Stuart MacGill announces his retirement

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Maybe he'll perform better in the test arena. This is not England Richard, we like to take some risks here in Australia Why play four seamers on a dead track. There's no guarantee Noffke will perform either.

Psssht. England takes more risks than Australia. Batsmen need to have 10,000 FC runs and shop experience before they get called up to Tests for Australia.

But seriously, I don't see Australia as a risk taking team on most days. Not with selection. Also, the Barbados track is likely to have some bounce and a bit of pace. It usually does and, IIRC, did at the World Cup.

 

[Richard]

I never said it would be Casson, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone cropped up out of nowhere to be a spin hero for Australia.

It won't be a fingerspinner, I'll say that much.

 

[Richard]

Maybe he'll perform better in the test arena. This is not England Richard, we like to take some risks here in Australia Why play four seamers on a dead track. There's no guarantee Noffke will perform either.

Australia are better than England because of proportionally less risk-taking. In Australia, generally players earn their selection and you get less rubbish selected.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It won't be a fingerspinner, I'll say that much.

I ruled out Aaron Heal ages ago.

 

[Richard]

There's Heal, there's Cullen... heck, I hear some are still talking about Hauritz.

I can't ever see Daniel Doran or Casson being Test-class (or probably even state-class) bowlers. And right now it looks exceedingly unlikely Cullen Bailey will either.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

It won't be a fingerspinner, I'll say that much.

 

[pasag]

Should we just start picking people at random at the hope of finding another Warne and McGrath? Expect years of pain if that happens. Stick to the tried and tested formula of selecting people based on evidence, not hunches and guesswork. If you have an exceptionally talented youngster in the ranks, then we'll talk, but as far as I can see Casson really isn't that.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Australia are better than England because of proportionally less risk-taking. In Australia, generally players earn their selection and you get less rubbish selected.

I was talking more about attitude. England generally have a safe as houses approach to selection...see Ashley Giles in Australia last time as an example. It's ingrained in the psyche to a certain extent. When Warne was selected he was thrown in because he could turn it a bit...there was no basis for it. Both Clarke and Clark were a slight risk at the time as their first class record wasn't great. Not as much of a risk as Warne though. Taking risks doesn't include picking 40 year olds. That's the other end of the spectrum.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

There's Heal, there's Cullen... heck, I hear some are still talking about Hauritz.

I can't ever see Daniel Doran or Casson being Test-class (or probably even state-class) bowlers. And right now it looks exceedingly unlikely Cullen Bailey will either.

Casson to be Australia's greatest batsman IMO. He just needs to switch his priorities.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Should we just start picking people at random at the hope of finding another Warne and McGrath? Expect years of pain if that happens. Stick to the tried and tested formula of selecting people based on evidence, not hunches and guesswork. If you have an exceptionally talented youngster in the ranks, then we'll talk, but as far as I can see Casson really isn't that.

Not at all, but if someone shows a bit of promise you can give them a go. How high is the bar raised before we consider someone to have shown some promise now? The only concrete evidence you'll get that someone can cut it at test level is to give them a shot. I'm not talking about giving every first class player in Australia a go. If Nathan Hauritz can get a game then...

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I was talking more about attitude. England generally have a safe as houses approach to selection...see Ashley Giles in Australia last time as an example. It's ingrained in the psyche to a certain extent. When Warne was selected he was thrown in because he could turn it a bit...there was no basis for it. Both Clarke and Clark were a slight risk at the time as their first class record wasn't great. Not as much of a risk as Warne though. Taking risks doesn't include picking 40 year olds. That's the other end of the spectrum.

I think Warne is an exception to a rule, because Australia usually only gives the baggy green to people who have proven quality at domestic level or done hard yards as an experienced campaigner. I don't see Stuart Clark as a huge risk, because he was very experienced and entered while Australia still had a couple of excellent bowlers about. Also, he looks Test class to anyone who watches him bowl (well, ignoring bias) so I don't see the selectors as being worried at all about his selection when they made it.

The debuts of Vaughan, Trescothick, Harmison, Jones, Anderson, Mahmood, Plunkett, Bresnan etc. etc. were infinitely more risky than anything Australia has done of late, with the exception (perhaps) of Michael Clarke and Mitchell Johnson.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Not at all, but if someone shows a bit of promise you can give them a go. How high is the bar raised before we consider someone to have shown some promise now? The only concrete evidence you'll get that someone can cut it at test level is to give them a shot. I'm not talking about giving every first class player in Australia a go. If Nathan Hauritz can get a game then...

Didn't Hauritz do more than Casson before he got his debut though? Casson really has done little of note with the ball to suggest that he can get Test class batsmen out. That said, I pick him to dismiss Runako Morton if the man plays in Bridgetown.

