David Warner

[Thommo 42]

Some of those are highly disputable. If you're going to include Clarke, for example, you can include Sean Marsh, ho has had a similar record but for much longer.

You need to look at context.

When Clarke was selected, Elliot had just scored 1500 shield runs at 80 in the 12 months prior. Hodge had scored 1300 @ 70, Law 1000 @ 65, Love 1000 @ 60. Mike and David Hussey had averaged 60 odd and the list goes on. We were flush with talented and established players with runs on the board and they overlooked them all for Clarke, who had scored less than 1000 first class runs at about 35....

Shaun Marsh on the other hand, can you name the quality players he leap frogged into the test side?

Brett Lee? I give you Peter Siddle and Mitchell Johnson.

Peter Siddle was selected on the back fo excellent 1st class form over 18 matches, Mitch Johnson was selected after an outstanding display in the shield final.

Also note again, the context. When Siddle and Johnson were picked, which established quality fast bowlers did they leap frog?

Lee jumped ahead of Bichel and Kasper (to name just 2) who had close to 800 first class wickets between them, outstanding records at all levels. So what exactly had Lee done at that point to justify his selection apart from wear a blue cap? Sames goes for Cook and Nicholson, who were picked ahead of proven long term performers from other states.

NSW have had their fair share of unjustified selections, but that's just the point. It's their fair share, no more. Unjustified selections come from all states, but people focus on the NSW ones to confirm their preconceived notion of a bias towards NSW.

Again, you need to look at context. How many stories do you know of coming out of NSW like those of Hodge, Law, Siddons, Love, Cox, D.Hussey, Lehmann etc?

None, zilch. There hasn't been any sob stories of woe from some poor NSW player who dominated for a decade only to be given no opportunity at the highest level, or just a fleeting one.

Can you think of one NSW batsman, that scored heavily in shield cricket for an extended period and weas never given a decent opportunity like the ones listed above? Michael Bevan is perhaps the only reasonable example, but you'd be harsh to suggest he didn't get an opportunity, perhaps he wasn't given long enough, but he sure as hell got more of a chance than Hodge, Hussey, Law, Love etc.

In any case, Hauritz can't be put down as an unjustified selection, in the sense that the selectors were scared of playing Krejza and didn't like Casson so Hauritz was literally the only option.

The spin situation is different. If you're a good spinner, you need to move to NSW so you can play at the SCG, so they naturally attract spinners to their setup, who then naturally graduate to the Test XI.

 

[Phone]

casson got 3 and krejza got 12 so at least 17-18. hogg and white didn't add much either. but as i raised somewhere else, the 15 or whatever post warne spinners is an inflated number, because an awful lot of them got games because of injures.

Hauritz will probably be remembered if only for being on the back of some extraordinary selection decisions. 2nd xi to test cricket, not being picked oval 2009 and being dropped 2010-11. the last of which more or less confirming they had no idea what the **** they were doing ahead of probably England's biggest Ashes win. but i mean you can say that (trivia questions) for the spinners between bill o'reilly and richie, and between richie and warne. people forget good spinners come along rarely.

 

[Thommo 42]

the impressive thing about Hauritz (and the sad thing about the selectors) is that unlike other spinners who were discarded, he went back to Shield Cricket and made his prescence felt.

He was selected off the back of a pretty average first class record, like all our post Warne spinners but returned to Shield cricket and consistently took wickets and also scored runs as well. This made the selectors look both stupid and stubborn for not admitting their error.

On the other hand, Krezja, Doherty etc have returned to shield cricket and continued to plod along like they always did.

 

[BarneyBent]

You need to look at context.

When Clarke was selected, Elliot had just scored 1500 shield runs at 80 in the 12 months prior. Hodge had scored 1300 @ 70, Law 1000 @ 65, Love 1000 @ 60. Mike and David Hussey had averaged 60 odd and the list goes on. We were flush with talented and established players with runs on the board and they overlooked them all for Clarke, who had scored less than 1000 first class runs at about 35....

Clarke was clearly selected on the basis of youth. The Australian batting lineup was beginning to age, and they wanted a young face at 6 to liven it up. Clarke provided that. You can hardly say it was the wrong call in hindsight. Also, from memory Clarke averaged 35 overall, but averaged over 50 the season before he was picked. Happy to stand corrected though.

