***Official*** 3rd Test at the WACA

[Nate]

I don't think anybody (other than Tharmi) is saying that Voges is a bad player. He's obviously good and is in good form as well. I don't see what his home ground has to do with it as you don't give players test caps based on them knowing the conditions, but the guy can play.

I really don't see though how he's more deserving than Jaques. Hell, even Cosgrove or Birt would be more deserving of a place based on their performances, and as a prospect for the future you'd look at someone like Marsh. It's not like Voges is Michael Clarke. He's 27 and hasn't played ODIs, his performances for Australia A have been less impressive than those of other players and he's made heaps of runs on the flattest pitch in the country this year. Poor choice.

You`re fat.

 

[Nate]

Who would you have picked then considering the selectors can`t go with Watson, Hodge who would be risky considering he`s coming back from injury, and Jaques who seems slotted in as an opener in the selectors` eyes?

 

[chaminda_00]

Who would you have picked then considering the selectors can`t go with Watson, Jaques or Hodge (coming of an injury, would be a risk to choose him) ?

Cosgrove, Birt, Marsh, Katich, Rogers, if they don't want to try Jaques as middle order batsmen.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Who would you have picked then considering the selectors can`t go with Watson, Hodge who would be risky considering he`s coming back from injury, and Jaques who seems slotted in as an opener in the selectors` eyes?

Well ideally they should have gone for Jaques, but given that they don't want to pick him anywhere other than opening, I'd say Birt. Did well for Australia A, good seasons for both Tasmania and Derbyshire last year, and has three fifties for the season so far IIRC and has done well in the one dayers too. Also made runs against England for the PM's XI. Has less runs than Vogues for the year, but I don't think you can really base your selection process on three Pura Cup games anyway.

Failing Birt, it's hard to say. Maybe Cosgrove or Katich, or maybe Voges, assuming Rogers is also out of the question. Maybe a number of other batsmen who are in form. I can understand the reluctance to go back to Katich as he's seen as a return to the past and isn't really very young, but he'd have been a fair choice on form as well. Voges probably on par with Katich in my mind, and I can see why they might choose him first based on his age. Cosgrove has a lower FC average than Voges, but I really think he's more likely to be a good batsman in the long term, similar to Marsh.

Not sure that Voges is the best non-test and non-old batmsan in the country after Jaques, Hodge, Watson, Rogers, Birt and Cosgrove, but he's close enough. For me, it's a bit like picking Nick Jewell or Tim Paine. Sure they've made a few runs recently, but they haven't done it for long enough to prove much, and there's not a massive volume of runs that justifies picking them quickly and getting them into the team.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Haha, Voges and Symonds. Seriously. Hahahahahahaha. Symonds at 6 could really cost Australia.

 

[Nate]

He`ll prove you all wrong I tells ya. You`ll see.

Symondddssssss!

 

[Laurrz]

Haha, Voges and Symonds. Seriously. Hahahahahahaha. Symonds at 6 could really cost Australia.

if ever there was a time for symo to PLAY HIS NATURAL GAME

it would be NOW

 

[Craig]

Lol and Symonds marks his call-up by making 4.

I'm probably ignorant, stupid and haven't been following/reading enough posts and media reports but is there a reason why England are playing a two-day game against WA? Surely a 3 or 4 day affair would be more meaningful? Seems about as stupid for not asking for a FC game against Queensland in the lead-up to the 1st Test.

 

[marc71178]

Lol and Symonds marks his call-up by making 4.

I'm probably ignorant, stupid and haven't been following/reading enough posts and media reports but is there a reason why England are playing a two-day game against WA? Surely a 3 or 4 day affair would be more meaningful? Seems about as stupid for not asking for a FC game against Queensland in the lead-up to the 1st Test.

With all of what 7 or 8 days between games, a 3 or 4 day one is asking too much of players about to play 3 more very hard games in a short space of time.

