*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

[Furball]

Stop making sense.

 

[Ruckus]

Bird has been on the international scene for two and a half seconds. We haven't seen enough to get a good gauge.

Harris is better but can't put together two series in a row so it's irrelevant.

That's a fair enough point with regards to Bird, but if you wanna go down that path, by the same token you can't say he isn't as good as so and so. You can only say he's an unknown quantity. I personally don't think you need much time at all though (at least relatively) to know if a bowler is going to be the goods. It's not like judging batsmen, where they can play 30 games before you know if they have what it takes. It's hard to tell just how good a bowler could be, but I definitely think someone like Bird will be of test standard, and probably a fairly high standard at that.

I thought the context was going into this first test (maybe I'm wrong), so the Harris point would be a bit moot then. If he is a better bowler for any given test, then you play him over Siddle if it comes down to it.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

See, here's the problem; you're looking to judge the better quick like it's a game of ICC, who bowls the bigger outie, faster, etc. So much more to the profession and who should be selected than that. Bird has potential but there's a lot to be said for a bloke who takes 150-odd Test wicket and averages < 30 when everyone's had a good look at him and knows exactly how he operates. He's no genius but neither is Bird, their methods are very similar. So what if he outbowled Siddle for a couple of Tests; Siddle's been doing it for years now. That alone deserves respect at the selection table.

You can't put Bird above Siddle because of two Tests. He bowled well, no doubt, but he's far less accomplished than Siddle at the moment. And, as I said before, the younger blokes can come in and throw everything at the oppo because they have the reliable **** at the other end. Siddle's plenty quick enough and if he had someone reliable at the other end, he'd acr up. But it's clearly not his role.

This **** right here.

So he bowled too short in a tour game, so has everyone. He knows when the critical moments are and when to take his game to the next level.

Remember Adelaide last year? Clarke bowled him into the floor knowing he was our best bet to get du Plessis and de Villiers. He was limping off by the end.

It might be worth noting that neither Harris nor Bird have bowled a ball in anger at a first-class oppo this tour. Let's see how they go.

 

[Ruckus]

See, here's the problem; you're looking to judge the better quick like it's a game of ICC, who bowls the bigger outie, faster, etc. So much more to the profession and who should be selected than that. Bird has potential but there's a lot to be said for a bloke who takes 150-odd Test wicket and averages < 30 when everyone's had a good look at him and knows exactly how he operates. He's no genius but neither is Bird, their methods are very similar. So what if he outbowled Siddle for a couple of Tests; Siddle's been doing it for years now. That alone deserves respect at the selection table.

You can't put Bird above Siddle because of two Tests. He bowled well, no doubt, but he's far less accomplished than Siddle at the moment. And, as I said before, the younger blokes can come in and throw everything at the oppo because they have the reliable **** at the other end. Siddle's plenty quick enough and if he had someone reliable at the other end, he'd acr up. But it's clearly not his role.

Yeah I can totally appreciate that perspective, but I don't see how you can use that to say "Nah no way are Starc and Bird ahead of him {from a wicket-taking pov]". You can only say Siddle is a more tried-and-tested option, and use that as the primary reason for selection, but that doesn't say anything about Bird's potential to take more wickets.

 

[3703]

Pattinson, Harris and BIrd as the frontline quicks is a risk on evidence, all three having broken down of late and one, we know, needing to manage a chronic injury. If Harris goes down mid-test, a workhorse to pick up overs would be a huge help. But preparing for a rainy day ahead of fielding your most dangerous quicks is a negative mindset and I can't imagine under Boof they'll be thinking this way, unless our numbers are telling us it's odds on. But then, catch 22. Fascinating selection quandaries everywhere.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Yeah I can totally appreciate that perspective, but I don't see how you can use that to say "Nah no way are Starc and Bird ahead of him {from a wicket-taking pov]". You can only say Siddle is a more tried-and-tested option, and use that as the primary reason for selection, but that doesn't say anything about Bird's potential to take more wickets.

Point taken but there's a lot of unanswered questions about Bird that we already have in Siddle. Bird has never faced a clutch situation, we don't know about his temperament when batsmen are on top, and a great deal of this argument is based in conjecture that we're holding back the next McGrath by sticking with a very good bowler of whom our last memory of is bowling at a dominant opposition in entirely unhelpful conditions.

EDIT: I thought Bird played in Hobart, my bad.

