SA Footy

amber_fluid wrote:

bennymacca wrote:why not pick head to give you some overs. Why does it have to be seam up?

The alrounder won't bowl much anyway so why not play Head at 6 who is a better batter and he can bowl you 10 overs if required.

yep, with our bowling attack, its not as if the 5th bowler needs to bowl 20+.

bennymacca wrote:

amber_fluid wrote:

bennymacca wrote:why not pick head to give you some overs. Why does it have to be seam up?

The alrounder won't bowl much anyway so why not play Head at 6 who is a better batter and he can bowl you 10 overs if required.

yep, with our bowling attack, its not as if the 5th bowler needs to bowl 20+.

The 4th ( Lyon ) didn't bowl that many!

Also Smith can bowl as well. Stralange he didnt bowl much in the last but he does have the potential to get a few overs done.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

Must be east coast favouritism again....... Oh wait a sec it's just the anti sa element

*i don't agree with the Cartwright selection

stan wrote:Also Smith can bowl as well. Stralange he didnt bowl much in the last but he does have the potential to get a few overs done.

Smith has been very reluctant to bowl himself since he was appointed captain. I'm not sure why. He needs to be encouraged to bowl more often.

It can't be to conserve energy, the prick never stands still!

While I don't buy the argument we must pick an allrounder, I do see it as an easy way to "drop" maddinson without actually dropping him.
Talk about bowlers work rate, then replace him with an "allrounder" who averages more with the bat than maddinson, and doesn't really bowl much.

Booney wrote:

stan wrote:Also Smith can bowl as well. Stralange he didnt bowl much in the last but he does have the potential to get a few overs done.

Smith has been very reluctant to bowl himself since he was appointed captain. I'm not sure why. He needs to be encouraged to bowl more often.

It can't be to conserve energy, the prick never stands still!

Correct weight there. Smiths bowling has actually improved in the last few years that he is a handy part timer.

He has 17 test wickets @51, Whislt not setting the world on fire, worth a few overs ow and again.

In india he should give himself a few to support Lyon a bit.

Trader wrote:While I don't buy the argument we must pick an allrounder, I do see it as an easy way to "drop" maddinson without actually dropping him.
Talk about bowlers work rate, then replace him with an "allrounder" who averages more with the bat than maddinson, and doesn't really bowl much.

I think the selectors were hoping that Head really got going this season. If he was smashing the door down averaging 45+ with the bat then they would pick him striaght away as he provides the No.6 who is a genuine bat but also more than handy with some part timer off spin.

stan wrote:

Trader wrote:While I don't buy the argument we must pick an allrounder, I do see it as an easy way to "drop" maddinson without actually dropping him.
Talk about bowlers work rate, then replace him with an "allrounder" who averages more with the bat than maddinson, and doesn't really bowl much.

I think the selectors were hoping that Head really got going this season. If he was smashing the door down averaging 45+ with the bat then they would pick him striaght away as he provides the No.6 who is a genuine bat but also more than handy with some part timer off spin.

Problem with Head is he looks all at sea against spin.

stan wrote:

Trader wrote:While I don't buy the argument we must pick an allrounder, I do see it as an easy way to "drop" maddinson without actually dropping him.
Talk about bowlers work rate, then replace him with an "allrounder" who averages more with the bat than maddinson, and doesn't really bowl much.

I think the selectors were hoping that Head really got going this season. If he was smashing the door down averaging 45+ with the bat then they would pick him striaght away as he provides the No.6 who is a genuine bat but also more than handy with some part timer off spin.

M Waugh said on Inside Cricket after the Hobart test that there isn't really any batsman banging the door down with a weight of runs. the two blokes who have really stood up over the past year really are Handscomb (shield final in particular) and Renshaw (to a lesser extent but stood up when it counted)

You could throw a blanket over the rest, Patterson, Maddinson, Ferguson, Head, Bancroft, Harris etc

Blokes like Stonis, Burns, Doolan etc have fallen away

White, Bailey, Voges, Christian too old

You could argue that blokes like Dean, Harris, Lehman, Weatherald etc the selectors would liek to see another year of consistant run making to get a shot at it.

In many ways, and this was admitted by Waugh, Maddinson was a speculation pick (gut feel so to speak) Better cricket brains than us on here think he has the ability to make it so was picked more on potential rather than performance as no one else really has the performance to warrant selection over him (save maybe Patterson). Cartwight in the same boat too.

This would be different if we had three or four blokes banging out back to back to back 800-1000 run 1st class seasons like we did in the 90s (Cox, Siddons, Lehmann, Law etc) deamnding to be picked.

No one is really doing it ATM

Dogmatic wrote:I would have preferred James Faulkner than Cartwright.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/player/270484.html

I agree. If you're looking for an allrounder you can't go past James Faulkner.

