***Official*** Australia in Sri Lanka

[adub]

Haha, what garbage. So Cosgrove averages the same as Marsh in the only comparable competition?

I'll try and put in single syllables for you.

If you just want to stick to Shield since 08/09, Cosgrove averages 50.6 (2.6 more than Marsh), has scored 1620 runs (562 more than Marsh), scored 6 hundreds (4 more than Marsh) and played 22 shield games (so much less problems with injuries than Marsh). If you want to cherry pick the last couple of years out of Marsh's frankly uninspiring career then you've got no come back when it's easily demonstrated that Cosgrove has been significantly superior during the same period. In each of those three seasons Cosgrove has scored more runs (even the year he played less games) and scored more tons. Add Cosgrove's County runs and he is far and away proved to be the best middle order player we have outside of the current test line up. Even at his best Marsh is not up to Cosgrove's quality and his hopeless injury record should rule him out of any serious consideration as a test player. We can do better.

 

[SamSawnoff]

Seems a bit harsh on Smith. I know he's not been brilliant, but he's shown glimpses. I saw a quote that said he'd been dropped because he hadn't cemented his place in the side, but he's only played 5 matches, I think, and not even all in a row. If they're going to drop every player who doesn't cement his place after that amount of opportunity, I think they'll get through a lot of players!

As he was picked partially at least because he can bowl spin even if not very well, he can consider himself to have had a real career already considering the way they usually treat spin bowlers.

And Phil Hughes.

And they have been getting through a lot of players, there is no reason to talk about it in the future tense. They pretty much play lucky dip with the bowlers apart from Johnson who seems to be mostly undroppable and unbreakable..

 

[pup11]

I give you evidence and you give me conjecture. Superb.

CricketWeb can be so good with Spark, PEWS, Top Cat, etc. But the randoms that pop up when a squad is named is infuriating.

Fanboyism is infuriating as well you know, anyways averaging 48 in last his last 13 FC games doesn't turn Marsh into Bradman either. His overall record across all forms has been patchy and that really makes me question how is his case any different from Marcus North's.

 

[Spikey]

Ftr I think Marsh's fitness woes is a just reason to leave him out of the test squad. We've left Dougeh out because of one match, in which CA should take some blame for. Marsh and Harris meanwhile haven't played a full season for yonks.

But then I guess we may as will figure out whether he's good enough at test level now while he's fit. I don't have much hope but I don't think he would be a worse selection than Usman currently, given his form

 

[SamSawnoff]

I'll try and put in single syllables for you.

If you just want to stick to Shield since 08/09, Cosgrove averages 50.6 (2.6 more than Marsh), has scored 1620 runs (562 more than Marsh), scored 6 hundreds (4 more than Marsh) and played 22 shield games (so much less problems with injuries than Marsh). If you want to cherry pick the last couple of years out of Marsh's frankly uninspiring career then you've got no come back when it's easily demonstrated that Cosgrove has been significantly superior during the same period. In each of those three seasons Cosgrove has scored more runs (even the year he played less games) and scored more tons. Add Cosgrove's County runs and he is far and away proved to be the best middle order player we have outside of the current test line up. Even at his best Marsh is not up to Cosgrove's quality and his hopeless injury record should rule him out of any serious consideration as a test player. We can do better.

I'm not sure about Shaun Marsh's test credentials or temperament either, but complaining about Cossie's non-selection is a bit pointless, it's like recycling the Brad Hodge stuff.
Cossie gets bigger every year, it's like looking at a painted walrus seeing him in the pajama game and CA are marketing/image mad.

I'm not saying he couldn't play international cricket, I'm sure he could, but hell will freeze over...

 

[pup11]

Cosgrove has obviously had the superior career to date, and is the better batsman, but CA will never select someone that fat again, for image concerns alone.

....And yet they have no problems in having KFC as one of their main sponsors...!!!

Anyways.. why should CA care how fat Cosgrove is because if despite looking like that if he can outperform the rest of the fitter batsmen season after season then obviously it should be pretty clear to them that Cosgrove is a special player and exceptions should be made in his case.

 

[Nate]

I'll try and put in single syllables for you.

If you just want to stick to Shield since 08/09, Cosgrove averages 50.6 (2.6 more than Marsh), has scored 1620 runs (562 more than Marsh), scored 6 hundreds (4 more than Marsh) and played 22 shield games (so much less problems with injuries than Marsh). If you want to cherry pick the last couple of years out of Marsh's frankly uninspiring career then you've got no come back when it's easily demonstrated that Cosgrove has been significantly superior during the same period. In each of those three seasons Cosgrove has scored more runs (even the year he played less games) and scored more tons. Add Cosgrove's County runs and he is far and away proved to be the best middle order player we have outside of the current test line up. Even at his best Marsh is not up to Cosgrove's quality and his hopeless injury record should rule him out of any serious consideration as a test player. We can do better.

Well you're arguing something completely different then. How very good of you to start the averages battle the season after Marsh averaged 60 (), but even despite your skewed and selective stats, they are still close.

Cosgrove may well be a good shout, but so is Marsh, as proven in his last several years of Shield Cricket.

Fanboyism is infuriating as well you know, anyways averaging 48 in last his last 13 FC games doesn't turn Marsh into Bradman either. His overall record across all forms has been patchy and that really makes me question how is his case any different from Marcus North's.

I'm not saying that he is Bradman. I'm saying he's got a case. If anything, his problem has been not converting his starts, not making 100s and 0s like North.

 

[Spark]

Australia in Sri Lanka 2011: Cut price Trent Copeland shows Tests are cheapened | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

Massive failure, that. CA having their priorities wrong shocker.

Oh, and prize for "most overt use of management-speak of the week" must surely go to that last bit by Clarke.

