Second Test- Australia v South Africa

[1910]

Ian Chappell made a good point in the paper today that Shield teams are trying too much to develop young talent rather than win shield games. The younger players coming through aren't playing against enough experienced cricketers that they truly have to test themselves against. Maybe that's because the players aren't good enough to be consistent members of teams and have long careers or there actually is an over-reliance on developing young talent.

Yeah his idea is interesting but one should complement the other. If you're focus is on developing Test players then you should be developing good state players and then winning games.

Really it should just be both- develop the young players in our state to play for Queensland and then in turn produce Test players.

 

[1910]

Australia has traditionally never picked young batsmen; normally it's the sub continent teams that do. We normally make you bake in Shield cricket for 10, 000 runs.

Ponting was 21 that's the youngest I can think of for a while.

 

[Browny]

South Africa should declare now they've got enough

 

[1910]

South Africa should declare now they've got enough

My goal would be to only bat once and give the bowlers a huge rest- if they get 300-400 in front. We have to get 600 to make it a game.

 

[Browny]

I was being facetious, the Aussies would find a way to stuff it

 

[Sproj]

Hughes- 2009
Smith- 2010
Khawaja- 2011
Warner- 2011
Burns- 2014

Our only batsmen under 25 since 2005

Yep this is my point. Would Lehmann / Patterson / Cartwright in particular do any worse than Cowan / Fergusen / SMarsh (early on) / North / Quiney / et al?


Of course, you can definitely argue Voges / Rogers were great for the side and you would be absolutely right and I would completely agree. I don't think stop gap solutions are always bad but you need to use these guys to build around young guys.

That is why I would be going:

1. Warner
2. Burns
3. Khawaja
4. Smith
5. Insert Veteran Here - Voges / SMarsh / Klinger
6. Insert Young Guy here and can eventually float up to five or higher given we have no all-rounder good enough (Though I believe Cartwright will be / Agar is looking promising again)
7. Nevill (earned his shot but is stinking it up with the bat - Pick Handscomb, if he fails, go back to Nevill/Wade)
8. Starc
9. Insert your best available option here in the absence of Pattinson / Cummins
10. Hazlewood - Though he must have question marks too
11. Lyon - By default but I have always felt SOK was hard done by, we have no young spinner good enough yet

 

[1910]

Yep this is my point. Would Lehmann / Patterson / Cartwright in particular do any worse than Cowan / Fergusen / SMarsh (early on) / North / Quiney / et al?


Of course, you can definitely argue Voges / Rogers were great for the side and you would be absolutely right and I would completely agree. I don't think stop gap solutions are always bad but you need to use these guys to build around young guys.

That is why I would be going:

1. Warner
2. Burns
3. Khawaja
4. Smith
5. Insert Veteran Here - Voges / SMarsh / Klinger
6. Insert Young Guy here and can eventually float up to five or higher given we have no all-rounder good enough (Though I believe Cartwright will be / Agar is looking promising again)
7. Nevill (earned his shot but is stinking it up with the bat - Pick Handscomb, if he fails, go back to Nevill/Wade)
8. Starc
9. Insert your best available option here in the absence of Pattinson / Cummins
10. Hazlewood - Though he must have question marks too
11. Lyon - By default but I have always felt SOK was hard done by, we have no young spinner good enough yet

It is an interesting debate now starting. Do we need to return to the mid 80’s and have a similar attitude to rebuilding. Post Chappell, Marsh and Lillee- we didn’t win a Test for 18 months. We have now lost four in a row.

We have been dismissed now for fewer than 100 runs seven times since 2013. Compared to 12 times in the 25 years before that.

In the 80’s we sort of went with our gut to some extent; we picked Hughes, Waugh, Healy who didn’t have great Frist Class records but we picked them because we saw a fighting quality something we needed. It didn’t work straight away- Waugh took 27 Tests to score 100.

