**Official** Tour Matches

[pup11]

It's a case for those in and around the camp to judge who most needs the run-out. But i think they should start with the team they expect to play the third test and work from there.

Most certainly not a bowl-out or a selection trial, that's the important thing.

I don't think the Australian selectors or Ponting look at it in that sort of way, if that had been the case, neither Hilfenhaus or Hauritz would have played a single test, but what practice game certainly does is, it gives them an idea of what sort of form a particular bloke is in.

I think as PEWS said, a bloke like Hilfy already seems to be in good form and rhythm, but his workload has been huge in the first two games, and the gap between the practice game and the 3rd test is also pretty narrow, which would hardly provide him any chance to take some rest and rejuvanate his body.

 

[Uppercut]

I don't think the Australian selectors or Ponting look at it in that sort of way, if that had been the case, neither Hilfenhaus or Hauritz would have played a single test, but what practice game certainly does is, it gives them an idea of what sort of form a particular bloke is in.

I think as PEWS said, a bloke like Hilfy already seems to be in good form and rhythm, but his workload has been huge in the first two games, and the gap between the practice game and the 3rd test is also pretty narrow, which would hardly provide him any chance to take some rest and rejuvanate his body.

That's for those with the team to decide. Who are we to say whether he'll benefit from another run out or he'll be too tired for the third test if he plays? They employ a team of physios to determine these things so they don't have to make such decisions as uninformed as we are.

 

[pasag]

That's what everyone was saying about Johnson ahead of the previous warm-up games.

IMO you play the team you expect to field for the third test. Warm-up games are to find your players some rhythm, not to bowl them off against each other.

Why not? They're the perfect opportunity to split a couple of players who have little between them.

 

[Uppercut]

Why not? They're the perfect opportunity to split a couple of players who have little between them.

Warm-up games very rarely have any bearing on how a series will go. I'm just taking the latest three tours on cricinfo's tours archive-

England's tour of the West Indies, starring Steve Harmison and Monty Panesar.

Australia's tour of South Africa, the stand-out bowlers being Doug Bollinger and Marcus North

South Africa's tour of Australia, Paul Harris being the pick of the bowlers with 4/94.

I left out Sri Lanka in Pakistan because there's little to be taken from that series at all (ftr, there's still no correlation). But I'm curious as to how far you actually have to go back to find a series where the bowlers who performed in the warm-up games were the best players in the tests.

West Indies in New Zealand- nope.

New Zealand in Australia- nope.

Australia in India- nope.

I'm sure you could find one eventually if you went back far enough. Anyway, point is, there's little to no correlation between someone performing well in the warm-ups and performing well in the tests, so why use it, even as a tie-breaker? In fact, looking in particular at England in the West Indies and Australia in India, the selections that turned out badly for the team tended to be those based on warm-up performances.

That's only one reason though. You don't want bowlers bowling themselves into the ground trying to make the team (as Brett Lee did) and one player already in the lineup misses out on match practice (as Mitchell Johnson did in the first warm-up). It's just a waste of valuable match-time IMO. Players could be adapting to conditions and finding their feet in a new country but instead they're out of the team so two of their team-mates can be pitted against each other. Then you make a snap decision based on one game when they have two or three hundred first-class matches each. Poor going IMO.

 

[pasag]

Warm-up games very rarely have any bearing on how a series will go. I'm just taking the latest three tours on cricinfo's tours archive-

England's tour of the West Indies, starring Steve Harmison and Monty Panesar.

Australia's tour of South Africa, the stand-out bowlers being Doug Bollinger and Marcus North

South Africa's tour of Australia, Paul Harris being the pick of the bowlers with 4/94.

I left out Sri Lanka in Pakistan because there's little to be taken from that series at all (ftr, there's still no correlation). But I'm curious as to how far you actually have to go back to find a series where the bowlers who performed in the warm-up games were the best players in the tests.

West Indies in New Zealand- nope.

New Zealand in Australia- nope.

Australia in India- nope.

I'm sure you could find one eventually if you went back far enough. Anyway, point is, there's little to no correlation between someone performing well in the warm-ups and performing well in the tests, so why use it, even as a tie-breaker? In fact, looking in particular at England in the West Indies and Australia in India, the selections that turned out badly for the team tended to be those based on warm-up performances.

