Test XI Selection Thread

[Boris]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Its nothing new when the latest hot prodigy with the massive media bandwagon behind them is in form, next will be Khawaja

Some would have a test team full of 20 year olds, wouldnt matter that they wouldnt win a test series for 10 years...

I wasn't only talking in the media, but on here, people factoring in the bowling like I was trying to do, then all of a sudden they take it out of the equation and say he's going to be the next batting superstar, just to misquote me.

And there are some people who advocate youth. I'm mostly the opposite. I would pick McGain if he is useful to the team. Who cares if you get 2 years out of him, that's 20-30 wickets you could get out of an in form legspinner.

Every team needs youth, but you also have to remember that every team needs balance. No use picking 5 under 25ers, where's the point in that? Then everyone would complain when they all retire in the same series.

Pick White ahead of Smith any day. White at least has some years behind him. Don't need another 20-22 year old in the team.

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Can't be bothered quoting, it will get too cumbersome.

Hughes had two full seasons of State cricket before being selected for Australia. And after he was dropped, he wasn't having difficulty against the short ball. It was balls he'd normally put away that were getting him, because his feet were all over the place as he struggled with his new technique, which he since has either abandoned or gotten used to, as his form rose rapidly towards the end of the season. State bowlers for the most part aren't international quality, and state captains and state coaches don't come up with international standard strategies. This flaw wouldn't have been found at at State level, at least not to the point where he was forced to fix it. Nobody would have known how he'd fare until he got into the Test side and showed his wares.

I don't know why you're so upset about Hughes. It's pretty standard for a young bloke to get a taste, go back to state cricket, work on his flaws and come back an even better player. Steve Waugh did it. Martyn did it. Hayden did it. Clarke did it. Katich did it. It's standard. Hughes will be no different. If Hughes hadn't have come in when he did, it wouldn't have changed how stable the opening pair was. He would have found it just as hard to get into the side as he will now. Hughes got his games because the opening was there. Somebody was going to fill it. Hughes had a chance, wasn't quite ready, but it was great to see how he went. Now it's been filled by somebody else. If he hadn't been put in to start with, somebody else would still have filled it anyway, and he'd be in the same position. At least this way we've seen what he can do, and he knows what he has to do to make it at an international level.

On Smith, he has enormous potential with both bat and ball. The reason the media is picking up on his bowling so much is that 1. in 20/20 he's more bowler than batsman, in 50-over he's evenly balanced, as his bowling at the moment suits the shorter forms of the game, and 2. that we're crying out for a legspinner, he has enormous potential in that department, so naturally we want him bowling full time straight away, even if he's not quite ready. Neither of those points take away from his batting ability, which he has shown time and time again at First Class level is great.

Now, if Smith comes into the side, will he be dropped after a while? Yeah, probably. Is this a bad thing for his development? Not at all. As I pointed out above, getting dropped is often great for a player.

I'll say it now, Smith has the potential to be one of the best allrounders in the world, a genuine 45+ with the bat, 27- with the ball sort of player. With a short, low-pressure Test series on foreign soil with no domestic cricket going on in the mean time, this is the perfect opportunity to give him a taste. He's certainly earned it. His slightly loose batting technique might struggle, his inconsistent bowling will probably attract some stick, but it will be the absolute best thing for his cricket, and he's still in the sort of form that even with those troubles, you'd back him in to contribute.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

I wasn't only talking in the media, but on here, people factoring in the bowling like I was trying to do, then all of a sudden they take it out of the equation and say he's going to be the next batting superstar, just to misquote me.

And there are some people who advocate youth. I'm mostly the opposite. I would pick McGain if he is useful to the team. Who cares if you get 2 years out of him, that's 20-30 wickets you could get out of an in form legspinner.

Every team needs youth, but you also have to remember that every team needs balance. No use picking 5 under 25ers, where's the point in that? Then everyone would complain when they all retire in the same series.

Pick White ahead of Smith any day. White at least has some years behind him. Don't need another 20-22 year old in the team.

I wasnt only talking of the media, but most of these beatup players start there and its usually from one state, notice other players with strong domestic records only get talked up on cricket boards, rarely hear about Klinger in the media

But on another board there is talk of NSW competing at Test level, its all well and good to say they have all this talent, but yeah no side with that much inexeperience and youth is going to win series after series

But it was Hughes, now its Smith, really if he was a batsman only he wouldnt be mentioned as much, but yes it is his bowling that gets people excited, the bowling that was at an average of 75, I'm sure after playing 2 very weak sides that has probably dropped now, but with so little experience those averages will fluctuate alot

The thing with young players is people want to fit them all in, where do they all fit? Who goes out for Smith, Hughes and Khawaja to play?

