Current pecking order?

[pup11]

Fairly different situation actually. a) he's someone who's come up through his country's own system, rather than parachuting in via a parent's passport or whatever, having failed to crack it in his 'own' country. b) he's, as you say, an up-and-comer, being a 23 year old in the early stages of his FC career, rather than a 29 year old journeyman, so there's at least some logic about testing him as a potential long term prospect and some prospect that the seasoning he'll gain will pay dividends. and c) I think Siddle's shown more than Pattison in the last couple of seasons.

He did enough to earn a spot on the squad, and maybe his youth helped in that regard, with the selectors having an eye to the future. Once on the squad, he did enough to impress the selectors and captain that he was a better bet in the conditions than the alternatives, so its hard to say that it's an appalling decision.

Siddle is a much more reasonable selection than White, in terms of records justifying selection, although in White's case the selectors' hands were somewhat forced by the amount of injuries, thin-ness of the spinnings ranks, and Kresja's poor showing in the tour match coupled with his equally average record.

AWTA, there is hardly anything to compare between Siddle and Pattinson, Siddle is a young fast bowler who looks like a good prospect in the making and is someone we would see a lot more of even in the future, you can easily make that out watching him bowl, as in Pattinson's case it was a meaningless selection, with Sidebottom's injury it was almost as if England selectors didn't knew what to do so they just picked this 29 year old bloke from nowhere and then started justifying his selection, as some stroke of genius.

White' selection is something that still makes no sense to me (even though to White's credit he seems to be trying to bowl the best he could in the current test series in India, and tbf he hasn't exactly embarrassed himself yet), but White hardly bowled any overs in FC cricket in the last two seasons, so to send him to India primiraly as a spin bowling option was a decision that i found hard to digest, i personally would have prefered Casson being sent as the replacement (no matter how lowly he is rated), but the Aussie selectors had a different way of thinking regarding this, so they did what they did.

 

[Richard]

AWTA, there is hardly anything to compare between Siddle and Pattinson, Siddle is a young fast bowler who looks like a good prospect in the making and is someone we would see a lot more of even in the future, you can easily make that out watching him bowl, as in Pattinson's case it was a meaningless selection, with Sidebottom's injury it was almost as if England selectors didn't knew what to do so they just picked this 29 year old bloke from nowhere and then started justifying his selection, as some stroke of genius.

The thing is, though, this is Test cricket. It's not about what might be in future, it's about what is now.

 

[Matt79]

I don't think it is. Bollinger's done better than him (in the middle - and we all know this counts for more than in the nets) on the tour; and as I say, Noffke has done far more beforehand.

Unless your resources are obscenely thin, you've no excuse to go picking people based on 6 First-Class games.

Unless you think they'll succeed, and turn out to be correct in that supposition.

And quite why it's supposed to be an advantage to Siddle to be in over his head before he's ready is a mystery to me. Playing before your time has come never did anyone any good, and will always remain a taint on your record to those (and you know full well they are many) who insist that games played which should not have been played are the same as games played that should have been.

He'll learn a hell of a lot from the experience and possibly develop faster as a result. A player's record is something that only non-participating fans of game care about, the players and selectors don't give a monkey's about their record, what matters to them is whether they'll get another game, and whether the player is doing the job they were selected for, respectively. The selectors couldn't care less if his average ends up 2 runs higher than would otherwise be the case because they pick him now rather than in a year's time. Especially if doing so brings along his development and results in him having a longer career.

They weren't forced at all - there are many better-qualified candidates to play Test cricket for Australia as bowlers. Forget spinners - there is no rule that a specialist spinner has to play Test cricket. Picking Krejza and White is poor, neither of them deserve to come anywhere near international level.

Given they, like 99% of the cricket world, think that having some variety in your attack is a highly desirable aim, and especially that having a slow bowler in India is essential, their hand was forced.

And the rule regarding over-rates does virtually force you to have at least one spinner in your attack.

 

[Matt79]

AWTA, there is hardly anything to compare between Siddle and Pattinson, Siddle is a young fast bowler who looks like a good prospect in the making and is someone we would see a lot more of even in the future, you can easily make that out watching him bowl, as in Pattinson's case it was a meaningless selection, with Sidebottom's injury it was almost as if England selectors didn't knew what to do so they just picked this 29 year old bloke from nowhere and then started justifying his selection, as some stroke of genius.

