***Official*** Australia in Sri Lanka

[Top_Cat]

I like Ian, don't couple him with Greg.

heh, don't kid yourself.

 

[Ruckus]

The team ceased to be picked on performance a while ago. If you watched O'Keefe, Krejza, Lyon, Beer, Smith etc all bowl three balls in the nets, you'd definitely think O'Keefe looked the one was the least potential. That's what the team (especially spinners) seems to be picked on at the moment. The ability to consistently bowl good balls, the ability to out-think batsmen and hell even just the 'basic' ability to take wickets more regularly for less runs than your competitors are all being overlooked.

It's a terrible selection policy but I can definitely see what's happening with it. It's not such random as it just poor.

Hmm yeah I definately felt that way when I first saw O'Keefe bowl - I was underwhelmed and quite suprised his record was that good, but after watching him more I could see he that he was a deceptively talented bowler. Which begs the question, do the selectors even watch these players extensively enough to get a true gauge of their talent? Or do they simply take them on face value and leave it at that (probably a question that doesn't need answering tbh)? I could completely understand them not picking a player who looks like **** but happens to have a similar record to O'Keefe, because sometimes players can get lucky and their stats flatter them (it can quite easily happen over e.g. 14 FC matches). O'Keefe doesn't fit the bill as that kind of player imo.

 

[Ruckus]

Echoing the thoughts of everyone else here, great to see Adub on the forum, good to have another man involved in meaningful discussion.

Re: O'Keefe's selection. I reckon it has a fair bit to do with tradjectory he bowls at. At the risk of being simplistic, he's quite a round arm bowler who doesn't often get it above the batsman's eyeline nor get a huge amount of turn. Neither of these is a cardinal sin and he should be judged on his merits (numbers, as he's doing the business), but my gut feel is that our selection panel has decided that a spinner who doesn't either turn them square or float it above eye level isn't going to be successful at the next level.

It's very basic thinking, but sadly I think it is effectively where our selectors are at. Real shame we don't have a bowler or spinner on the panel these days to make some sort of sense of it all. I'd much rather someone who isn't particuarly asthetically pleasing and gets the job done than some of the guys we've thrown up of late.

He also has a very lazy looking run-up as well which no doubt hasn't helped his cause. He is a very accurate bowler though, doesn't drop it short much, and maintains good attacking lines and lengths. Not suprisingly his economy in FC is 2.83, better than Doherty, Beer, Hauritz, Krejza, Smith and Lyon (who is the next best @ 2.97). Easily good enough attributes to be successful imo.

 

[adub]

I totally agree with you.

The only thought that I have is that maybe the selectors have him pegged as the long term option and don't want him introduced into a losing culture. Terrible thinking if true, but it could be the case.

I think that would assume a level of strategic thinking far beyond any evidence would demonstrate Hilditch is capable of. Andrew Hilditch's though process goes something like:

"oh a short ball...

... damn caught at fine leg. Didn't see that coming."

 

[Sylvester]

Echoing the thoughts of everyone else here, great to see Adub on the forum, good to have another man involved in meaningful discussion.

Re: O'Keefe's selection. I reckon it has a fair bit to do with tradjectory he bowls at. At the risk of being simplistic, he's quite a round arm bowler who doesn't often get it above the batsman's eyeline nor get a huge amount of turn. Neither of these is a cardinal sin and he should be judged on his merits (numbers, as he's doing the business), but my gut feel is that our selection panel has decided that a spinner who doesn't either turn them square or float it above eye level isn't going to be successful at the next level.

It's very basic thinking, but sadly I think it is effectively where our selectors are at. Real shame we don't have a bowler or spinner on the panel these days to make some sort of sense of it all. I'd much rather someone who isn't particuarly asthetically pleasing and gets the job done than some of the guys we've thrown up of late.

I suspect you are right with that reason being why O'Keefe has been left out. However if that was the case then you have to wonder why Beer and Doherty were picked ahead of him as neither of them spin it much and from memory Beer doesn't float it much more that O'Keefe while Doherty was the definition of flat trajectory. Also if they are thinking along that logic then it is a surprise they picked Copeland because he is essentially the pace version of O'Keefe i.e. doesn't look threatening but has an outstanding record.