 

[Craig]

Well you have Saturday, Sunday, and Monday and by the look of things practice and game time is what some of these English players need.

Otherwise is there anything the likes of Read, Panesar, Plunkett, Joyce, Mahmood going to prove when they won't have time to have a proper innings or bowling spell?

 

[marc71178]

It's all well and good saying those 5 haven't played, but you need to add 6 more into make up a team, and the players are both physically and mentally shattered already.

 

[Craig]

And wouldn't that be the place to get some confidence as well?

Anyway whether you agree or not, I think for Perth and I know it is easier said then done but England have to forget about the previous two Tests. Just forget it, as simple as that. The middle order is performing, but it needs to do it for the other innings and the bowlers need to step up.

Alec Stewart was quoted in today's paper that Flintoff is the right man for the job but the rest need to lift their game to support them. For as well as he has bowled Stuart Clark doesn't come across as a world class bowler and England need to be more proactive against him and look to be more positive against him and they will start to have success (as showed when they did look to punish him when he bowled some loose balls). Look they can bat against the likes of Warne and can score runs against him, they have done so in the past, so why not again?

I would also be rounding up all the tapes of Steve Harmison getting wickets in last year's Ashes and from 2004. And I would be showing it to him and be telling him 'you have done it before so I expect you do it again'.

Well that is some of the stuff I would do.

For all the slagging off they get nobody seems offering any suggestions on how they need to get better.

 

[greg]

For all the slagging off they get nobody seems offering any suggestions on how they need to get better.

What, apart from picking our best bowling attack?

 

[Alysum]

Thats really REALLY strange to pick Voges and Symonds...suppose they just want to give them some experience carrying the drinks !

I suppose they picked Symonds because he's a great fielder, a good friend of everyone and because they need another bowler (but his bowling is not test standard...).

I was really happy they picked him last summer so see how he would go but lets be honest he won't ever becomea good test player...

 

[marc71178]

What, apart from picking our best bowling attack?

What exactly would that be though?

 

[Linda]

Tbh, if Symonds play I'll shoot myself. Martyn for Symonds would be the worst swap in Test history as far as my personal opinion goes.

 

[Steulen]

What exactly would that be though?

Nail on the head.

Harmison is the spearhead, the first bowler on the teamsheet, normally.
In the absence of Jones, few would question Anderson as the next in line, normally.
Giles as the spinner works out well for England, normally.

As it is, it looks like neither of the three merits a place.

Panesar is the only obvious replacement and likely improvement. But neither Plunkett, Mahmood or any of the Academy fast bowlers commands a place in the line-up.

Therefore, playing the best attack may very well mean playing the same attack (apart form the spinner) and hope they'll finally perform like they can...depressing, isn't it.

 

[Steulen]

Tbh, if Symonds play I'll shoot myself. Martyn for Symonds would be the worst swap in Test history as far as my personal opinion goes.

So you want Voges then.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Can't help laughing at the BBC trying to make out Panesar had a good performance for the England XI a few hours ago. "Panesar claims brace in tour loss" "Monty Panesar captured two wickets but a makeshift England XI could not prevent a seven-wicket defeat" "Pansear ... struck with his second ball and despite being for 18 in one over ousted dangerman Luke Ronchi"

What it fails completely to mention until you ignore the CEEFAX bit and go onto the BBC website and scroll right towards the bottom is that Panesar went for over 6 an over in his 10 overs, his second wicket was caught at long-off 11 runs short of the target (which was a certainty to be achieved at that point) and his first wicket was out stumped. Unsurprisingly Read was out for a duck.

 

[Nate]

Pretty sure you`re just being gay as usual Scaly. Enjoy the cricket.

I could very well be wrong, but I think Panesar`s first wicket was bowled and his second stumped. The one caught on the boundary was actually him taking the catch off Dalrymple I believe. And only Mahmood (somehow) bowled really with a better economy than him.