*Official* Fifth Test at the SCG

[Tom 1972]

So did Steve Waugh when he debuted. I'm not saying Smith should have been picked, but you can't say someone won't make it based on how they are at 21.

Not always anyway.

I didn't say Smith won't make it, but he is clearly not ready as a 21 year old, IMHO. His batting is scratchy, bowling is nude. Come back after a few years dominating in Shield & County cricket (not 10++ years like Hodge).

PS: he needs to figure out what his speciality is in the longer form of the game and if it is as an all-rounder, the genuinely good ones pretty much warrant his selection as a top 6 batsman OR a top 4 bowler, then be good at the other discipline.

eg: some allrounders I've seen play over the past 25 years (of course not an exhaustive list):
Top Tier or "genuinely great": Kallis, Imran, Kapil, Botham, Hadlee
Next Tier of "genuinely good": Vettori, Cairns, SPollock, Freddie

interesting that more bowling allrounders come to my mind and most of them are medium/quicks.

 

[Tom 1972]

Technique isn't everything.

I understand and agree that it is not EVERYTHING, but ok, his output was rubbish too.

He averaged 32 in the three tests he played and made SFA runs when it mattered (nor did he look particularly likely to).

Take out the 54* during junk time and it drops to ~21. Not good enough.

Sure, he wasn't Robinson Crusoe on that front - Ponting, Clarke and Katich/Hughes were worse.

 

[Ausage]

I think there's a bit of hysteria at the moment about the young selections. People are saying we should pick on recent shield form but that form is temporary and class is permanent. We need to blood youth in the team and think for the future, but 3 bad tests is enough to show that Smith and Hughes won't make it.

The selections of Smith, Hughes and Khawaja tick many boxes, and can hardly be classed as poor selections. All three are clearly earmarked as players who have the potential to be around for a long time, and I hope they persevere with them with this fact in mind. Only in the case of Smith was there anyone even close to being a better option for this series anyway. Anyone mentioning Ferguson, Cosgrove or Marsh over those 3 must be having a laugh.

If you want to start on the selectors how about picking North for Adelaide and losing the match when we needed to only hold out for another 30 minutes to catch a monsoon. Or the screwing over of Hauritz. The lottery draw that saw them pick Beer. Having 4 pacemen on one of the slowest wickets in the country (MCG). Picking Hilfen****haus for Sydney over Dougeh when it was brutally obvious that Hilf was, at best, woefully out of form.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I understand and agree that it is not EVERYTHING, but ok, his output was rubbish too.

He averaged 32 in the three tests he played and made SFA runs when it mattered (nor did he look particularly likely to).

Take out the 54* during junk time and it drops to ~21. Not good enough.

Sure, he wasn't Robinson Crusoe on that front - Ponting, Clarke and Katich/Hughes were worse.

Take out anyone's best score and it's not surprising to see their average go down.

 

[Tom 1972]

Take out anyone's best score and it's not surprising to see their average go down.

of course this is true, but Smith really didn't look very likely when he was batting @ 6 and not much better batting @ 7.

We have sometimes bought youngsters in @ 6 who are earmarked to go up the order (Ponting, Pup). Smith has what seems like more of a limited overs technique.

 

[heathrf1974]

of course this is true, but Smith really didn't look very likely when he was batting @ 6 and not much better batting @ 7.

We have sometimes bought youngsters in @ 6 who are earmarked to go up the order (Ponting, Pup). Smith has what seems like more of a limited overs technique.

I agree. I would like a number six selection for a batsman alone who is seen as moving up the order in the future. Spots five and six are good for developing middle order batsmen. Smith is an allrounder (we already have Watson) and he was picked as a spin bowling option to compensate for our lack of spin bowling experience because the selectors had little faith in Hauritz which I think was their number 1 boo boo.

 

[Furball]

I understand and agree that it is not EVERYTHING, but ok, his output was rubbish too.

He averaged 32 in the three tests he played and made SFA runs when it mattered (nor did he look particularly likely to).

Take out the 54* during junk time and it drops to ~21. Not good enough.

Sure, he wasn't Robinson Crusoe on that front - Ponting, Clarke and Katich/Hughes were worse.

32 is quite a decent series output when you look at the competition within the Australian side.

 

[Howe_zat]

32 is quite a decent series output when you look at the competition within the Australian side.

It's really not about what he averaged. The issue is that he looked pretty awful and, most importantly, never really helped his team at all. Granted, there were worse performers statistically but he clearly had a very poor series.

 

[Ruckus]

So did Steve Waugh when he debuted. I'm not saying Smith should have been picked, but you can't say someone won't make it based on how they are at 21.

Not always anyway.

Be interested to know what Waugh's FC record was when he debuted?

 

[TumTum]

Be interested to know what Waugh's FC record was when he debuted?

38.31 with only 2 centuries.

 

[GotSpin]

38.31 with only 2 centuries.

And bowling?

 

[TumTum]

and bowling?

56.43 with 7 wickets.

 

[Ruckus]

Really, wow, that makes me really hopefully. Btw how did you find those stats?

 

[King Pietersen]

Not strictly true, was picked to play for Australia during the 85/86 season, played all his FC cricket prior to his Test debut that season, and had a career record of 605 FC runs at 43.21; averaging 81.25 in that Shield season, with 2 centuries from 6 innings.

 

[Shoggz]

Interesting article:

The Ashes: presentation ceremony descends into farce as organisers forget Alastair Cook's medal - Telegraph

I didn't see it live, but it seems they didn't have to cut out much for the highlights!

 

[Furball]

Interesting article:

The Ashes: presentation ceremony descends into farce as organisers forget Alastair Cook's medal - Telegraph

I didn't see it live, but it seems they didn't have to cut out much for the highlights!

Mark Taylor announced on the podium that Cook had won the Compton-Miller medal, then completely forgot to announce it.

It all seemed pretty low key to me.

 

[TumTum]

Not strictly true, was picked to play for Australia during the 85/86 season, played all his FC cricket prior to his Test debut that season, and had a career record of 605 FC runs at 43.21; averaging 81.25 in that Shield season, with 2 centuries from 6 innings.

Spot on, I forgot to factor in his second Test match.

 

[Ruckus]

Not strictly true, was picked to play for Australia during the 85/86 season, played all his FC cricket prior to his Test debut that season, and had a career record of 605 FC runs at 43.21; averaging 81.25 in that Shield season, with 2 centuries from 6 innings.

Wait, if he played all his FC cricket prior to his test debut that season, how could he average 81.25 if his overall record was 43.21? Shouldn't they be the same?

 

[TumTum]

Wait, if he played all his FC cricket prior to his test debut that season, how could he average 81.25 if his overall record was 43.21? Shouldn't they be the same?

He played 2 seasons of FC before debut.

 

[King Pietersen]

Wait, if he played all his FC cricket prior to his test debut that season, how could he average 81.25 if his overall record was 43.21? Shouldn't they be the same?

I meant he played all his FC games that season before making his Test debut, he played a whole season before that, and didn't have anywhere near as good a time of things.