His fielding skills are superb too which fits perfectly within the Aussie team's skills sets. I've never seen a better fielder off his own bowling than Faulkner. A batsman will never hit a straight drive past him.

am Bays wrote:

stan wrote:

Trader wrote:While I don't buy the argument we must pick an allrounder, I do see it as an easy way to "drop" maddinson without actually dropping him.
Talk about bowlers work rate, then replace him with an "allrounder" who averages more with the bat than maddinson, and doesn't really bowl much.

I think the selectors were hoping that Head really got going this season. If he was smashing the door down averaging 45+ with the bat then they would pick him striaght away as he provides the No.6 who is a genuine bat but also more than handy with some part timer off spin.

M Waugh said on Inside Cricket after the Hobart test that there isn't really any batsman banging the door down with a weight of runs. the two blokes who have really stood up over the past year really are Handscomb (shield final in particular) and Renshaw (to a lesser extent but stood up when it counted)

You could throw a blanket over the rest, Patterson, Maddinson, Ferguson, Head, Bancroft, Harris etc

Blokes like Stonis, Burns, Doolan etc have fallen away

White, Bailey, Voges, Christian too old

You could argue that blokes like Dean, Harris, Lehman, Weatherald etc the selectors would liek to see another year of consistant run making to get a shot at it.

In many ways, and this was admitted by Waugh, Maddinson was a speculation pick (gut feel so to speak) Better cricket brains than us on here think he has the ability to make it so was picked more on potential rather than performance as no one else really has the performance to warrant selection over him (save maybe Patterson). Cartwight in the same boat too.

This would be different if we had three or four blokes banging out back to back to back 800-1000 run 1st class seasons like we did in the 90s (Cox, Siddons, Lehmann, Law etc) deamnding to be picked.

No one is really doing it ATM

I think Bancroft is the disappointing one. Selectors had big things planned for him 12 months ago but he was fallen away. Might have missed his chance with Renshaw doing so well.

Trav Head just needs to turn his starts into 100's and he'll be picked IMO. His shield scores this year have been 66, 43, 37, 34, 130, 52 plus his decent ODI games. Still a massive chance to go to India i reckon!

What are everyone's opinion in the current ICC Team of the Year? I know it's based on stats. But having Steve Smith carrying the drinks is a bit poor. Plus I haven't seen too many Indian batters picked at the top either.

ICC Test team of the year 2016:

1. David Warner (Australia)
2. Alastair Cook (England) (captain)
3. Kane Williamson (New Zealand)
4. Joe Root (England)
5. Adam Voges (Australia)
6. Jonny Bairstow (England) (wicketkeeper)
7. Ben Stokes (England)
8. R. Ashwin (India)
9. Rangana Herath (Sri Lanka)
10. Mitchell Starc (Australia)
11. Dale Steyn (South Africa)
12. Steve Smith (Australia)

Bombers4EVA wrote:What are everyone's opinion in the current ICC Team of the Year? I know it's based on stats. But having Steve Smith carrying the drinks is a bit poor. Plus I haven't seen too many Indian batters picked at the top either.

ICC Test team of the year 2016:

1. David Warner (Australia)
2. Alastair Cook (England) (captain)
3. Kane Williamson (New Zealand)
4. Joe Root (England)
5. Adam Voges (Australia)
6. Jonny Bairstow (England) (wicketkeeper)
7. Ben Stokes (England)
8. R. Ashwin (India)
9. Rangana Herath (Sri Lanka)
10. Mitchell Starc (Australia)
11. Dale Steyn (South Africa)
12. Steve Smith (Australia)

Well Voges for one is a joke... basing it on stats is biased towards teams that played the easy beats (ie voges having a good summer vs NZ and WI last yr).

Farcical.

Smith is the number 1 batsman in the world and doesn't get in the team of the year?

You either love him or hate him. But I think Kohli got a bit shafted there. He has to be up there with the best.

PatowalongaPirate wrote:Smith is the number 1 batsman in the world and doesn't get in the team of the year?

Exactly the point Im trying to make. I know the team is picked on stats made in that calendar year. But come on there are blokes taking plenty of runs and taking plenty of wickets that aren't even mentioned. Someone in the selectors must love the Poms.

The funniest thing about the ICC Test and ODI teams of the year is the butt hurt comments from Indians on Social Media complaining about Kohli not being in the test team and no Dhoni in the ODI team. Also they complained about there being too many English players in the test side, they get real nasty about it lol, I get a good laugh out of reading them.

The Dark Knight wrote:The funniest thing about the ICC Test and ODI teams of the year is the butt hurt comments from Indians on Social Media complaining about Kohli not being in the test team and no Dhoni in the ODI team. Also they complained about there being too many English players in the test side, they get real nasty about it lol, I get a good laugh out of reading them.

I don't like the bloke (Kohli) that much but respect that he is one of the best batsman going around. I think if everyone was to pick their own version on the best Test side for that year, it wouldn't be based on just stats alone.