Shaun Marsh on the other hand, can you name the quality players he leap frogged into the test side?

Usman Khawaja for one. Khawaja should at least have been 3, Marsh 6. Not to mention Simon Katich (NSWman), and hell, playing devil's advocate here, but Steve Smith has a better FC average and almost as many tons in much fewer games.

Peter Siddle was selected on the back fo excellent 1st class form over 18 matches, Mitch Johnson was selected after an outstanding display in the shield final.

Lolwut? Peter Siddle's form was excellent? He averaged about 30. And an excellent display in a Shield final is not grounds for Test selection. Otherwise Boyce would be in South Africa right now (speaking of Boyce, he's doing well this season).

Also note again, the context. When Siddle and Johnson were picked, which established quality fast bowlers did they leap frog?

They've been picked ahead of Clark, Bollinger to name two NSWmen. Others as well.

Lee jumped ahead of Bichel and Kasper (to name just 2) who had close to 800 first class wickets between them, outstanding records at all levels. So what exactly had Lee done at that point to justify his selection apart from wear a blue cap? Sames goes for Cook and Nicholson, who were picked ahead of proven long term performers from other states.

Like Clarke, Lee was a youth selection. He provided something that the Australian team didn't have, and neither Bichel nor Kasper provided. A young kid that can bowl quick will always be an attractive prospect to the selectors (see Cummins, Pattinson, Johnson, Tait), especially when he's got an older brother in the system. Lee wasn't the first, nor will he be the last, bowler to be picked on raw pace.

Again, you need to look at context. How many stories do you know of coming out of NSW like those of Hodge, Law, Siddons, Love, Cox, D.Hussey, Lehmann etc?

None, zilch. There hasn't been any sob stories of woe from some poor NSW player who dominated for a decade only to be given no opportunity at the highest level, or just a fleeting one.

Can you think of one NSW batsman, that scored heavily in shield cricket for an extended period and weas never given a decent opportunity like the ones listed above? Michael Bevan is perhaps the only reasonable example, but you'd be harsh to suggest he didn't get an opportunity, perhaps he wasn't given long enough, but he sure as hell got more of a chance than Hodge, Hussey, Law, Love etc.

Seems silly to keep it to batsmen. Across all positions, not many. Know why? Because NSW didn't have the players. The only NSW players in the setup were fully justified being there. Bevan can feel hard done by, as you say, and MacGill could have played more tests alongside Warne. Not that he was discriminated against, he was just unlucky.

Now, however, we've got Katich axed, Hauritz axed, Bollinger axed and SOK continually overlooked.

The spin situation is different. If you're a good spinner, you need to move to NSW so you can play at the SCG, so they naturally attract spinners to their setup, who then naturally graduate to the Test XI.

I fail to see how this is at all relevant, tbh. This could be the case, sure, but it doesn't explain why the likes of Doherty, Beer and Lyon have been gifted Tests over Hauritz and SOK.

 

[Slattery_20]

the impressive thing about Hauritz (and the sad thing about the selectors) is that unlike other spinners who were discarded, he went back to Shield Cricket and made his prescence felt.

True for any cricketer.
Sorts the wheat from chaff.

The likes of Hayden, Boof Lehmann, Martyn Langer didn't come up to the mark first time 'round. Did OK for themselves.

 

[eddiesmith]

Peter Siddle got his chance through injuries, all the other options were injured including Doug who otherwise would have played

As for now, Bollinger has been dumped because he was terrible in his last test, he shouldnt have played and maybe the selectors dont want to play a bloke who isnt honest about his fitness

 

[Underarm]

sydney airport? well it costs CA $$$ to have players from other states fly to sydney in order to fly out with the team.

And there is proof that they have done this before. Pomersbach in the 20/20 game just because he was geographically desirable.

Brett Lee debuted in 1999, Simon Katich debuted as a West Australian.

People claim NSW bias, but can never give specific examples. There have been no more "unjustified" NSW selections than any other state. There have been plenty more justified NSW selections, because NSW has the biggest population and produces the most cricketers. Simple.

