4th Test at Old Trafford, Manchester

[Jarquis]

For every Labuschagne there's 5 Maddison's.

Nah, Maddison never played with me.

 

[Daemon]

One of my posts was largely sitting on the fence, the other was just responding to TJB and his irrational Head hate.

Obviously I very much resent being called clueless about Australian domestic cricket

Haha I didn’t include you as one of the haterz, just quoted everything instead of just selecting the bad ones. I’m sure there’s plenty more.

In any case, the fact remains that most of CW is clueless. See Bumrah when he was selected for SA for example.

 

[80W53R]

This feels very much like the '93 test. England will break through this afternoon but be bowled out cheap. Australia will declare in the second innings,Labs and Smithy get 100 , leaving England to flail around like a fish on the floor whilst the ball turns corners.
Well played Australia.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In any case, the fact remains that most of CW is clueless.

I don't think this should be the takeaway. It just happened to work out this time, more often than not when CW has a widespread opinion like this it's proven correct. As someone mentioned earlier, for every Labuschagne there are more Maddisons.

It was not a crazy opinion at all at the time to say that Labu shouldn't have been picked ahead of blokes like KPat and Burns.

 

[Spark]

Haha I didn’t include you as one of the haterz, just quoted everything instead of just selecting the bad ones. I’m sure there’s plenty more.

In any case, the fact remains that most of CW is clueless. See Bumrah when he was selected for SA for example.

CW is very big on the "FC stats, FC stats uber alles" thing tbf. Which means that "hunch" selections based on how a player looks (i.e. technique/apparent temperament/apparent bowling style and ability) rather than how successful they've been at FC level will always be a bit unpopular. Mind you, I think that's a poor excuse for bowlers, where hunch selections have regularly paid off before time.

 

[Daemon]

CW is usually right more often than not, and many times more correct and rational than selectors, but the sureness and absolute certainty some put behind their opinions is often a bit bizarre. I don’t want to single anyone out but a certain poster who has a whale as his DP and whos username starts with stephe and ends with n is particularly notorious for this. Have a look at the Road to Ashes thread, especially the last few posts.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

CW is very big on the "FC stats, FC stats uber alles" thing tbf. Which means that "hunch" selections based on how a player looks (i.e. technique/apparent temperament/apparent bowling style and ability) rather than how successful they've been at FC level will always be a bit unpopular. Mind you, I think that's a poor excuse for bowlers, where hunch selections have regularly paid off before time.

I think it is completely different with bowlers (especially fast bowlers) than batsman. Jhye Richardson a good example. Many were calling for Chris Tremain instead on weight of domestic wickets, yet having seen quite a lot of both, Richardson clearly looks the far better bowler

 

[stephen]

CW is usually right more often than not, and many times more correct and rational than selectors, but the sureness and absolute certainty some put behind their opinions is often a bit bizarre. I don’t want to single anyone out but a certain poster who has a whale as his DP and whos username starts with stephe and ends with n is particularly notorious for this. Have a look at the Road to Ashes thread, especially the last few posts.

I wonder who that could be .

I think the main difference between me and the selectors is that I happen to watch a decent amount of shield cricket.

I was right on Smith a few years back. I was right on M Marsh just before he was recalled last time (tbf so was everyone else). I thought going Wade over Patterson was insane and still do.

But most of all I mostly think that the shield is very important and performance in the shield should be a bare minimum for selection. Not just a single innings, but performance over time. There was never any doubt that Labuschagne had potential, but he mainly got this tour based on a combination of potential and county performances. He's actually come good which is great but as others have said, for every Labuschagne there's a dozen Maddinsons.

Note that even in the quoted sections further up the page I was mostly railing against favouritism, not against Labuschagne himself. "Not ready yet" has always been my feeling about him.