 

[pup11]

Mitchell Johnson has had three bad series since his full establishment in the attack.

All of them involved England in some way.

The idea that Johnson only takes wickets sporadically is a complete myth. He takes wickets all the bloody time (unless England is involved) - he just doesn't do it by bowling what most of us would consider wicket taking spells. He also does it at a high cost, but Siddle can be pretty expensive too, and he is someone who only sporadically takes wickets. This is not to say he's a fantastic bowler, just that he is one with a knack for taking wickets.

Siddle and Johnson have very little discipline in their bowling and they hardly bowl to their fields and as a result they keep leaking runs at a fair clip, they both have the ability to produce brilliant wicket taking deliveries from nowhere but still the bad aspects of their bowling outweighs all the good things they bring to the table.

People keep hoping that the gap between their best and worst would close with time but that just doesn't seem to be happening so unless that changes and changes pretty quickly, we should look to move on and pick guys who if nothing else could atleast bowl to a plan with some consistency.

 

[Spark]

Siddle and Johnson have very little discipline in their bowling and they hardly bowl to their fields and as a result they keep leaking runs at a fair clip, they both have the ability to produce brilliant wicket taking deliveries from nowhere but still the bad aspects of their bowling outweighs all the good things they bring to the table.

People keep hoping that the gap between their best and worst would close with time but that just doesn't seem to be happening so unless that changes and changes pretty quickly, we should look to move on and pick guys who if nothing else could atleast bowl to a plan with some consistency.

My point is that 1. Johnson bowls brilliant wicket taking delivieries far more often and 2. Johnson often doesn't need brilliant wicket taking delivieries. How often have we seen him get a batsman chasing a long wide near-half volley and nick it to the cordon?

 

[adub]

Well you're arguing something completely different then. How very good of you to start the averages battle the season after Marsh averaged 60 (), but even despite your skewed and selective stats, they are still close.

Cosgrove may well be a good shout, but so is Marsh, as proven in his last several years of Shield Cricket.



I'm not saying that he is Bradman. I'm saying he's got a case. If anything, his problem has been not converting his starts, not making 100s and 0s like North.

You used "the last three years" so I went with that. I note no one wants to go back any further than 4 years for Marsh. For pretty obvious reasons. What he did four years ago has almost no relevance to 2011, but hey if it floats your boat. He still only scored one ton that year and only 663 runs. The 4 not outs had more to do with his average than weight of runs.

 

[Spikey]

Yeah Johnson takes wickets even when he bowls badly. Siddle meanwhile does nothing when he's not taking 6 wicket hauls. I'd play Johnson and drop Siddle.

 

[Spark]

I mean, on a technical basis, watching their bowling, there shouldn't be anything to differentiate them in quality for those reasons. But then you actually look at what they've done, and Johnson's been taking wickets with seemingly harmless or even **** balls so often for so long that you can't simply dismiss it as fluke.

 

[Nate]

You used "the last three years" so I went with that. I note no one wants to go back any further than 4 years for Marsh. For pretty obvious reasons. What he did four years ago has almost no relevance to 2011, but hey if it floats your boat. He still only scored one ton that year and only 663 runs. The 4 not outs had more to do with his average than weight of runs.

Lots of starts, not many tons, injury problems. Sounding like Shane Watson.

 

[pup11]

I'm not saying that he is Bradman. I'm saying he's got a case. If anything, his problem has been not converting his starts, not making 100s and 0s like North.

That problem has been around through his career and his recent FC record doesn't convinces me that he has left that problem behind. Not saying he is the worst selection ever or anything but I just can't see him doing any better than North while playing for Australia.

 

[SamSawnoff]

Australia in Sri Lanka 2011: Cut price Trent Copeland shows Tests are cheapened | Cricket News | Global | ESPN Cricinfo

Massive failure, that. CA having their priorities wrong shocker.

Oh, and prize for "most overt use of management-speak of the week" must surely go to that last bit by Clarke.

Clarke always sounds like he's reading off a press release. That's what makes him so dull.

 

[SamSawnoff]

That problem has been around through his career and his recent FC record doesn't convinces me that he has left that problem behind. Not saying he is the worst selection ever or anything but I just can't see him doing any better than North while playing for Australia.

He's in the squad as they can stick him up or down the order and he can probably play spin better than Khawaja, and for that matter, Hughes. I'm surprised he's there, but it's not a stupid pick considering that he has a fair bit of experience in the sub-continent.

I'm very pleased Copeland is there even if he doesn't get a test match.

 

[Nate]

That problem has been around through his career and his recent FC record doesn't convinces me that he has left that problem behind. Not saying he is the worst selection ever or anything but I just can't see him doing any better than North while playing for Australia.

What in his recent FC record is showing you that? That he's gone from averaging 20-30 to 50-60?

 

[pup11]

I mean, on a technical basis, watching their bowling, there shouldn't be anything to differentiate them in quality for those reasons. But then you actually look at what they've done, and Johnson's been taking wickets with seemingly harmless or even **** balls so often for so long that you can't simply dismiss it as fluke.

Stats can be pretty misleading tbh, Brett lee ended up taking more than 300 test wickets but apart from his last dozen tests he was hardly an effective test bowler right through his career.

As you yourself said more than 50% of Johnson's wickets come of **** balls but rest of the time he is just leaking runs and bowling without any real purpose, test cricket is all about creating pressure and working a batsmen over but with guys like Johnson and Siddle the opposition is hardly under any pressure to score runs.

 

[Spark]

I thought Test cricket was about taking wickets myself.

Here we have a choice of two bowlers, neither of which are very good at creating pressure, neither of which are very consistent. One takes wickets much more often than the other. Which one do you go for? Hmmm...