• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

1st Test, Edgbaston, Birmingham

GoodAreasShane

GoodAreasShane

Cricketer Of The Year
If they want a genuine strike bowler go Starc, if you want someone a bit more economical Hazlewood is the man for the job. I do quite like Siddle but I can't realistically see him being that effective against Test batsman on anything other than the greenest of greentops
 
GotSpin

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
If Siddle is chosen it’s ofifcially become a farce. Dropping Kpat for Marsh and manus was already a stretch.

I’m not sure why these guys are still in the job. Thank god chappel is retiring soon. Already done a decades worth of damage
 
howardj

howardj

International Coach
TheJediBrah said:
Burns shouldn't really be ahead of Harris and Bancroft anyway. They're all about the same level. I'm not going to go over the details again, it's been done a few times here already over the last week, but suffice it to say that comparing their Test records is highly dubious.

I think Burns 180 in his last innings is what will confuse people as to why he wasn't selected. And it's a fair question to ask because dropping someone after making 180 in the last test will definitely raise eyebrows. But purely from a cricketing perspective, and selecting the best team for now and the future perspective, Patterson being left out was the bigger blow. He should become (and already is really) a better player than Burns ever will, or was.
Click to expand...
Burns offers far more versality in this squad than Harris , especially if the selectors knew since the trial game that Bancroft was going to open with Warner.

He also beats Harris easily on the score of Test average, hundreds scored, and Harris is only 2 years younger so they're not picking him ahead of Burns on age

Re Patterson, I think you're putting too much emphasis on the reserve batsman being a prospect for the future

Yes, Patterson has more scope for improvement

But as a reserve bat in this squad (when it's very likely given our batting that they will be called upon) Paterson (or Harris for that matter) ahead of Burns makes zero sense
 
Last edited:
A

Arachnodouche

International Captain
How is Siddle even in the running? Has he had that prolific a Shield to warrant being picked at age 35 after being thoroughly pedestrian for the last however many years?
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Arachnodouche said:
How is Siddle even in the running? Has he had that prolific a Shield to warrant being picked at age 35 after being thoroughly pedestrian for the last however many years?
Click to expand...
"Experience in conditions" is the official line. He's been worse than every other Victorian fast bowler for the last few seasons. Tremain, Boland, Pattinson and Hastings have all been better.
 
Starfighter

Starfighter

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
stephen said:
"Experience in conditions" is the official line. He's been worse than every other Victorian fast bowler for the last few seasons. Tremain, Boland, Pattinson and Hastings have all been better.
Click to expand...
It's all about those div 2 wickets (in fairness, Patto's CC wickets have mostly been Div 2 as well).

However he was selected in the UAE on the basis of his county form (in green seaming conditions) as Langer will come up with any twisted excuse.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
I’m hearing that Siddle has a big heart and will run in all day. Can anyone confirm?
 
TheJediBrah

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
howardj said:
Burns offers far more versality in this squad than Harris , especially if the selectors knew since the trial game that Bancroft was going to open with Warner.

He also beats Harris easily on the score of Test average, hundreds scored, and Harris is only 2 years younger so they're not picking him ahead of Burns on age

Re Patterson, I think you're putting too much emphasis on the reserve batsman being a prospect for the future

Yes, Patterson has more scope for improvement

But as a reserve bat in this squad (when it's very likely given our batting that they will be called upon) Paterson (or Harris for that matter) ahead of Burns makes zero sense
Click to expand...
You make a good point about Burns' versatility. I would never play Burns as opener in England against these guys though, and as mentioned comparing Burns' Test stats to Harris' in particular is apples and oranges. They've had very different conditions.

I think Patterson should be in the XI, let alone the squad. I'd have him ahead of Wade and Head, though you can't drop Head after his recent scores.
 
aussie tragic

aussie tragic

International Captain
TheJediBrah said:
I would never play Burns as opener in England against these guys though, and as mentioned comparing Burns' Test stats to Harris' in particular is apples and oranges. They've had very different conditions.
Click to expand...
A third of Harris's Tests have been opening with Burns so not sure how you can say that. Harris averaged 23.00 while Burns averaged 68.00 in those tests.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top