That's only one reason though. You don't want bowlers bowling themselves into the ground trying to make the team (as Brett Lee did) and one player already in the lineup misses out on match practice (as Mitchell Johnson did in the first warm-up). It's just a waste of valuable match-time IMO. Players could be adapting to conditions and finding their feet in a new country but instead they're out of the team so two of their team-mates can be pitted against each other. Then you make a snap decision based on one game when they have two or three hundred first-class matches each. Poor going IMO.

The very fact they're one of the last players fighting for a spot means it's unlikley they're going to be a man of the series nor have a huge amount of impact on things. Furthemore the very fact someone didnt last the tour match PROVES they shouldn't be selected. If they can't last the one match then they certainly couldn't last thorugh a series and it's good we found this out now as opposed to in a real time situation.

If we can't split two players, there's very little logic against using the the tour match as a tiebreaker. It's as close to real match conditions as you can get. What else are we going to base things on? Net form? Random assumptions? I'm not advocating using a tour match to have one player thrown into the team over an established player nor using it as a definitive measure of the better player, however, in instances like where you have Brett Lee and Stuart Clark coming back from injury with little indication of their form, or many players with little experience in a new country's conditions then it's certainly the right way to go. We know exactly how well a player has done in domestic conditions but we know very little of how their game will fit in different conditions overseas and the tour matches help us out heaps in that regard.

 

[tooextracool]

Warm-up games very rarely have any bearing on how a series will go. I'm just taking the latest three tours on cricinfo's tours archive-

England's tour of the West Indies, starring Steve Harmison and Monty Panesar.

Australia's tour of South Africa, the stand-out bowlers being Doug Bollinger and Marcus North

South Africa's tour of Australia, Paul Harris being the pick of the bowlers with 4/94.

I left out Sri Lanka in Pakistan because there's little to be taken from that series at all (ftr, there's still no correlation). But I'm curious as to how far you actually have to go back to find a series where the bowlers who performed in the warm-up games were the best players in the tests.

West Indies in New Zealand- nope.

New Zealand in Australia- nope.

Australia in India- nope.

I'm sure you could find one eventually if you went back far enough. Anyway, point is, there's little to no correlation between someone performing well in the warm-ups and performing well in the tests, so why use it, even as a tie-breaker? In fact, looking in particular at England in the West Indies and Australia in India, the selections that turned out badly for the team tended to be those based on warm-up performances.

That's only one reason though. You don't want bowlers bowling themselves into the ground trying to make the team (as Brett Lee did) and one player already in the lineup misses out on match practice (as Mitchell Johnson did in the first warm-up). It's just a waste of valuable match-time IMO. Players could be adapting to conditions and finding their feet in a new country but instead they're out of the team so two of their team-mates can be pitted against each other. Then you make a snap decision based on one game when they have two or three hundred first-class matches each. Poor going IMO.

Hope you know that its not always the case that a person who takes the most wickets bowled the best. For example, Panesar cleaning up the tail or Harmison taking 2 wickets in 2 innings in the warm up game that you provided, does not mean they were the best bowlers in the game.

Also, I wouldn't use the term 'warm-up' for the tour game that we have coming up, for the simple reason that warm-ups are supposed to be a way to get ready for the start of something and as you have already suggested, most of the aussie players are already warmed-up as they have played test match cricket. 'Warm-ups' would be more appropriate for the games before the first test where players need to get accustomed to the new conditions and get ready for the rigours of playing a different format in test match cricket. I would suggest that the next tour game is more of a practice game than a warm-up.

 

[Uppercut]

The very fact they're one of the last players fighting for a spot means it's unlikley they're going to be a man of the series nor have a huge amount of impact on things. Furthemore the very fact someone didnt last the tour match PROVES they shouldn't be selected. If they can't last the one match then they certainly couldn't last thorugh a series and it's good we found this out now as opposed to in a real time situation.

If we can't split two players, there's very little logic against using the the tour match as a tiebreaker. It's as close to real match conditions as you can get. What else are we going to base things on? Net form? Random assumptions? I'm not advocating using a tour match to have one player thrown into the team over an established player nor using it as a definitive measure of the better player, however, in instances like where you have Brett Lee and Stuart Clark coming back from injury with little indication of their form, or many players with little experience in a new country's conditions then it's certainly the right way to go. We know exactly how well a player has done in domestic conditions but we know very little of how their game will fit in different conditions overseas and the tour matches help us out heaps in that regard.

