Krejza's strength is that he flights the ball and gets a bit of turn. His weaknesses are that he inevitably coughs up bad balls, has few if any worthwhile variations and needs help from the pitch. Sure, it's conventional wisdom to say he's attacking because he doesn't mind collateral damage, but you could also say it's defensive to just put the ball there and beg the batsman to make a mistake.
Either way, he's certainly not much of a wicket taker. The only way he's really like MacGill is that he gets turn and bowls long hops. MacGill had a dozen tricks up his sleeve and a lot of brain, which allowed him to unsettle and deceive, as well as get away with the bad ball. Krejza is simply not polished enough to be as one dimensional as he is.
This is exactly why bowlers such as Abdur Rehman and Paul Harris get picked and then somehow prosper enough to keep their spots. Being able to execute a strategy, even a boring one, is a key skill for rising up the ranks. Krejza's an excellent club bowler, but he's also a top order batsman at that level.
Firstly when i compared him to MacGill. I wasn't comparing his wicket-taking ability to MacGill. I was simply comparing Krejza's style & approach to bowling which is that of an old-fashion leg-spinner (Which is very unique for an off-spinner. Given only Romesh Powar, Jim Laker, Hugh Trumble, Prasanna to a degree, Tim May & maybe are few more are the offies ive seen or read about whose main strength was to try a dismiss batsmen with big spinning off-breaks 80%+ of the time). I just used MacGill since i know we all saw him & thus you guys would get a quick visual of what i was trying to say. I could have said Arthur Mailey, Tich Freeman, Subhash Gupte, Bert Vogler, C Grimmett.
But overall I agree about 80% of the way with your assessment of Krejza. Just a few points on the bolded:
1. With regards to test cricket, Its a bit harsh to say in the tests he played all he did was just put the ball one place & hope for the batsman to make a mistake. He got a few batsmen out with beauties in the two tests he played most famously Amla.
So i see no reason why he cant do that again, if he plays tests again & gets a turning pitch (4th & 5th day of course). Which basically is what spinner of minimum test standard should be able to do.
2. Against very good players of spin MacGill certainly wasn't that good. Most notably in matches such as:
- 2003/04 @ home vs IND
- 2003/04 in Sri Lanka
- Antigua test 2003 (the only time WI batsmen attacked him in that series)
- His many battles with Lara for example between 99-2005.
His ability to deceive batsmen went awol alot vs top players of spin. He stuck to his one length & got tonked many times here & looked very one-dimensional in the aforementioned games. So i wouldn't give MacGilla such glowing praise, since that was a massive weak area of his. Although he was a solid bowler, all those wickets he took @ the SCG niced up his figures a great deal. along with the fact he was part of a great attack.
MacGill @ his peak right now in my opinion with AUS pace attack the way it is, would not be so effective.
sifter132 said:
For me it really boils down to the fact that he has not done anything in career other than that very expensive 12 wicket haul vs India - that's the only 5fer he's taken EVER. The only season he's ever averaged under 35 in FC cricket was last season..when he took only 4 wickets in 2 games @ 24.5 because he couldn't beat Xavier Doherty for a spot in Tasmania. And he's only had one season ever when he's gone for less than 3.5 RPO - he just leaks runs and rarely takes wickets...He's never been able to control a batting lineup and only once has he ever run through one. The only reason he's even an option right now is that every other spinner has a similarly poor record. There is no way in hell he should be holding a CA contract right now.
But...unfortunately he is still one of the 'better' spin options Australia has right now...
Well firstly i never said he should get a contract. I said no spinner deserves a contract since none have proven they are good enough to hold down a place in any format for AUS currently. It remains a high probability that come that end of the AUS 2011/12 home season this may remain the case also.
Secondly we all know the story about Krejza before his debut. At the time i saw it as madness selection that a guy who isn't even a FC regular in 07/08 could get picked. But when he took his 12 for is saw the raw talent that could be of some use in the long run for the test side. So of all the dumb selection Hilditch & have made since 2008 - recognizing Krejza raw talent circa 2008 was good. But stupidly they dropped him before it was needed, since they wanted to use him as defensive bowler in a 4-man attack, which was never his strength @ Perth 08. Then when their mistake failed, they dropped him. Ridiculous stuff.