I agree with you, International cricket is not where youngsters get a game for the sake of it, if they get lucky like Siddle and they are the best available, good luck to them. But when there is plenty of good and experienced players around there is no need to rush Smith in, he is there for experience

But it is funny, he was called up to the test squad as cover for Hauritz as a spinner, now he is going to bat no6 as a batsman? I agree, they should make up their minds what he is

As for McGain, what happens when Smith goes for 180 in a game? It overlooked because he is young?

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

I wasnt only talking of the media, but most of these beatup players start there and its usually from one state, notice other players with strong domestic records only get talked up on cricket boards, rarely hear about Klinger in the media

But on another board there is talk of NSW competing at Test level, its all well and good to say they have all this talent, but yeah no side with that much inexeperience and youth is going to win series after series

But it was Hughes, now its Smith, really if he was a batsman only he wouldnt be mentioned as much, but yes it is his bowling that gets people excited, the bowling that was at an average of 75, I'm sure after playing 2 very weak sides that has probably dropped now, but with so little experience those averages will fluctuate alot

The thing with young players is people want to fit them all in, where do they all fit? Who goes out for Smith, Hughes and Khawaja to play?

I agree with you, International cricket is not where youngsters get a game for the sake of it, if they get lucky like Siddle and they are the best available, good luck to them. But when there is plenty of good and experienced players around there is no need to rush Smith in, he is there for experience

But it is funny, he was called up to the test squad as cover for Hauritz as a spinner, now he is going to bat no6 as a batsman? I agree, they should make up their minds what he is

As for McGain, what happens when Smith goes for 180 in a game? It overlooked because he is young?

Too much is made of experience. Sure, it's important to have some experienced players, but when a player is in form, he deserves a shot, regardless of age. If his inexperience then leads to him not performing consistently and then being dropped, then fine. That's the natural order of things, but when he's in form, done everything he can to earn a spot, you should reward that.

I'm not one for selecting youth for the sake of youth. Smith's age isn't the reason I want him playing. It's his performances. If he was 25 I'd still want him there. Quite simply, he was arguably the best batsman in the SS this year.

And if he goes for 180, and doesn't score any runs, he gets dropped. Why would it be overlooked? It wasn't overlooked for Hughes, Krejza, Casson, and any other young guys that have come in and not performed consistently. The strong bounce back, those not cut out don't. Best way to sort out the wheat from the chaff really.

People going crazy over youth are bad. People who backlash against it and refuse to acknowledge the worthiness of players just because they're young are equally bad.

Judge each player on his merits. On Smith's performances this year, he hasn't put a foot wrong. There's plenty of experience in Katich, Ponting, Clarke and Hussey, with Watson and Haddin also having played a lot of cricket (but perhaps still yet to FULLY settle in at international level) to allow Smith a game if he's earned it.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

But the question remains, you have a player in his first year making lots of runs and averaging 75 or you have a player who has averaged 50 over 4 seasons and 50 or so in his last 12 months in the ODI side, which is better?

If he is the best available, he is the best available, but there are experienced options doing it for longer and more consistently, lets see some consistency, Klinger hasnt been thrown into the side and he has made more runs than anyone else in the last 2 years

A couple of years ago alot complained when a young player was overlooked for a CA contract and more experienced players got them, of course that same player has totally fallen away due to his own personal lack of commitment, but sometimes they got to look at who will be best now, you cant always blood players, but if you have someone who might have a good 10 years at the top level and is performing, have a look at him, or you can go the young guy and the next young guy and eventually after trying a few the experienced player is now too old, or you try the experienced player, he fails and the young guy has had another 6-12 months of FC experience and if he is still going strong then in he comes

Besides Australia usually use their ODI side for blooding players, not the test side, having not featured in the ODI side its obvious this is an experience trip for Smith, look over the years and see how often a young guy they dont intend on playing is picked, every now and then though they do get lucky due to injuries

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

But the question remains, you have a player in his first year making lots of runs and averaging 75 or you have a player who has averaged 50 over 4 seasons and 50 or so in his last 12 months in the ODI side, which is better?