We built a team of hard working, hard nuts that were sick of losing. Maybe we need to find these guys in the Shield- maybe he only averages 38 but he fights. Change the criteria so to speak because waiting for guys to average 50 and score 1000 and fight isn’t working.

 

[Sproj]

So, the Aussie selectors pick a plodder in Mennie who has a pretty markedly inferior record to both Sayers and Bird both overall and recently, and surprise, surprise, he basically fails on a good bowling pitch. Also, watch Philander and the tail make another hundred runs and then our batsmen come out and make this pitch look like a minefield.

This is obviously over-dramatic but although much slower, are we heading into a West Indian style decline? This is pathetic. Sure, if you struggle, you struggle for a while but when you don't give young guys a shot, there is no silver lining to look forward to.

 

[1910]

So, the Aussie selectors pick a plodder in Mennie who has a pretty markedly inferior record to both Sayers and Bird both overall and recently, and surprise, surprise, he basically fails on a good bowling pitch. Also, watch Philander and the tail make another hundred runs and then our batsmen come out and make this pitch look like a minefield.

This is obviously over-dramatic but although much slower, are we heading into a West Indian style decline? This is pathetic. Sure, if you struggle, you struggle for a while but when you don't give young guys a shot, there is no silver lining to look forward to.

That's a bit harsh on Mennie- 51 wickets at 21 is reasonable to expect a Test spot if one opens. We call for reward for runs scored in the Shield. 50 wickets is the equivalent of 1000 runs. It's his first Test and he hasn't exactly come into the best environment or formed side.

He took 11 more wickets than Bird last season and 19 more than Sayers.

 

[1910]

SA 6/288 at lunch

Lead 203

QDK great batting; aggressive when he had to be and patient for his areas. 252 runs this series in two Tests.

 

[Sproj]

de Kock is a gun. I wish we had someone like him, shows how valuable Gilchrist really was.

 

[Sproj]

That's a bit harsh on Mennie- 51 wickets at 21 is reasonable to expect a Test spot if one opens. We call for reward for runs scored in the Shield. 50 wickets is the equivalent of 1000 runs. It's his first Test and he hasn't exactly come into the best environment or formed side.

He took 11 more wickets than Bird last season and 19 more than Sayers.

I know he had a good season but Bird and Sayers have been doing it for two to three years. And the reality is, if either Pattinson or Cummins were available, they would be picked without hesitation. Unfortunately, it seems they will never be any good for us for any extended period of time.

Plus Bird has not disappointed at test level. Why has he been overlooked consistently?

 

[Sproj]

Burns goes 4th ball. This could well be over by stumps, just in time for them to go off for rain once again. Rain is the biggest and only friend of this pathetic team at present. If not for rain, this could well have been over in two days.

 

[mitch222]

Dreadful from Burns

I bet Brad Hodge wishes he had a time machine because in this current setup, he would have a 15 year career ahead of him

 

[Sproj]

1. Warner
2. Maher
3. Hodge
4. Khawaja
5. Smith
6. Siddons
7. Seccombe
8. Starc
9. Bichel
10. Hazelwood
11. MacGill

If only!!!

 

[gordjw]

Andy Bichel, now there's a name I've not heard in a long time.

Ah the good old days.

 

[Broncoman]

1. Warner
2. Maher
3. Hodge
4. Khawaja
5. Smith
6. Siddons
7. Seccombe
8. Starc
9. Bichel
10. Hazelwood
11. MacGill

If only!!!

My unlucky team

Jamie Cox
Dean Hills
Michael Di Venuto
Martin Love
Jamie Siddons
Brad Hodge
Michael Klinger
Darren Berry
Andy Bichel
Adam Dale
Michael Innes
Stuart Macgill

Maher only averaged 24 in ODI and less than 40 in the shield. He was good but nowhere near as good as Slater, Taylor, Elliott, Blewett, Langer, Hayden etc.

Both Hodge and Love just didn't do consistently enough.

 

[Browny]

Brad Hogg to replace Lyon