*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Woodster]

I think the selectors know that none of the options are good enough though. As soon as one of them does something in Shield cricket they get justifiably excited because it's so rare. O'Keefe taking 7/20 odd for Australia A and then backing it up with an eight wicket haul in Shield cricket the next game he played is soooooooo much more than Hauritz ever did at those levels, so unless Hauritz is gaining cricket by his performances for Australia - which he really hasn't been lately - then O'Keefe could quite justifiably queue jump him.

It's not a case of them losing faith or changing their minds about who they rate constantly - they don't actually rate any of them.. for quite a good reason.

Of course if the cupboard is completely empty, the selectors do indeed have their work cut out. If it's a case of they just promote whoever takes the most wickets close to when a squad is being announced, then I'm sure the ACB can save a few quid and just people off the street making up the selection committee.

The selectors have to invest time and patience in a spinner, or more, who they believe has the potential to become a useful Test spinner. If the talents around at the moment suggest he will not be a world beater, they simply have to identify someone that can be relied upon. This scattergun approach in selecting back-up spinners show they have no real clue who has the capabilities to push Hauritz.

 

[Jarquis]

Marcus North's FC bowling average for Australia, Australia A, Australians, Australian Academy and WA is 41.14.
Nathan Hauritz's for Australia, Australia A, Australians, Queensland and NSW is 43.47

Just sayin'

 

[Top_Cat]

There's a pretty long and distinguished history in Oz cricket of picking spinners out of nowhere isn't there? I think that's pretty cool.

Anyway Hauritz is under-rated in my view, I like the cut of his jib

Warne was picked on grade form, yeah.

Depends on the player, though. Macgilla was picked after he changed the colour of his cap () but he had wickets behind him at least.

 

[Top_Cat]

If I'm not wrong he took 31 FC wkts in one season, now that certainly ain't bad, you and lot of other people think he's crap, but the fact is he was picked and he played one test in the West Indies took three wkts in the game, but surprisingly after that in the next series against India they ignored him for White!!!

McGain took more that season. Casson really only got games when MacGill wasn't playing whereas McGain was the front-line spinner all season and the more credentialled bowler anyway. Was really only the push to develop a young spinner and his batting which got him the nod over McGain. Certainly wasn't bowling ability.

 

[howardj]

North and especially Hussey actually deserved to be in the team in the first place though. Hauritz was a random ****house pick based on a good season for Randwick (seriously lol) and a lack of alternatives. There's no point backing players you never actually rated in the first place.

I beg to differ, at least regarding North. I will never be convinced that a guy thrashing around in Shield cricket for years and averaging just 42, deserves to be picked for Australia. I called this guy out the moment he was selected. He will only bring you tears, I was heard to say.

 

[Prince EWS]

I beg to differ, at least regarding North. I will never be convinced that a guy thrashing around in Shield cricket for years and averaging just 42, deserves to be picked for Australia. I called this guy out the moment he was selected. He will only bring you tears, I was heard to say.

He was picked partly based on his bowling though, as Australia wanted to play four quicks in South Africa.

 

[Sylvester]

I appreciate that no-one has really grabbed the headlines on a consistent basis in Australia and so not making a place in the squad their own, however, the selectors need to back their judgement and if a player does not have instant success, if he's the man they believe to be the next Aussie spinner, then they need to persevere with him. At the moment it almost seems like it's names out of a hat for each squad selection, a case of 'right who's bowled well in the last round of games?'. It is crazy and it seems to me to be as stupid as it sounds. They're hoping someone comes straight in and has an immediate impact, they're hoping they fall lucky.

Agree, Casson was alright on debut but then he gets dropped because he bowls left-arm chinaman. Krejza I could slightly understand but I felt he should have been given another chance. Then you have O'Keefe who appeared to be the backup spinner and rightfully so based on what hes done. He hasn't been allowed to play for NSW because of Hauritz return and suddenly hes been jumped in the queue. It sends out the wrong message, essentially Doherty has got in on the back of his ODI performance. I wouldn't have quite the same problem if he was the one the selectors picked as the backup spinner (picked in Aus A side) but O'Keefe was that man. Not saying O'Keefe will end up being our answer to the spinning problem but the selectors need to stick by the man they picked especially when hes done nothing wrong.

 

[robelinda]

Warne was picked on grade form, yeah.

Depends on the player, though.

So was Gavin Robertson! He didnt do too bad, thought he wouldve done a good job in Aussie conditions if given a chance.

 

[Top_Cat]

Actually, I just remembered it wasn't just grade form for Warne. He had a great game against the WI (?) for the Aust XI prior to being picked. Think that was what gave him the leg-up.

As for Robertson, thought he was alright actually. Just had long stretches where he didn't take many wickets in between the bags of 5 or so from memory.

