Australia test, ODI, T20 teams discussion thread

[NoLeName]

Two seasons? Ha na man, throughout the Ashes Siddle was bowling high 130s/early 140s all the time with ease.

As i said it was in the Port Elizabeth test 2nd innings, when AUS followed on when all the quick bowlers was down on pace.

South Africa v Australia, 3rd Test, Cape Town : Siddle asked to regain his pace | Cricket News | South Africa v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo

We must have been watching different Ashes series, because I watched the majority of the test series and he was dwindling between 130 and 136 for the majority of the series. It has been suggested that it may be due to his vegetarian diet, but at no stage did he consistently hit 140.

 

[War]

We must have been watching different Ashes series, because I watched the majority of the test series and he was dwindling between 130 and 136 for the majority of the series. It has been suggested that it may be due to his vegetarian diet, but at no stage did he consistently hit 140.

You don't have to take my word for it. In that article which explained why he was dropped before the final test in S Africa, Lehmann made it pretty clear he was dropped cause his normal 140ks pace was down in the PE test after being consistently around that range for the 31 out of 34 tests he had played for AUS, since he recall to the team in SRI 2011.

 

[War]

Interesting recent developments in AUS cricket here:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/story/741083.html - Marsh named new chairman of selectors

ICC news : Australia reclaim No. 1 Test ranking | Cricket News | Cricinfo ICC Site | ESPN Cricinfo

One must say Inverarity has done a very good job as selector. A few minor decision that disturbed me particularly on that 2013 tour to India - but overall did well, after the train reck era of Andrew Hilditch.

Rod Marsh is a well regarded voice & it will be interesting to see what junior Waugh brings to the table.

On the # 1 tag, while AUS played some brilliant test cricket to win in S Africa. I'm not convinced that are truly better than the proteas. Just think AUS coming off their form vs ENG caught them at a slightly vulnerable stage, especially with Kallis just retired & Smith on his last lags. I still believe S Africa have the depth to be equal vs S Africa & the teams need a rematch soon before we can say who is best.

I'm glad coach Lehman all but rubbished the ICC ranks by saying this too:

We're not true No. 1 yet' - Lehmann

Australia's coach Darren Lehmann does not believe Australia have yet earned the right to call themselves world No. 1 - even if the ICC rankings say so. In Adelaide to speak at a corporate function, Lehmann told The Advertiser he wanted the team to prove their quality by sustaining the success of the past six months. "I don't think we're No. 1 until we win a lot of series away from home and at home," he said. "Once we start doing that and spread the gap between No. 1 and No. 2, then you can start calling yourself the genuine No. 1. "We've got to win against Pakistan, the Ashes in England, win at home, win in the West Indies. If we tick off those, then you can pretty much say, 'Yeah, we're No. 1'. But until you do that we're No. 1 in rankings only, if that makes sense. The players understand that. They enjoy being No. 1 but now the challenge is to spread it from one to two. The way you do that is to not lose a game, for starters. Making sure that when we're under the pump in games that we fight hard to get out of it. Almost unbeatable -- that would be the ultimate goal."
Lehmann's sentiments were echoed by Test opener Chris Rogers, who told Cricket Australia's website the team still had some "unfinished business".
"I don't know, personally," Rogers said. "Obviously, there's still some unfinished business. Losing 4-0 in India - you can't do that if you're number one - but I think to beat South Africa in South Africa meant a lot. They were number one and to go beat them in their place; I think that is a big achievement."

 

[War]

Blogs: Russell Jackson: Australia's wicketkeeper dilemma | Cricket Blogs | ESPN Cricinfo

Is it really a big dilemma though? I've always been of the impression that Wade, Paine & Nevill are pretty good future options to have whenever Haddin's time is up in tests especially.

 

[NoLeName]

Chris Hartley should have been in on the 2009 Ashes series when Haddin got injured and Graeme Manou got selected instead. He is by far the best keeper and his batting is as solid as a rock. He and James Hopes have been the foundation of the Queensland team over the past decade. Despite his age he'd be my second choice keeper, with Whiteman the long-term option. Whiteman has great technique and oodles of talent, and he's a good quality keeper. If he can score a couple shield centuries next season he should be locked in as the replacement for Haddin. Will be interesting to see how he goes on the upcoming Australia A tour.

 

[War]

I haven't seen Hartley bat live while, so I can't make a clear strong statement on his batting credentials. But just based on what I recall of him, his batting was probably on the level of former England keeper Jack Russell - which is just about standard for international level, instead of the batting levels of guys like Dhoni, De Villiers, Prior, Haddin for eg..

