• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

England v NZ & Aust 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
He was part of the merry-go-round of spinners IIRC - which is another discussion on selections.

At least he was under 30 and his name is Beer;)
 

Highlander35

Andrew Slack (58)
I just remember that he had a fairly rotten first class average with the ball, somewhere between 45 and 50, and no notable skill with the bat.

Think from 3 tests he finished with an average of 60 with the ball and 2 with the bat. Not good figures for anyone.

Regardless, S. Marsh in for Voges is the most obvious change from the options available. I'd consider swapping in Siddle or Patto for Starc. It feels like more changes are needed in the top/middle order, but the other options are Watson and Haddin, and I don't think Neville deserves to be dropped, and Watson isn't appropriate anywhere in the order.
 

Brumby Runner

David Wilson (68)
Y

My biggest concern in regard to our bowlers is Starc. He doesn't seem to have the same control with the red ball as he had with the white ball. Bowls far too many loose balls for a test cricketer and releases the pressure at vital times. Perhaps it's time we take a look at Cummins or Siddle. Personally I'd prefer the former just to see if we can find a point of difference, Siddle is a known quality IMO and Hazlewood is playing the Siddle role well anyway.

Then again Starc bowled well in the second innings and did score some valuable runs. Selectors have some serious issues.

I'd certainly like to see Starc bowl with more control and consistency, however, imo he is not as wayward as Mitch Johnston has been at various times in his career. Persist with him I reckon. Don't think Pat Cummins is the bowler he was before injury. Looks to have lost a fair bit of top end pace, and also can be wayward. Siddle is consistent, but I think his best is behind him.

The current three are the best options imo. Will be strengthened when Pattinson and Coulter-Nile become available.

I'd also persist with Mitch Marsh as the all rounder at least until Faulkner, or someone else, shows consistently better form than Mitch. Many players take time to adjust to the demands of test cricket, and I think M Marsh might be one of them.

Batting-wise, I think Shaun Marsh probably deserves another go in place of Voges, but longer term I am looking forward to Chris Lynn coming into consideration as much for his fielding as his batting atm.
 

light

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Actually he has had one excellent season - 2014/15, but other than that he's been nothing special. He's never been in serious contention for the test team during his previous 11 seasons of shield cricket.

In the SS runs scored list he is
2014/15 - 1st
2013/14 - 5th
2012/13 - 23rd
2011/12 - 7th
2010/11 - 10th
2009/10 - 27th
2008/09 - 25th

He's hardly been knocking on the door has he?

snip



You have way too much free time o_O
 

light

Peter Fenwicke (45)
Instead of researching statistics that really prove nothing, why don't you suggest your 4th test XI and let's have a meaningful discussion?


Worst selection in 20 years? - Give it a rest.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Instead of researching statistics that really prove nothing, why don't you suggest your 4th test XI and let's have a meaningful discussion?


Worst selection in 20 years? - Give it a rest.

Don't you like discussion based on facts? You prefer to be ill-informed?

You were the one who said "being far and away the most consistent performer in our domestic competition" which is clearly incorrect based on the evidence available.



Based on the squad selected the side for this test will be almost the same as for the last test. I expect S Marsh or Watson to come in for Voges, but the panel haven't been that easy to read lately.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
If averaging over 100 in the domestic season, including 6 centuries, and a high score of 249 is not enough to justify selection than I don't mind being ill-informed.


.

How's he going now?;)

In any case we both have firm views, so further discussion is pointless.

Thought you wanted to talk about the team for the next test anyway:)
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Fox News reporting that Clarke has decided to come in at 5 at Nottingham.

I assume that this means the team will look something like:

Warner
Rogers
Smith
S Marsh/Voges
Clarke
M Marsh
Nevill
Johnston
Starc
Hazelwood/Siddle
Lyon

Can't see them bringing Watson back in to bat at 4, so Marsh or Voges would seem to be fighting over that spot. Voges yet to impress on this tour, although the law of averages says he must score some runs at some point, while S Marsh has scored reasonably well on tour he has never really shown that he is test class (although the same could be said about Voges).

The bowling attack lacked someone who could bowl long spells acurately and economically at Edgbaston, Siddle probably better at that role than Hazelwood - much depends on the pitch.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Thought Starc was terrible last game, and even though the batsmen have lost us this series so far there's no one else to come in, other than Smarsh

So Smarsh in for Voges and batting 4, middle in for Starc for mine.
 

