Michael "Frosty" Beer

[Burgey]

Because it's being run by morons


Ain't broke, don't fix it


I just don't see how a guy can dominate with bat and ball then be so crap a few days later, I don't blame Hilditch for going on form in the Shield comp, which lets be fair, is still a good comp, Johnson obviously has some mental problems.



The guy has made a career on being the mentor to someone no one else can replicate, everyone else he's handled has turned to ****, hopefully he goes back to jail

Lol.. Love the Jenner comment.

Tbf though, Hilditch is the one who should be put in the lock up.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Because it's being run by morons


Ain't broke, don't fix it


I just don't see how a guy can dominate with bat and ball then be so crap a few days later, I don't blame Hilditch for going on form in the Shield comp, which lets be fair, is still a good comp, Johnson obviously has some mental problems.

That's what I mean though, I can't see how Johnson can do that from game to game no matter which level he has played before. That's Johnson though, not the shield competition.

There's obviously a drop in level, whether it's as severe as Johnson's results indicate though is arguable. That's why my comment (not entirely serious by the way) that I hoped Hilditch wasn't taking his inconsistency between matches as an indication you couldn't trust state form was made.

 

[pup11]

That's what I mean though, I can't see how Johnson can do that from game to game no matter which level he has played before. That's Johnson though, not the shield competition.

There's obviously a drop in level, whether it's as severe as Johnson's results indicate though is arguable. That's why my comment (not entirely serious by the way) that I hoped Hilditch wasn't taking his inconsistency between matches as an indication you couldn't trust state form was made.

I think its largely a confidence thing with Johnson, the bigger the occasion the less effective Johnson is. So unless he makes adjustments to his temperament he could keep on being a liability even in the future when Australia really expects him to perform.
The fact that the English batsmen have decided to not flirt with his good away going balls, has also gone a long way in exposing his limitations as a test bowler.

 

[pup11]

Nathan Hauritz explains Ashes Test gear giveaway: 'I don't play for them any more' | Herald Sun
If there is any truth to this story then you just gotta feel that Hauritz too knows that his fate is sealed, just further goes onto show that how shambolic things have become. This week we have a Michael Beer thread, for the boxing day test we could be looking at a Jon Holland thread...

 

[outbreak]

That's pretty odd if true, must be pretty pissed off. He seemed it abit in the interview on fox sports during the match yesterday seemed to me like he was biting his tongue. When asked if he thought selectors had a specific idea of what spinner they wanted he laughed and said no, when asked if he was told why he was dropped and what he needed to work on with his game he laughed again and said no. looked like he wanted to say afew things more but held his tongue.

 

[pasag]

So he had a garage sale? Yipee.

 

[Athlai]

Funnily enough I hear Hauritz is being consoled by Beer as we speak.

 

[Tom 1972]

After his effort in Adelaide, I'd have throught that Bollinger would be a lock for the SLA position.

 

[outbreak]

So he had a garage sale? Yipee.

and gave away all his Australian uniforms and kit....

 

[Dan]

Well, I umpired a park cricket men's limited overs game yesterday and a 15-year old leggie took 3-12 off his 9 overs. Therefore, he will be playing for Australia by the Sydney Test.

 

[Spark]

Nathan Hauritz explains Ashes Test gear giveaway: 'I don't play for them any more' | Herald Sun
If there is any truth to this story then you just gotta feel that Hauritz too knows that his fate is sealed, just further goes onto show that how shambolic things have become. This week we have a Michael Beer thread, for the boxing day test we could be looking at a Jon Holland thread...

****s.

 

[Spikey]

How is that not an Onion article.

 

[pup11]

That's pretty odd if true, must be pretty pissed off. He seemed it abit in the interview on fox sports during the match yesterday seemed to me like he was biting his tongue. When asked if he thought selectors had a specific idea of what spinner they wanted he laughed and said no, when asked if he was told why he was dropped and what he needed to work on with his game he laughed again and said no. looked like he wanted to say afew things more but held his tongue.

I think he was pretty ok, likes of Doherty and Krezja have far more openly criticised the selectors after being dropped, so from where I look at it Hauritz for a guy who has forever lost the chance of playing international cricket becuase of these crazy selectors was way too mild on them with his comments.
The only sad thing to come out of the story 'if' its true is, that in the eyes of the selectors once you are dropped then you are as good as dead and what you do at the domestic level from then on hardly concerns them.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well I should firstly qualify this post by saying I definitely wouldn't have had him anywhere near the team and I realise the following isn't anywhere near convincing enough as an argument to justify his selection, but I thought I'd offer some very tentative optimistic thinking about him that hasn't been offered.

