*Official* First Test at the Gabba

[vcs]

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.

AWTA.

(oh, and before anyone says it's on the basis of one spell in a meaningless ODI, that's one more than I've seen from Hauritz.. )

 

[morgieb]

Someone soooo needs to make a Wheel of Mediocrity for Australian spinners....

Hauritz
White
Cullen
Bailey
Casson
Krejza
McGain
Doherty
etc

 

[tooextracool]

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.

Should think that the fact that the England side consists predominantly of right handers with the exception of the 2 openers may have also influenced that decision. Not to mention that the most influential batter in the side has a real weakness to left arm spin.

 

[silentstriker]

Someone soooo needs to make a Wheel of Mediocrity for Australian spinners....

Hauritz
White
Cullen
Bailey
Casson
Krejza
McGain
Doherty
etc

There was Warne for most of the last two decades - you're defeating the purpose of the Wheel.

When you go 70 years with no pace averaging less than 29, come back and talk to me. The wheel came about because people were hyping the Next Big Thing despite having 70 years of history and the same cycle...with not a single success in terms of an 'elite' fast bowler. Dev the only one and he was very good rather than great or elite bowler.

 

[silentstriker]

In other words...two years is not a drought. And a few spinners is not a wheel.

Man up.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Exactly.

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

Putting the cart before the horse, IMHO. Bollinger would be the safe pick, but if the selectors go with Siddle and he takes a bagfull I don't think anyone (Dicko probably excepted) could claim it was a stupid decision.

I know he's a bit of a cult (), but DtR isn't McGrath (or, given his bowling arm, Davidson) incarnate. &, I know stats can be used to prove anything, but to provide some justification for the selectors if they go that way Siddle's record at the Gabba, whilst based on a very small sample size, is better than Bollinger's who has taken his wickets there at 44 apiece.

 

[morgieb]

Putting the cart before the horse, IMHO. Bollinger would be the safe pick, but if the selectors go with Siddle and he takes a bagfull I don't think anyone (Dicko probably excepted) could claim it was a stupid decision.

I know he's a bit of a cult (), but DtR isn't McGrath (or, given his bowling arm, Davidson) incarnate. &, I know stats can be used to prove anything, but to provide some justification for the selectors if they go that way Siddle's record at the Gabba, whilst based on a very small sample size, is better than Bollinger's who has taken his wickets there at 44 apiece.

Regardless if he took a hatful, it'd feel very harsh on Dougie who's gone an awesome job for us to be replaced by someone just because the selectors seem to love them.

Also, since when has Dougie played at the Gabba at test level? Also, FC form should be Sweet FA (for example, Bollinger was useless pre-2006) - it's down to how well they've bowled at test level.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Regardless if he took a hatful, it'd feel very harsh on Dougie who's gone an awesome job for us to be replaced by someone just because the selectors seem to love them.

Also, since when has Dougie played at the Gabba at test level? Also, FC form should be Sweet FA (for example, Bollinger was useless pre-2006) - it's down to how well they've bowled at test level.

TBH, given some of the test batting line ups Bollinger's faced so far in his career, QLD's is probably at least on a par.

Aside from the obvious point that it's non-test form that invariable leads to a player's initial call up, whether that form is in FC, ODIs or what have you. FC form arguably the best guage of potential for tests too, although (hey Graeme!, hey Mark!) not always.

 

[pup11]

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?

I think you are missing the point that most of the FC pitches are pretty much tailor-made to suit the quicks, and they nothing like the test pitches that are used in Australia.
With Hauritz... fact is that India was virtually the only horrific tour he had in his short test career, and even though he went for runs he took pretty much the same amount of wickets as any other Australian bowler on that tour.
Its just a shame when you just shun blokes likes this without giving them the slightest of leeway and it only creates an air of insecurity for other blokes, I'm pretty sure that Doherty already realises that if he doesn't do well at the Gabba then he might not play more than a single test for Australia.
Now.. when you create such an atmosphere around the team, where as a player a sword is always hanging over you, then I think it becomes almost impossible to blood in new players especially spinners.

 

[pup11]

Should think that the fact that the England side consists predominantly of right handers with the exception of the 2 openers may have also influenced that decision. Not to mention that the most influential batter in the side has a real weakness to left arm spin.

Doherty is not much of spinner of the cricket ball though, he pretty much depends on his arm-ball and straight delivery and predominantly bowls a flatter quickish tragectory.
As an Aussie fan would like to see him do well, but I would be pretty surprised if he troubles the English batsmen much, of course KP is the only exception there.

 

[Spark]

I think you are missing the point that most of the FC pitches are pretty much tailor-made to suit the quicks, and they nothing like the test pitches that are used in Australia.
With Hauritz... fact is that India was virtually the only horrific tour he had in his short test career, and even though he went for runs he took pretty much the same amount of wickets as any other Australian bowler on that tour.
Its just a shame when you just shun blokes likes this without giving them the slightest of leeway and it only creates an air of insecurity for other blokes, I'm pretty sure that Doherty already realises that if he doesn't do well at the Gabba then he might not play more than a single test for Australia.
Now.. when you create such an atmosphere around the team, where as a player a sword is always hanging over you, then I think it becomes almost impossible to blood in new players especially spinners.