 

[Nate]

Of course.

If Warne and McGill were the two selected spinners SOK wouldn't raise a peep and no one would expect him to and I'd bag him if he did.

BUT when you started last summer as the Australia A spinner and take as many wickets in one innings against England than all of our spinners could manage in 5 tests as well as scoring more than twice as many runs in one innings as the two specialist spinners could in 3 tests, well you might start to wonder. When you are a left arm orthodox spinner and the chairman of selectors specifically states that they are after left arm orthodox spinners especially to target one of the touring side's stars and have dropped a fairly solidly performing offie specifically for that reason, well you might think you have a shot. When you get said star tourist cheaply with a fine piece of flight bowling in said Aus A match and get overlooked for two numpties who between them could only manage to get him out once in 3 tests and that was only after he'd smashed 227, well you might start to think it was something other than cricket that was keeping you out of the team. When you are far and away the best performed spinner in the country with 39 wickets @ 25 and your career average of 24 make you the only spinner in the country with a first class average under 40 but you can't even get a shot in the Aus A 4-day games in Zimbabwe, but a guy with 4 Shield games and an average over 43 gets selected to the Test squad because he bowled well in some one dayers, well you might wonder if you have bad breath or something. When that test squad is heading to play Sri Lanka whose A side you have taken 7/35 against just over a year ago including getting current Sri Lankan test openers Paranavitana and Thirmanne and the left arm orthodox spinner selected has never taken a 4 fer let alone a Michelle in First Class cricket, well you'd be well within your rights to start to think wtf?

Craddock might not have heard of O'Keefe, but anyone paying attention to First Class cricket in Australia has, and whilst we all agree the spin stocks are thin, the one guy who has actually performed in any way shape or form is the one guy who has been constantly overlooked. Hohns may have had to wait 16 years for a test cap, that was because he was rubbish. But in today's environment his 37 average looks like Warne compared to the gimps we've been throwing baggy greens at. O'Keefe is not the second coming or anything like it, but he has done far more to earn a shot than any of the pie chuckers we've been gifting test caps to lately. In that context he has every right to know what Hilditch isn't seeing in him that he is seeing in Doherty, Krejza, Beer and Lyons. Then maybe he can explain it to the rest of us.

 

[benchmark00]

Anyone wanna give me cliffs on that post? cbf reading it.

 

[howardj]

another hilditch haranguing

 

[adub]

To me, it's simpler than that and the take-home message for the selectors really should be this; O'Keefe is a bloke who, just about every game, finds a way to contribute. Can be relied on, no matter the situation, to take a 2/3-fer or score a handy 40-odd, sometimes going beyond that. Does all the little things right. Could be a valuble player in a team full of guns who, as they say in baseball, tend to 'swing for the fences'.

Trying to unearth a new Warne all the time means means you burn a bunch of blokes who aren't Warne but will still win you Tests.

That's what I like about him the most. He earns his keep. If he doesn't get a bag of wickets he'll probably chip in with the bat, or he'll create a run out or take a good catch, or just keep the talk up in the field and keep the pressure on. He just doesn't have any glaring weaknesses.

I know he doesn't give it a huge rip, or really toss it up, but neither does he bowl darts. He can vary his pace and has just enough subtle variation to take wickets whilst keeping it tight.

 

[Spikey]

The team ceased to be picked on performance a while ago. If you watched O'Keefe, Krejza, Lyon, Beer, Smith etc all bowl three balls in the nets, you'd definitely think O'Keefe looked the one was the least potential. That's what the team (especially spinners) seems to be picked on at the moment. The ability to consistently bowl good balls, the ability to out-think batsmen and hell even just the 'basic' ability to take wickets more regularly for less runs than your competitors are all being overlooked.

It's a terrible selection policy but I can definitely see what's happening with it. It's not so much random as it just poor.

