Whats even the point of naming White...

Top Contributors
BushrangerFanInNSW

BushrangerFanInNSW

New Member
Whats even the point of naming White...

If your going to bowl Clarke more?

1st Test
1st Innings
CL White 13 2 39 0 3.00
MJ Clarke 17 3 38 2 2.23

2nd Innings
MJ Clarke 20 7 40 0 2.00
CL White 18 4 49 1 2.72

2nd Test, so far...
1st Innings
MJ Clarke 6 0 22 0 3.66
CL White ... hasn't bowled yet ...


:confused:
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

Updated 1st Innings figures for the 2nd Test, so far...

MJ Clarke 7 0 28 0 4.00
CL White 17 0 60 2 3.52

Thats more like it, give him a chance to get some wickets
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

Why do you even bother to bag out your favourite team's skipper?
Do one thing and grow some balls. Don't act like a ******** on here and go and write off White, especially when you barrack for the bushrangers where he is the skipper.
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

I don't think he was bagging White, he was saying Ponting needs to give him the chance to bowl.
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

Was added for batting depth which in turn has been a miserable failure.

A thinly veiled defensive tactic by the Aussies which has accounted for nothing.

Time to throw Krezja to the sharks imo. No point picking him over Casson or even Hauritz if he isnt going to play.
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

Agree with you Big Man, would like to see Krezja have a crack as White isn't offering anything except a couple of wrong-un's and toppies. His batting has been close to a joke, he has been exposed to the fact that he isn't up to international cricket with the technique that he has and his bowling shouldn't even be considered by Ponting.

Hopefully Clark is back this test, Krezja gets a run and Marsh prepares himself for the future with some hits in the indian nets.
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

DizzyGillepsie;275740 said:
i love white because he's a victorian... but to be honest he doesn't really get any turn.
Click to expand...

i recon give him a go, theres really no warne in the making as of yet. kumble one of the best spinners ever doesnt turn the ball really yet carved out a career. indians are arguably the best players of spin so i believe give him a chance to see how he goes. as his batting symonds when he first had started test cricket the similar problem. its to quick to write him off yet
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

Kumble got bounce though, due his height and action as well as pushing the ball through at a good pace.

White needs to learn some more variations and also use changes in pace if he is going to have any sort of career.
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

mas cambios;275849 said:
Kumble got bounce though, due his height and action as well as pushing the ball through at a good pace.

White needs to learn some more variations and also use changes in pace if he is going to have any sort of career.
Click to expand...

i just believe given the lack of options, he at least worth a try to learn those things?
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

I know we are short on options but White playing Tests is a joke. He will never be able to bowl at Test level and most likely never make it as a batsman.

I have nothing against White and would like to see him in the ODI side with his aggressive batting and fielding but being selected at international level as a specialist bowling is laughable.
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

Another member on here made a good point regarding guys like White & Symonds.

They are in the team as "all rounders", however they only use that term because they're not really good at either batting or bowling hence the tag "all rounder".

Would they get picked purely for their bowling? No.

Would they get picked purely for their batting? No.

So why do we bother with them. Pick a bowler who is good at his craft and cant bat to save his life. Or pick a batsman who will only thinks about bowling when he's facing it.

Picking all of these "all rounders" is the safe option and its not paying off! ;)
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

el-capitano;276947 said:
Another member on here made a good point regarding guys like White & Symonds.

They are in the team as "all rounders", however they only use that term because they're not really good at either batting or bowling hence the tag "all rounder".

Would they get picked purely for their bowling? No.

Would they get picked purely for their batting? No.

So why do we bother with them. Pick a bowler who is good at his craft and cant bat to save his life. Or pick a batsman who will only thinks about bowling when he's facing it.

Picking all of these "all rounders" is the safe option and its not paying off! ;)
Click to expand...

symonds not picked for batting, u lost me there soldier, u were gin good until that crap came out.
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

crktluva;276958 said:
symonds not picked for batting, u lost me there soldier, u were gin good until that crap came out.
Click to expand...
Not to get this too far off topic- but Symonds is not a Test Batsman- he's capable and a very good ODI batsman- but up against a quality test bowling attack he will be found out! ;)
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

Have to agree.

Once Symo gets through that first 1/2 hour he can be very dangerous.

Unfortunately he often doesnt get though against quality bowling.
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

Watson & White

Why not pick a specialist batsman and a specialist bowler instead of two bits-and-pieces players who will never excel at either craft?

White:
-Doherty
-Casson
-Cullen
-Hauritz

Definitely not the richest talent pool but all would most likely do a better job than White.

Watson:
-Voges
-Marsh
-D.Hussey
-Hodge
-Pomersbach

All superior batsmen, and all Australia loses is 15-20 nonpenetrating overs from Watson
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

a for effort;277005 said:
Watson & White

Why not pick a specialist batsman and a specialist bowler instead of two bits-and-pieces players who will never excel at either craft?

White:
-Doherty
-Casson
-Cullen
-Hauritz

Definitely not the richest talent pool but all would most likely do a better job than White.

Watson:
-Voges
-Marsh
-D.Hussey
-Hodge
-Pomersbach

All superior batsmen, and all Australia loses is 15-20 nonpenetrating overs from Watson
Click to expand...
That's what I said! :D
 
Re: Whats even the point of naming White...

Incorrect El Cap. That's what "I" said. :) But thanks for raising it here.
Big Man's point is dead right. Once Symo gets through that first half hour he's devastating. But that should be true of any first class player let alone a test player. Getting past that first half hour against top shelf bowling is what test batting is about. So sorry Symo, go fishing while the tests are on, or keep picking up those single figure digs for Qld. I'm sure though the second you pick up a few wickets or arse a few runs against a soft attack you'll be rushed back in at the expense of someone less marketable.
Cut the "allrounder" rubbish out unless some boffin clones Keith Miller or Sir Garfield Sobers from one of his spare fingers. Pick players as bowlers or batsman and back them as such. Ie. if you pick White to bat at 8 as I believe they did in the 2nd test, that's insane. You can pick a specialist bowler who bats at 8 in the order, but to pick someone to bat at 8, and then give him 4 overs and take him off because he goes for 28, what the hell's that? Leave him on a bit and what happens? He gets Sachin Tendulkar twice. Good on him. Let the bloke bowl a bit. Shane Warne took 1 for 150 in his first test. Similar today, Punter actually persists with Krezja, 2 wickets, 8 an over, but who cares, 2 wickets.
Australia started this match with not one bowler with a test career av. under 30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top