Ta, I figured it was before 2000 for Lee, and i forgot kat's first stint in the side.
the second stint - the one where he reinvented himself though was with NSW.
When talking about NSW Bias, i think people go over the top. Sure, i think Hodge, Hussey (both) were a bit stiff to have to wait as long as they did, but then I also think that people should stop using Warner, Lee, Clarke and Kat as an example. S. Smith on the other hand.....

 

[Thommo 42]

Clarke was clearly selected on the basis of youth. The Australian batting lineup was beginning to age, and they wanted a young face at 6 to liven it up. Clarke provided that. You can hardly say it was the wrong call in hindsight. Also, from memory Clarke averaged 35 overall, but averaged over 50 the season before he was picked. Happy to stand corrected though.

Watson was the same age, playing in Tasmania as a specialist batsman. He was averaging 52 at 1st class level when Clarke was selected, and 54 for that season batting #3 with 900+ runs. He had to move to NSW to get recognition as a batsman.

Here is the 1st class records of Australian players in the 12 months leading up to Clarke's selection. I can't even see his name there, the cutoff was 300 runs for the season....

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ausdo...er.html?class=4;host=2;id=2003/04;type=season

Don't play the youth card either, Mike Hussey was finally picked 12 months later and was 30. If they wanted youth + form + a good record, Clarke still wasn't the best candidate. Watson was, and Cosgrove was also plundering runs (and buffets) then too.

Usman Khawaja for one. Khawaja should at least have been 3, Marsh 6. Not to mention Simon Katich (NSWman), and hell, playing devil's advocate here, but Steve Smith has a better FC average and almost as many tons in much fewer games.

Smith had been tried ahead of him and failed. Kwajaha was also picked before him, but Marsh made 100 on debut, which is why he leapfrogged him. Both of them hold very tenous claims to a test position compared to the likes of Hodge, Elliot, Law, Love et al.

Lolwut? Peter Siddle's form was excellent? He averaged about 30.

No he didn't he average about 18 when he was first selected, and had suffered a serious shoulder injury. After coming back he played a few consistent matches, other players were injured and he was basically the most obvious selection there could ever be.

And an excellent display in a Shield final is not grounds for Test selection.

Was good enough for Wayne Holdsworth to leapfrog heaps of blokes, where was he from again?

Johnson had already played extensive limited overs cricket for Australia and troubled the best batsmen in the world, which was also a contributing factor. In addition to the scarcity of choice at the time.

They've been picked ahead of Clark, Bollinger to name two NSWmen. Others as well.

The premature discarding of Clark remains a mystery to everyone, you've got me there. Bollinger lied about his fitness, needs to do plenty to earn the trust back of the selection panel and seniorr players.

Like Clarke, Lee was a youth selection. He provided something that the Australian team didn't have, and neither Bichel nor Kasper provided.

A blue cap??

A young kid that can bowl quick will always be an attractive prospect to the selectors (see Cummins, Pattinson, Johnson, Tait), especially when he's got an older brother in the system.

Funny, Johnson wasn't first selected until he was 27 with 100 first class wickets under his belt and 2 yards slower than when he first played. Tait was 22, and was only picked when 2 frontline bowlers were injured and was coming off a great shield season.

Funny you mention Cummins and Pattinson. Pattinson has put the work in, taken the wickets and put the proverbial 'runs on the board' while Cummins is a young tearaway from NSW with no real first class record to speak of. Which one is in South Africa currently on the edge of test selection??

 

[peternorth]

youth, experience. both reasons selectors have given over time to suit their own picks. i recall just before an ashes series in england they went with older players cause the ashes is a tough tour.

 

[The 747]

Avoided this forum for a while. Come back here to see NSW cheerleaders actually trying to argue that players from other states get an unfairly good run.

Seriously what a joke. Back to avoiding....

 

[Phone]

Peter Siddle

Currently though pretty much all the test players are getting a good run. i assumed eddie was talking about years back though. and as i've often talked about the aus U19 bias is far bigger. and also leadership factors in. north got a long run because he was all but set to be clarke's VC while Paine became the back up keeper as much for his leadership as anything. (for the long term future Haddin's timed his bad run really well - paine can't get the spot) which is a bit odd because i mean find my a keeper who doesn't have good leadership. it's part of the job pretty much.