It may seem a bit counter-intuitive, but bowling well in a warm-up game doesn't really impact on how well you'll bowl in the tests. They shouldn't be used to see who has already adjusted to English conditions, they should be used to help the players you already know are your best adjust to English conditions.

Splitting closely matched players on their warm-up matches is fine, if there's absolutely nothing else to compare them on. What I'm objecting to is changing selection policy, thereby leaving out established players who could benefit from the practice, in order to pit two other closely-matched bowlers against each other.

In any case, I don't think there are any close calls in the Australian team with Lee injured. Particularly none that can be decided by the warm-up game.

Hope you know that its not always the case that a person who takes the most wickets bowled the best. For example, Panesar cleaning up the tail or Harmison taking 2 wickets in 2 innings in the warm up game that you provided, does not mean they were the best bowlers in the game.

Also, I wouldn't use the term 'warm-up' for the tour game that we have coming up, for the simple reason that warm-ups are supposed to be a way to get ready for the start of something and as you have already suggested, most of the aussie players are already warmed-up as they have played test match cricket. 'Warm-ups' would be more appropriate for the games before the first test where players need to get accustomed to the new conditions and get ready for the rigours of playing a different format in test match cricket. I would suggest that the next tour game is more of a practice game than a warm-up.

Well Panesar and Harmison both got the nod for the first test on the back of those performances, and bowled terribly (perhaps costing England a shot at the series), so I thought it was worth mentioning.

Fair point on the practice games though. There's less of a precedent for games like these.

 

[pasag]

It may seem a bit counter-intuitive, but bowling well in a warm-up game doesn't really impact on how well you'll bowl in the tests. They shouldn't be used to see who has already adjusted to English conditions, they should be used to help the players you already know are your best adjust to English conditions.

But that's the whole point, we don't really know who's best for the conditions. Sure we have our assumptions and intuition, but you cant really know till you see them in proper match conditions with new players.

 

[jondavluc]

Ricky,Clarke,and Haddin are being rested.

 

[Uppercut]

Pretty happy with that .

 

[tooextracool]

Well Panesar and Harmison both got the nod for the first test on the back of those performances, and bowled terribly (perhaps costing England a shot at the series), so I thought it was worth mentioning.

Well given that no one really got to watch Harmison bowl in that warm up game, its a little hard to be able to say whether he deserved those figures that he got or whether he deserved to play. The selectors chose him, but that doesn't really mean much because we all know that they aren't a very smart bunch.

On Panesar, are you really that surprised? Considering an almost like-for-like scenario just happened with him being picked for Cardiff on the back of cleaning up a few tailenders against Warwickshire?

I do think that you can use warm-ups to base selections when its a close call between a couple of bowlers, but you need to actually watch how someone bowls rather than pick them based purely on the figures that they got.

 

[TT Boy]

Anyone know what sort of team Northants are putting out, are Boje, Hall, van der Wath playing or is it second XI stuff?

 

[four_or_six]

Clarke, Ponting and Haddin aren't just being rested from the match, they're also staying behind in London for an extra couple of days to 'help them freshen up'. That really doesn't sound like good form from c/vc of such an inexperienced team at a critical point in the tour.

 

[Burgey]

Clarke, Ponting and Haddin aren't just being rested from the match, they're also staying behind in London for an extra couple of days to 'help them freshen up'. That really doesn't sound like good form from c/vc of such an inexperienced team at a critical point in the tour.

Nothing remotely unusual about it at all though.

 

[four_or_six]

Nothing remotely unusual about it at all though.

I always assumed they stayed together. In that case, no drama.

 

[Matt79]

Hussey to skipper then? Or Katich?

 

[Jarquis]

Hussey according to Cricinfo.

 

[Burgey]

I always assumed they stayed together. In that case, no drama.

I think they generally do, but as far back as 48 Bradman missed tour games and stayed in London.

 

[howardj]

Maybe they'll nick off to EuroDisney like Gilly after Lords in 2005.

 

[four_or_six]

Here we are then... chance for the Aussies to smack about some crap division 2 second XI bowling.