The main positive I see to Beer is that he isn't a proven failure at First Class level with the ball. He's proven absolutely nothing either way, but is that really more of a sin than picking a someone who has proven he categorically isn't up to it? Since the retirement of Warne, the selections of Hogg, Casson, Krejza, Hauritz, Smith (to an extent) and Doherty have all been just as big or even bigger 'gambles' than Beer in many ways, as these players had all proven over reasonable careers that they weren't up to the mark even at the level below. Now a lot of these players were young so to completely write them off would be silly but they'd certainly shown over their First Class careers that they were not Test standard at the time of their selection. They were picked in hope - some in hope that they'd prosper in different conditions and some on the basis on small sample sizes of "improvement" after years of failure. Beer has at least been performing as an absolute standout in the competition he's been playing most of his cricket in.

Now, there really is absolutely nothing that should put him ahead of O'Keefe in the pecking order. They both dominated grade cricket and they both bowl similar stuff but O'Keefe's had more First Class experience, performed to a better standard in the First Class games he has played, performed for Australia A, can bat to a MUCH better standard etc etc. But compared with someone like Hauritz or Doherty there is 'some' logic, even if I don't really agree with it.

Just thought I'd throw it out there. To summarise, what I'm basically saying is "at least we don't know he's rubbish".

 

[stephen]

Well I should firstly qualify this post by saying I definitely wouldn't have had him anywhere near the team and I realise the following isn't anywhere near convincing enough as an argument to justify his selection, but I thought I'd offer some very tentative optimistic thinking about him that hasn't been offered.

The main positive I see to Beer is that he isn't a proven failure at First Class level with the ball. He's proven absolutely nothing either way, but is that really more of a sin than picking a someone who has proven he categorically isn't up to it? Since the retirement of Warne, the selections of Hogg, Casson, Krejza, Hauritz, Smith (to an extent) and Doherty have all been just as big or even bigger 'gambles' than Beer in many ways, as these players had all proven over reasonably long careers that they weren't up to the mark even at the level below. They were picked in hope - some in hope that they'd prosper in different conditions and some on the basis on small sample sizes of "improvement" after years of failure. Beer has at least been performing as an absolute standout in the competition he's been playing most of his cricket in.

Now, there really is absolutely nothing that should put him ahead of O'Keefe in the pecking order. They both dominated grade cricket and they both bowl similar stuff but O'Keefe's had more First Class experienced, performed to a better standard in the First Class games he has played, performed for Australia A, can bat to a MUCH better standard etc etc. But compared with someone like Hauritz or Doherty there is 'some' logic, even if I don't really agree with it.

Just thought I'd throw it out there. To summarise, what I'm basically saying is "at least we don't know he's rubbish".

This whole post makes me depressed for Australian cricket.

 

[Prince EWS]

This whole post makes me depressed for Australian cricket.

Haha yeah, and the worst part about that was that it was supposed to be "tentative optimistic thinking".

We definitely need to stop kidding ourselves about our spin stocks and realise that they're ****, unless you happen to rate O'Keefe based on a very short First Class career or Hauritz based on a mediocre Test career against (largely) crap opposition and a very small sample size of improved domestic performances.

All this is why I thought Hauritz's dropping was pretty harsh. I never rated him and I still don't think he's improved as much as some people do, but when you have an entire domestic system full of spinners averaging 45+, picking one and seeing him averaging in the low to mid 30s at Test level, being bashed by India or not, should be met with encouragement and cheers of joy rather than disappointment and selection doubts. Hand on heart I think Hauritz's average would blow out towards 40 odd if he was retained but the sad reality is, that's still better than we should realistically expect from any of the alternatives at this point.

 

[Spark]

Nathan Hauritz explains Ashes Test gear giveaway: 'I don't play for them any more' | Herald Sun
If there is any truth to this story then you just gotta feel that Hauritz too knows that his fate is sealed, just further goes onto show that how shambolic things have become. This week we have a Michael Beer thread, for the boxing day test we could be looking at a Jon Holland thread...

As per the other thread, it looks like this story is, well, complete ****.

