If Symonds does not return to the Aussie squad...

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, in terms of support there's definitely a lot of quality seam bowling around right now, and a lot of them have emerged in the last 3-4 seasons.

If only there was a spinner or two...

 

[duffer]

Not sure what it is but I've never rated Geeves. Just seems so innocuous. The others I agree with, would especially love to see Dirky Nannes get a go.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Not sure what it is but I've never rated Geeves. Just seems so innocuous. The others I agree with, would especially love to see Dirky Nannes get a go.

How old is Nannes? 32 or something? Would be quite a story.

 

[Richard]

When did I say he was "so obviously better"?

The point is you just rattled off a list of names and said they were all "quite clearly superior" to another list of names, when the second list of names includes some pretty talented young bowlers that I doubt you've actually seen play.

Wilson was nothing particularly exceptional as a bowler IMO and Bollinger has shown a lot more over the last couple of seasons to indicate he could be a successful test bowler, though I'm not a massive fan of his as such. Someone like Paul Rofe for example is pretty mediocre and I wouldn't lump in a group with Bollinger, Magoffin, Hilfenhaus etc who are pretty talented, or someone like Denton who could have been a really good bowler if it wasn't for injuries.

OK - none of Rofe, Magoffin, Cleary, Geeves, Bollinger, Denton or Nannes are young at all. I quite deliberately categorised them separately to Hilfenhaus and Siddle who clearly have some promise, the former especially. Once again you seem to be responding to what you'd like me to have written rather than what I actually have. All of them have been playing for quite a few years and none have even looked like emulating the deeds of the bowlers I listed who were playing in 1999. So yes, I'd say they were all quite clearly superior.

Fair to say, though, that Wilson was perhaps a bridge too far and would be better included among Harvey, Williams and Wright rather than Reiffel, Fleming, McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Bichel, Dale, Angel, Inness, Dawes and Nicholson.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, 31 or 32.

I'm sure none of them would be completely out-of-depth, but more of them than not I don't see ever being Test-class, and Siddle especially there's simply no way we know for certain how good he is yet, though I imagine those involved with the Victorian setup know exactly how big his domination of grade scenes has been which obviously gives something of a clue.

There's no way "we" know how good he is, but those who play against him know how good he is.

 

[duffer]

How old is Nannes? 32 or something? Would be quite a story.

Yeah, have met the guy when I was working at Myer in the city. Top bloke, was chuffed someone recognised him.

EDIT: too gassed, wrong Myer.

 

[NUFAN]

OK - none of Rofe, Magoffin, Cleary, Geeves, Bollinger, Denton or Nannes are young at all. I quite deliberately categorised them separately to Hilfenhaus and Siddle who clearly have some promise, the former especially.

Geeves is only 26 and Bollinger 27. Still quite young as Hilfenhaus is 25.

 

[Richard]

Once you turn 26 you're no longer "young" in cricket terms in my book.

Obviously an arbitary line isn't ideal, but it's got to be drawn somewhere.

And no, I didn't just decide that here and now. I first thought of such a thought in 2001, when the 26-year-old Michael Vaughan was described as "young" and I was like... WTF? Even though I was only 15 myself at that time and 26 seemed older than it does now.

 

[TT Boy]

Nannes should be a Dutch international pretty soon, his in one of their squads....

 

[Richard]

There's no way "we" know how good he is, but those who play against him know how good he is.

Yeah, that was kinda what I was getting at. The populace at large (ie, "we") don't, but those who've faced him at grade level probably have a better idea than most. If he's merely done well then he's presumably only going to be an average to poor state bowler, but if he's torn it up seriously, he could be a damn good state bowler and possibly an international-standard one.

Obviously, some players struggle to make the step up but until someone's played for a few years you can't really know whether that's going to happen.

 

[Richard]

Nannes should be a Dutch international pretty soon, his in one of their squads....

That'll soon change if Australia start giving any consideration to him playing for them.

Unlikely at 32, but not completely OOTQ.