White' selection is something that still makes no sense to me (even though to White's credit he seems to be trying to bowl the best he could in the current test series in India, and tbf he hasn't exactly embarrassed himself yet), but White hardly bowled any overs in FC cricket in the last two seasons, so to send him to India primiraly as a spin bowling option was a decision that i found hard to digest, i personally would have prefered Casson being sent as the replacement (no matter how lowly he is rated), but the Aussie selectors had a different way of thinking regarding this, so they did what they did.

The thing is, though, this is Test cricket. It's not about what might be in future, it's about what is now.

Not the case here actually. The Aussies are playing 9 tests in the next 3 months and a shedload of cricket in the next 18 months. The selectors have to make selections with one eye on how they're going to juggle the team, especially the fast bowlers, to keep strong teams out on the park.

But besides that, he's got good recent form and is a style of bowler they think will do better on the pitch in question compared to some of the alternatives - there are sound immediate reasons for preferring him.

And ultimately, this is all just theoretical discussion. Looking at the reality, did he bowl well or badly today? And can we say that any of the alternatives would definitely done better?

 

[Richard]

Not the case here actually. The Aussies are playing 9 tests in the next 3 months and a shedload of cricket in the next 18 months. The selectors have to make selections with one eye on how they're going to juggle the team, especially the fast bowlers, to keep strong teams out on the park.

I'm never a fan of picking teams because "so-and-so might get injured". If injuries, or rest requirements, happen, you deal with them when they do, not pick a weakened team at the start of a series (or intense programme) in order to get the better players in later.

But besides that, he's got good recent form and is a style of bowler they think will do better on the pitch in question compared to some of the alternatives - there are sound immediate reasons for preferring him.

I don't think there's any sound reason to think such a thing though. From what I've seen in these few overs, Siddle actually looks quite a similar bowler to Noffke.

And ultimately, this is all just theoretical discussion. Looking at the reality, did he bowl well or badly today? And can we say that any of the alternatives would definitely done better?

That's a different matter. Selection should never be judged in hindsight, otherwise any old guess could potentially turn-out to look like an inspired judgement. What matters as far as judging how good a selection was is not what ends-up happening (though obviously bad selections produce a poor result more often than good selections) but how good the reasoning was.

BTW, how well did he bowl today? Not that well. How well would Noffke have done? Absolutely no possible way to have the slightest clue.

 

[Richard]

Unless you think they'll succeed, and turn out to be correct in that supposition.

As I say above, whether they turn-out to be correct is irrelevant, and I simply cannot see any logical reason to think such a thing (ie, that Siddle will succeed). If you do, then fair enough, you can think it a decent selection and I can think it a poor one, but I'm struggling to see how Siddle offers something totally different to Noffke (don't really know that much about Bollinger).

He'll learn a hell of a lot from the experience and possibly develop faster as a result. A player's record is something that only non-participating fans of game care about, the players and selectors don't give a monkey's about their record, what matters to them is whether they'll get another game, and whether the player is doing the job they were selected for, respectively. The selectors couldn't care less if his average ends up 2 runs higher than would otherwise be the case because they pick him now rather than in a year's time. Especially if doing so brings along his development and results in him having a longer career.

I've never once seen a premature selection result in a longer career (shorter plenty often enough - sometimes much shorter - but never longer). I've never once seen a player learn from being out of his depth. By talking to those currently better than he? Sure. But you don't need to play to do that - the best young players have always seeked-out and picked the brains of their elders and betters.

And generally a player should and will care about his record. Likewise the selectors should care about it, because a player who's done poorly has done poorly for the team as well as himself.

Given they, like 99% of the cricket world, think that having some variety in your attack is a highly desirable aim, and especially that having a slow bowler in India is essential, their hand was forced.

I think most people, if they think about it, think having an effective attack is most important. I don't really understand how anyone can possibly claim with seriousness that a spinner who hardly bowls and takes 1-50 or so when he does adds anything desireable to an attack, in India or anywhere.

And the rule regarding over-rates does virtually force you to have at least one spinner in your attack.

The rule which virtually no-one ever enforces and which even with spinners most teams don't come remotely close to abiding by?

 

[FBU]

Lee
Clark
Johnson
Hilfenhaus
Bracken
Tait
Henriques

 

[Johnners]

It should be:

Johnson
Watson
Lee


Don't need the others imo

 

[FBU]

It should be:

Johnson
Watson
Lee


Don't need the others imo

It won't be long before Watson is on the injury list again.

 

[NUFAN]

No surprise to see Magoffin with the bowling figures of 6 overs, 2/4 against Tasmania at the moment. Such a quality underrated performer.

 

[NZTailender]

I've never once seen a premature selection result in a longer career (shorter plenty often enough - sometimes much shorter - but never longer).