If he is the best available, he is the best available, but there are experienced options doing it for longer and more consistently, lets see some consistency, Klinger hasnt been thrown into the side and he has made more runs than anyone else in the last 2 years

A couple of years ago alot complained when a young player was overlooked for a CA contract and more experienced players got them, of course that same player has totally fallen away due to his own personal lack of commitment, but sometimes they got to look at who will be best now, you cant always blood players, but if you have someone who might have a good 10 years at the top level and is performing, have a look at him, or you can go the young guy and the next young guy and eventually after trying a few the experienced player is now too old, or you try the experienced player, he fails and the young guy has had another 6-12 months of FC experience and if he is still going strong then in he comes

Besides Australia usually use their ODI side for blooding players, not the test side, having not featured in the ODI side its obvious this is an experience trip for Smith, look over the years and see how often a young guy they dont intend on playing is picked, every now and then though they do get lucky due to injuries

White has averaged 38 in 50-over cricket this summer, and 46 with a highest score of 82 in First Class. Those are not hugely impressive stats. While White has probably cemented his spot in the ODI team, his form hasn't been so good that he is knocking the door down for the Test team, and his First Class form hasn't either.

On what they have both shown, on current form Smith has more of a claim to a Test spot than White. Your argument seems to be that if we try guys younger than White, he'll be too old by the time he gets into the side. Well I call bullshit. That just reeks of panic that the Victorian goldenboy won't get a proper shot. You say the young guys will come in if their still going strong, well, White has had 8 years to be "still going strong", and he hasn't. He has been a good contributor at First Class level, at times enthralling, but at times disappointing. Will he break into the Test side again at some point? I certainly hope so. He potentially has a lot to offer. Does he deserve it more than Smith right now? No. The performances simply haven't been there in the longest form of the game.

 

[Ljp86]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

While Smith has been playing very well of late I believe he is still a bit young to be making his debut in the side. At 20 years of age he still has a lot to learn about cricket and his game is a long way from being fully developed. Taking him to New Zealand is a great choice though and I feel that the experience of touring with the side will do him the world of good.

At the moment, the selectors owe it to North to give him one last crack at keeping his spot. His test series in South Africa and England were very good, his summer was poor but he did a lot for the side during early and midway through 2009. If North fails for the series or even the first test then he might find himself dropped for Smith. if he isn't dropped then he'd certainly find himself out of the side for the tests against pakistan in England. If Smith does indeed play he should bat at seven and be the second-choice spinner. There is no way that Smith is a better bat than Haddin at the moment or in general. And Hauritz has performed adequately enough in recent times to be thrown the ball as the side's first choice spinner. Smith's bowling has been hammered at international level so far which suggests his bowling is still a fair way off becoming potent as well as being challenging to opposition batsman.

Smith does have great potential though and I hope he can further develop his game at domestic level. A county stint in England would do him the world of good in my opinion.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

I do like how Cameron Whites average over summer keeps getting lower every day...

He averaged 41 for the summer and 45 for Australia since the start of the England tour, not bad at all, but of course runs at international level dont compare to the might of the South Australian and Tasmanian bowling attacks...

Anyway all this talk about Smith replacing North yet so far in his limited appearances in Australian squads he has batted in the tail and been called up as standby for Nathan Hauritz...

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

I do like how Cameron Whites average over summer keeps getting lower every day...

He averaged 41 for the summer and 45 for Australia since the start of the England tour, not bad at all, but of course runs at international level dont compare to the might of the South Australian and Tasmanian bowling attacks...

Anyway all this talk about Smith replacing North yet so far in his limited appearances in Australian squads he has batted in the tail and been called up as standby for Nathan Hauritz...

I'm just going on what Cricinfo tells me. 38 in 50-over cricket for Australia and Victoria for the 09/10 summer is not enough to demand Test selection. It puts his name out there, certainly, but it hardly forces the selectors' hands. And his domestic First Class form has been as it always has with White, there or thereabouts, never really making a statement.

And that last point shows a deep misunderstanding of Smith's role in the shorter forms of the game. In T20 cricket, he is a better bowler than he is batsman. His slight inconsistency is not that significant, as even good balls go for boundaries in 20/20, but he has enough tricks, flights the ball and lands the good balls often enough to consistently take wickets and beat the bat. 50 over cricket is more of a balance between bat and ball, and he is equally effective with both. And the reason he was at 8? Well, where else would you fit him? We had a long batting lineup in those games. Hell, Watson batted 8 a few times when he first came on the scene, because he couldn't be fitted in up the order. It wasn't long before he was opening. Hopes has also come in at 8, as well as opened. It doesn't say anything about his talent with the bat, just the relative strength of the rest of the lineup.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Hopes is a definate bowling all rounder, Watson started out that way too, you wouldnt bat Hopes at no6 or 7 in the test side nor would Watson back when he started so they dont really help the argument that he should be regarded as a batsman for the test side and the selectors have so far seen him as more of a bowler despite his appalling first class bowling record at the time

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Hopes is a definate bowling all rounder, Watson started out that way too, you wouldnt bat Hopes at no6 or 7 in the test side nor would Watson back when he started so they dont really help the argument that he should be regarded as a batsman for the test side and the selectors have so far seen him as more of a bowler despite his appalling first class bowling record at the time

But my point is that ODI form/role doesn't directly translate to Test form/role. Within the context of ODIs, Watson can open, bat down the order, whatever, and so can Hopes. Hopes can open when needed. In fact, I'd say nowadays he's more of a batsman. Just look at his recent form with the bat and compare it with the ball. When he was out on the fringes of the team, he got back in on the strength of his batting.