Don't think PEWS is trying to claim that this is a particularly good decision at all, just saying that the argument that Doherty doesn't deserve to be picked because of his poor FC stats in isolation is a pretty bad one if you cast your net just a little wider.

I agree though that this sends a terrible message to any developing spinner around - we'll stick with you for a while, but have two bad tests (and really, the India tour was only half the length of a normal tour) or make the captain annoyed and you'll be the first to get the axe. Especially because going for bucketloads of runs is an unfortunate and inevitable part of a spinner's development and it's important to send the message that the establishment is prepared to show faith and allow you to develop.

 

[pup11]

Don't think PEWS is trying to claim that this is a particularly good decision at all, just saying that the argument that Doherty doesn't deserve to be picked because of his poor FC stats in isolation is a pretty bad one if you cast your net just a little wider.

I agree though that this sends a terrible message to any developing spinner around - we'll stick with you for a while, but have two bad tests (and really, the India tour was only half the length of a normal tour) or make the captain annoyed and you'll be the first to get the axe. Especially because going for bucketloads of runs is an unfortunate and inevitable part of a spinner's development and it's important to send the message that the establishment is prepared to show faith and allow you to develop.

There is no difference between the FC stats of any Australian spinner tbh, so no matter who gets picked the stats won't really help in comparing any of the spinners.
Though you just gotta take into account how a spinner bowls in particular, and judge whether his style of spin bowling is likely to prove useful at the test level or not.
Atm, selectors are just picking spinners for the sake of it and their potential or ability in the long run just isn't being considered and the selection of someone like Doherty is a classic example of this.

 

[Top_Cat]

I agree though that this sends a terrible message to any developing spinner around - we'll stick with you for a while, but have two bad tests (and really, the India tour was only half the length of a normal tour) or make the captain annoyed and you'll be the first to get the axe. Especially because going for bucketloads of runs is an unfortunate and inevitable part of a spinner's development and it's important to send the message that the establishment is prepared to show faith and allow you to develop.

It's a reflection of how spinners have been treated in Aussie grade cricket and up for many, many years, tbh. It's always been a tough gig to be successful spinner in OZ.

Ask May, Taylor, Matthews/Sleep, (really only kept in the team because they could bat too), Hohns, Bright, Hogan, etc.

 

[howardj]

Tonight's pitch exposing the utter myth of the Gabba Greentop that people are expecting for Thursday. Kevin Mitchell always produces a belter for Tests, and Thursday's pitch (like tonight) will be no different. Go through the scorecards of the Tests up here, and compare them to the Shield games. There's not one scintilla of evidence, at least for the last decade or so, to support the myth that is the Test match Gabba Greentop.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hmmmm, dunno. The weather prediction for the coming week doesn't usually result in a belter of a pitch anywhere.

 

[Woodster]

Win the toss and bat first then ?

 

[Uppercut]

Putting the cart before the horse, IMHO. Bollinger would be the safe pick, but if the selectors go with Siddle and he takes a bagfull I don't think anyone (Dicko probably excepted) could claim it was a stupid decision.

I know he's a bit of a cult (), but DtR isn't McGrath (or, given his bowling arm, Davidson) incarnate. &, I know stats can be used to prove anything, but to provide some justification for the selectors if they go that way Siddle's record at the Gabba, whilst based on a very small sample size, is better than Bollinger's who has taken his wickets there at 44 apiece.

Bollinger is definitely better than Siddle and it's not close. Just as fast but gets considerably more movement and holds a much better line to left-handers (which is kinda crucial with two lefties opening and Midge still scared to take the new ball). Their respective recent records are entirely incomparable too. Siddle's more aggressive but I can't help but feel that doesn't get him the wickets it would have twenty years ago.

Leaving out Bolly for fitness reasons would be fine. And Siddle's a properly good bowler so there's a good chance he'll take a hatful, especially in Brisbane. I'd have to agree with Dicko to some extent though, you have to be willing to criticise selections even if they turn out well or you'll give selectors with good players to choose from too easy a ride. You never get to see what the other guy would have done.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hmmmm, dunno. The weather prediction for the coming week doesn't usually result in a belter of a pitch anywhere.

Indeed. Lets not forget the Gabba pitch we saw a couple of seasons back when New Zealand toured.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd have to agree with Dicko to some extent though, you have to be willing to criticise selections even if they turn out well or you'll give selectors with good players to choose from too easy a ride. You never get to see what the other guy would have done.

Yeah, he does take it to absolute extremes sometimes, but I think people only find it infuriating because it makes it absolutely impossible for him to be proven wrong.

Siddle's a good bowler so if he's picked he could well perform well, but Bollinger's an even better bowler so it's more likely he'd perform well. Siddle getting picked and performing well wouldn't change the fact that Bollinger was the more likely of the two to do so originally - all it'd prove was that Siddle wasn't ****. If it's for fitness reasons it's fine, otherwise Bollinger should (and IMO will) play. I'd actually be more inclined to leave Hilfenhaus or Doherty out than Bollinger, personally.

 

[Howe_zat]

There's still no reason to confirm that Doherty will play. Yes that's the likely plan but I could easily see them picking four seamers plus North/Smith. You'd say Siddle would be more likely to take wickets than Doherty regardless of the make-up of the attack.