Australia - where to from here

[Top_Cat]

erm

If O'Keefe had been given that go it's pretty unlikely that Lyon would have been picked.

I was referring to the time before Lyon was even in the picture, tbh.

As for the rest of your post, fact is as few games as Lyon and the rest have played, O'Keefe hasn't played many more so there's no serious numerical base to predict which way any of the spin options are going to go. Lyon still looks like a better prospect to me, it's that simple. You prefer O'Keefe, fine.

Something does bug me, though; putting down Lyon's 5-fer on Test debut to it being a spinning track is really, really unfair. Even in the best of conditions, you still have to be good enough to take advantage of them. You don't fluke a Test 5-fer in a line-up including names like Sangakkara, Samaraweera and Jayawardene in SL. If you demand credit where due for O'Keefe, how about extending the same courtesy to Lyon?

 

[Daemon]

He only got one of those out though. 3 of them were bowlers and the last was Mathews. In the second innings he got the one wicket of a tailender as well.

 

[adub]

And putting down Lyon's 5-fer on Test debut to it being a spinning track is really, really unfair. Even in the best of conditions, you still have to be good enough to take advantage of them. You don't fluke a Test 5-fer in a line-up including names like Sangakkara, Samaraweera and Jayawardene in SL. If you demand credit where due for O'Keefe, how about extending the same courtesy to Lyon?

So it's not fair to note that a 5-fer was taken on a sub continental bunsen comparable (and the comparison was made) to the wicket Clarke (that destructive spin demon) took his 6/9 on. But it is perfectly reasonable to question O'Keefe's average, strike rate, economy rate and wickets per match rate all taken on a variety of grounds and conditions? I see. Maybe you're right. Lyon's 5-fer was all totally due to skill of the bowler, but all of O'Keefe's wickets (and runs) are just a big old fluke.

It's not like Lyon's 5-fer isn't included in his stats (2.5 wickets per match). My point is and always was that the pitch was custom made for spin, not taking wickets on it (yes even given the quality of (some of) the batsmen) would have been more noteworthy than getting them. That's not detracting from the performance, rather putting it into perspective. I have never said Lyon doesn't look good and could have a big future. All I've ever said is that he is at best the 2nd best option we have right now. And right now isn't the time for 2nd best options no matter how acceptable they might seem.

Lyon gets the credit he is due. He's performed less craptastically than Doherty and Beer (or Siddle and Johnson for that matter), and hasn't been really taken to much so far. But let's not get carried away and make more of it than it is. The simple truth is that in their short time in the game at fc level Lyon has performed moderately with one highlight, whereas SOK has performed at a level comparable to the very best finger spinners in Australia's history. You can make all the excuses you like for why that is so, but don't accuse me of parochialism when you're the one backing the guy who is miles behind on any objective measure you care to name.

 

[adub]

He only got one of those out though. 3 of them were bowlers and the last was Mathews. In the second innings he got the one wicket of a tailender as well.

But lest anyone accuse me of not being fair to Lyon, someone has to get them, and we've seen plenty of times the damage tail end hitting out can do. He did the job.

 

[Daemon]

But lest anyone accuse me of not being fair to Lyon, someone has to get them, and we've seen plenty of times the damage tail end hitting out can do. He did the job.

Yeah I agree. But I was just putting things into perspective. Saying "Sangakkara, Samaraweera and Jayawardene" was a bit misleading because until I went to check it out I thought he had got all three of them out.

 

[Spikey]

He only got one of those out though. 3 of them were bowlers and the last was Mathews. In the second innings he got the one wicket of a tailender as well.

If we want to be really mean to Lyon, we can point out 3 of the wickets came through catches I would consider less than 50% chances and then the bowler slogging and Matthews playing one of worst sweeps you'll ever see

 

[Prince EWS]

If we want to be really mean to Lyon, we can point out 3 of the wickets came through catches I would consider less than 50% chances and then the bowler slogging and Matthews playing one of worst sweeps you'll ever see

You can make that 5% if O'Keefe is in the field.

 

[Spikey]

 

[adub]

Yeah I agree. But I was just putting things into perspective. Saying "Sangakkara, Samaraweera and Jayawardene" was a bit misleading because until I went to check it out I thought he had got all three of them out.

yeah "Randiv, Herath and Welegedara" doesn't quite have the same cred does it, but they're all worth the same in the book.

 

[adub]

But away from the SOK stuff (though related), where to from here for Australia should be very much about looking for guys who we can keep together for 5 years or so and get them into a squad that you will be looking to the future with. For me that means Ponting, Johnson, and Haddin gone. Now. Then with your top 25 you have your Test team and your A team. You'd reconfigure the contract list so that you have a top 25 for the test side and then supplement as required for short game specialists. No more having Steve Smith earning $1 million a year when he's not a lock for test selection. They say they want to ensure Test cricket remains the pinnacle, then build the side and the contracts around Test Cricket.

The A team should be playing regularly especially in the winter with tours (minimum 5 4 day games over winter plus summer games against the tourists. That is where you put the good young guys you really want to test out. If you're in the 25 but aren't in the test side, you're in the A team and getting lots of games together.