But all that aside, I'm just making the point that you can't judge Smith on the fact that he was batting number 8. It wasn't an indication that he was only worth coming in at 8, simply that he was an allrounder, like Hopes, and couldn't get a gig ahead of the specialist batsmen who were in at that particular time, but still had a role to play.

You're seriously getting yourself confused here. None of any of that matters. IN FOUR/FIVE DAY CRICKET, SMITH IS A BATTING ALLROUNDER. There are no questions about that, whatever he has done in the shorter forms. And on his batting performances, he deserves the number 6/7 spot. Accept it. Move on. White hasn't done enough yet in the longest form of the game. He's a world class shorter-form player, but he hasn't done enough in the longest form. He still has plenty of time though.

 

[Young Willi Lad]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

White is such a safer option than Smith.
White has hardly played FC cricket this season because of playing ODI's for Australia.
They are both incredible fieldsmen but White's fielding in the longer forms is far more valuable because he is in the top 5 slip fieldsmen in the world.
White has been a consistant performer for Victoria in Shield cricket for a number of seasons now where has Smith has had 1 strong season, granted he has done well but his technique is not up to stratch to bat at no.6 at test level where as White's is.
Cameron White also is handy as a leggie also. I have no idea why he hasn't been bowling of late but he has 172 FC wickets at an averae of 40, that's not disgraceful. Smith has 26 wickets at 48. So if you want to push statistics as the only factor then White is a better bowler than Smith.
I however know that is not the case but right now and for this series White is a far superior cricketer to Smith and should be batting no.6 in the first test in NZ but unfortunately he isn't.

 

[breeno]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Well are you going to put a bowling all rounder at 6???
Are you going to put a batting all rounder at 6???
Are you going to put a bowler at 6???

So far he's had a good time with everything. What happens when his true colours shine through?

I would like to say the same to you. Back up your statement with evidence because I think I have supplied enough. My evidence is the lack of evidence that he should be playing.

I'd put a guy who averaged 70 with the bat this year at number 6. It doesn't matter "if his true colours shine through", because what if they never do? Would you maybe take into your flawed logic that Smith can actually be a very good player of both, he doesn't have to be "neither here nor there", and I think he knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

While Smith has been playing very well of late I believe he is still a bit young to be making his debut in the side. At 20 years of age he still has a lot to learn about cricket and his game is a long way from being fully developed. Taking him to New Zealand is a great choice though and I feel that the experience of touring with the side will do him the world of good.

At the moment, the selectors owe it to North to give him one last crack at keeping his spot. His test series in South Africa and England were very good, his summer was poor but he did a lot for the side during early and midway through 2009. If North fails for the series or even the first test then he might find himself dropped for Smith. if he isn't dropped then he'd certainly find himself out of the side for the tests against pakistan in England. If Smith does indeed play he should bat at seven and be the second-choice spinner. There is no way that Smith is a better bat than Haddin at the moment or in general. And Hauritz has performed adequately enough in recent times to be thrown the ball as the side's first choice spinner. Smith's bowling has been hammered at international level so far which suggests his bowling is still a fair way off becoming potent as well as being challenging to opposition batsman.

Smith does have great potential though and I hope he can further develop his game at domestic level. A county stint in England would do him the world of good in my opinion.

Agree 100%.

No-one really expects Smith to be in the first test eleven but if North gets a pair then things could get interesting.

Smith deserves a place in the squad, and if the cards fall his way, he would deserve a place in the side if one opens up.

We have Hughes as the specialist reserve batsmen and we have Smith as a batting allrounder. The fact that Smith deserves selection on his batting alone means that he was a certain choice for the squad once you factor in his ever improving leg spin bowling and his dynamic fielding.

McKay will probably play over Harris and despite the gentle ribbing I have given the victorians, I do think McKay is a quality bowler.

I think overall the squad is a good mix of players, all of them are capable of representing Australia right now, but at the same time players like Hughes and Smith will learn a lot going on this tour even if they don't play.