Dan Vettori? Sachin Tendulkar? I mean we can see in retrospect Tendulkar had the class but played, IIRC, about 14 FC matches before he was picked.

What's the cut off between premature selection and being experienced enough, match number wise?

 

[Richard]

Dan Vettori? Sachin Tendulkar? I mean we can see in retrospect Tendulkar had the class but played, IIRC, about 14 FC matches before he was picked.

Tendulkar wasn't good enough at first - he was 16 FFS. It was extraordinary that he was good enough at 17, but he struggled initially - of course he did. I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that playing at 16 did him any good whatsoever - had he debuted in England in 1990 he'd have been that much better off IMO.

Vettori IIRR didn't disgrace himself early career.

What's the cut off between premature selection and being experienced enough, match number wise?

There isn't really a simple all-encompassing thing, but I'd say anyone who played before the age of 20 was exceptionally unlikely to be ready (exceptionally unlikely - not impossibly unlikely) and that you should give a player a good 25-30 games over a minimum of 2 seasons before picking them for international cricket.

 

[NUFAN]

And now for my rankings.
1. Stuart Clark
2. Brett Lee
3. Ashley Noffke
4. Steve Magoffin
5. Ben Hilfenhaus
6. Mitchell Johson
7. Shaun Tait
8. Nathan Bracken
9. Doug Bollinger
10. Peter Siddle
11. Ryan Harris
12. Brett Geeves

Doubt many will agree with me, I just like the looks of both Magoffin and Hilfenhaus.

Magoffin is an underrated bowler, he's now played almost 50 first class matches and his average is under 28, so he is very good. I don't see him often at all in 4 Day matches, but still rate him highly. I predicted him before the season to be the Shield leading wicket taker this year, started off well.

The Hilf did have a bad year last year, but was injured a lot and I loved him in 2006/07. Started this season well also.

1. Stuart Clark
2. Brett Lee
3. Ashley Noffke
4. Steve Magoffin
5. Ben Hilfenhaus
6. Mitchell Johson
7. Shaun Tait
8. Nathan Bracken
9. Doug Bollinger
10. Peter Siddle
11. Brett Geeves
12. Ryan Harris
13 Dirk Nannes

Edited my list to include one of my favourite cricketers Dirk Nannes who deserves to now be officially on the pecking order after his brilliant [i'm guessing] 7/50.

 

[Richard]

Haha, Holland to be denied Nannes services as he's dramatically called into the Australian fray at the age of 34?

 

[James90]

Went to The Gabba this morning. Nannes looked gun. Just hitting the deck hard at that nagging length.

Anyway:
1. Brett Lee
2. Stuart Clark
3. Ashley Noffke
4. Doug Bollinger
5. Mitchell Johnson
6. Nathan Bracken
7. Steve Magoffin
8. Shaun Tait
9. Ben Hilfenhaus
10. Dirk Nannes
11. Peter Siddle
12. Brett Geeves

 

[NUFAN]

Obviously I was a bit wrong with Mitch Johnson, he's done way better than predicted.

What would everyone's one day bowling pecking order be currently?

 

[NUFAN]

Bump.

9 months later and boy the pecking order has changed heaps! Noffke has fallen considerably and Siddle has obviously gone up heaps.

 

[aussie]

Right now it should be:

Johnson
Lee
Siddle
Clark
Hilfenhaus
Nannes
Bollinger
Noffke

No one else should be considered for a test spot, although Tait can always come into this group if he begins to find some control to his bowling in the coming years.

Plus also i am closing watching the stats of McKay & Magoffin, given i am yet to see them bowl.

BTW can Nannes still play for AUS IF selected??

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah McKay is definitely one to keep an eye on, Geeves is up there too.

Can't see any reason why Nannes couldn't play for Australia if selected seeing as though Eoin Morgan switched to England.

 

[pasag]

Right now it should be:

Johnson
Lee
Siddle
Clark
Hilfenhaus
Nannes
Bollinger
Noffke

No one else should be considered for a test spot, although Tait can always come into this group if he begins to find some control to his bowling in the coming years.

Plus also i am closing watching the stats of McKay & Magoffin, given i am yet to see them bowl.

BTW can Nannes still play for AUS IF selected??

Siddle would be second because of developmental reasons. He's seen as the future of the attack. Bollinger would be ahead of Nannes (talking Tests of course) and I think by getting selected Hilfenhaus has shown he's ahead of Clark though that can change pretty quickly and I think Clark is only one good match away from going right near the top.