Did Australian selection kill Rob Quiney? (amended after further consideration)

[PUNTROADHAMMER]

Seriously though why drag this shit up again? The bloke was generously given a shot by the selectors and wasn't good enough but there's no shame in that.

You may have missed the point here. This isn't about if he was a legit Test cricketer, it's about how the Test selectors sacrificed him and this consequently destroyed his rich vein of Domestic form.

 

[Black Diamond]

You may have missed the point here. This isn't not about if he was a legit Test cricketer, it's about how the Test selectors sacrificed him and this consequently destroyed his rich vein of Domestic form.

Was his rich vein of domestic form enough to warrant a test cap? Was his selection justified?

 

[Kram]

Test selectors sacrificed him and this consequently destroyed his rich vein of Domestic form.

You actually believe this rubbish?

 

[PUNTROADHAMMER]

Was his rich vein of domestic form enough to warrant a test cap? Was his selection justified?

As Watson was unfit, evidently it was justified.

 

[Black Diamond]

As Watson was unfit, evidently it was justified.

So when Watson was fit again what were the selectors supposed to do? Were they supposed to keep Quiney after two very poor tests?

 

[Run n Spread]

Don't see how. Watson got injured a spot opened up, Quniey got in. Watson returned from injury and Quiney was then omitted. A logical choice considering he didn't make a big score. He was in as a replacement so logically he was the one to drop back out. Fact is thou if he had of made runs and say Cowan didn't he would have kept his spot. Arguably could've been given another go against Sri Lanka but with Ponting retiring they went with a more long term option who was in form. (Hughes).

 

[The_Reaper]

Don't see how. Watson got injured a spot opened up, Quniey got in. Watson returned from injury and Quiney was then omitted. A logical choice considering he didn't make a big score. He was in as a replacement so logically he was the one to drop back out. Fact is thou if he had of made runs and say Cowan didn't he would have kept his spot. Arguably could've been given another go against Sri Lanka but with Ponting retiring they went with a more long term option who was in form. (Hughes).

Especially given Hughes had just scored a century when a spot open up after Ponting retired.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

It's complete bulls*** that people say that Quiney was 'sacrificed' against South Africa but on the same hand they laugh at Marcus North, a man who hit a hundred on debut against the South Africans, and label him a spud.

 

[eth-dog]

It's complete bulls*** that people say that Quiney was 'sacrificed' against South Africa but on the same hand they laugh at Marcus North, a man who hit a hundred on debut against the South Africans, and label him a spud.

Yep, North deserved his place and had a rough patch at the wrong time and never recovered.

 

[The_Reaper]

It's complete bulls*** that people say that Quiney was 'sacrificed' against South Africa but on the same hand they laugh at Marcus North, a man who hit a hundred on debut against the South Africans, and label him a spud.

Yep. Hit five centuries- the second most of any current Australian batsman who hasn't retired from Shield Cricket.

 

[eth-dog]

Yep. Hit five centuries- the second most of any current Australian batsman who hasn't retired from Shield Cricket.

That's a little sad

 

[PTizzle]

Because you don't necessarily agree with something doesn't automatically make it silly. Having a discussion is fine but don't be condescending, it's not a good look, not even on an anonymous sports forum.

I didn't mean to be condescending, it just feels like flogging a dead horse and the OP didn't have much content. Quiney is a fairly open and shut case I would have thought.

 

[The_Reaper]

That's a little sad

It's downright depressing.

Played few tests than Warner, Watson, Hughes and Haddin as well.

 

[PUNTROADHAMMER]

I didn't mean to be condescending, it just feels like flogging a dead horse and the OP didn't have much content. Quiney is a fairly open and shut case I would have thought.

Yeah, sorry, maybe I was being a bit precious there. I have duly amended the thread title as my view has altered a little after considering other points of view. It appears this has been a positive outcome then.....

 

[King Elvis]

hughes has a precious talent such that he should only play against the bangers, zimmers and lankans and needs to be protected against teams with cricketers

Hughes has tackled every single challenge, including terrible management, that has been thrown at him, and keeps coming back to have another crack.

