Nathan Hauritz has a first class bowling average of 49.65. Has anyone ever played Test cricket as a specialist bowler for Australia with a worse first class record?

There was a thread about this just after Krejza was named for India, i think he might even has been worse...

 

[fredfertang]

That Krezja bloke for one

 

[Top_Cat]

There was a thread about this just after Krejza was named for India, i think he might even has been worse...

Nope, not quite. Around the 46 mark, I believe.

Still, when the average is that high, it's a pointless argument surely.

 

[fredfertang]

I thought it was a tad over 50 when he was selected?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

I thought it was a tad over 50 when he was selected?

Got things in the wrong order, I think.

43 wickets @ 45.46 when selected
43 wickets @ 50.09 when playing the Test (having gone for 200 without wicket in the tour match)

 

[Richard]

I'm fairly sure already that Krejza > Hauritz, but I'd imagine Krejza will amount to very little and Hauritz to roughly nothing.

Hauritz has managed a fairly remarkable task - to average 20 in his single Test yet still manage to play the biggest part in the loss of that Test. Hauritz is hopeless, Krejza often hopeless but occasionally useful.

 

[Athlai]

They have played one match each, being a little rough on them Rich. Probably right but still harsh.

 

[Richard]

I don't go in for this "don't criticise players if they've only played a few Tests" lark. Test cricket isn't the only cricket that exists.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah but I doubt you watch much Aussie FC cricket.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah but I doubt you watch much Aussie FC cricket.

He watches none. Won't change his opinions though.

 

[Richard]

Yeah but I doubt you watch much Aussie FC cricket.

No, but I do read some of what the posters on here say about it though. Cribb on Krejza, for instance.

Also I read scorecards.

 

[Rant0r]

i think hauritz has a bit of potential, but i would have gone for cullen, hauritz has been ruined by being pigeon holed a one day bowler, bowls too flat.

i felt he bowled well on the first day, nice flight and drift, good arm ball, turned the odd one, probably didnt get the batsmen out but hardly disgraced either.

 

[NZTailender]

Also I read scorecards.

Unfortunately Richard, scorecards don't give a proper representation of how someone might have performed.

Case example, Mark Gillespie.

 

[Richard]

Reading scorecards > not reading scorecards.

 

[Top_Cat]

Reading scorecards > not reading scorecards.

Giving no opinion > giving an uninformed opinion.

 

[Richard]

Good obs, Cor-meister. Clearly I avoid doing the latter wherever I think an opinion would be an ill-informed one. I prefer to wait, read and form an informed one before forming one at all.

BTW, this must surely be the best place to note how wonderful it is to see Andrew Symonds wrongly given out.

 

[Rant0r]

agreed, sucked in, lets just say that 'well that's just cricket and we have to take the good with the bad, the umpire is there to make a decision'

who was it that said that this time last year... anyway..