Pick the XI for Boxing Day v India

[Ian Dargie]

Matt Hayden last week said he would not pick Cowan because of his first class average. He said batsmen should be pushing the door down averaging at least 50.

Unfortunately, there aren't many who tick that box. We can't go in with 10 men just because there aren't any batsmen with FC averages that satisfy Matt Hayden.

Khawaja made one 50 in 12 innings. Ponting deserves to play ahead of him, no doubt. The age thing is just bullshit. Class is class.

Age might be bullshit but Ponting's lack of runs over the past three years isn't.

The amount of over-reactionary selectors in here is laughable and shows a lack of understanding of the nuances of cricket

Turn it up.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Class is class.

Runs are runs and Ricky isn't scoring them. Class is also knowing when to retire.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Matt Hayden last week said he would not pick Cowan because of his first class average. He said batsmen should be pushing the door down averaging at least 50. I still can't fathom how Hussey is being lumped in with Ponting as Hussey is currently our highest ranked test batter ahead of Clarke. 36 is not old in modern sport science times. Khawaja made one 50 in 12 innings. Ponting deserves to play ahead of him, no doubt. The age thing is just bullshit. Class is class. The amount of over-reactionary selectors in here is laughable and shows a lack of understanding of the nuances of cricket

How much attention do you think Matt Hayden pays to Shield cricket considering he doesn't pay attention to test cricket? And any person who continually refers to themselves as a product has an opinion worth about as much as Ian Botham's.

 

[Gazza_11]

I actually reckon it's a good thing Ponting hasn't retired. Hopefully if the selectors do drop him, it sends a message to the rest of the squad.

 

[The Passenger]

So was Warners before selection.

where do you pull this shit from??

about 1000 runs at 60 prior to his selection...

ooo but he just belted the zimbabweans around.

ok well it was 550 at 46 in shield cricket. 2 tons from 13 digs.

yeah it's not unbeliavable. no one has ever stated that. but in the few games he had been given he'd stepped right up to the plate and not put a foot wrong.

 

[Ian Dargie]

where do you pull this shit from??

about 1000 runs at 60 prior to his selection...

ooo but he just belted the zimbabweans around.

ok well it was 550 at 46 in shield cricket. 2 tons from 13 digs.

yeah it's not unbeliavable. no one has ever stated that. but in the few games he had been given he'd stepped right up to the plate and not put a foot wrong.

Looks like Stats didn't check the stats.

 

[Rumblah#16]

where do you pull this shit from??

about 1000 runs at 60 prior to his selection...

ooo but he just belted the zimbabweans around.

ok well it was 550 at 46 in shield cricket. 2 tons from 13 digs.

yeah it's not unbeliavable. no one has ever stated that. but in the few games he had been given he'd stepped right up to the plate and not put a foot wrong.

550 + 200 (Zim score) = about 1000?

K.

 

[The Passenger]

550 + 200 (Zim score) = about 1000?

K.

http://cricketarchive.com/Players/90/90182/90182.html

554 for NSW (all in shield)

+

406 for Australia A

all scored before his test debut

=

960 runs

mmmmmmmmmm K??????

maths not a strong point for some here

i'll let you guys work out were the other runs came from. working on your research and comprehension skills probably wouldn't hurt.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Starting side to be named at a media conference "within the hour" according to the MCG on twitter.

 

[Rumblah#16]

http://cricketarchive.com/Players/90/90182/90182.html

554 for NSW (all in shield)

+

406 for Australia A

all scored before his test debut

=

960 runs

mmmmmmmmmm K??????

maths not a strong point for some here

i'll let you guys work out were the other runs came from. working on your research and comprehension skills probably wouldn't hurt.

Fair enough. The runs against Zimbabwe have about as much cred as playing 2's at grade level though.

