Playing Australia

[Linda]

Maybe 1 down if Marto opened :P

He still could've scored 300 :P

 

[Linda]

Someone (I thought it was you) told me Tait and Cleary had unsustainable actions.
They don't, yet, look anything special anyway.

David would never say anything negative about Lord Tait.

 

[AUST_HiTMaN]

Nothing wrong with Cleary's action in my opinion.

Tait has the one which could lead to possible back injuries down the track.

 

[Craig]

Tait's action only has one flaw that is it's possibly going to result in injury down the track.

As far as effectivnes goes there is nothing wrong with it at all he generates heaps of pace and swing plus a good deal of bounce and seam.

Plus reverse swing.

 

[iamdavid]

Nothing wrong with Cleary's action in my opinion.

Tait has the one which could lead to possible back injuries down the track.

Agreed.

Cleary's action used to be pretty poor , but its improved alot lately & I dont see any problem with it anymore.

Tait's is a slightly more mixed version of Shoaib Akhtar's , it certainly dosent affect his ability to swing the ball or bowl very fast , its just likely to result in back injuries down the track.

 

[Richard]

So go on then, name your side that should have toured then.

You clearly know more about Cricket than the rest of us put together.

In an ideal World, this would have been what I'd taken:
Butcher
Fulton \ Ward \ Montgomerie \ Key
Hussain
Vaughan
Stewart
Thorpe
Ramprakash
White
Cork
Caddick
Gough
Croft
Crawley
Tudor
Silverwood
One other of the four openers
Clearly, though there were problems:
Butcher had it ensconced in his mind that three was his best position
Trescothick could not possibly be dropped as his scorebook-average in his last 6 Test-innings was something like 100. Fulton and Montgomerie hence couldn't get a look it, and Key's only chance was in the middle-order where he's not very good. Ward, meanwhile, had already suffered from that problem and failed.
Ramprakash was still being judged on New Zealand series; New Zealand did not feature here.
White wasn't fully fit, and his recent Test performances with the ball had been enigmatic to say the least, very poor to say the most. His batting had been good, though.
Cork's recent Test form had been very poor and he couldn't have any qualms about his non-selection. Nor could I.
Gough, obviously, we all know about.
Croft had just come off yet another average Glam season and Dawson had only averaged 46 in India, so his substandardness wasn't proven.
Tudor and Silverwood had both come off disappointing 2002 seasons (though Tudor averaged 23 in the Championship, he was very expensive and did very poorly in the last 2 Tests). Their form in the little they did play reflected that. Silverwood, of course, bowled only 4 overs anyway.
So, you see? Just because I think someone's the best players in the country, doesn't mean I can neccesarily justify their selection.

 

[Richard]

:rolleyes:

Please tell me you have seen them play. You CANNOT judge those you have not seen.

So I CANNOT say that Shane Harwood has bowled very poorly this season in First-Class cricket? I CANNOT say that David Hussey has batted very well?
Sorry, but stats do tell a story. Especally in terms of failure. You can't do well with poor stats.

 

[Richard]

Agreed.

Cleary's action used to be pretty poor , but its improved alot lately & I dont see any problem with it anymore.

Tait's is a slightly more mixed version of Shoaib Akhtar's , it certainly dosent affect his ability to swing the ball or bowl very fast , its just likely to result in back injuries down the track.

That's what I meant by "unsustainable actions". Actions that might (or might not) be leading to success now but are almost inevitably going to cause injury.
That is what I meant, I had heard that Tait and Cleary had actions that were likely to lead to injury. And I have been informed I'm correct on Tait, outdated on Cleary. Thank you all for your kind input.

 

[Mr. P]

So I CANNOT say that Shane Harwood has bowled very poorly this season in First-Class cricket? I CANNOT say that David Hussey has batted very well?
Sorry, but stats do tell a story. Especally in terms of failure. You can't do well with poor stats.

I don't agree with that anyway, stats do tell a story to an extent. Not all the time. But anyway, here goes...

MF Cleary

Pura Cup Bowling Average this year

29.77 (8 matches)

Career

26.83 (12 matches)

SW Tait

Pura Cup Bowling Average this year

28.40 (7 matches)

Career

26.41 (13matches)

 

[Richard]

Yes, both careers impressive thus far in terms of average. Both enjoyed reasonable Pura Cup seasons.
Still pretty limited careers thus far (12 and 13 matches).

 

[AUST_HiTMaN]

Time will tell with these 2.

Personally i think Cleary has the goods for the future, Tait will be hit or miss with injuries i think. Pretty unpredictable as to what fate will throw his way regarding his back from that action of his.

Still not a fan of that action:O Im not saying Tait isnt a good player, hes a great bowler, just injuries may plauge him.

The next few years will tell all

 

[Richard]

The question we must ask ourselves is: would Tait be less good if he bowled with an action less likely to cause him injuries? I'm not saying either way, just saying that's a question we need to ask ourselves.
Some bowlers are plagued with injury no matter how good their actions (Bond being a CIP). Some must be the other way around... mustn't they?

 

[Eclipse]

The question we must ask ourselves is: would Tait be less good if he bowled with an action less likely to cause him injuries? I'm not saying either way, just saying that's a question we need to ask ourselves.
Some bowlers are plagued with injury no matter how good their actions (Bond being a CIP). Some must be the other way around... mustn't they?

Well from what I know he has never had any back problems up to this stage of his carear and he is very well built so he may have the kind of body that can hold together well.

 

[hourn]

Rofe is better than both Cleary and Tait IMO.

He's much more consistent - has a nice smooth action, and will chip in game in-game out for 2-3 wickets. A real prospect, and has so far done more in his FC career, and is only a couple of years older than them. Has a lot of Glenn McGrath about him, although it would be very hard for him to emulate what McGrath has done. Time will tell though.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Some bowlers are plagued with injury no matter how good their actions (Bond being a CIP). Some must be the other way around... mustn't they?

Surely Richard, you know that just because two negatives equal a positive, does not mean two positives equal a negative.

 

[Craig]

What is your point Ged?

 

[Gaijin-san]

That just because some bowlers with good actions get injured often does not surely mean that on the other end of the scale, bowlers with bad actions can get away with it.

 

[Richard]

I know, that's exactly what I was saying - sometimes irony is hard to convey over the 'net.
Of course not every bowler with a poor action will get constant injuries (Colin Croft never had any problems IIRR) but generally there will be far more injuries despite perfectly decent actions than there will be players getting away with bad actions.
Another case is that left-armer Mitchell Johnson, he gets injured an incredible amount, but I've never hear anyone blame his action. Never seen it myself, though.

 

[Richard]

Rofe is better than both Cleary and Tait IMO.

He's much more consistent - has a nice smooth action, and will chip in game in-game out for 2-3 wickets. A real prospect, and has so far done more in his FC career, and is only a couple of years older than them. Has a lot of Glenn McGrath about him, although it would be very hard for him to emulate what McGrath has done. Time will tell though.

I also think Rofe is better than Cleary and Tait.
None are a patch on Inness though!

 

[Mr. P]

HA! Got you here Richard.

Inness is the only one you've seen, and if you are going by stats, Cleary and Tait and Rofe are VERY close to him in 4 Day cricket and far exceed Inness in OD cricket.

You CANNOT make comparisons. Stuck you down a hole there, didn't I? :saint: