Australia tour of SA 2014

[angryangy]

There is really nothing not funny about that.

Hughes has Mitchell Johnsoned his way back into the team. Behold! The marvellous batsman with two good legs.

 

[War]

For me it showed he has what it takes, the two 50s on debut displayed that. Consistency has always been his problem but we didn't get a good sample size to judge him, he basically had 3 innings after the back to back 50s with the other innings being a run out. Unlike the other youngsters he didn't display any noticeable technical flaw.

Mitch Marsh will get there just no point throwing him in yet plus Henriques isn't going to get a game so no point having Marsh carrying the drinks when he can get more FC experience.

Ye i know he scored two 50s on debut & i've observed him bat many times. I just don't think his overall game can cut it at test level. Him and Dan Christian are the same - limited overs all rounders

You compare him to the progress Faulkner has made as a potential test option & the difference is start.

M Marsh already is somewhere close to what Faulkner can do & his FC #'s this season are fairly similar to Henriques, so i'd have picked him instead.

 

[aussie1st]

We have already seen ODI form doesn't translate to test cricket if Bailey can't make it on the back of it then I doubt Faulkner will. Until he starts hitting some 100 for Tassie I wouldn't be putting him anywhere near the top 7.

 

[War]

We have already seen ODI form doesn't translate to test cricket if Bailey can't make it on the back of it then I doubt Faulkner will. Until he starts hitting some 100 for Tassie I wouldn't be putting him anywhere near the top 7.

Ye Bailey may have struggled, but it not such a simplistic argumen to say you can't do it. Picking players for test cricket based on ODI form has had it success I would say has had 50/50 success/failure rate in world cricket historically.

Teams like AUS/ENG/SA would always pick a player for tests based on strong FC, because their domestic 4-day competition is very good. But other nations like WI/NZ/PAK/SRI/IND a lot of times pick players for tests, if they shine in ODIs. This is so because their FC competition is weak.

Faulkner yea sure i want to see him make big hundreds for Tassie, but if a scenario occured as we say in the Oval tests again or Watson gets injured - i don't believe Faulkner would be ill-equipped for the role.

 

[aussie1st]

I'm not saying you can't do it but they should at least show something in 4 day cricket before being picked. Bailey had at least done that before being picked even if his most recent 4 day form was average. Marsh and Faulkner haven't done that yet and Henriques didn't really do that either but if you go and look back over the past few years his name will be up there with the leading run scorers. In saying that I wouldn't have picked Henriques either.

 

[sifter132]

There is really nothing not funny about that.

Hughes has Mitchell Johnsoned his way back into the team. Behold! The marvellous batsman with two good legs.

I dunno, every time Hughes has been dropped it seems like he has done exactly what has been asked: he's largely fixed his technical fault that made him caught Guptill bowled Martin 4 times in a row, meaning he can now work to leg and discourage that exclusively straight line that bowlers quickly learned to bowl at him; he's made plenty of runs in the Shield; he went and played county cricket to get better in foreign conditions; he played pretty well in ODIs as well when he got his chance. What else must he do? It's exactly what you want from a dropped player, improving his weakness and showing hunger to return.

The only problem Hughes has had is scoring off off-spinners: first Ashwin, then Swann. In their wisdom the selectors give him every chance to fail in that regard by having him bat at 3 or 4 in India and 6 in England, prime firing line for those 2 spinners...

Not sure JP Duminy should have the same stranglehold over him, I guess will see. Really hope Hughes gets to play.

Ye i know he scored two 50s on debut & i've observed him bat many times. I just don't think his overall game can cut it at test level. Him and Dan Christian are the same - limited overs all rounders

You compare him to the progress Faulkner has made as a potential test option & the difference is start.

M Marsh already is somewhere close to what Faulkner can do & his FC #'s this season are fairly similar to Henriques, so i'd have picked him instead.

Just on Faulkner, and it's time for a slight rant... I haven't seen ANYTHING from him that makes him a Test bowler. He hasn't got sharp pace, he doesn't move the ball - how is he getting batsmen out? He's pretty accurate I guess and he's done pretty well in the Shield - that's nice. But so has Chadd Sayers or John Hastings. I think he's getting selected because he can bat, and that is rubbish. In Tests: Coulter-Nile > Faulkner for me any day of the week. When Faulkner got selected at The Oval, all we heard from Clarke/Lehmann was how 'tough' and 'competitive' Faulkner is. I don't give 2 shits about that - can he bowl??? His 6 wickets on debut sounds better than it was. From memory it was a couple of tail enders, Bell caught down leg side, a couple of LBWS where dead straight ones were missed. Happy days for Faulkner.

And on Henriques...from a selection POV, I see Henriques as a bit Steve Smith-y. Once the guy has some success at Test cricket, like Smith (and Moises) did in India, I think the selectors really need to keep picking them and stop dicking around with Glenn bloody Maxwell. Because it could be that turning point in a players career where he realises that he can play at the top level. At that turning point, past history, averages etc. kinda go out the window and a new man is discovered. Was that way for Smith this year, might have been for Moises too. But Moises gets sent home and barely mentioned again. Thought he deserved a bit more recognition.

