***Official*** South Africa in Australia 2012

[Riggins]

as long as he plays his natural game

 

[howardj]

Mitchell J a smokey if Ponting succumbs

 

[Spark]

I thought we'd covered this...

If Watson is injured in any significant way, he doesn't play. End of.

 

[howardj]

If he's right to bat n field, he plays

The gap between him and say Doolan/Quiney/Bailey/Hughes/Ferguson/Usman is a chasm

 

[M0rphin3]

Seeing Maxwell didn't do terribly bad as a spinner, probably worth drafting him in the XI? I don't think Lyon would be much effective anywho, and Maxwell seems to be marginally better than a part timer.

 

[NUFAN]

I'm not following why either Doolan or Quiney should be in the picture at all. Yeah sure they just both scored well against SA, but if you look at the bigger picture you can't get past the fact these guys average 36 ffs. If it's only meant to be a short term solution, then you have to get someone like Dussey. And if it's meant to be potentially for a longer period, then the usual suspects (Hughes, Khawaja etc.) have to be the first options, surely.

Quiney isn't a 36 average player any longer. He averaged 42 in 2010/2011 and almost 50 last domestic season.

I would love it if the two players drafted into the squad came from Khawaja, Bailey and Quiney.

 

[Spikey]

steyn trying to help us out by killing hughes. but he just broke ab's fingers instead

 

[Ruckus]

It's not just about a pecking order, though. You have to match who's most likely to score tons against the SA attack right now. Both Steyn and Philander, for example, look less likely against lefties so that has to come into the decision.

Personally, I think they'll heavily consider Quiney but I don't mind Hughes at 3. He's a bit hit-or-miss right now but he's definitely hitting them well and will be more likely than Khawaja to make it count if he gets away. Quiney's in a similar mould. D Hussey against Steyn is, putting it delicately, risky.

All that said, I dunno if I like any combination against this Saffer attack. Going to be messy.

I just don't like the idea of picking players based solely off recent form. It's like the Shaun Marsh scenario all over again - picked on good form, initially impresses, loses form and fails miserably...then you are stuck with the problem of looking for replacements again. I much prefer when selectors look further ahead than just one match, or a series. And to do that you generally have to pick players who have performed very well over most of their domestic careers, and are more likely to succeed in the medium/long term. I mean you can sometimes pick a promising player who really develops in test cricket, but if they are averaging 36 in FC you'd want to have some pretty damn good reasons to justify their selection.

 

[Spikey]

Hughes and AB stay alive, game called off

 

[Spark]

As opposed to picking players who are out of form...?

It's Groundhog Day here. All the people who raged against Hilditch calling for the exact same ****ing mistakes.

 

[Top_Cat]

I just don't like the idea of picking players based solely off recent form. It's like the Shaun Marsh scenario all over again - picked on good form, initially impresses, loses form and fails miserably...then you are stuck with the problem of looking for replacements again. I much prefer when selectors look further ahead than just one match, or a series. And to do that you generally have to pick players who have performed very well over most of their domestic careers, and are more likely to succeed in the medium/long term. I mean you can sometimes pick a promising player who really develops in test cricket, but if they are averaging 36 in FC you'd want to have some pretty damn good reasons to justify their selection.

Sometimes, a guy is just better than the other guys, regardless of their stats, because they lift with elevated opportunities.

Not saying it'll happen with Quiney or somesuch but slavish adherence to FC stats as f form guide annoys the piss out of me. And it's not just picking a bloke for some series, it's picking him for one series against the number 1 Test side so I'm happy to let long-term planning slide a bit when the other options are the pits. On Marsh, a lot of the things present in his batting and temperament have been present for a long, long time. Same logic applies to Quiney but in a good way and he sorta showed a bit of that on day 1. He's not having a good season for Vic but anyone can have a random run of outs early on.

 

[Justo]

1. cowan
2. warner
3. clarke
4. hussey
5. wade
6. haddin
7. nevill

simple as

No Hartley love?

1. nevill
2. warner
3. clarke
4. hussey
5. wade
6. haddin
7. hartley +

Best possible batting line up in the country tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

No Hartley love?

No. Never Hartley love.

Never ever ever.

 

[Spikey]

Hartley's at 8. Clarke the front line spinner and Hussey 4th seamer

 

[Ruckus]

Sometimes, a guy is just better than the other guys, regardless of their stats, because they lift with elevated opportunities.

Not saying it'll happen with Quiney or somesuch but slavish adherence to FC stats as f form guide annoys the piss out of me. And it's not just picking a bloke for some series, it's picking him for one series against the number 1 Test side so I'm happy to let long-term planning slide a bit when the other options are the pits. On Marsh, a lot of the things present in his batting and temperament have been present for a long, long time. Same logic applies to Quiney but in a good way and he sorta showed a bit of that on day 1. He's not having a good season for Vic but anyone can have a random run of outs early on.

That's an extremely hard thing to predict, with more than a fair share of luck involved if it comes off. I agree that using FC stats as a form guide is not infallible by any means. That's why I generally don't like it when players are picked on recent form alone - it really doesn't tell you that much. A lot of the time form is such a fickle thing, and can change literally between matches. I care more about the overall class of the player, and/or their potential ability to develop into something better in the longer term. In reality though you can't really have a mentality of picking players for one series - because if they succeed then inevitably they are given more chances, and in the case of players who aren't up to standards like Marsh or Forrest, that often just means more chances to fail. I might have been harsh on Quiney before though (admittedly I don't know much about him), and maybe he doesn't fall into the Marsh category. But two seasons of averaging 42 and almost 50, while solid, is by no means remarkable. And given the guy is already 30 is it really worth it to give him a debut over someone like Khawaja?

 

[Ruckus]

On another note though, what has happened to the SCG in recent times? Garbage pitches

 

[Top_Cat]

What's the difference between the prognostication involved in a gut-feeling pick vs that involved in deciding that, say, Khawaja or Hughes is a long-term pick who should be given more shots on that basis alone since it's doubtful he's fixed his lack of front-foot ticker? Smells like Gambler's Fallacy all up in here. I mean, y'know, there are limits and I'm not saying pick CalFerg (but, srs, CalFerg4Tests) but in a series where the Saffers are likely to boss whoever you pick, might be worth taking a calculated risk, I reckon?

Fortune favours the brave and what your advocating is wussy and frankly un-Orstrayian. HTFU, grow a mo, etc.

 

[Spikey]

Hughes faced a barrage of quick deliveries but held his own to score what Australia A captain McDonald called, "the best 1 not out I have ever seen."

get him in there

 

[howardj]

I would pick C Ferguson - the only man out of the lot of them to have so far look like he belonged at international cricket

The others either aveage in the 30s in FC cricket or just haven't looked the part in the international theatre

 

[Top_Cat]

First of what I'm sure will be many articles advocating Clarke at 3.