But of course the way AUS picked Krejza on just raw talent on no concrete FC form is alien for the last 20 years. Given AUS dominace was built upon players playing test after years of proving themselves on the FC stage. So i can understand why that may still bother some. But such selections happen
all the time in other countries with weak FC structures.
Thridly no. With Tasmania after he got dropped from the test side in 08/09 it wasn't a situation that as you said '
couldn't beat Xavier Doherty for a spot in Tasmania. No not at all. Tasmania just tactically chose to pick a the defensive spinner because for the majority of the last 2 seasons Tasmania employed a 4-man attack (3 quicks of Maher, Butterworth, Drew, Geeves & Hilfy the few times he wasn't on AUS duty). So given none of those was exactly big wicket-taking quicks @ FC level especially with Hilfy not around, tactically they could not afford to play Krejza with his attacking treats. Thus they played Doherty - the defensive option.
Tass also didn't understand him since when they dropped him captain Bailey also expected Krejza to bowl as a defensive spinner.
Maybe now that Tassie are champions & they have Faulkner in their side to enable them to have 5 bowlers. Krejza will get more chances (presuming he isn't a AUS regular during the 11/12 season)
Finally his ER is irrelevant in tests. Especially if he can more often that not spin out teams which he certainly is the best equipped AUS spinner to do so in test on wearing 4th/5th day tests. 30-2-140-5 is still match-winning figures just as much as 30-10-90-5 on a final day.
sifter132 said:
And War who is your current ideal Aussie 5 man attack that you keep mentioning? Watson is not the 5th I assume? Who is the mystery man? Also it's funny you mention McDonald as a bad selection. The SA series where he last played is the last big series Australia won (I think we've been over this before, just thought I'd rib you about McDonald=win again ) Anyway, McDonald was bowling for the team and not himself and I think that's what the current attack has missed - and that's why I dropped Hopes name as an unconsidered option. Right now, all the 'frontline' quicks are so scared of their own spot that they can't think of the team when they bowl - they just pin their ears back and look for wickets. Bollinger and Siddle seem particularly guilty of that, and you never know what Johnson or Harris will provide.
Im not a fan of a 5-man attack really. I just was saying if Krejza plays for AUS again (most likely the SRI tour where AUS will have to play a spinner). Its has to be in a 5-man attack, since for aforementioned reasons thats the only way you are going to get the best out of him. One of the fast bowlers (Harris or Hilfy if he finds his SA 08-IND 2010 mojo back) will have to take up the mantle of defensive bowler for Clarke.
Outside of tours to SRI & the subcontinent, AUS should be picking 4 quicks as i still maintain, since regardless of how hot & cold some of them are, until a spinner maybe develops & proves himself capable of holding down a place in the side on merit. That is only way AUS are going to put out 4 wicket-taking options in a test match.
If AUS pick 5 bowlers (3 quicks + Watson + whatever spinner) as we saw in the Ashes. That isn't really a 5 man attack with 5 bowlers capable of wickets. Its just the 3 quicks doing that given issues such as:
- Watson's bowling isn't putting in the work for tests like Kallis does for S Africa & against good batting sides he can be made to look very toothless as his abysmal returns with the ball in Ashes shows.
- None of the spinners are that good. None will do the main job of test standard spinner, which is to be a wicket-taking threat/win us a test on wearing 4th/5th day wickets. Which right way cuts down the overall wicket-taking ability of the 5 man attack.
At least with the 4 quicks (pick 4 of Bollinger/Harris/Johnson/Siddle/Hilfy for now. Maybe Copeland & young Starc/Cummins could come into in the coming months). Although its not perfect, you are being safe & you are backing your only bowling strong points to come good. Which I still have faith in especially when i see how people are praising England's pace depth is getting right now. AUS quick options is just as good - but for various reasons aren't putting that consistency together.