 

[The Passenger]

now the worth of those runs i'd agree with... hardly the most inspiring opposition. a couple of bowlers who had played test cricket, and probably would've played more had zimbabwe been playing test cricket between 2006 and 2010.

but at the end of the day they are first class games, and someone had to score them.

at the end of the day ed cowan only had himself to blame. NSW gave him a lot of opportunities and he struggle. 21 matches, and less than 1000 runs at 26.

had he not played for NSW he would've been more likely to be picked in front of Warner on the back of purely his Tassie form.

But he is suffering from the same problem klinger is having. spudding it up for a long long time before finally hitting his stride.

Whether people like or not, the same way cricketers build up credits with selectors, they build debits...

 

[BACCS]

Starting side to be named at a media conference "within the hour" according to the MCG on twitter.

Everyone knows what the team will be anyway.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Fair enough. The runs against Zimbabwe have about as much cred as playing 2's at grade level though.

You like the fact that Cowan has been playing FC cricket for longer than Warner – even if Cowan's record isn't that great.

By extension, should Voges and Klinger also be ahead of Warner in the pecking order?

They've both played more FC cricket than Cowan and scored more runs over the course of their careers and in the current Sheffield Shield season. If Cowan's FC experience means he should have got the nod over Warner, surely the same goes for Voges and Klinger?

Just saying, you should be consistent.

 

[BACCS]

MCG Melbourne Cricket Gd



Australia has finalised its starting XI for the #BoxingDayTest. Media conference at the MCG within the hour. Could a big name be out?

Hmmm...

 

[ManWithNoName]

Cowan, Warner, Marsh, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey, Haddin, Siddle, Pattinson, Lyon, Hilfenhaus, Starc (12th man).

 

[Bombertastic]

where do you pull this shit from??

about 1000 runs at 60 prior to his selection...

ooo but he just belted the zimbabweans around.

ok well it was 550 at 46 in shield cricket. 2 tons from 13 digs.

yeah it's not unbeliavable. no one has ever stated that. but in the few games he had been given he'd stepped right up to the plate and not put a foot wrong.

That's just...well...dumb! There I said it. One of you had to get a rise out of me at some point. How was his record in the previous Shield season. Also, a handful of games and some of them on roads. Plus runs in Zimbabwe. It's modest at best.

 

[Bombertastic]

Looks like Stats didn't check the stats.

I always check the stats!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Passenger]

That's just...well...dumb! There I said it. One of you had to get a rise out of me at some point. How was his record in the previous Shield season. Also, a handful of games and some of them on roads. Plus runs in Zimbabwe. It's modest at best.

what's dumb?? stating his shield record that got him selected.

do it year by year.

08/09 - 42 @ 42
09/10 - 89 @ 22
10/11 - 275 @ 46

hardly great, i've never said it was. but in the 2011 calender year since reclaiming a spot in the NSW team he has done everything asked of him.

he got on the australia a tour, (a fortuitous selection admittedly - which i think i stated on here at the time. if i didn't i certainly felt that way)... and he took his chances. dominated that tour, came back and tonned up in a shield game. in the context of what is about in our batting ranks, a FC career of 960 runs at ~60, and a shield career of ~540 runs at ~46 is about as good as it gets.

he found himself in a 2 horse race with ed cowan for one spot, and got the nod in what was probably a tight call, and has repaid by tonning up.

and now ed's responded and has a spot two.

like it or not, players build debits (just like ponting and hussey have built credits)... there's a reason blokes who spud it up for some time don't get elevated on the back of one good season. Because quite often they spud it up the season after (as Ed did in 10/11)... Ed has responded this season and has erased those memories of him not scoring for NSW for so long, and has got his spot.

dave had a handful of low scores for nsw. not near as long as list of shit games as cowan (and likewise klinger) produced for their respective states and as such he pretty much had a clean slate... the only real thing warner had to overcome was the perception of being just a 20-20 slogger and he has done that...

cowan and klinger are two blokes who couldn't score a run for so long and as such put themselves in a position where they have to overcome the stigma that they are just shit first class batsmen... both have done that. unfortunately for klinger it's too late. fortunately for cowan, it's not.

anyway, whatever, you can keep squealing like a stuck pig, i don't care. australia has, what i believe on form, class, performances and potential it's best opening combination... you'll probably be plumping for wes robinson's inclusion next.