 

[TT Boy]

I saw Magoffin at the Oval turning out for Surrey and he was a complete shower. Really surprised to see him doing well back in Aus...Same goes for Bollinger who was fairly Mickey Mouse for Worcestershire.

 

[NUFAN]

Once you turn 26 you're no longer "young" in cricket terms in my book.

Obviously an arbitary line isn't ideal, but it's got to be drawn somewhere.

And no, I didn't just decide that here and now. I first thought of such a thought in 2001, when the 26-year-old Michael Vaughan was described as "young" and I was like... WTF? Even though I was only 15 myself at that time and 26 seemed older than it does now.

So Hilfenhaus who has played 32 first class matches is young, while Geeves who has played 29 first class is not young at all, despite being born just 8 months later?

I think the number of games played should count, so someone like Sachin would not really be considered a young 25..

 

[Richard]

Nah, age and number of games played aren't the same thing TBH.

Though sometimes one counts for more than the other.

Else, everyone who'd never played First-Class cricket would be an eternal cricketing youngster. Which would mean I'd never be old.

Sadly, it doesn't work that way.

As I say, 8 months isn't much, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and I think once you're closer to 30 than 20 (in whole-year terms) is as good as any place.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, that's fine in terms of talking about what a "young player" is, but if you're comparing X bowler and Y bowler, 8 months in ageis more or less irrelevant to what stage of their career they are in. There's no logic at all to saying "so and so is young and can still improve because he's 25" but that some other guy is a writeoff because they're 26.

If Bollinger is picked this summer at home he could have a career of 6-8 years. That means any major improvement in his performance is highly relevant because it reflects on his future prospects. Simply saying "he's past 26 therefore I can make a sweeping judgement on his career" is silly.

 

[Richard]

Where exactly did I make a sweeping judgement on his career? It's hardly anything other than basic factual observation to say he's so far in his career had merely 1 pretty decent season and 1 outstanding one.

Nowhere did I say he can't go on to better things (though I'm certainly not out-and-out expecting it like some people), simply that right now there's far less evidence he's a top-drawer bowler than there was of the likes of Joe Dawes and Jo Angel in 1999.

Ergo, Australia's seam-bowling depth was quite a bit better then than now.

 

[howardj]

You might be mistaking 2005 Kallis with current Kallis. Right now, he's barely hitting the ball off the square. From what I've seen of his recent play (when he's actually be out there), have seen very little to suggest he'll score well against Aus. Would be an amazing turn-around of form if he did.

Yep, I think teams have really homed in on his weakness - bowling it full and staight. Unless he's sorted this aspect of his game out, he (and I think by implication South Africa) will struggle.

 

[Richard]

Well it's a weakness he's had pretty much all his career, so it'll take some sorting.

Granted it was far worse than I've seen it previously over here last summer mind.

 

[pup11]

OK - none of Rofe, Magoffin, Cleary, Geeves, Bollinger, Denton or Nannes are young at all. I quite deliberately categorised them separately to Hilfenhaus and Siddle who clearly have some promise, the former especially. Once again you seem to be responding to what you'd like me to have written rather than what I actually have. All of them have been playing for quite a few years and none have even looked like emulating the deeds of the bowlers I listed who were playing in 1999. So yes, I'd say they were all quite clearly superior.

Fair to say, though, that Wilson was perhaps a bridge too far and would be better included among Harvey, Williams and Wright rather than Reiffel, Fleming, McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowicz, Bichel, Dale, Angel, Inness, Dawes and Nicholson.

1.A.Noffke
2.S.Magoffin
3.B.Hilfenhaus
4.D.Bollinger
5.S.Tait
6.B.Drew
7.B.Geeves
8.P.Siddle
9.M.Cameron

Now these are the blokes whom i see with a realistic chance of making it to the Australian side in the future, given they can sustain their performance and fitness levels over the period of time, so there is a pretty good mix of youth and experience there for the Aussie selectors to work with, there age though shouldn't be much of problem considering Aussie selectors aren't really known for picking greenhorns in the first place.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'd have Nannes over Cameron tbh, despite his age.