 

[Prince EWS]

Oh, and I'd also like to add that as one of the few people on this forum that has actually seen Beer bowl, he looked somewhat decent to me. Didn't jump out at me as a Test standard talent but he can bowl. Jack's seen a lot more of him than me obviously so I don't have too much to add. There have been some comparisons with Doherty and Paul Harris, but he bowls with a higher arm action and varies his flight a little more than those two from the little I saw.

 

[Furball]

Well I should firstly qualify this post by saying I definitely wouldn't have had him anywhere near the team and I realise the following isn't anywhere near convincing enough as an argument to justify his selection, but I thought I'd offer some very tentative optimistic thinking about him that hasn't been offered.

The main positive I see to Beer is that he isn't a proven failure at First Class level with the ball. He's proven absolutely nothing either way, but is that really more of a sin than picking a someone who has proven he categorically isn't up to it? Since the retirement of Warne, the selections of Hogg, Casson, Krejza, Hauritz, Smith (to an extent) and Doherty have all been just as big or even bigger 'gambles' than Beer in many ways, as these players had all proven over reasonable careers that they weren't up to the mark even at the level below. Now a lot of these players were young so to completely write them off would be silly but they'd certainly shown over their First Class careers that they were not Test standard at the time of their selection. They were picked in hope - some in hope that they'd prosper in different conditions and some on the basis on small sample sizes of "improvement" after years of failure. Beer has at least been performing as an absolute standout in the competition he's been playing most of his cricket in.

Now, there really is absolutely nothing that should put him ahead of O'Keefe in the pecking order. They both dominated grade cricket and they both bowl similar stuff but O'Keefe's had more First Class experience, performed to a better standard in the First Class games he has played, performed for Australia A, can bat to a MUCH better standard etc etc. But compared with someone like Hauritz or Doherty there is 'some' logic, even if I don't really agree with it.

Just thought I'd throw it out there. To summarise, what I'm basically saying is "at least we don't know he's rubbish".

At the same time, while the selection of Hauritz didn't have a great deal going for it at the time, Hauritz has at least proven over his short Test career that he's at least capable of performing competently. It's his dropping that's the major **** up, one because he hadn't performed that badly, two, because there's no-one in the system who is demanding selection through performance, and three because Hauritz has actually performed at First Class level since being dropped.

edit: didn't see page 10 before I posted that. Also don't think you can lump Casson in as a dire spin selection, IIRC he was picked to tour on the back of a promising season with the intention of giving him experience of being with the squad and working with MacGill - which from a development POV was actually a reasonably decent idea. The only reason he has a baggy green is because MacGill unexpectedly retired mid-series.

 

[Faisal1985]

Well I should firstly qualify this post by saying I definitely wouldn't have had him anywhere near the team and I realise the following isn't anywhere near convincing enough as an argument to justify his selection, but I thought I'd offer some very tentative optimistic thinking about him that hasn't been offered.

The main positive I see to Beer is that he isn't a proven failure at First Class level with the ball. He's proven absolutely nothing either way, but is that really more of a sin than picking a someone who has proven he categorically isn't up to it? Since the retirement of Warne, the selections of Hogg, Casson, Krejza, Hauritz, Smith (to an extent) and Doherty have all been just as big or even bigger 'gambles' than Beer in many ways, as these players had all proven over reasonable careers that they weren't up to the mark even at the level below. Now a lot of these players were young so to completely write them off would be silly but they'd certainly shown over their First Class careers that they were not Test standard at the time of their selection. They were picked in hope - some in hope that they'd prosper in different conditions and some on the basis on small sample sizes of "improvement" after years of failure. Beer has at least been performing as an absolute standout in the competition he's been playing most of his cricket in.

Now, there really is absolutely nothing that should put him ahead of O'Keefe in the pecking order. They both dominated grade cricket and they both bowl similar stuff but O'Keefe's had more First Class experience, performed to a better standard in the First Class games he has played, performed for Australia A, can bat to a MUCH better standard etc etc. But compared with someone like Hauritz or Doherty there is 'some' logic, even if I don't really agree with it.

Just thought I'd throw it out there. To summarise, what I'm basically saying is "at least we don't know he's rubbish".

I agree..Pak does it all the time..pick a completely random player who turns out to be a gem at the int'l level.....
.
.
.
.
.
then gets banned for fixing......but that's a different story all together.