 

[NoLeName]

Maybe so, however performance wise there isn't anyone better, unless you're counting Ryan Carters who didn't keep the whole season.

 

[War]

CA selection secret unlocked

 

[ethybubs]

CA selection secret unlocked

That is disgusting.

 

[aussie1st]

Would like to see what rating guys like SOK have then.

 

[NoLeName]

That is disgusting.

I don't like the idea of selections based on their given ratings, but would love to hear (well actually read) what you hate about the idea.

 

[ethybubs]

I don't like the idea of selections based on their given ratings, but would love to hear (well actually read) what you hate about the idea.

(this is the calmed down version because my first draft was probably going to have me banned)

So I'll start by saying that there is only two ways I can imagine the rating being calculated: 1) it is based on statistics and form, this is unlikely but if it were the case I could only say, What about the players that perform better in test arenas and on world pitches? or 2) (the more likely one) it is a mix of statistical form and rated skills e.g. off-side, on-side, pace, spin ect. If this is the case it must be that it is subjective, and giving them a number out of eighty is no better or worse than deciding who is better by simply watching and discussing them. If I put myself into a players point of view, especially a young player trying to make it in the test side, and I am told I have a rating lower than someone else so I wont be selected I am going to take that as being told I am worse rather than the selectors opinions being that I am less experienced or there isn't a place for me in the team, I would be heart broken. If the rating on its own isn't enough to make me outraged it is the idea that sixty is the requirement to play tests and that they can put a number on a player telling them that not only are they not good enough in comparison to their peers but they aren't good enough at all. Personally I think this is a piss weak excuse for the selectors to feel like, and tell people, the decision is out of their hands, and for them to take the personal contact out of players who aren't selected. As far as the projected rating goes I have no idea how they can claim to know that, at least not without time to see the average chart of a players career.

What do you think though?

 

[NoLeName]

(this is the calmed down version because my first draft was probably going to have me banned)

So I'll start by saying that there is only two ways I can imagine the rating being calculated: 1) it is based on statistics and form, this is unlikely but if it were the case I could only say, What about the players that perform better in test arenas and on world pitches? or 2) (the more likely one) it is a mix of statistical form and rated skills e.g. off-side, on-side, pace, spin ect. If this is the case it must be that it is subjective, and giving them a number out of eighty is no better or worse than deciding who is better by simply watching and discussing them. If I put myself into a players point of view, especially a young player trying to make it in the test side, and I am told I have a rating lower than someone else so I wont be selected I am going to take that as being told I am worse rather than the selectors opinions being that I am less experienced or there isn't a place for me in the team, I would be heart broken. If the rating on its own isn't enough to make me outraged it is the idea that sixty is the requirement to play tests and that they can put a number on a player telling them that not only are they not good enough in comparison to their peers but they aren't good enough at all. Personally I think this is a piss weak excuse for the selectors to feel like, and tell people, the decision is out of their hands, and for them to take the personal contact out of players who aren't selected. As far as the projected rating goes I have no idea how they can claim to know that, at least not without time to see the average chart of a players career.

What do you think though?

You summed it up pretty well. In my eyes there are two extremes of selection material you can use: the 'Moneyball' technique - completely based on statistical calculations, ratios and formulae - or completely from personal judgment - how good they look. To give some perspective, Chris Rogers probably falls into the 'Moneyball' side whereas Alex Doolan is an example from the other extreme. An ideal selection method would have a good balance of both. Obviously the selectors have tried to use this rating system to provide this balance while creating a form of comparison, however it's a bloody stupid idea and very limiting. Say you are picking between Player A and Player B - Player A has the higher rating yet in your mind you believe Player B should be selected. Do you then go against your system, putting its actual use and relevance into question, or do you follow the numbers? It allows for little flexibility. And I don't know how one rates the potential of a player objectively - it just appears there would be so many flaws in the system. I would be very interested to see some of the player ratings.

 

[Dipak]

CA selection secret unlocked

Well what would happen to a bowler who's job is to contain the batsmen rather than take wickets? His rating would obviously be poor since he has poor stats, but he's doing his job well.

Atleast it's a better system than India where a player gets selected after one good IPL season, and good performance in the Ranji & County Cricket are ignored.

 

[aussie1st]

Warner skipping the Zimbabwe ODI series. Although no biggie. Hopefully Smith and White are given a go and Maxwell a promotion up the order.