The PlanetCricket View: CA contracts 2011-12

After hearing Katich's comments on FoxSports news, I couldn't agree more. Along with Watson (and later on Hussey in the Ashes) were the only ones of late to be strong contributors in our Test top 6. In my opinion, you should pick your best team on performance, not age.

I agree with you, not a big believer in picking young players based on potential, or 'grooming' them. You need to pick your best XI regardless of age, especially in Test cricket, and when they stop performing get the next best guy in. I still think Katich should be out Test opener.:thumbs

----------

Also, good on him for sticking with the Blues.:clap
 
Hilditch and co would have been really hoping for one (or more) of Ponting, Hussey and Katich to retire after the Ashes/World Cup, but none have - too bad Andrew. Personally, I think the Katich call was a difficult one to make and yes-harsh, but probably the right one in the long term or even mid-term for the opening partnership. We got smashed last summer and to go in with the same top 5 batsmen again when 3 of them are over 35 doesn't seem like prudent selection.

The other issue is that while the logic of forming a new opening partnership for the 2013 Ashes is a decent one, it fails to address that Australia currently doesn't have a #6 (arguably Khawaja or maybe even Steve Smith have an inside track to it though). I'm sure Katich swallow his pride and bat at #6 if it meant more Test cricket, but it has yet to be revealed if he was given that option.

With that in mind it seems a bit silly to axe Katich completely while there is a spot open that he could play in. Why let selectors make that decision now with a review in progress which could see an overhaul of the selection panel? He could easily have been given a contract instead of Cummins or Krejza who probably weren't expecting one. Instead we've now got a big hoo-hah in the media about it. Katich could have been dropped relatively quietly before the SL tour with the reasoning of giving a younger player a go. Then there could have at least been the option of bringing him back for the big India series in the summer if that younger player didn't succeed. But now it seems the selectors want to burn Katich's bridge by pissing him off and dumping him off the list completely. Not smartly handled IMHO. Even Brad Hodge got to hang around on a contract for a couple of years after the selectors were clearly never going to pick him.
 
Australian news: Action against Katich unlikely - Sutherland | Australia Cricket News | ESPN Cricinfo

^ We got to read this as well. This is a professional organization who respects the opinions and judgements of its players. Rather than putting on a stupid inquiry and making fool of yourself in the whole world

I am with Katich in his this view that there should be paid selectors because its a business and definitely paid selection committee will be having more responsibility than ever to its decisions.

As far as his batting is concerned, When I first saw him two years back, I said to myself, We have got another Justin Langer, but I guess I was wrong. I guess he needs to work on his batting. But not sure about the other players so can't have a final and confirmed say that He didn't deserve the contract.
 
1) Katich? It's probably time to move on. I can't see too much future in keeping 3 35+ year old batsmen from a soundly beaten Ashes team. Sure, Katich still has something left so it's a little harsh, but I think I would have made the same call. Why Kato? Well, Ponting and Hussey play ODIs as well, and Ponting deserves one more year to show if he's got anything left as he's been one of Australia's greatest players, while Hussey had a great summer. Whoever is in the worse form of Ponting/Hussey after this summer should be dropped too.

Doesn't make any sense my friend. Age should never ever be a consideration when picking your best test XI, especially in tests. Katich has been the most consistent batsman in the AUS team of this post McWarne era & its ridiculous on all counts to not give him a contract, even if you want to get a new opening partner for Wason.

I personally always was supporting the idea of Katman moving down the order for tours to SRI & SA with Hughes (or another young opener partnering Watto).

Katman is not as fault for Ashes lost. Im sure you say his comments & its the idiotic Hilditch lead panel UGHHHHHHHHH. This decision is just another one of the MANY selectional howlers from the Hilditch gang since the 2008 tour to the West Indies.


2) Cummins? Wow, 3 FC games and he's in?? I don't like it. I'd rather Copeland have gotten the contract as he's had 2 really good Shield seasons in a row - Cummins hasn't done enough to deserve a national contract IMHO. It doesn't send a good message to up and coming players. Right now performance in domestic cricket (and particularly CONSISTENCY in performance) doesn't mean much compared to the ability to hit 140kph. Pattinson is a similar story and I wouldn't have complained if he didn't get a contract either. Right now Cummins should be being told to develop his fitness and his skills - not to start counting his money...

I dont mind Cummins getting a contract. As angryangy highlighted you can certainly make so concessions for young potential stars in a big 25 man list like what AUS has. It doesn't necessarily have to be the best 25 players of a advanced age in Australia.

Both Cummins & Copeland should have gotten a contract. Although maybe in a way Copeland although he has been tearing it up domestically, the selectors at the moment aren't sure if he could make the step up internationally.



3) Krejza? 3 spinners contracted? Ummm, not what I would have done... Krejza looked pretty ordinary in the World Cup in conditions where he should have been effective, and since he was dropped in 2008 he has done very little for Tassie. So why is he getting a contract for that? That 12 wicket Test is looking more and more like one of the biggest flukes ever... With that said, he HAS got some skills but he is nowhere near a national level bowler IMHO. I still like Hauritz personally...anyway, it will be interesting to see what Michael Clarke thinks of his spinning options.