I guess I owe HonestBharani an apology though since he thought Labuschagne was pretty special long before the majority on here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

CW is usually right more often than not, and many times more correct and rational than selectors, but the sureness and absolute certainty some put behind their opinions is often a bit bizarre. I don’t want to single anyone out but a certain poster who has a whale as his DP and whos username starts with stephe and ends with n is particularly notorious for this. Have a look at the Road to Ashes thread, especially the last few posts.

M8 that's the whole fun of it. I will do it most of the time even if I'm not certain at all. If you're going to sit on the fence and go "oh ah I don't know it might be good might be bad I'll just wait and see" then you might as well not even post. But that's just me.

And back on the topic of Labuschagne, it's revisionism of the dumbest sort to go back and say "he's done really well guess all those people didn't know what they were talking about". Not wanting him in the team was absolutely the more sensible opinion at the time from the information that was available. Yes it's turned out to be wrong, that doesn't mean that it was "dumb" to have that opinion at the time.

I think it is completely different with bowlers (especially fast bowlers) than batsman. Jhye Richardson a good example. Many were calling for Chris Tremain instead on weight of domestic wickets, yet having seen quite a lot of both, Richardson clearly looks the far better bowler

Funny you should say that because the impression that I got was that not many people really rated Tremain despite his FC credentials. As Spark mentioned it's more so with the batsmen than the bowlers where weight of FC performances are taken as the be-all and end-all.

 

[the big bambino]

Thanks

Wasn’t directed at you but it was just a bit of banter and not meant anyway.

 

[King Pietersen]

Sun's out in Manchester this morning. Still cold as **** but no sign of rain right now. Might get the odd short shower this afternoon, but should be a better day for cricket today.

 

[ajdude]

I think it is completely different with bowlers (especially fast bowlers) than batsman. Jhye Richardson a good example. Many were calling for Chris Tremain instead on weight of domestic wickets, yet having seen quite a lot of both, Richardson clearly looks the far better bowler

wasn’t haze’s first FC 5 wicket haul on test debut at the gabba?

 

[Starfighter]

wasn’t haze’s first FC 5 wicket haul on test debut at the gabba?

Nah, 6/50 in the Shield final the previous season. Still his only five-for in 36 non-test FC matches.

 

[Woodster]

Sun's out in Manchester this morning. Still cold as **** but no sign of rain right now. Might get the odd short shower this afternoon, but should be a better day for cricket today.

Can’t surely be any colder than watching at the ground yesterday! At the top of a large temporary party stand, the wind and the chill were not indicative of Manchester weather!:-)

Stating the blatantly obvious here, but we need Smith very early today if we harbour any ambitions of keeping the score below 300.

 

[Woodster]

To add to that previous post, just not sure how we’re actually getting Smith out, seems like we’re content to sit in and keep our fingers crossed he makes a mistake.

Doesn’t at this stage seem a plan we’re confident enough in to persist with for any great length of time.

 

[Daemon]

M8 that's the whole fun of it. I will do it most of the time even if I'm not certain at all. If you're going to sit on the fence and go "oh ah I don't know it might be good might be bad I'll just wait and see" then you might as well not even post. But that's just me.

Well yeah but doing the opposite of what you do is usually considered good posting

 

[TheJediBrah]

Well yeah but doing the opposite of what you do is usually considered good posting

If reasonable, boring and completely uncontroversial comments is what's considered "good posting" then I'd rather just do my job during the day rather than post tbh

 

[Burgey]

You’re all talking about who made these great prognostications when I was the only bloke who said Australia would get a big first Innings lead last week and gave multi-paragraph reasons for it, all of which were bang on.

And here you all are saying “I thought X was less shot than everyone else thought.” Whoop Dee doo

 

[80W53R]

Is there any merit in bowling full and at the stumps any more?

 

[Spark]

Nah, 6/50 in the Shield final the previous season. Still his only five-for in 36 non-test FC matches.

Yeah at the time his record didn't really look especially flash but in that case I'm pretty sure everyone wanted him picked.