Even Bangladeshis would 'walk into' Australian team : Jamie Siddons

[M0rphin3]

Shakib would walk into any side probably, except Pakistan tbh

As for Tamim, I would prefer him over hughes, he's proved his worth in and outside subcontinent.

That and whatever Athlai said, WAG Athlai.

 

[Flem274*]

I can't see Shakib being an improvement to Doherty tbh, especially on the flat day 4/5 Gabba pitch.

 

[morgieb]

i can't see shakib being an improvement to doherty tbh, especially on the flat day 4/5 gabba pitch.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Shakib and Tamim would get in but they would get in most sides around the world anyway so it isn't much of a statement. They would both get in the S.A. side for example who are ranked number 2 in the world.

 

[Redbacks]

Breaking News: Bob Skilton could have walked into any VFL side.

 

[andyc]

Shakib is a young bloke with huge potential, takes plenty of wickets and scores runs to boot.

Selectors wouldn't pick him.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Shakib is a young bloke with huge potential, takes plenty of wickets and scores runs to boot.

Selectors wouldn't pick him.

Quality.

 

[M0rphin3]

Shakib is a young bloke with huge potential, takes plenty of wickets and scores runs to boot.

Selectors wouldn't pick him.

AWTA so much.

 

[Hurricane]

Well, it's a better measure of one's ability to do well on Australian pitches than Test cricket in Bangladesh. .

He has succeeded away from Bangers

Secondly he has faced the international bowlers of this world and averaged 40 - that would place him ahead of any FC player in aussie domestic cricket in the pecking order (I would hope)

So which is more important having experience against James Anderson and succeeding or experience against Aussie FC bowlers in australian conditions and succeeding.

I realise Aussie FC cricket is gun - but you are basically saying it is better than test cricket.

 

[Teja.]

Shakib and Tamim would get in.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Well, it's a better measure of one's ability to do well on Australian pitches than Test cricket in Bangladesh.

I expect you at least to be well aware of whats going on in world cricket.. Tamim has two hundreds against Anderson, Bresnan, Swann and Finn in England.

Is test cricket in England a better measure?

 

[Prince EWS]

He has succeeded away from Bangers

Secondly he has faced the international bowlers of this world and averaged 40 - that would place him ahead of any FC player in aussie domestic cricket in the pecking order (I would hope)

So which is more important having experience against James Anderson and succeeding or experience against Aussie FC bowlers in australian conditions and succeeding.

I realise Aussie FC cricket is gun - but you are basically saying it is better than test cricket.

I'm saying no such thing.

 

[Black_Warrior]

But you're saying that Hughes would be picked ahead of Tamim because he has such an awesome FC record. With all his FC glory, he failed miserably in England in 2009, a place where Tamim has two blistering centuries against the same bowling attack in Test cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

But you're saying that Hughes would be picked ahead of Tamim because he has such an awesome FC record. With all his FC glory, he failed miserably in England in 2009, a place where Tamim has two blistering centuries against the same bowling attack in Test cricket.

I'm saying Tamim wouldn't walk in a team that plays half its games in conditions vastly different to anywhere he's played cricket before. If he was suddenly available, there's no way he'd just walk into the team - he'd get put into Shield cricket and have to outperform the other candidates.

This is very different to actually saying Hughes or anyone else is specifically better than him.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I'm saying Tamim wouldn't walk in a team that plays half its games in conditions vastly different to anywhere he's played cricket before. If he was suddenly available, there's no way he'd just walk into the team - he'd get put into Shield cricket and have to outperform the other candidates.

I am saying he has already outperformed them by scoring those two hundreds against England in England, something which Watson, Hughes and Katich, Australia's openers in the last Ashes failed to do, something which no one apart from Hussey has managed to do in this series. Now if Watson, Katich and Hughes have been picked by Australia to open in Ashes, I think it is safe to conclude that the Australian selectors feel these three are the best suited to do the job of opening against England, better than the other blokes in FC cricket

This is very different to actually saying Hughes or anyone else is specifically better than him.