No4918

John Hipwell (52)
I think we need to stick with Starc and Hazelwood. Johnson probably has a year or two left and those guys are the future. Starc will be fine once he gets more consistency. Hazelwood's height and bounce will be much better in english conditions than Siddle's skidders. He is the closest we have seen to McGrath and while it will be unfair to put that expectation on him he does look very similar. Does anyone need reminding how good Pigeon was in England?

Dare I say we miss Watson coming on to bowl 5 tight overs to settle things down occasionally. Definitely not advocating for a recall but it was a strength of his Marsh doesn't yet have.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
I think we need to stick with Starc and Hazelwood. Johnson probably has a year or two left and those guys are the future. Starc will be fine once he gets more consistency.
This is exactly the problem with Starc. He bowls unplayable deliveries but then is incapable of bowling to a plan. And he hasn't improved noticeably with the red ball at all. It's just not enough at test cricket level. And it means the pressure is released so Johnson is not nearly as effective.

Hazelwood didnt bowl well in the second innings but has shown that he can keep it tight, bowl to a plan and take wickets. Hes in my team. But the third bowler has to be able to keep it tight too, as Harris was so good at. Sidds may not bowl the English captain with an unplayable delivery, but he'll keep the pressure on every ball
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
This is exactly the problem with Starc. He bowls unplayable deliveries but then is incapable of bowling to a plan. And he hasn't improved noticeably with the red ball at all. It's just not enough at test cricket level. And it means the pressure is released so Johnson is not nearly as effective.

Hazelwood didnt bowl well in the second innings but has shown that he can keep it tight, bowl to a plan and take wickets. Hes in my team. But the third bowler has to be able to keep it tight too, as Harris was so good at. Sidds may not bowl the English captain with an unplayable delivery, but he'll keep the pressure on every ball

We do need one of the quicks to bowl line and length at one end and of the current party only Siddle really fits the bill.
 

Pedrolicus

Dick Tooth (41)
Siddle is a plodder and had rarely been a game changer. Starc has the much more natural ability and will only get better with more experience. He was the best bowler at the world cup which isn't test cricket but it's not as different as some people make out.

Sent from my GT-I9305 using Tapatalk
 

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Siddle for Starc is the only bowling change I would consider, but even then I'd probably opt for Starc. the problem is our batting. We're not getting enough out of 4, 5 and 6 and it's putting enormous pressure on the players around them. Much as I don't like it, I think SMarsh will be in the team for trent Bridge. I was in favour of Voges getting the nod for the Ashes, based on his imposing Shield form and the fact that he got a hundred on debut. He's not done a lot since and we really need to win this test match, so if he were to get dropped so be it. I just wish we had some other options.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Although his "imposing" shield form was only one good year and on that basis was always likely to end in tears. If the selectors wanted to pick an older player with imposing 1st class form players like Klinger and Cosgrove had scored more runs over more sustained periods. Klinger for example has had a similar stellar season in the past, but has consistently outscored Voges over the years. Klinger also has regularly featured in the top runscorers in County Cricket - that might have been of some use as well.;)
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
QH, Voges has an FC batting average of 46.

You won't find any players outside of the team that has a higher average. As far as I'm aware David Hussey and Chris Lynn are the only players.
 

No4918

John Hipwell (52)
Although his "imposing" shield form was only one good year and on that basis was always likely to end in tears. If the selectors wanted to pick an older player with imposing 1st class form players like Klinger and Cosgrove had scored more runs over more sustained periods. Klinger for example has had a similar stellar season in the past, but has consistently outscored Voges over the years. Klinger also has regularly featured in the top runscorers in County Cricket - that might have been of some use as well.;)


Over the last four Shield seasons the stats are:

Voges - 3272 runs @ 818 per season, average 48.11
Klinger - 2779 runs @ 694.75 per season, average - 38.06
Cosgrove - 2394 runs @ 598.5 per season, average - 36.27

So, it seems Voges selection was certainly warranted over the long term compared to those two players. It hasn't worked, but it was hardly a terrible selection.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Nothing against the bloke, he's a quality shield player, but Klinger as an international standard player is an absolute myth. He has had some great FC innings but is nowhere consistent enough to be considered a real test option.

He has an FC average of 37. In 275 innings he has passed 50 a total of 65 times. That's 23%. Shane Watson for example is at about 25% at test level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top