 

[Maximas]

Pattinson, Harris and BIrd as the frontline quicks is a risk on evidence, all three having broken down of late and one, we know, needing to manage a chronic injury. If Harris goes down mid-test, a workhorse to pick up overs would be a huge help. But preparing for a rainy day ahead of fielding your most dangerous quicks is a negative mindset and I can't imagine under Boof they'll be thinking this way, unless our numbers are telling us it's odds on. But then, catch 22. Fascinating selection quandaries everywhere.

I read somewhere that the back injury bird had was the first major breakdown he ever had, so he is probably not too risky. As for the negative mindset, an injury cost us one test against SA and almost another against SL, I don't think it's that negative tbh.

 

[Ruckus]

Pattinson, Harris and BIrd as the frontline quicks is a risk on evidence, all three having broken down of late and one, we know, needing to manage a chronic injury. If Harris goes down mid-test, a workhorse to pick up overs would be a huge help. But preparing for a rainy day ahead of fielding your most dangerous quicks is a negative mindset and I can't imagine under Boof they'll be thinking this way, unless our numbers are telling us it's odds on. But then, catch 22. Fascinating selection quandaries everywhere.

Well that's the thing for me. It's a risk, but I would be taking it. I think the result of the first game is going to be pretty crucial, and it will be very bad if we lose it. I really think we need to win the first game to stand a chance, because confidence levels and old demons will return very quickly after a loss. Our team really needs to get into a winning mentality again and to do that I would be playing, what I think, are the three bowlers most likely to take wickets cheaply. Don't have much faith in our batsmen putting up match winning totals, so to counter that we will have to prevent England doing so as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

Stop making sense.

Then like my post, ****. I have so few!

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah I can totally appreciate that perspective, but I don't see how you can use that to say "Nah no way are Starc and Bird ahead of him {from a wicket-taking pov]". You can only say Siddle is a more tried-and-tested option, and use that as the primary reason for selection, but that doesn't say anything about Bird's potential to take more wickets.

Yes it does!

 

[Tangles]

I'd be risking it in the 1st test also. Getting 1 up would be huge and our bowlers will be the ones winning games at the moment. Siddle is probably a lock though so hopefully he takes a bunch of wickets. I'm assuming Patto is a lock so I'll be hoping that Harris is the 3rd bowler if fit. If they dont trust him then I'd pick Bird ahead of Starc.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Before our bowlers can win games we need our batsmen not to lose them.

 

[Tangles]

Obi wan Clarkeh is our only hope.

 

[Ruckus]

I'd be risking it in the 1st test also. Getting 1 up would be huge and our bowlers will be the ones winning games at the moment. Siddle is probably a lock though so hopefully he takes a bunch of wickets. I'm assuming Patto is a lock so I'll be hoping that Harris is the 3rd bowler if fit. If they dont trust him then I'd pick Bird ahead of Starc.

yeah I mean like all of this debate about Siddle aside, if they picked Harris, Pattinson and Siddle I'd take that in a heartbeat atm. Just fear they might do something dumb and pick Starc in a three man pace attack or Faulkner in a 4 man one.

 

[Spikey]

spark pls

 

[uvelocity]

bell and his dad:

 

[Furball]

Then like my post, ****. I have so few!

Done.

I tend to like the sarcy posts having a dig at others so count yourself lucky

 

[Top_Cat]

Unusually generous for a Jock.

 

[the big bambino]

Then like my post, ****. I have so few!

Ha! You've got 14 and thats plenty. Start handing out a few likes as well ya misery guts.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

See, here's the problem; you're looking to judge the better quick like it's a game of ICC, who bowls the bigger outie, faster, etc. So much more to the profession and who should be selected than that. Bird has potential but there's a lot to be said for a bloke who takes 150-odd Test wicket and averages < 30 when everyone's had a good look at him and knows exactly how he operates. He's no genius but neither is Bird, their methods are very similar. So what if he outbowled Siddle for a couple of Tests; Siddle's been doing it for years now. That alone deserves respect at the selection table.

You can't put Bird above Siddle because of two Tests. He bowled well, no doubt, but he's far less accomplished than Siddle at the moment. And, as I said before, the younger blokes can come in and throw everything at the oppo because they have the reliable **** at the other end. Siddle's plenty quick enough and if he had someone reliable at the other end, he'd arc up. But it's clearly not his role.

May as well pick Onions for England off the back of the 2nd innings against Essex if Anderson has a poor net session.

Siddle has to play, Pattinson has to play, Lyon has to play, Watson is playing. One spot left then for the rest to fight over. We need to end the Siddle yay or nay discussion as 90% of both sets of fans agree he should start the series.