*Official* Fourth Test at Chester-le-Street

[Top_Cat]

haha, biggest myth out that's all he did.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Seriously, you guys are going to be disappointed. As I said before the start of the series, Starc's going to get every opportunity he wants and he's bowled well enough this series overall. Bird's not in line for his spot.

Yeah, I don't expect Bird to play...but would like to see him get the chance. With Harris and Siddle going the way they are he won't figure unless there's an injury. So, he's a good chance of getting a run at some stage.

 

[andyc]

Seriously, you guys are going to be disappointed. As I said before the start of the series, Starc's going to get every opportunity he wants and he's bowled well enough this series overall. Bird's not in line for his spot.

Yeah, despite bowling like pus in the second innings he still took 3-fer and hit a rapid 60 odd last match. As much as I'd prefer Bird, Starc doesn't really deserve to be dropped yet.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

haha, biggest myth out that's all he did.

Of course he didn't; the funny part of your argument was that line-and-length bowling doesn't get wickets.

 

[Spark]

That wasn't his argument at all?

 

[NUFAN]

Seriously, you guys are going to be disappointed. As I said before the start of the series, Starc's going to get every opportunity he wants and he's bowled well enough this series overall. Bird's not in line for his spot.

Except for being dropped after the First Test..

 

[Spark]

The Watson/Warner question:
- Should Warner open? Yes
- Should Watson move to four? No
- Should Watson play to give us an extra bowling option after a short break between matches? Yes

That is my stance on these questions, which leaves me a little confused as to what the right outcome is

Swap Watson and Warner, then. Simple. Perhaps not ideal for Watson but what is? Constantly jiggling around the entire batting order just to fiddle with the roles of one or two players is starting to seriously annoy me.

 

[NUFAN]

Starc will play anyway, its either:

a) Harris being rested, Bird in.
b) Pitch is completely suited to the quicks so Lyon out, Bird in; or
c) Bowled well in Manchester, keep the same attack.

 

[Top_Cat]

Except for being dropped after the First Test..

Didn't want to play at Lords. They asked him. Trust me.

 

[Ruckus]

That wasn't his argument at all?

It wasn't exactly his argument, but if you put 99% of deliveries in the channel and get a little movement you will have good success as a bowler. Sure it's good to mix it up a little if the occasion warrants it, but bowling isn't rocket science.

McGrath wasn't just like a bowling machine, but the fact is his own MO by self-admission was "aim for the top of off". If that's your staple method, you will get results.

 

[Nate]

I remember when people didn't want to pick Clark because he was too much like McGrath. And we picked Tait.

The world is twisted.

 

[Goughy]

In theory, sure. It falls apart in practice, though. It presupposes that bowling accurately at all stages of the game results in the same outcome.

Put it this way, if variety was irrelevent, there'd never be a need to throw in a wide ball occasionally. You'd just need to hit the channel every ball and boom5fer. Bowling to real people who really know how to bat teaches you a fairly harsh lesson otherwise.

Sure but variety has to be a surprise though. One short or wide every now and again after hitting the channel consistently is where the value is. Uncontrolled variety like Malcolm or MJ doesnt have the same value. Everything in moderation.

 

[morgieb]

Thinking Harris is rested for Bird. Which is kinda disappointing but Bird is gun anyway and we don't want Harris to break down.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

McGrath wasn't just like a bowling machine, but the fact is his own MO by self-admission was "aim for the top of off". If that's your staple method, you will get results.

I "aim for the top of off". Sadly, my deliveries usually end up down the leg side and dribbling along the ground somewhere towards where leg slip would be stationed.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

From the darker recesses of the cricinfo comments:

Australia needs a bowler who can somehow come up with that magic ball - at least a Jeremy Coney caliber bowler if not a Mudassar Nazar.

 

[Top_Cat]

Sure but variety has to be a surprise though. One short or wide every now and again after hitting the channel consistently is where the value is. Uncontrolled variety like Malcolm or MJ doesnt have the same value. Everything in moderation.

Absolutely. And none of that applies to picking someone like Starc for variety, he's earned and should keep his place on performance alone, let alone what's being said about him around the team. He's had his moments of both excellent bowling and filth but there's been a lot of good enough in between which you sort of expect from a bloke trying to swing it. I much prefer seeing that than a bloke banging it in to keep the bats from going after him.

On Bird, what really sucks is the back-to-back Tests mean absolutely bugger-all warm-up games and only one between any of the Tests. So a squad player like Bird has no opportunity to push for a place, especially coming back from injury like he is. And, ideally, that's what you'd want from your squad blokes, to push for a spot, not be given one due to injury, rotation, etc. It sets him up to come into this Test with little other than nets under his belt against guys who face guys like him every week in CC.

Then again, I said the same about picking Harris and he took 5 so **** it.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

I would not be surprised in the least if Boof dudded Lyon for Bird and left the tweaking to Smith and Warner fwiw.

 

[Ruckus]

I "aim for the top of off". Sadly, my deliveries usually end up down the leg side and dribbling along the ground somewhere towards where leg slip would be stationed.

haha well yes, I really should have said "if that's your staple method, {and you can execute it] you will get results".

 

[Ruckus]

Absolutely. And none of that applies to picking someone like Starc for variety, he's earned and should keep his place on performance alone, let alone what's being said about him around the team. He's had his moments of both excellent bowling and filth but there's been a lot of good enough in between which you sort of expect from a bloke trying to swing it. I much prefer seeing that than a bloke banging it in to keep the bats from going after him.

On Bird, what really sucks is the back-to-back Tests mean absolutely bugger-all warm-up games and only one between any of the Tests. So a squad player like Bird has no opportunity to push for a place, especially coming back from injury like he is. And, ideally, that's what you'd want from your squad blokes, to push for a spot, not be given one due to injury, rotation, etc. It sets him up to come into this Test with little other than nets under his belt against guys who face guys like him every week in CC.

Then again, I said the same about picking Harris and he took 5 so **** it.

Bird has had every opportunity to be picked that Starc had. Starc had a pretty woeful tour of India and shouldn't have been seen as an incumbent. The problem is the selectors have shown patent bias for Starc, placing too much importance on a variety kind of argument that has been mentioned here. Also gotta think Bird has suffered from the 'only bowls line/length and doesn't bowel super-fast' selector mentality. I mean overall Starc has been ok, nothing more nothing less, but to say he has 'earned it' is pushing it for mine. Not sure if you are referring to Bird (in the highlighted part), but I don't see how that is true in any sense if you are. Bird is a wicket taker, especially if the pitch is offering something, he isn't a defensive bowler. All reports said he outbowled and beat the bat far more than Starc in the tour match before Starc was recalled so make of that what you will...

 

[NUFAN]

Starc's batting is without doubt a factor in his selection and he is basically playing as our bowling all rounder. There isn't a single Australian quick this century (dramatic huh) who has played 10+ Tests with a bowling record as poor as Mitchell Starc.

McGrath 297 @ 20.53
Harris 58 @ 22.56
Clark 94 @ 23.86
Bollinger 50 @ 25.92
Pattinson 47 @ 26.42
Gillespie 209 @ 27.09
Bichel 56 @ 28.08
Siddle 166 @ 28.15
Hilfenhaus 99 @ 28.50
Johnson 205 @ 30.93
Lee 303 @ 31.27
Kasprowicz 68 @ 31.69
[I]Starc 38 @ 32.57[/I]