He isn't the problem, and 'protecting' him like they did was a complete joke - but the incompetent CA management is to blame, not Hughes himself.

Quiney never should've been selected, but, again, not his fault.

 

[big_e]

Don't forget Dan Nicholson? That seamer from NSW

Matthew Nicholson perhaps?
I was at the WACA the day he took seven wickets against the English for WA and he was very good. Told a few people he was a smoky for the West Indies tour if he kept it up but, as they often do with fast bowlers, the selectors were seduced and he was brought in too early.

 

[Outshined]

He's our secret weapon for the Ashes.

 

[Kram]

He's our secret weapon for the Ashes.

With the bat or the ball?

 

[Outshined]

With the bat or the ball?

Both. Our hero.

 

[CAS79]

God this is crap. Destroyed his brilliant vain of domestic form.

Sometimes when a player goes up a level he has a weakness exposed. In Quiney's case it was his balance moving towards off stump. The Saffies found it, exploited it and than the bowlers back in Shield cricket now aware of it also use the same weakness to get him out. he's not the first to be found out a level higher and found his form at Shield level also weakened by new found knowledge of how to play against him.

 

[PUNTROADHAMMER]

God this is crap. Destroyed his brilliant vain of domestic form.

Sometimes when a player goes up a level he has a weakness exposed. In Quiney's case it was his balance moving towards off stump. The Saffies found it, exploited it and than the bowlers back in Shield cricket now aware of it also use the same weakness to get him out. he's not the first to be found out a level higher and found his form at Shield level also weakened by new found knowledge of how to play against him.

Fair enough. And for the record, I don't think your opinion is crap, despite me disagreeing with it. Opinions are peculiar like that.....

 

[dan warna]

Hughes has tackled every single challenge, including terrible management, that has been thrown at him, and keeps coming back to have another crack.

He isn't the problem, and 'protecting' him like they did was a complete joke - but the incompetent CA management is to blame, not Hughes himself.

Quiney never should've been selected, but, again, not his fault.

26 test matches, batting average of 32....how many chances does he get?
better players than him, haven't been carried as hard?

If you consider an average of 32 as 'tackled every single challenge' then there are some superstars in FC cricket....

 

[Charlie Kelly]

26 test matches, batting average of 32....how many chances does he get?
better players than him, haven't been carried as hard?

If you consider an average of 32 as 'tackled every single challenge' then there are some superstars in FC cricket....

After 26 Tests:

S. Waugh, 41 Innings, 1099 Runs @ 30.5 with 0 100s
P. Hughes, 49 Innings, 1535 Runs @ 32.65 with 3 100s

What I'm trying to point out is when 'prodigy' type cricketers (Waugh, Hughes) come into the Test side you have to stick with them. Hughes hit the ground running in S.A early much like Clarke/Ponting did but has fallen away due to various technical difficulties. But his stats aren't awful and his Shield record shows he is a class above that level already. You carry guys like Hughes because the pay off when they come good is substantial. Stick with him. He will come good.

 

[The_Reaper]

After 26 Tests:

S. Waugh, 41 Innings, 1099 Runs @ 30.5 with 0 100s
P. Hughes, 49 Innings, 1535 Runs @ 32.65 with 3 100s

What I'm trying to point out is when 'prodigy' type cricketers (Waugh, Hughes) come into the Test side you have to stick with them. Hughes hit the ground running in S.A early much like Clarke/Ponting did but has fallen away due to various technical difficulties. But his stats aren't awful and his Shield record shows he is a class above that level already. You carry guys like Hughes because the pay off when they come good is substantial. Stick with him. He will come good.

At the same age.
Michael Clarke- a first class batting average of 35

 

[bird_man]

So sick of people suggesting that the selectors ruined a certain player. If you are lucky enough to get a gig, make the most of it. If you don't make the most of it, go back and make runs in FC cricket. If the selectors have "ruined your confidence" then you are mentally weak and shouldn't be anywhere near the test side.