Ye as i said having 3 spinners contracted when AUS have a spin bowling problem is useless. I personally would not have contracted any spinner given none of them have established themselves in any format, although i strongly believe Krejza is the best option for tests. Those 3 spinners spot could have been taken by Katich, Starc & Copeland/Warner/George/Wade.

Also your criticism of Krejza is way over the top my friend. We have discussed his worthiness a bit in the recent past. So i'll state his defense again:

- Firstly before anyone questions Krejza based on his world-cup performance or anything else. I'd remind you i was one of the few that always said he was not ODI quality given his style of bowling standard regardless of what he did in the bigbash this year & I was always against him going to world-cup regardless of the fact that injuries to Hauritz & Doherty made the selectors pick him. So his failures in the cup should have absolutely no bearing on how he may go in tests again - it should just be seen as another selectional blunder by Hilditch & forgotten.

- Secondly. He hasn't looked ordinary for Tassie since he last played tests in 08 - Tassie just have been picking Doeherty in their FC instead of Krejza, because Doherty suits the balance of their better. But clearly that doesn't mean Doherty is a better FC spinner the Krejza.

You & everyone else need to understand Krejza's strengths & weaknesses. He is attacking off-spinner - that bowls in mould of a leg spinner (S MacGill) a fairly unique style of spinner. So given this he for example if he played for AUS in a 5-man attack, he would be well used.

For Tasmania given for much of the 08/09, 09/10, 10/11 domestic season had 4-man bowling attacks. Needed a spinner @ FC who could do the containng role, they couldn't risk the attacking guile of Krejza. But the Australian team certainly can since his 7 for in India was the only display form the plethora of AUS spinners used in tests since Warne, thats showed any signs of some ability to become a potential test standard spinner.

But having said all of that, again i wouldn't have contracted a spinner until one of them maybe proved their use this season.


If I were making the list I'd remove Cummins and Krejza and pick Hopes and Copeland (perhaps Pattinson could be replaced too with McKay who I think would be a good ODI option - at least). Why Hopes? Well he's been worked out a bit in the shorter formats, but for me he's a dark horse for a Test spot. He played really well last Shield season and if Australia want to play more bowlers, then they could do a lot worse than James Hopes at #7. I think he'd be much better value there than Steve Smith as he could be that bowler who could tie up an end and bowl some maidens. At the very least I think he deserves a contract - it sends a good message that domestic performances count.

No doubt Hopes is useful player. But i cant agree he deserved a contract at all my friend. In ODIs he as you know he lost his place to younger all-round options like Hastings & Christian. While picking him tests is certain no no - that would be just as bad as when the picked McDonald. Not all good domestic performance is sure sign that they player would be test standard & in the case of Hopes - he certainly isn't.

Smith although the selectors are over-rating him a bit, certainly is one those talent young players that deserved a contract for sure. The selectors (hopefully a new panel) just need to keep him farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr away from the test side for the next 5+ years until his all-round improves drastically.
 
the ACB does often handle these situations very well. A couple other boards could learn a lot from them.
 
I really don't want to :rolleyes, 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.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, people will turn away from pitches that reward defensive rubbish spin bowling, because they will find it dull as dishwater. Not to mention an insult to cricket.

When that happens, bowlers like Krejza, who actually try to bowl well, will have their time in the sun...
 
You & everyone else need to understand Krejza's strengths & weaknesses. He is attacking off-spinner - that bowls in mould of a leg spinner (S MacGill) a fairly unique style of spinner. So given this he for example if he played for AUS in a 5-man attack, he would be well used.
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.
 
^I think that sums it up very nicely re: Krejza angry - thanks :) 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.

But...unfortunately he is still one of the 'better' spin options Australia has right now...:(

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 :p) 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.

Doesn't make any sense my friend. Age should never ever be a consideration when picking your best test XI, especially in tests. Katich has been the most consistent batsman in the AUS team of this post McWarne era & its ridiculous on all counts to not give him a contract, even if you want to get a new opening partner for Wason.

I personally always was supporting the idea of Katman moving down the order for tours to SRI & SA with Hughes (or another young opener partnering Watto).

Katman is not as fault for Ashes lost. Im sure you say his comments & its the idiotic Hilditch lead panel UGHHHHHHHHH. This decision is just another one of the MANY selectional howlers from the Hilditch gang since the 2008 tour to the West Indies.

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.
 
Though I wouldn't exactly be a big supporter of Hopes in the Test team, like sifter said, at least he'd hold a consistent line and length and do similar to what Bresnan did in the Ashes. Also, regarding Krejza, +1 to angryangy and sifter. How would Australia's bowling attack build pressure by adding an expensive spinner in Krejza to a wayward pace bowling unit that leaks enough runs as it is? I'm not convinced by the 'wicket-taking' tag on Krejza either, Paul Harris has a better first-class strike-rate.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
^Good replies mate - always great to trade talking points :)

1) I take your point Re: Tassie and wanting a defensive spinner for their team, but I see them as very similar to the Aussie team -a reliability on pace for wickets and a captain who didn't know how to use spin to attack. So if Krejza wasn't right for Tassie, I don't see how he was right for Australia. He might be right under a new captain, but mmm...well it's hard to tell.