So I would say your top 25 squad should look something like:
Top order 1-3: Hughes, Warner, Khawaja, Marsh, Maddinson
Middle order 4-6: Clarke, Hussey, Lynn
Batting all rounders: Watson, Smith, Maxwell
Keepers: Wade, Paine,
Spinners: O'Keefe, Lyon, Boyce
Seamers: Harris, Cummins, Copeland, Siddle, Bollinger, Cutting, Pattinson, Butterworth, Starc

Of course if something special comes along you have the ability to bring them in, but better to prefer bringing them through the A team getting them in the coaching set up and playing together and feeling like the reserve team. That way you can really bring on young guys and have a good look at them so that succession planning and skills development for the fringe guys is ongoing rather than the ad hoc crap we have at the moment. I could very easily see that group of players producing a No.1 ranked team at the end of that 5 years with the depth to maintain the spot as retirements, loss of form and injuries require new blood.

 

[stephen]

I agree with you there Adub, though Hussey shouldn't really be in the long term plans. He's probably got two years left max at this stage.

 

[adub]

I agree with you there Adub, though Hussey shouldn't really be in the long term plans. He's probably got two years left max at this stage.

of course, and Harris probably even less. The point isn't that every single player in the 25 should have 5 years in them, but that the majority should. You are going to have guys going in and out every year, but you'd hope to have enough continuity that at least 2/3s of these guys will still be there in 5 years time.

So many guys have been brought into the test team from outside of the contract system in the past few years. Cummins, Lyon, Copeland, Beer, Doherty. I don't know if Uzi had a contract but I doubt it, same with Smith and Hughes and Harris, and probably also all the way back to Doug. That **** shouldn't happen. That's a symptom of Hilditch's pull a name out of a hat philosophy. Instead it makes more sense and is more likely to produce results if 9 times out of 10 a guy has been identified, contracted and had a good run with the A team to get a good assessment of them and improve their game before they ever get near a baggy green. It doesn't close off the chance of a special case, but if the selectors and coaches are doing their job there won't be any need for special cases.

 

[Uppercut]

If we want to be really mean to Lyon, we can point out 3 of the wickets came through catches I would consider less than 50% chances and then the bowler slogging and Matthews playing one of worst sweeps you'll ever see

I don't think you can use the batsman playing a ridiculous shot as a qualifier on a spinner's wicket, we're all pretty happy to hold it against them them when batsmen smack them all over the park. It's a no-win being taken on, if you get smashed you're **** and if you take a wicket it's a gift and doesn't really count.

 

[adub]

Yeah again wickets is wickets. If the batsman is out to your bowling you got him out. The job is to get as many of em as quick as you can for as little runs as possible. Everything else is fluff.

 

[Daemon]

That's where sample sizes come in

 

[NUFAN]

If Watson is out or can't bowl then it really makes Copeland (or an equivalent) a must have in the line up. It also makes dropping non contributors (yes I'm talking about you Johnson and Siddle) more urgent. Lastly it makes it hard to select Harris (what if he breaks down mid match). Obviously Cummins will be there. The other two quicks will need to be able to bowl plenty of overs.

I don't think there's any point in trying to pick a top order bat solely on bowling ability. Clarke, and Muss (and Ponting if he survives) have shown they can chip in when required. It's not the same as having Watson, but it helps.

Or you could just pick a spinner who the captain feels comfortable bowling above 17.6% of the overs in the third innings of a match.

The fact that SOK bowls tighter is a huge plus meaning that we could still potentially play Harris and Cummins in the same lineup.

If Johnson goes our tail becomes extremely weak, that's another big tick for O'Keefe.

Since we have new selectors they should be able to pick who they think the best XI are, it's that simple.

Everyone complained about Hilditch, yet people want the new selectors to continue to give many of the chosen players further opportunity?

 

[adub]

I don't really buy the Johnson is a good no.8 thing myself. He's played a couple of good knocks but they're even rarer than his good days with the ball. But yes obviously I agree having O'Keefe there is the way to go. Cutting also looks like he'd add some some runs if selected.

Again the point is the new panel should not be afraid to make as many changes as required to put what they feel is the best side on the paddock for the 1st Test. If that means 4, 5 or 6 changes then make that many changes. They are in the job explicitly because the old selection panel was seen to have demonstrably failed. The whole point of Argus will be lost if the new panel is just going to pick the same side Hilditch would have picked.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Cutting's not a Test 8. Good eye, decent slogger - pretty similar to Praveen Kumar.

 

[Spikey]

Johnson's not a Test 8. Good eye, decent slogger - pretty similar to Praveen Kumar.

boom tish

 

[adub]

Cutting's not a Test 8. Good eye, decent slogger - pretty similar to Praveen Kumar.

Yeah I was thinking more a 9 who can come in and slap a couple of big shots to put a fast 30 odd run partnership that frustrates the hell out of bowling attacks. Hopefully 8 can hang around and build an innings whilst supporting a genuine batsman or the keeper. 9, 10, and 11 are handy if they can find the fence and keep out a few good balls.