This

Hmm yeah I definately felt that way when I first saw O'Keefe bowl - I was underwhelmed and quite suprised his record was that good, but after watching him more I could see he that he was a deceptively talented bowler. Which begs the question, do the selectors even watch these players extensively enough to get a true gauge of their talent? Or do they simply take them on face value and leave it at that (probably a question that doesn't need answering tbh)? I could completely understand them not picking a player who looks like **** but happens to have a similar record to O'Keefe, because sometimes players can get lucky and their stats flatter them (it can quite easily happen over e.g. 14 FC matches). O'Keefe doesn't fit the bill as that kind of player imo.

plus this

plus adub's post

Jolly good boarding from everyone involved

"I know he doesn't give it a huge rip, or really toss it up, but neither does he bowl darts. He can vary his pace and has just enough subtle variation to take wickets whilst keeping it tight. "

well we dumped the guy who more or less did that to good effect at test match level so I suppose we shouldn't be that surprised that they're over-looking SOK.

 

[SamSawnoff]

Disappointing from Rob Craddock in the paper this morning:

I almost crashed into my cornflakes on Sunday morning reading where NSW spinner Stephen O'Keefe - have you heard of him? - was seeking an "honest and frank response" from selection chairman Andrew Hilditch about his future after being left out of the Sri Lanka Test party, for which seemingly no one except himself thought he was a chance.

O'Keefe rang Hilditch, who did not reply. Hilditch is not big on returning phone calls but on this occasion you couldn't blame him. A chairman should never have to explain why a player who has been a part-timer for his state for five years is not playing for his country.

I don't want to build O'Keefe up into something he is not, however with a FC average of 25, he's entitled to feel a bit miffed being leapfrogged by the likes of Lyon and Beer.

All Craddock's done is make himself sound like he's been living on an island without internet or satellite facitlities for the last couple of years which isn't a good look for a sports journo. I notice he carefuly kept away from mentioning O'Keefe's stats whereas he was happy to fling them into the mix to damn other players.

 

[Andre]

well we dumped the guy who more or less did that to good effect at test match level so I suppose we shouldn't be that surprised that they're over-looking SOK.

Yeah exactly right. Hauritz was doing a fair job and the fact we dumped him suggests that we aren't in the maret for a steady type like that, hence the continued exclusion of O'Keefe, even though it is exactly the sort of cricketer we need at the moment (not saying it is definetly O'Keefe though).

With regards to Doherty and Beer, it was pretty obvious that Doherty was picked for 2 reasons:

1) Punter liked him and would bowl him.
2) KP struggles against left arm spin.

No more science to it than that I'm afraid.

Beer, meanwhile, is tall and gets a bit of loop and drop, that why he is appealing to the current panel.

As easy as it is to diss the current panel re: spinners (and it is fun and true that they suck), don't underestimate the role of Ponting in the dismal handling of nearly every spinner we've had. He has or did fall out with nearly every one of them, set them poor fields and bowl them at by and large the wrong times - when it was too far gone or when throwing them to the wolves. His handling of them left a lot to be desired. At least I think that might improve under Clarke, and Beer and Lyon will be the benefactors of that.

 

[SamSawnoff]

Yeah exactly right. Hauritz was doing a fair job and the fact we dumped him suggests that we aren't in the maret for a steady type like that, hence the continued exclusion of O'Keefe, even though it is exactly the sort of cricketer we need at the moment (not saying it is definetly O'Keefe though).

With regards to Doherty and Beer, it was pretty obvious that Doherty was picked for 2 reasons:

1) Punter liked him and would bowl him.
2) KP struggles against left arm spin.

No more science to it than that I'm afraid.

Beer, meanwhile, is tall and gets a bit of loop and drop, that why he is appealing to the current panel.

As easy as it is to diss the current panel re: spinners (and it is fun and true that they suck), don't underestimate the role of Ponting in the dismal handling of nearly every spinner we've had. He has or did fall out with nearly every one of them, set them poor fields and bowl them at by and large the wrong times - when it was too far gone or when throwing them to the wolves. His handling of them left a lot to be desired. At least I think that might improve under Clarke, and Beer and Lyon will be the benefactors of that.

You would hope so. Clarke never having captained Warne is going to be a big boost for the team.