 

[vcs]

Well, it depends on whether you think batting on Australian wickets offers some unique challenges that he might not be able to cope with unless he gets some lower-level practice. Clearly, that is PEWS's view.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes because the Australian team is picked purely on the basis of what players can do once every four years on the tour to England. Nothing else matters and the fact that Australia play half their games on pitches the **** has never encountered before and are the polar opposite of what he's been brought up on is irrelevant. Whether you not you'd pick him, I'm extremely confident the selectors wouldn't if he declared his eligibility tomorrow.

I'm very tempted to bring up the fact that Hughes scored two hundreds in South Africa - a country that Tamim averages under 20 in - but it's not even relevant and it'd sound like I was comparing them. The comparison between them is irrelevant. I personally think Tamim's a better batsman than Hughes at this point but that doesn't mean he'd walk into the team if he was suddenly eligible; he's done nowhere near to bypass the whole system, particularly given Australia play half their games at home.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Yes because the Australian team is picked purely on the basis of what players can do once every four years on the tour to England. Nothing else matters and the fact that Australia play half their games on pitches the **** has never encountered before and are the polar opposite of what he's been brought up on is irrelevant. Whether you not you'd pick him, I'm extremely confident the selectors wouldn't if he declared his eligibility tomorrow.

Whether or not the selectors would ultimately pick him or not is simply conjecture. There is no point trying to predict their move. I am talking about whether he is a better option than any other opener in Australia at the moment. Now based on the evidence, and since I consider Test cricket to be of a higher standard than any FC whether its in Zimbabwe or Australia, Tamim in my mind is a better option. Yes he averages 20 in South Africa but anyone who is familiar with world cricket and not just what goes on in their own country would know that Tamim has shown tremendous improvement and development over the last one year. Phillip Hughes has a better record in South Africa than Virender Sehwag. I doubt anyone would pick Hughes over Sehwag for the Australian side now if Sehwag were available for selection.

All these Australian players, who are so familiar with Australian conditions and have great FC records..what exactly have they achieved against England so far? A couple of half centuries from Watson? What good is being familiar with conditions if you cant perform when its needed. Tamim was not familiar with English conditions yet he managed two centuries, outperforming Katich, Watson and Hughes in England by a mile. If he can do that against English bowlers at home despite not being familiar with the conditions, I am sure he can do that against the same bowlers in a different non familiar country.

I'm very tempted to bring up the fact that Hughes scored two hundreds in South Africa - a country that Tamim averages under 20 in - but it's not even relevant and it'd sound like I was comparing them. The comparison between them is irrelevant. I personally think Tamim's a better batsman than Hughes at this point but that doesn't mean he'd walk into the team if he was suddenly eligible; he's done nowhere near to bypass the whole system, particularly given Australia play half their games at home.

Now of course the selectors might think like you and not pick him just like they thought Steve Smith is a number 6 batsman. I am not trying to predict what they would do. I am simply trying to argue that he is a better option than the three openers Australia have tried against England in the two Ashes. Whether the Australian selectors accept that or not is ultimately irrelevant.

 

[Prince EWS]

When you say someone would "walk into" a team, you are predicting what the selectors would do. You're saying that if he was available, the selectors would pick him immediately.

Saying he's better than one or two of the players currently in the team isn't nearly as strong a statement and it's one I'd agree with about Tamim.

 

[Black_Warrior]

When you say someone would "walk into" a team, you are predicting what the selectors would do. You're saying that if he was available, the selectors would pick him immediately.

Well I am saying he is better, and ideally he should be picked by the selectors. But that doesnt mean they ultimately will. Just like I feel Khurram Manzoor should be picked ahead of Imran Farhat in the Pakistan test XI. But I am sure he wont. I also feel Steve Smith is not good enough to be a number 6 batsman but selectors pick him at number 6. So I am not trying to predict what the selectors would actually do, just saying what they should do.