Should we be patient with Michael Beer?

[Nate]

I agree with that as a general rule of thumb, but in the case of Beer I'm not sure the selectors genuinely believed, or had good reasons to believe, he was the best available (the world cup quote makes you kind of suspicious).

So given that, I don't really see the point in persisting with someone for an extended period of time if you had no really good reasons to choose them in the first place. From what I've seen of Beer, he seems a decent, but not an extraordinary bowler by any means. The selectors may have seen qualities in him which have eluded most of us, but I doubt it. I think his selection was pretty whimsical (and suspiciously coincided with Warne's approval of him).

In terms of potential, surely it has to be Lyon first. He looks like he could be a seriously good bowler. You can't really go past O'Keefes record so far either.

DeusEx! Nice to have you back, even for a post or two.

 

[Nate]

Btw, is O'Keefe still not rated enough as a specialist bowler after the 2010/11 FC season?

Not by the people who matter. If it didn't happen after this game, it was never going to happen. As I said earlier, if he turns decent numbers again this season, he will surely be impossible to ignore.

 

[Nate]

I find it strange that I, a member of the public, am parading for a bowler to be chosen for Test Cricket based on performances in First Class Cricket, but the National Selectors are going with someone else because Warney said he was good. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

 

[Cevno]

Not by the people who matter. If it didn't happen after this game, it was never going to happen. As I said earlier, if he turns decent numbers again this season, he will surely be impossible to ignore.

Guess it is the all rounder effect.

His bowling seperately is not rated enough at the moment because he was more seen as a all rounder before.

Surely can't do worse than those who have been picked so far and is a decent bat too.

 

[Spark]

I find it strange that I, a member of the public, am parading for a bowler to be chosen for Test Cricket based on performances in First Class Cricket, but the National Selectors are going with someone else because Warney said he was good. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

I'd like to think that us CW luminaries know more about FC cricket than the average member of the public, though.

However I would also like it if we knew less than those selecting the actual Test team. Which I kinda have to question at times.

 

[Nate]

Maybe it would help if I banged you.

 

[Ruckus]

I find it strange that I, a member of the public, am parading for a bowler to be chosen for Test Cricket based on performances in First Class Cricket, but the National Selectors are going with someone else because Warney said he was good. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Haha I've never thought about it that way, but it is so backward...

If they actually chose Beer based on what Warne said (which is pretty ridiculous in of itself), the reasons would have been simply bizarre... Warne's main argument for selecting Beer was based on his supposed 'local knowledge' despite him hardly have played in WA. So the selectors would have been inappropriately basing their selection on the word of an ex-player, whose opinion on the issue was flawed in the first place! I really, really hope they had better reasons for his selection than that...

 

[Spark]

Maybe it would help if I banged you.

So tempted to sig.

 

[Spikey]

Maybe it would help if I banged you.

what about me



i doubt warne had an impact, but if he did it would have been giving confidence in them to go down that route

 

[Ruckus]

So tempted to sig.

Holy ****, Spark the mod?

I've been away so long

 

[Spark]

Holy ****, Spark the mod?

I've been away so long

Only happened a couple of days ago. Which is why this place hasn't burnt to the ground yet.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm all for a little selectorial forbearance, but I'm far from convinced Beer is the answer to Australia's spinning woes. Accurate, decent quicker ball (which I suspect is mildy chuckish) but doesn't seem to impart a lot of spin, be it side-spin or over-spin.

He looked to have more about him than D'oherty, but seemed to be another spinner the selectors pulled out of their arses on a hunch. Whether the hunch was theirs or Warne's is rather more open to conjecture.

I get that Hauritz and Ponting don't get on and also that Doogie's never going to be a Warne but I don't think he did anywhere near enough to be dropped, especially given some of the special ed fields his captain set for him in India, but if any patience is to be shown I'd say he's more deserving of it.

 

[GIMH]

It's worth remembering that people were claiming Hauritz was on Swann's level not that long before he was dropped.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a minute that he was ever close, but the fact that there were people who were claiming it suggests he can't have been doing too much wrong. Never got a fair go, IMO.

 

[Howe_zat]

One thing I always think of with Hauritz is that reasonably speaking, he shouldn't have been picked back in 2009. There was just as little justification for picking Hauritz then as there was for picking Beer a few months ago.

