• 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.

*Official* Sri Lanka in Australia 2010

vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
DeusEx said:
I'd be keen to take a risk with the spinner for the first test tbh. Whatever happens, the Gabba shouldn't be dominated by spinners, so if they got a debutant in who starts getting bashed around, just take him off! On the other hand, if a spinner was chosen who looks more dangerous than Hauritz, they might end up getting a 5-for. Its not like Hauritz is going to be a necessity for the Gabba anyway, so why not just take a risk.
Click to expand...
So what do you if it fails, and the guy doesn't take wickets? Just keep rotating till someone does? Team cohesion is important, and guys need to feel as though they'll be supported when they are selected.

Now, at the moment it's fair to say that the selectors are providing a bit "too much" support, but taking risks out of nowhere isn't the way to go about selecting for the Ashes. For reference, look at England circa 1989-2001.
 
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
vic_orthdox said:
So what do you if it fails, and the guy doesn't take wickets? Just keep rotating till someone does? Team cohesion is important, and guys need to feel as though they'll be supported when they are selected.
Click to expand...
Edit: misinterpreted.
 
Last edited:
vic_orthdox

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
DeusEx said:
If the spinner fails, there is always North etc. to go to anyway (who I recently found out has a better FC average than Hauritz anyway!). Once again though, a spinner shoudn't need to relied on anyway for the Gabba (thats why I would actually prefer 4 quicks). You could argue stuff about 'team cohesion' but if someone is leaking runs, rotating the bowling is hardly an out-of-the ordinary affair. It happens almost every game.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the next Test match.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
DeusEx said:
Yeh well obviously they would be pretty reckless to put Doherty into the Ashes after just this performance, but they still don't have the balls the give him another game/s over Hauritz to weigh up their choices a bit better.

It seems clear to me they are set on playing Hauritz, no matter what happens pre-Ashes.
Click to expand...
Why are Hauritz and Doherty mutually exclusive in Sydney though? Could've binned Siddle and run with the two spinners.
 
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
vic_orthdox said:
I'm talking about the next Test match.
Click to expand...
oh, well you have to give them at least 2 matchs imo. If they continue to fail, then replace them. So what, its not as though a spinner is integral to the structure of the Aussie team at the moment. Way more important is keeping the batting structure consistent.
 
Ruckus

Ruckus

International Captain
Burgey said:
Why are Hauritz and Doherty mutually exclusive in Sydney though? Could've binned Siddle and run with the two spinners.
Click to expand...
Yeh that could of been a good idea. Pretty sure they are wanting to give Siddle prep for the Ashes too though.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top