As pointed out, North deserves another shot at number 6 but his chances are running out, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realise that.

 

[brickwaller99]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Pick White ahead of Smith any day. White at least has some years behind him. Don't need another 20-22 year old in the team.

How many are there already in the team?
I can't seem to find any.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

I have no problems with picking a 20 year old.

I don't think Smith will play in the first test, as North wouldn't have been picked in the squad if his not going to be in the first choice eleven.

However, there is no harm in taking Smith at all, not least for the fact that he will be able to bowl to players like Ponting in the net. It will be invaluable for him.

 

[Boris]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

I'd put a guy who averaged 70 with the bat this year at number 6. It doesn't matter "if his true colours shine through", because what if they never do? Would you maybe take into your flawed logic that Smith can actually be a very good player of both, he doesn't have to be "neither here nor there", and I think he knows exactly what he's doing.

Still not my point.

Let's use an example: Hopes in ODI cricket this summer.

Hopes is a bowling all rounder through and through, always has been, always will.

This summer, though, he has averaged 45 with the ball and has had some flashes of brilliance, but on the most part has been, for want of a better term, crap.

His batting though... that's a different story. Along with Hussey he has saved many games, or won them. His batting has brought him back as what you would probably call a permanent member now.

That's what I have trouble working out with Smith. Is he a batting all rounder truly? If he is, then I would be able to put him in at 6.

Or is he like Hopes is now, really a leg spinner and just having a good time with the bat. Will he drop off and average 30ish with the bat in the future? Is that good enough from a guy at 6/7?

If he is a bowling all rounder then Hauritz has his spot.

Otherwise I agree with Lpj, keep him on tour, don't play him.

 

[Mousey]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

I think the squad is alright. Personally I would have taken Cameron White and probably Ben Cutting.

 

[Boris]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

How many are there already in the team?
I can't seem to find any.

Out of the contracted (or to be) players.

Hughes, Siddle and Smith.

McKay and Bollinger are mid 20s and haven't been around too long.

White is 24.

Harris is younger than average as well, but nothing spectacular.

With 3 out of those 6 under 25 year olds playing in what would probably be a full strength side these days, you could say that a quarter of the team is.

 

[BabyBlues]

Re: Test XI Selection Thread - NZ Tour

Still not my point.

Let's use an example: Hopes in ODI cricket this summer.

Hopes is a bowling all rounder through and through, always has been, always will.

This summer, though, he has averaged 45 with the ball and has had some flashes of brilliance, but on the most part has been, for want of a better term, crap.

His batting though... that's a different story. Along with Hussey he has saved many games, or won them. His batting has brought him back as what you would probably call a permanent member now.

That's what I have trouble working out with Smith. Is he a batting all rounder truly? If he is, then I would be able to put him in at 6.

Or is he like Hopes is now, really a leg spinner and just having a good time with the bat. Will he drop off and average 30ish with the bat in the future? Is that good enough from a guy at 6/7?

If he is a bowling all rounder then Hauritz has his spot.

Otherwise I agree with Lpj, keep him on tour, don't play him.

But we don't know. You could ask the same thing about any young player, regardless of whether they're allrounders or specialists! You have to separate his batting ability from his bowling ability.

Hypothetically, say we have a 20 year old middle-order batsman who is piling on runs, unstoppable, higher average than any other of the top batsmen and more centuries in fewer matches. He has never bowled a ball in his life. He gets called up to the Australian team and bats at 6 or 7. Now, there is always the possibility there that he will end up averaging 30, and get dropped. It's quite possible. A lot of players get chances and don't go on with it. He might even make an appearance a few years later, a better player, and average 50 from that point onwards.

Now, I think it's fair to say that whether or not he has ever bowled is irrelevant. So I'm really struggling to see why you think a player in the exact same situation that CAN bowl is somehow more likely to fall through.

Let go of the concepts of batting and bowling allrounders. Smith is a genuine talent with the bat that is performing. He's in fantastic form. Play him. If his average drops, but his bowling comes along, then he turns into a bowling allrounder. Is that a bad thing?

You're justifying a preconceived notion (that Smith shouldn't get a game) by attributing to him a scenario that is just as likely with any young batsman, as well as portraying the scenario in a negative light when it really isn't. I mean really, who cares if Smith breaks into the side but his form then drops? He is then dropped, and is a better player for the experience. And why is this any more likely for Smith than any other young player anyway? It's not. Form is form. You're using his bowling to try to discredit his batting, because he obviously couldn't be good at both, right?

Seriously, seriously weak argument.