Hauritz has turned into a far better bowler by not playing. I'm not saying what the selectors have done is right, but if you take out Pakistan, who bat like teenage gunslingers firing at everything, Hauritz has never been a useful last day bowler and a spin bowler needs to be there at the kill on the fifth day.

I'm hoping that Lyon if he gets a chance shows enough to have a minimum of five/six matches in a row, but I guess that's asking too much.

 

[Spark]

Last season he was taking wickets at an average of mid-20s. Given the kind of pitches he was playing on, that's a pretty loud and obvious signal.

 

[adub]

Agreed.

As an aside, it's unfair to keep banging on about Fergie's average. It's far more nuanced than just sprouting as Crash does: "he averages 36 on the Billard table Adelaide Oval".

Truth be told, he's gone very well in the past two years in FC cricket. Moreover, he's acquitted himself just as well in his limited opportunities in the international theatre.

In my view, he's at least as deserving as guys like Hughes, Usman and Marsh.

Sorry not buying. See what I said about Marsh and add 20% snark. He's a fraud.

His knee injury cruelled him just when he looked like he might put some consistent runs on the board, but he's only played 19 FC games in the last 3 seasons. His numbers in that time look like Marcus North with 4 hundreds and 5 fifties, but 16 scores under 20 and his average is not much better than his career average in that time.

 

[SamSawnoff]

Last season he was taking wickets at an average of mid-20s. Given the kind of pitches he was playing on, that's a pretty loud and obvious signal.

And Shaun Marsh has been averaging over 50 for the last two years in Shield cricket. It doesn't mean he'll be a good player at international level.

Hauritz might get another chance. Beer probably won't last, then they'll have Lyon to throw in the mix, maybe even Boyce? Hauritz might end up back in the team by default.

He had quite a few test matches though for not much return. If you take out Pakistan, his average goes up to nearly 40. I just don't think that realistically he'll make the attack a lot stronger than it is. What will be interesting is to see if Clarke gives his spin bowlers more chance to take wickets with their fields.

The real problem is our seamers.

I'd like to see Johnson dropped after this tour, but you can't rely on him to be crap ALL the time. I'd like to see how an attack performed for an entire series without him being there bowling on his own like the rest of the attack doesn't really exist. You can list pretty much every single close match that we have lost for the last 2 years in one dayers and test cricket and Johnson is the present in the attack. Other bowlers come and go but he's always there, not performing under pressure.

 

[Ruckus]

Dunno... reckon Johnson has won us a fair few games under pressure tbh. It's seemingly random when he chooses to perform well or not. I don't have a problem with Johnson in the team as long as there are other bowlers who can keep things tight etc. if he goes haywire.

 

[Spark]

And Shaun Marsh has been averaging over 50 for the last two years in Shield cricket. It doesn't mean he'll be a good player at international level.

Hauritz might get another chance. Beer probably won't last, then they'll have Lyon to throw in the mix, maybe even Boyce? Hauritz might end up back in the team by default.

He had quite a few test matches though for not much return. If you take out Pakistan, his average goes up to nearly 40. I just don't think that realistically he'll make the attack a lot stronger than it is. What will be interesting is to see if Clarke gives his spin bowlers more chance to take wickets with their fields.

The real problem is our seamers.

I'd like to see Johnson dropped after this tour, but you can't rely on him to be crap ALL the time. I'd like to see how an attack performed for an entire series without him being there bowling on his own like the rest of the attack doesn't really exist. You can list pretty much every single close match that we have lost for the last 2 years in one dayers and test cricket and Johnson is the present in the attack. Other bowlers come and go but he's always there, not performing under pressure.

You can also say that about a hell of a lot of our wins too...

 

[social]

Thos people predicting a SL win in this series obviously didnt see them play against England

Forget about conditions, they literally have one decent bowler (the offie) and shouldnt pose a threat

We may not take 20 wickets but there is no way that they should either

 

[SamSawnoff]

You can also say that about a hell of a lot of our wins too...

But imagine what it must be like to play alongside him. Some members of the team must want to deck him three-quarters of the time. How can you build a cohesive unit with such a loose cannon?