2) You also mentioned that Krejza's ER is irrelevant in Tests. I think I've addressed this before with a study of spinners through history. The ONLY spinner in history that lasted for more than a blink of an eye with a high ER is Stuart MacGill. Krejza is not Stuart MacGill.

3) McDonald: There was also a crucial difference in that 3rd Test. Bryce McGain played and got hammered, and McDonald played as the 5th bowler - not the 4th like he had in the first 2 Tests. The other difference was that it was ONLY AB DeVilliers who took to him - hitting him for a few big heaves over midwicket when AB had already got his 100 and SA were heading towards 600 and a declaration (Cricinfo tells me AB smashed McDonald for 41 off 19 in the player v player). Take out AB De Villiers and his figures would read 23.5-7-61-1. Very respectable. Long life Andrew McDonald :D - 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.

4) Youth & contracts: Yeah I dunno everyone has their own ideas about how to build and maintain a cricket team. I would have given Katich a contract, but I'm just saying I can see why he's not in the selectors future plans. So we're basically in agreement! Katich should have been in, Krejza not.

5) Paul Harris: I don't care if SA use him or not, we'll take him :p He's a better version of Michael Beer. He's a solid international level spinner, just like Hauritz was IMHO. Spinners don't need to be brilliant to me, just solid. Even the so called world leading spinner Mr Graeme Swann isn't great to me. He just feasts on left handers and gets swags of LBWs vs tail enders. But that's an argument for another day.
 
Last edited:
^Good replies mate - always great to trade talking points :)

1) I take your point Re: Tassie and wanting a defensive spinner for their team, but I see them as very similar to the Aussie team -a reliability on pace for wickets and a captain who didn't know how to use spin to attack. So if Krejza wasn't right for Tassie, I don't see how he was right for Australia. He might be right under a new captain, but mmm...well it's hard to tell.

Tasmania's pace attack is just good enough for FC and its that destructive. So Doherty worked well in that attack for that level of cricket.

AUS pace attack regardless of inconsistent it has been i firmly have faith its potential to take 20 test wickets. So hopefully Clarke uses Krejza better (presuming he wants him as the test spinner even) and i see no reason once that pace attack is clicking why Krejza wouldn't compliment a 5-man attack the best of any spinner in AUS in tests.

But again i prefer an all-pace attack more often & Krejza selection to be more conditions based.

2) You also mentioned that Krejza's ER is irrelevant in Tests. I think I've addressed this before with a study of spinners through history. The ONLY spinner in history that lasted for more than a blink of an eye with a high ER is Stuart MacGill. Krejza is not Stuart MacGill.

As i told AA before. 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).


3) McDonald: There was also a crucial difference in that 3rd Test. Bryce McGain played and got hammered, and McDonald played as the 5th bowler - not the 4th like he had in the first 2 Tests. The other difference was that it was ONLY AB DeVilliers who took to him - hitting him for a few big heaves over midwicket when AB had already got his 100 and SA were heading towards 600 and a declaration (Cricinfo tells me AB smashed McDonald for 41 off 19 in the player v player). Take out AB De Villiers and his figures would read 23.5-7-61-1. Very respectable. Long life Andrew McDonald :D - 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.

Dont agree my friend. McDonald could very well and be decent line & length bowler in tests just like how Sammy is for the West Indies.

But AUS have enough proper top 6 batsmen & proper attacking fast bowlers around for them to need to try a fit in a bits and pieces all-rounder like McDonald.


4) Youth & contracts: Yeah I dunno everyone has their own ideas about how to build and maintain a cricket team. I would have given Katich a contract, but I'm just saying I can see why he's not in the selectors future plans. So we're basically in agreement! Katich should have been in, Krejza not.

Ye i wouldnt have given a Krejza or any spinner a contract this year.


5) Paul Harris: I don't care if SA use him or not, we'll take him :p He's a better version of Michael Beer. He's a solid international level spinner, just like Hauritz was IMHO. Spinners don't need to be brilliant to me, just solid. Even the so called world leading spinner Mr Graeme Swann isn't great to me. He just feasts on left handers and gets swags of LBWs vs tail enders. But that's an argument for another day.

No. Harris has been in decline since that 09/10 series vs England (centurion test). He has been struggling to be a wicket-taking threat for the last 18 months on wearing 5th day wickets, a job he used to do fairly well for S Africa before 2010 (case in point his 6 wicket haul vs AUS in the 09 Capetown final day). So Tahir arrival has been a blessing for the Saffies since Harris had become a waste.

The current Harris is just as bad as the Hauritz of MCG 08 - Nagpur 10, who consistently failed to do that job of a test standard spinner (ignoring his wickets vs a PAK team in turmoil).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top