 

[lionbear]

Some of those are highly disputable. If you're going to include Clarke, for example, you can include Sean Marsh, who has had a similar record but for much longer. Brett Lee? I give you Peter Siddle and Mitchell Johnson. Not to mention the ridiculous fact that Nathan Hauritz and Steve O'Keefe, both from NSW remember, were axed and overlooked respectively for Xavier Doherty, Michael Beer and Nathan Lyon.

NSW have had their fair share of unjustified selections, but that's just the point. It's their fair share, no more. Unjustified selections come from all states, but people focus on the NSW ones to confirm their preconceived notion of a bias towards NSW.



Sorry, I'm not meaning to attack you. But one moment you say there is no bias against NSW, another you say there is but it's overblown by the NSW media, and then you say that you firmly believe Haddin is only still in the side because he's from NSW. What do you expect me to think?



Fair enough, but you brought NSW into it, which is what I was objecting to.



Agree, but that's life. Casson (a NSWman) should have gone to India instead of White. Then he did his shoulder, got diagnosed with a heart defect, and faded into the background. Krejza came in, looked good on debut, faltered, but deserved to be persisted with. I actually don't think Krejza would have lasted long, his FC form after that point has been as average as it was before that point, but he deserved the chance.

In any case, Hauritz can't be put down as an unjustified selection, in the sense that the selectors were scared of playing Krejza and didn't like Casson so Hauritz was literally the only option.

What I am arguing, is NSW players to get selected more, but its not deliberate, its a fact of life, if you get more media coverage and more time in front of the selectors eyes you are naturally going to be noticed more, that's not the fault of NSW, that's the fault of cricket Australia for creating an environment that is not a level playing field for all 6 states.

A bias would mean deliberately picking a NSW player over another state, I don't believe that to be the case. But CA must firstly devise a national process that it doesn't matter which state you play for you get equal exposure to the Selectors.

 

[Hellgood]

What I am arguing, is NSW players to get selected more, but its not deliberate, its a fact of life, if you get more media coverage and more time in front of the selectors eyes you are naturally going to be noticed more, that's not the fault of NSW, that's the fault of cricket Australia for creating an environment that is not a level playing field for all 6 states.

A bias would mean deliberately picking a NSW player over another state, I don't believe that to be the case. But CA must firstly devise a national process that it doesn't matter which state you play for you get equal exposure to the Selectors.

This is very accurate.

I know Warner deserved to be the one to sent over, but before he was picked, the amount of press he got from the media and especially on Foxsports was pretty extreme. Most of the media comes from NSW, therefore their players get talked up the most and their players are the most exposed. It's very similar to Collingwood, who do have a very good team, but guys like McCaffer, Toovey, Goldsack are not the stars we a re led to believe.

 

[amer]

You guys are kidding yourselves. I hope our state higher-ups don't agree with your line of thinking, it would explain a lot.

The other states are pathetic these days when it comes to producing test quality players. When they start getting their acts together, we'll see a better representation of players from them.

 

[Thommo 42]

youth, experience. both reasons selectors have given over time to suit their own picks. i recall just before an ashes series in england they went with older players cause the ashes is a tough tour.

The best explanation was when Martyn retired and they went for Symonds over Hodge. The reason states was that Symonds could bowl and therefore more versatile. Never mind that it was replacing Martyn, a specialist batsman. Even more ridiculous was then Symonds hurt his knee and couldn't bowl, but continued to get selected ahead of Hodge, despite his bowling (which he couldn't do!) being the deciding factor in his initial selection!

 

[Jstonewall]

It is unfortunate that Victoria does not produce test cricketers any more. Blame the AFL saturation. But thankfully here in NSW we still produce cricketers (such as Matthew Wade) and other sportsman. The Australian selectors would be more interested in NSW 2nd 11 matches than Victorian shield matches.

 

[TheBrownlowMan37]

Next we'll have Dan 'Cartman' Smith called up to replace Haddit.
God help us if Watson breaks down,Moises Henriques will get a gig.
Who can Dominic Thornley replace ?

Grow up.

 

[peternorth]

This is very accurate.