 

[pasag]

Not at all, but if someone shows a bit of promise you can give them a go. How high is the bar raised before we consider someone to have shown some promise now? The only concrete evidence you'll get that someone can cut it at test level is to give them a shot. I'm not talking about giving every first class player in Australia a go. If Nathan Hauritz can get a game then...

As far as I can see, if they're nothing special at a lower level how are they going to go any better at a higher level and against teams like India and SA at that?

 

[Son Of Coco]

I think Warne is an exception to a rule, because Australia usually only gives the baggy green to people who have proven quality at domestic level or done hard yards as an experienced campaigner. I don't see Stuart Clark as a huge risk, because he was very experienced and entered while Australia still had a couple of excellent bowlers about. Also, he looks Test class to anyone who watches him bowl (well, ignoring bias) so I don't see the selectors as being worried at all about his selection when they made it.

The debuts of Vaughan, Trescothick, Harmison, Jones, Anderson, Mahmood, Plunkett, Bresnan etc. etc. were infinitely more risky than anything Australia has done of late, with the exception (perhaps) of Michael Clarke and Mitchell Johnson.

There's a difference between risk and desperation

Are you telling me none of these guys performed to a reasonable level in county cricket before being picked? Simon Jones didn't look like a decent bowler? Vaughan didn't look like he could bat a bit? I remember watching Jones first test in Oz at the Gabba when he hurt his knee and he looked like he could bowl then. Must have been a miracle on the hands of the England selectors that he improved so drastically.

Australia only hands out the baggy green in that manner now...they've had a lot of options in both bowling and batting departments for a long time. That may not still be the case with bowling. Suggesting it's best to go for the 'safe' option when a couple of the options that are considered better than safe aren't performing so well is great. Sometimes a risk pays off, sometimes it doesn't. I'm not suggesting Casson should be first picked here either. But if there's anyone showing a bit of promise and a spinner's considered a good option then give them a crack.

The risks Australia usually takes with selection are picking players they think will suit/replace the type of bowler they have...not necessarily the player with the greatest record in first class cricket at the time. There were certainly batsmen with better first class records than Clarke when he was selected. I dare say there might have been a few with better bowling records than Clark too. Obviously nothing is going to look like too great a risk when you have a number of players performing.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As far as I can see, if they're nothing special at a lower level how are they going to go any better at a higher level and against teams like India and SA at that?

Well Fidel Edwards was 6 times better at Test level than FC level on his debut.

 

[Richard]

I was talking more about attitude. England generally have a safe as houses approach to selection...see Ashley Giles in Australia last time as an example. It's ingrained in the psyche to a certain extent. When Warne was selected he was thrown in because he could turn it a bit...there was no basis for it. Both Clarke and Clark were a slight risk at the time as their first class record wasn't great. Not as much of a risk as Warne though. Taking risks doesn't include picking 40 year olds. That's the other end of the spectrum.

Clark's First-Class record was pretty good. Clarke was a failure at first then his First-Class record got better and so did his Test one.

BTW, Giles' selection in 2006/07 was poor, not safe. Giles hadn't played for over a year, there was no justification for it at all. Even with that bit of extra batting ability.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

There's a difference between risk and desperation

The only significant risk Australia has taken recently, outside of Johnson, is bringing MacGill on tour and playing him in two Tests.

 

[Richard]

There's a difference between risk and desperation

The daft thing was that there were proven quality bowlers around at the time of the selection of most of them, who were ignored.

It was a simple case of trying to be "risk-taking" and seeing it backfire badly. As such things usually do.

 

[Son Of Coco]

As far as I can see, if they're nothing special at a lower level how are they going to go any better at a higher level and against teams like India and SA at that?

I don't know, but I can think of a few players who have better test records than first class. I'm not comparing Casson to Warne by the way, I don't think he'll follow the same path! How will Noffke or Johnson go against India or SA? Who knows? At the moment we have two test class bowlers who are performing regularly. Who do you select from the rest of the bunch here at home? Tait?...he's special at a lower level but hits anything from the square leg umpire through middle stump to point. Bichel? Noffke? If he doesn't take any wickets at least he can bat.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The only significant risk Australia has taken recently, outside of Johnson, is bringing MacGill on tour and playing him in two Tests.

Not at all, they played Hauritz. Going on the definition of risk-taking Richard's provided for the English selections Clarke and Clark were a risk. Not the best domestic bat or bowler in Australia at the time. Symonds over a specialist batsman like Hodge who was performing better at the time. Watson anytime he plays (although that's an injury risk, not a risk per se).