On McDonald. Again all i'll say is in almost 130 years test cricket McDonald isn't the first & wont be last crap cricketer to get away with being exposed for his average ability in tests.
In that SA series 08/09 McDonald simply got lucky since he was able to settle into good lines & lengths given he fed of the pressure & destruction the AUS pace trio caused the SA batsmen in the first two test of that series (That coincidentally was the only series in the post McWarne era that AUS quicks bowled well in group for a full series).
In the final test of that series, which was the only tests the SA top 7 saw off the pace trio early assault they smoked McDonald. That was nothing more than AUS getting away with murder, rather than any sign of McDonald's usefulness.
So that isn't a good reasons to suggest picking Hopes for tests, especially now with the AUS quicks not bowling penetratingly. Plus even if AUS quicks start to bowl penetratingly soon, you dont need to go to McDonald/Hopes option to try & tie down oppostion attack. Hilfy if he regains his mojo can do it, along with Harris.
sifter132 said:
We just differ in philosophy. I've got nothing against Katich and he certainly didn't cause the Ashes loss, but I don't think Australia should be clinging to too many old players when as a unit we probably aren't going to win against the big teams. That said, I think Katich should still have got a contract because the #6 spot is still up in the air and if Hughes and Khawaja go poorly against SL and SA, then Katich should still be an option for the India series this summer. I'd rather have the option to use him than just cut him blindly. Example scenario would be if Australia gets lucky and gets in front but Hughes or Khawaja is sucking royally, then Katich would be a good stop-gap to bring in and try to protect that series. I just think he's got little long term value and I can understand why he got cut. He'd still be in my 'best' XI, but that doesn't mean much - Shane Warne would still be in it too.
All this long term value talk is pretty boring man. Just take it one series at the time. Their is so much if's & buts about many players & positions in the AUS test team right now, that its even more ridiculous to cut Katich, given he is one of the few players whose performances we are sure about & put our head on block for regardless of age, over the past 2-3 years.
Test cricket is one format quite obviously also where senior players in the batting is key. You how long India are holding on to Dravid even though he is failing???, at least Katman was performing in the midst of AUS test turmoil.
Im sorry my friend, but is ludicrous in all ways to suggest any line of defense reasoning/philosophy to support Katich not getting a contract.
All we can do is better hope the man doesn't retire because of this. Then we gonna see the joke..
Num said:
Paul Harris has a better first-class strike-rate.
I hope you realise that Harris test career is over for S Africa because of the Imran Tahir finally qualify to play for them. Along with the
KEY factor that since he took that 5 for vs ENG 09/10 @ Centurion. He has become totally useless for S Africa on turning pitches/wearing 4th & 5th day surfaces.
, but I'm going to agree with War about Krejza. The World Cup (indeed any arena where Yuvraj excels with the ball) should not be used as any sort of indicator for picking spinners. 
He's got the raw potential to be good (with a LOT of improvement), but I don't think his current ability deserves a contract. Like you said - he's like a toothless Stuart MacGill...For me it really boils down to the fact that he has not done anything in career other than that very expensive 12 wicket haul vs India - that's the only 5fer he's taken EVER. The only season he's ever averaged under 35 in FC cricket was last season..when he took only 4 wickets in 2 games @ 24.5 because he couldn't beat Xavier Doherty for a spot in Tasmania. And he's only had one season ever when he's gone for less than 3.5 RPO - he just leaks runs and rarely takes wickets...He's never been able to control a batting lineup and only once has he ever run through one. The only reason he's even an option right now is that every other spinner has a similarly poor record. There is no way in hell he should be holding a CA contract right now.
) Anyway, McDonald was bowling for the team and not himself and I think that's what the current attack has missed - and that's why I dropped Hopes name as an unconsidered option. Right now, all the 'frontline' quicks are so scared of their own spot that they can't think of the team when they bowl - they just pin their ears back and look for wickets. Bollinger and Siddle seem particularly guilty of that, and you never know what Johnson or Harris will provide.
- not sure I want him back, but it's an option at least given there is no incumbent #6/7, especially in a tough place like SL where an extra bowler might be required in the tough conditions.
