Queensland Bulls 2016/2017

[1910]

All too much chasing the Bulls for Starc and he's pulled the pin on his excursion to the 'Gabba.

He fielded at slip all yesterday- not permitted to run or dive.

 

[Broncoman]

NSW 1-245 David Warner unbeaten on 134 of 158 deliveries

NSW 243 ahead

 

[1910]

Bulls 1/11

need 364

 

[1910]

Being able to sub in a fresh bowler on day three really means CA are mocking FC cricket in this country.

 

[Broncoman]

NSW win by 225 runs

 

[broncos4life]

You're right; he's a seasoned veteran- only 180 Tests off Tendulkar.

So what? Is there nothing in between? So your a rookie until the final years of your career when you are then classed as a veteran?

 

[broncos4life]

Why would you pick an arbitary player who has played nearly three times the amount and compare them?

Warner is the vice captain- has played 54 Tests which is roughly 5 years of Test cricket he's averaging close to 50 and 5000 Tests runs,

I think 50 or Tests is when you really know your craft- similar time frame to 100 NRL games.

So you are classing nrl players as rookies up until there 100th game?

Jesus, Oates is doing alright for a rookie.

 

[Rally Towel]

Cricket sucks.

 

[Broncoman]

Cricket sucks.

Why the **** are you commenting on it then?

 

[Rally Towel]

Why the **** are you commenting on it then?

Because it pains me to watch the people I hold dear subject themselves to such things.

Just look at the mood it's got you in.

 

[1910]

So what? Is there nothing in between? So your a rookie until the final years of your career when you are then classed as a veteran?

I said after about 50 Tests you're a Test player. By that time you should have played nearly everywhere and had a chance to show you can play in all sorts of conditions and pitches and be successful.

Hazlewood hasn't played against India in India, he has bowled in four Ashes Tests, hasn't played against South Africa and has been on one tour to Asia and we got pumped 3-0 and he took seven wickets for those three Tests.

Of his 20 Tests, 10 are against New Zealand or the West Indies.

That's not experience.

20 Tests is the equivalent of one NRL season- would he still be a rookie if he was an NRL player?

 

[1910]

So you are classing nrl players as rookies up until there 100th game?

Jesus, Oates is doing alright for a rookie.

I think that is when you're a consistent, high performing NRL player and have your craft down. Have you ever heard a player of any sport say- I have played 100 games gee I was more experienced, knew more and performing better after 20 games?

Starc and Hazlewood have to carry the attack; they have 48 Tests between them- that's a young pace attack. I am not commenting on their ability- I think both are very good bowlers but they now lead our attack.

Grame Smith was SA Test Captain after eight Tests and that was shocking. Why? because he was so inexperienced. He had to open the batting too.

 

[1910]

So you are classing nrl players as rookies up until there 100th game?

Jesus, Oates is doing alright for a rookie.

Would you feel more comfortable on Thursday if we had a 400 wicket 85 Test quick in our attack? All the experience that brings.

Do you think Rabada after eight Tests could be learning anything from Morkel and Steyn? Who tally up 658 wickets as an opening act.

"Huh thanks guys but eight Tests check it out; I've got this under control."

 

[Mister Wright]

I said after about 50 Tests you're a Test player. By that time you should have played nearly everywhere and had a chance to show you can play in all sorts of conditions and pitches and be successful.

Hazlewood hasn't played against India in India, he has bowled in four Ashes Tests, hasn't played against South Africa and has been on one tour to Asia and we got pumped 3-0 and he took seven wickets for those three Tests.

Of his 20 Tests, 10 are against New Zealand or the West Indies.

That's not experience.

20 Tests is the equivalent of one NRL season- would he still be a rookie if he was an NRL player?

I'd be interested to know your take on a one Sir Donald Bradman. He only ever played his tests in Australia & England & only played 52 tests. Under your criteria would he be considered successful?

 

[Mister Wright]

Would you feel more comfortable on Thursday if we had a 400 wicket 85 Test quick in our attack? All the experience that brings.

Do you think Rabada after eight Tests could be learning anything from Morkel and Steyn? Who tally up 658 wickets as an opening act.

"Huh thanks guys but eight Tests check it out; I've got this under control."

You can't simply put a numerical number on experience. A guy like Hussey had scored the most amount of FC runs before being selected, he had experience at first class level which meant he wouldn't have needed 50 tests to be considered an experience test cricketer. Apart from his first test he was pretty successful from the get-go. Whereas someone like Shaun Marsh who has also had a lot of FC experience hasn't had the same results. Compare Glenn McGrath who had only played a handful of tests before he was selected for Australia, he was ready. Whereas Bryce McGain had a stack of first class games, but was well and truly out-of-his depth in test cricket.

 

[1910]

I'd be interested to know your take on a one Sir Donald Bradman. He only ever played his tests in Australia & England & only played 52 tests. Under your criteria would he be considered successful?

How would he not be considered successful? I haven't once mentioned the word successful- I specially said I am not talking about ability just that 20 Tests is not experienced. So you pick the best batsman ever who played 20 years of Test cricket.

You have to view things in context.

He played in an era where you played 52 Tests and that was your career- he had to work during the day, He also had a war in the middle of his Test career which took six years. It also took 6 months to get anywhere and he played against the countries he could play against- West Indies, England, South Africa and India.

I have only been talking about experience and again he played Test cricket for 20 years.

 

[Unbreakable]

How would he not be considered successful? I haven't once mentioned the word successful- I specially said I am not talking about ability just that 20 Tests is not experienced. So you pick the best batsman ever who played 20 years of Test cricket.

You have to view things in context.

He played in an era where you played 52 Tests and that was your career- he had to work during the day, He also had a war in the middle of his Test career which took six years. It also took 6 months to get anywhere and he played against the countries he could play against- West Indies, England, South Africa and India.

I have only been talking about experience and again he played Test cricket for 20 years.

Just to put things in perspective, Mitchell Starc is far and away our best bowler right now and he's less than a year older than Hazlewood and only has like 10 more tests played, that's 2 series, you're completely wrong about this whole "rookie" thing, whether you'll admit it or not.

If this was Hazlewood's 2nd test series or his first series abroad I'd agree with you, but he's been around long enough and played against enough international opponents that he's well out of the "Rookie" spectrum, for mine.

 

[broncos4life]

I'd be interested to know your take on a one Sir Donald Bradman. He only ever played his tests in Australia & England & only played 52 tests. Under your criteria would he be considered successful?

Sir Donald Bradman, the most successful player to never leave rookie status.