I know Warner deserved to be the one to sent over, but before he was picked, the amount of press he got from the media and especially on Foxsports was pretty extreme. Most of the media comes from NSW, therefore their players get talked up the most and their players are the most exposed. It's very similar to Collingwood, who do have a very good team, but guys like McCaffer, Toovey, Goldsack are not the stars we a re led to believe.

the media argument is strong.

each morning on foxsports just before 830 they go to the papers. daily telegraph is always first.

 

[Slax]

You guys are kidding yourselves. I hope our state higher-ups don't agree with your line of thinking, it would explain a lot.

The other states are pathetic these days when it comes to producing test quality players. When they start getting their acts together, we'll see a better representation of players from them.

If the selectors actually bothered to attend shield matches they would know who is in form and then be able to make the right selections.

CA has the resources that should dictate that selectors be required to view every state shield side once a month minimum, but I bet they don't do it. This is our problem, because they seem to get half their information from the media.

 

[Hellgood]

If the selectors actually bothered to attend shield matches they would know who is in form and then be able to make the right selections.

CA has the resources that should dictate that selectors be required to view every state shield side once a month minimum, but I bet they don't do it. This is our problem, because they seem to get half their information from the media.

Who can forget Merv Hughes refusing to have Foxtel installed so that he could keep tabs on players in the Ryobi Cup? Arrogance like that can really disenchanten domestic players, all of them need to feel as though they are capable of playing for Australia.

 

[eddiesmith]

Why should he? Thats the job for whoever gets the game

Dont know what happens now but there used to be a selector at every state game

 

[Bomber Bears]

Avoided this forum for a while. Come back here to see NSW cheerleaders actually trying to argue that players from other states get an unfairly good run.

Seriously what a joke. Back to avoiding....

I dont that is the argument so much as that there have been plenty of decisions go against NSW players, but this board in particular only will highlight seemingly favourable decisions.

Frankly, we'll always have more players chosen. We are the biggest state, the strongest grade comp and the best depth to draw from, and we have consistenly produced top line cricketers. There isnt the same competition from AFL (in that people who suit League/rugby/soccer often dont have the body type that suits cricket).

I dont think Warner should be in the test team just yet but he's clearly a quality player, could be a very good test opener. And i think Cummins was picked for tour experience whilst Pattinson has gone back and got some much needed shield cricket into him (a good thing). That they are suddenly thinnking of actually picking Cummins is absolute lunacy but, frankly, he's an 18 year old who bowls at 150km/hr, A player like that from any state would have his name in lights (rightly or wrongly).

 

[Yabba]

I dont that is the argument so much as that there have been plenty of decisions go against NSW players, but this board in particular only will highlight seemingly favourable decisions.

Frankly, we'll always have more players chosen. We are the biggest state, the strongest grade comp and the best depth to draw from, and we have consistenly produced top line cricketers. There isnt the same competition from AFL (in that people who suit League/rugby/soccer often dont have the body type that suits cricket).

I dont think Warner should be in the test team just yet but he's clearly a quality player, could be a very good test opener. And i think Cummins was picked for tour experience whilst Pattinson has gone back and got some much needed shield cricket into him (a good thing). That they are suddenly thinnking of actually picking Cummins is absolute lunacy but, frankly, he's an 18 year old who bowls at 150km/hr, A player like that from any state would have his name in lights (rightly or wrongly).

I agree with most of what you say, as a Vic I am glad to have Pattinson back playing for the bushrangers. I think it is silly though to pick a player for 'experience' Cummins in this case when he could be back in Australia and actually playing hard days of cricket to get experience. By all means take them to Sri Lanka when he isn't missing the start of the season. I don't this that it is right that he has jumped Pattinson or George for that matter either. He is 18, they dont need to rush him in, let him learn how to bowl.

Warner is able to hit the ball, he clearly has a very good eye and he has spent time tightening up his defence to become a good batsman. In reality he is 12 months away from deserving a shot at test cricket, just shows how far the standard has fallen domestically that he is the only one putting his name up in lights.

 

[Slattery_20]

Why are we comparing Warner/any recent debutant to Law/any bloke who got passed over 10-15 years ago???

If Stuie Law were coming through today he would've been in the side for 3 years already.

 

[Yabba]

If you want to improve the test team, the domestic competition needs to improve as well, why wouldn't you compare players against when it was strong?