 

[asprin]

^ Have to agree on Faulkner not being suited for Test cricket. He is pure ODI material.

 

[aussie1st]

Hughes has been mucked around by the selectors a bit

The only problem Hughes has had is scoring off off-spinners: first Ashwin, then Swann. In their wisdom the selectors give him every chance to fail in that regard by having him bat at 3 or 4 in India and 6 in England, prime firing line for those 2 spinners...

Selectors really have mucked him around. I've always been on the boat that he shouldn't have been dropped in that Ashes series all those years back and his latest dropping was pretty rough considering what he did in the first innings of the series and he showed some good form during the tour games.

And on Henriques...from a selection POV, I see Henriques as a bit Steve Smith-y. Once the guy has some success at Test cricket, like Smith (and Moises) did in India, I think the selectors really need to keep picking them and stop dicking around with Glenn bloody Maxwell. Because it could be that turning point in a players career where he realises that he can play at the top level. At that turning point, past history, averages etc. kinda go out the window and a new man is discovered. Was that way for Smith this year, might have been for Moises too. But Moises gets sent home and barely mentioned again. Thought he deserved a bit more recognition.

Agree he should have been preserved with once he showed something with the bat in particular given the struggles with spin. Can't remember if Faulkner was injured during India but if not then seems weird why Henriques was picked in India but not considered after given his bowling is more suited to anywhere but India.

 

[War]

^^^

Have you guys seen Kiwi Corey Anderson play in the last few months & the success he has been having?

He is slightly better batsman than Faulkner, but his bowling is less potent than Faulkner - yet is getting wickets in tests to date. So don't see why Faulkner can't cut in tests.

On Henriques might concede that maybe with regards to his bowling, that the conditions in India didn't help his potency & he could be more useful in AUS/SA/ENG/NZ type conditions.

However i still think Faulkner & M Marsh are better polished all-rounders for any format of international cricket than him.

 

[sifter132]

Faulkner certainly might work in Tests, I'm just not particularly impressed with his raw skills. Kinda reminds me of how I wasn't impressed with Peter Siddle about 4-5 years ago. Siddle wasn't particularly fast, didn't move the ball much. I think Pete's larger issue was accuracy though, he just couldn't smash that good-full length consistently like he can now. If Faulkner can do that, then he may not need express speed or Wasim Akram like swing. Siddle doesn't have either.

The more philosophical question for the Aussie attack is do they need someone with extra skills or just someone steady? Faulkner might be that steady bowler who can replace a Siddle. Mitch Starc leaking runs between a few random jaffas may not be the best complement for the attack.

 

[aussie1st]

Bowling isn't the issue on Faulkner, it's the batting. His bowling is more then handy enough for a batting all rounder. If he was playing as a bowling all rounder (number 8) then it would be an issue. Anderson I would take in a heartbeat for a place in the top 7, has solid enough FC stats and bowling is handy enough.

 

[asprin]

I've always considered Faulker as a bowling allrounder. If he makes it to the playing eleven, I assume it would be more so because of his bowling than batting. In that case, I feel Faulker isn't the right choice.

 

[War]

Australia in South Africa 2013-14 : Parnell ready for Test cricket again, says coach | Cricket News | South Africa v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo

Parnell is certainly a talented player, who has the ability to be a quality # 7 all-rounder no doubt. But as usual, he is a coloured player from the country area, who has been pushed for years & his success rate at international level has been minimal.

McLaren IMO is clearly a more polished player right now for the role to take over from Kallis. At this stage from an AUS perspective, i would say Parnell playing gives AUS an advantage unless he surprises me.

 

[War]

Training points to Doolan debut

 

[sifter132]

NO! I want Hughes. Was looking at Doolan's recent scores and it's not real pretty...If he shows some form in the tour match, that'd be a start, but he seems ice cold right now. His last 100 was the very first game of the Shield, back in early November.

Be interesting to see if Doolan were to play at #3 though. Oddly enough, he seems very Shane Watson-like to me: both tall guys who get forward and drive a LOT, but generally look very classy doing so; both use Gunn & Moore bats; both have bad reputations for getting starts and getting out.

And while we're at it...all this 'Watson needs to bat lower to bowl better' stuff is absolute rubbish in my view. Statguru confirms!
Watson has opened in the batting in 29 Tests for 43 wickets @ 28.06
Watson has batted at #3 in 10 Tests for 8 wickets @ 40.875
Watson has batted #4 or lower in 15 Tests for 17 wickets @ 39.94
(The numbers don't add up exactly to Watson's career figures because in some Tests he batted in 2 different positions.) Either way, opening clearly didn't make him a worse bowler. Of course, he was perhaps in better bowling form back when he was an opener - it may be chicken/egg stuff, but I still don't like the theory that he'll somehow bowl better if he bats at 6.