 

[Prince EWS]

One thing I always think of with Hauritz is that reasonably speaking, he shouldn't have been picked back in 2009. There was just as little justification for picking Hauritz then as there was for picking Beer a few months ago.

Indeed. The contemporary Australian spinner must never be in the side on the merit. As soon as he does something to justify his selection and solidify his place, he must be replaced by someone even more left field than he was at the time of his selection.

 

[Furball]

One thing I always think of with Hauritz is that reasonably speaking, he shouldn't have been picked back in 2009. There was just as little justification for picking Hauritz then as there was for picking Beer a few months ago.

While he'd done very little to merit a place in the side in the first place, once he was selected he performed perfectly reasonably and really ought not to have been dropped when he was.

Australia's spin merry-go-round since Warne retired:

Sri Lanka (h) - Stuart MacGill (2 Tests, 5 wickets @ 65.20)
India (h) - Brad Hogg (3 Tests, 8 wickets @ 60.12)
West Indies (a) - Stuart MacGill (2 Tests, 5 wickets @ 65), Beau Casson (1 Test, 3 wickets @ 43)
India (a) - Cameron White (4 Tests, 5 wickets @ 68.40), Jason Krezja (1 Test, 12 wickets @ 29.83)
New Zealand (h) - Nathan Hauritz (1 Test, 4 wickets @ 23.75)
South Africa (h) - Jason Krezja (1 Test, 1 wicket @ 204), Nathan Hauritz (2 Tests, 5 wickets @ 50.80)
South Africa (a) - Bryce McGain (1 Test, 0 wickets)
England (a) - Nathan Hauritz (3 Tests, 10 wickets @ 32.10)
West Indies (h) - Nathan Hauritz (3 Tests, 11 wickets @ 33)
Pakistan (h) - Nathan Hauritz (3 Tests, 18 wickets @ 23.05)
New Zealand (a) - Nathan Hauritz (2 Tests, 4 wickets @ 65.75)
Pakistan (n) - Steven Smith (2 Tests, 3 wickets @ 27.33)
India (a) - Nathan Hauritz (2 Tests, 6 wickets @ 65)
England (h) - Xavier Doherty (2 Tests, 3 wickets @ 102), Steven Smith (3 Tests, 0 wickets), Michael Beer (1 Test, 1 wicket @ 112)

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'm really not sure, I don't think that he's (Beer) good enough, I think that he's the third best option (at best) for Australia. I'd rather see Hauritz play mostly, and probably O'Keeffe ahead of him. I guess for once, I'm really non-plussed by what they do, I don't mind if they pick Beer again as a sign of finally sticking with someone, and could understand it and it would contain more logic than any other decision they've made recently, but also wouldn't mind it if they went back to Hauritz. I'd be worried if they went for SOK only, and Hauritz were still available.

I'm not convinced on SOK, though, from what I've seen. I think that similar to Beer, his stock ball isn't threatening enough to really worry the best of batsman and doesn't seem to get as much work on the ball as a Hauritz does.

 

[Top_Cat]

AWTA and it depends on what they've told Beer too. If they've said "You're number 1 for now." then yeah they'll need to stick with him for a bit but it they'd told him he was picked for the SCG only, Warne said you're a dude, "See how you go." etc., have no problem with dropping him for Hauritz. How his selection (or otherwise) is handled has ramifications for the rest of the team, morale, etc.

 

[Burgey]

It's worth remembering that people were claiming Hauritz was on Swann's level not that long before he was dropped.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a minute that he was ever close, but the fact that there were people who were claiming it suggests he can't have been doing too much wrong. Never got a fair go, IMO.

It was a very odd decision to drop him when they did tbh. He had a poor tour of India but so what really? He at least offers a measure of control and I don't think he's as bad as has been made out (including by me tbf).

He's no world beater by any stretch but he's about our best option ATM.

Having said that, if England used the same rationale with Swann as our selectors did with Hauritz, they likely would have dropped him after the Ashes, on the basis he only had one decent haul. That's not a sledge on Swann, it's a sledge on our selectors.

As for Beer, I thought he bowled better than his figures suggested tbh. I don't think he's a test standard spinner as yet, but he bowled better than 1-112 IMO. So I suppose we do have patience with him, but why can't we have that patience with him at FC level and tour him everywhere with the A side?

 

[marc71178]

One thing that list GF posted shows is that only Hauritz of the post-Warne replacements has actually got anything like decent figures - that alone should've given him more credit in the bank than he was afforded by the selectors.