*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[Spikey]

So given Harris himself admitted he probably isn't fit enough, who the **** would you have in the squad?

pretty confdient that any of these four would do better than Siddle

- Trent Copeland
- Clint McKay
- vic_orthdox
- Mark Cameron

 

[Johnners]

So given Harris himself admitted he probably isn't fit enough, who the **** would you have in the squad?

Bollinger Jnr iirc.

 

[NUFAN]

pretty confdient that any of these four would do better than Siddle

- Trent Copeland
- Clint McKay
- vic_orthdox
- Mark Cameron

What are you basing this on? McKay and Cameron had a perfect chance to apply some pressure on the FAB FOUR of Johnson, Bolly, Siddle, Hilf (I hope by Boxing Day that's what they are called) but they failed to do so.

Sure they both bowled quite well, but they didn't take the wickets. Copeland has been taking big wickets lately so perhaps he would do well, while vic_orthdox is really fighting for Doherty's spot.

 

[Prince EWS]

pretty confdient that any of these four would do better than Siddle

- Trent Copeland
- Clint McKay
- vic_orthdox
- Mark Cameron

Well I love Copeland and Cameron but I tend to write that off as bias, particularly as Cameron didn't bowl his best in the Australia A game despite showing his obvious talent. Disagree with McKay.

 

[morgieb]

I doubt people hate Siddle - rather they don't think he's as good as Bollinger, whereas the Aussie selectors might think that way.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Think most Aussie spinners are unsuited to Indian conditions, because they're not good enough to trouble such accomplished players of spin.

Think you can add most spinners from any country to that list.

 

[Jarquis]

No

Is the Gabba likely to be a good surface for spin?

No

Is Doherty likely to perform as well as any of the seamers?

Not a snowflake's chance in hell

In summary: Go with our strengths and let North bowl a few overs if needed

Is what I'd do

 

[Jarquis]

Well what if Watson's one of our best four bowlers for the conditions?

Pick a batsman. If Watson's genuinely one of your 4 best bowlers and he can be trusted to bowl a few substantial spells and get through a fair amount of overs, go with 3 seamers, Watto and then part time spin. If Katich can chuck down a few then, as a package, North and Katich are better packages as spinners then anything else you can choose.
Besides O'Keefe, arguably.

 

[Spark]

Missing the point tbh. People don't say Bollinger's First Class record is inflated by unsuited home pitches.. because he averaged in the teens for two seasons running before getting picked and topped the Shield wicket tally.

When Hauritz first came into the team, all the talk was about how Australian pitches were terrible for spinners and that his First Class average wasn't representative of how he'd do around the world, and now that he's cleaned up lower orders after the opening bowlers have run through weak batting lineups at home, he's suddenly unsuited to conditions abroad but a good bowler at home. What people are saying is that the pitches at home don't suit him, and that the pitches abroad don't suit him. Doesn't seem like a very good bowler based on that, does he?

Well tbh the pitches at home do suit him. He gets roughly zero overspin unless he bowls his toppie (which he doesn't, inexplicably) which means he needs the bounce and pace in the pitch to really trouble the batsmen.

Let's not kid ourselves though - he did actually bowl quite well last summer.

 

[Prince EWS]

Pick a batsman.

Was my point tbh. The next best batsman in the squad is Smith.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well tbh the pitches at home do suit him. He gets roughly zero overspin unless he bowls his toppie (which he doesn't, inexplicably) which means he needs the bounce and pace in the pitch to really trouble the batsmen.

Oh, I completely agree. Which means we shouldn't put the wool over our eyes about his First Class record, which is terrible on pitches which suit his brand of spin.

Let's not kid ourselves though - he did actually bowl quite well last summer.

Yeah, he bowled okay - quite a contrast to every other summer he's had. So did Doherty when he got a game. Doherty's bowled well this summer too. Honestly, I don't think either are very good at all but I do find it slightly amusing that people are carrying on about Hauritz being dropped because his replacement has a crap First Class career record. It's not like that's a weakness when comparing someone to Hauritz.

 

[Jarquis]

Was my point tbh. The next best batsman in the squad is Smith.

Your fault for picking a ****house squad

 

[Spark]

Well the point that they're trying to make - well, at least, the point I would try to make if I was using the FC record argument - is that there's not much evidence that Doherty is actually better than Hauritz. So if you had to pick between the two, why wouldn't you go for one who has a decent amount of test experience, has a decent test record despite his horrific FC one and already done well at test level against this very team?

 

[Prince EWS]

Your fault for picking a ****house squad

Meh, I honestly think that if we're picking a specialist #7 or #8 batsman, Smith's probably the best candidate anyway.

I'd probably favour Smith at this stage, given the squad, as long as we didn't over-bowl him. Failing that I'd pick Doherty over Siddle - not because he's a better bowler (he's not even close) but because I don't think Siddle would offer much that more than bowling Watson as a genuine fourth seamer. Essentially, I think Watson/Doherty is a better set of bowlers than Siddle/North.

 

[Ruckus]

Yeah, he bowled okay - quite a contrast to every other summer he's had. So did Doherty when he got a game. Doherty's bowled well this summer too. Honestly, I don't think either are very good at all but I do find it slightly amusing that people are carrying on about Hauritz being dropped because his replacement has a crap First Class career record. It's not like that's a weakness when comparing someone to Hauritz.

The way I see it is that because we have these spinners (perhaps O'Keefe aside) who have mediocre FC records, it would be best to choose one who has the potential to be more dangerous (even if they are not very consistent). If the choice is between Hauritz and Doherty, Doherty wins that contest for me. From the little I've seen of him bowl he just looks like he could trouble the batsmen more. If the selectors are choosing a spinner to actually form part of the attack (not just for a bit of variety etc.), then I don't see much of a point in choosing someone like Hauritz who is pretty damn innocuous most of the time (especially when there are part-timers like North in the team). Purely on bowling, O'Keefe would have been my first choice, but Doherty is probably a better option than Hauritz imo.

 

[howardj]

I doubt people hate Siddle - rather they don't think he's as good as Bollinger, whereas the Aussie selectors might think that way.

Exactly.

Don't underestimate the stupidity of these selectors in picking Siddle over Doug, on merit.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well the point that they're trying to make - well, at least, the point I would try to make if I was using the FC record argument - is that there's not much evidence that Doherty is actually better than Hauritz. So if you had to pick between the two, why wouldn't you go for one who has a decent amount of test experience, has a decent test record despite his horrific FC one and already done well at test level against this very team?

Yeah, I see the point. I remember making a post a few weeks back to the tune of "when you have an entire First Class system of spin bowlers averaging 50, picking one and watching him fluke his way to a Test average of 35 should be met with celebration rather than disappointment" but I still have a chuckle whenever I hear someone say they can't believe Hauritz has been dropped for someone with such a terrible First Class record.

People seem to be acting as if Hauritz is conclusively the best spinner in the country and has been unfairly scapegoated for the loss in the India, but while the latter may be true, the former definitely isn't. All of them are a fairly similar level - I personally actually believe that Doherty's a little better than Hauritz, particularly given the recent change in his action - but there's not much in it either way. It's not like Hauritz spent five seasons in the Shield proving his worth by holding his place and averaging 30 odd - he's done just as little as all these other ****s.

I think it came down to a confidence thing in the end. Doherty's is sky high at the moment while Hauritz's is shot, and I said before, Doherty's a naturally confident cricketer even when things like grim anyway. If you get on top of Hauritz he can really lose it.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yeah, I don't mind seeing Hauritz out. I think Doherty will go ok, but probably would've preferred a glance to the future with O'Keefe given a shot. If they're going judge someone purely on the last year and one decent international game, then O'Keefe did well against the England line-up and has been going pretty well in the shield.

Would prefer a bowler that will be more aggressive than Hauritz was. The idea that he was the 'incumbent', and thus should be given first go if a spinner is selected, is the exact mistake the selectors have been making over the past year or so.

 

[Ruckus]

Would prefer a bowler that will be more aggressive than Hauritz was. .

I think Doherty meets that criterion. He bowls a lot quicker than Hauritz, without sacrificing any turn and drift.

 

[Jono]

They're almost as annoying as some of the Indian trolls reminding everyone of the rankings going into this series.

Annoy Pasag? Mission accomplished