 

[pup11]

I don't think how we picked spinners in the past is much of a debate, whether it was Robertson, Funky Miller, Warney or MacGilla, all of them did their job and performed to their own respective ability.
Its what we are doing now that's the real concern, Holland, Boyce, Beer, O'Keffe and Doherty are the only spinners in the FC circuit who are yet to play a test, but one feels its only a matter of time.
The selectors have virtually handed over a test cap to any bloke who bowls spin, and to suggest they are doing this because there aren't any good spinners around is a bit lame.
I mean no spinner they have picked apart from McGain during the last 3 years has actually been tore into shreds at the test level, but still for no rhyme or reason they are dropped in the very next series.
A bloke like Hauritz hasn't lasted this long because of great backing from the selectors or anything, its simply because he takes an average 4 wkts every test and that's more than decent considering the make-up of our current bowling.
Though despite that it only takes one bad game for Hauritz before everyone starts saying how bad he is and that should be dropped.
Btw just to put things is prespective this is the list of spinners who have been handed the baggy green over the last 3-4 years.....
#Dan Cullen
#Beau Casson
#Cameron White
#Jason Krejza
#Bryce McGain
#Steve Smith

Now, don't forget MacGill, Hogg and Hauritz also played games in between this time, and Cullen Bailey the leggie from South Australia even had a central contract a few years ago.

 

[morgieb]

When was the last time we had a spinner doing good in Shield cricket though? Even MacGill averaged ~ 30, and Warne ~ 35 (though it wasn't really his fault). Most spinners average ~ 40, so it seems to be beggars can't be choosers.

If we found a spinner averaging ~ 20, then he'd be seen as the Bradman of spin.

 

[Julian87]

Iaverage abut 13 normally tbh.

 

[morgieb]

Heres the thing, if North and Katich play, does Australia even need a frontline spinner (particularly if the options are all rather average)? Why not just pick one of the many promising seamers?

Very valid point. Think it had a lot to do with the infamous Oval test.

 

[morgieb]

Wouldn't mind a SA style spinner - one that holds up an end rather than someone that is seen as a genuine threat - but most of our spinners get beaten around.

 

[morgieb]

Iaverage abut 13 normally tbh.

First class cricket tbh

Possibly good enough for NZ though

 

[four_or_six]

First class cricket tbh

Possibly good enough for NZ though

As if the first player you'd like to steal from NZ isn't Vettori.

 

[morgieb]

Not stating anything new, but the selection of Doherty lacks any logic. What has changed between the selection of the 'A' squad and today that has made O'Keefe fall out of contention?

Doherty is a good bowler, but how after years of mediocrity does he jump into a Test squad? Their appears to be no logic, or thinking for the future in regard to spinners in this country. Since the retirement of Warne it has simply been a shambles. The selectors cannot be blamed for the poor quality of players available, but how about showing some consistency and sticking with someone?

Casson never deserved to play, but why give him just the one Test? He didn't even play that poorly. Krezja was selected to play a role, he played it perfectly and has been discarded. McGain was belted in his one game, but he was the only consistent performing spinner in the country at the time. Smith did OK in his debut series, have the selectors kept him in the loop regarding his future spin-bowling prospects for Australia? Steve O'Keefe is given a game in the T20 (despite being his worst format), Jon Holland is taken on tour to India, Cameron White bowls some leg-spinners in India. It is a terrible run with selecting, managing and then discarding spinners.

I was hardly surprised when Michael Beer was mentioned for selection based on a half-decent game against England.

Good post. I have some dispute about it though.

* Doherty seemed to be picked on OD form, which seems to be a bit of a joke.
* How many decent spinners have been around since Warne, particularly those of a certain age? Zilch.
* Casson I believe was probably only picked because MacGill retired on tour, and he was more selected on tour for 'the experience'. Dropping him was an odd call though.
* Krejza was belted around in Perth, but that was partly because it wasn't his sort of wicket.
* Smith's still in favour I believe, but was only picked due to Hauritz getting injured.
* O'Keefe's only really done something for like a couple of months, Holland was seen as young, and McGain was hurt and Krejza got belted in a tour game iirc when White was injured.

Having said that, the theory does sound right.

 

[morgieb]

As if the first player you'd like to steal from NZ isn't Vettori.

Not the point. Read Cribb's various threads about Sydney Grade Cricket bowlers > NZ bowlers. Plus he's probably better than Patel anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

Read Cribb's various threads about Sydney Grade Cricket bowlers > NZ bowlers.

Haha, I can't believe so many people took that completely seriously. I mean.. if you consider Copeland and Cameron grade cricketers then sure they'd walk into the NZ team but all the fast bowlers that have played for NZ in recent times would dominate Sydney grade cricket for sure. Except maybe Hitchcock, but he doesn't count.

 

[morgieb]

Haha, I can't believe so many people took that completely seriously. I mean.. if you consider Copeland and Cameron grade cricketers then sure they'd walk into the NZ team but all the fast bowlers that have played for NZ in recent times would dominate Sydney grade cricket for sure. Except maybe Hitchcock, but he doesn't count.

I didn't, was just making a point that Julian should crack it in somewhere.