 

[Phone]

cowan got over looked simply because the poor early season form (7 innings without passing 25) was still 'greater' (for lack of a better word) than his good middle season form (at that point in time, 2 fc tons plus a good OD knock)

 

[Rumblah#16]

You like the fact that Cowan has been playing FC cricket for longer than Warner – even if Cowan's record isn't that great.

By extension, should Voges and Klinger also be ahead of Warner in the pecking order?

They've both played more FC cricket than Cowan and scored more runs over the course of their careers and in the current Sheffield Shield season. If Cowan's FC experience means he should have got the nod over Warner, surely the same goes for Voges and Klinger?

Just saying, you should be consistent.

Current form means a lot. My point was this season Cowan has the runs on the board. He is a better player and offers us a Katich-like innings, something that could have helped in our recent collapses.

Picking a bloke after 10 FC games means you're essentially guessing on what his mental temperament is.

 

[Bombertastic]

Current form means a lot. My point was this season Cowan has the runs on the board. He is a better player and offers us a Katich-like innings, something that could have helped in our recent collapses.

Picking a bloke after 10 FC games means you're essentially guessing on what his mental temperament is.

This is what we're talking about. People knocking Cowan for previous years without realizing that Warner with no previous record (before this season) is essentially the same thing. What should have been taken into consideration is the kind of test player we needed at the time.

Warner and Cowan opening together will be interesting. Lets hope they both get to do it for the whole series and Watson can come back down the order.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Current form means a lot. My point was this season Cowan has the runs on the board. He is a better player and offers us a Katich-like innings, something that could have helped in our recent collapses.

This is what we're talking about. People knocking Cowan for previous years without realizing that Warner with no previous record (before this season) is essentially the same thing. What should have been taken into consideration is the kind of test player we needed at the time.

Klinger and Voges have both scored more runs than Cowan in Sheffield Shield this season.

Over the course of their careers, they've both played more FC cricket and scored more FC runs than Cowan too.

So, on the same basis you've endorsed Cowan over Warner, you should be calling for Klinger and Voges to be selected.

If you're not, it's inconsistent. You're making the 'FC experience' argument when it favours Cowan, but not when it comes to Klinger and Voges.

Do you see the problem with this?

There's no point furiously agreeing with each other as though that proves something. If you're making this argument for Cowan, you are obliged to apply it to other players. Otherwise, you're just picking and choosing and saying whatever suits your position at the time without acknowledging that, by extension, it must also commend Klinger and Voges.

 

[The Passenger]

This is what we're talking about. People knocking Cowan for previous years without realizing that Warner with no previous record (before this season) is essentially the same thing. What should have been taken into consideration is the kind of test player we needed at the time.

no it doesn't.

i've said multiple times that playing years of first class cricket and performing poorly hurts your chances of promotion. and cowan was not even just performing adequately (say mid 30's average), he was performing poorly - 21 matches, ~1000 runs at 26 is poor.

it takes time to overcome that.

cowan has done it now. to be fair he had done it prior to the new zealand series and was on the cusp but got beaten in a 50-50 selection call which was a fair enough decision imo.

 

[Bombertastic]

So, on the same basis you've endorsed Cowan over Warner, you should be calling for Klinger and Voges to be selected.

Wow here I was thinking this was about Cowan vs Warner. Oh well, let me consider this further. Truth be told Cowan Klinger and Voges should have been selected before Warner.

Seriously this is about Cowan vs Warner and you continually bringing up Klinger and Voges is not doing anything to strengthen your argument. The difference here is opinion. Learn to live with other peoples opinions no matter how much you disagree.

 

[Bombertastic]

cowan has done it now. to be fair he had done it prior to the new zealand series and was on the cusp but got beaten in a 50-50 selection call which was a fair enough decision imo.

I'll go with this. My argument was always that other factors lead the selectors to think Warner over Cowan. Ones that were not cricket based but popularity.