Room For Symonds in Aus test side?

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Good point, although I'd be tempted to say that Kallis' batting alone would get him a starting slot in the Aussie team. Once you added his bowling, he'd be a certainty. Especially given they've previously selected Symonds and Watson for their ability to bowl a bit.

I don't think there is any doubt that Kallis would make the Australian XI as a batsman alone. He's better than Hussey, Clarke and Watson/Symonds.

[Steulen]

If the Aus Test side needs an allrounder, isn't the first question what he would bring to the bowling attack?

I guess Stuart Clark is a certainty, and in all probability he'll continue to be excellent. But then there's Brett Lee, who simply doesn't take his wickets quickly enough to be a genuine opening strike bowler, and the third seamer will probably be someone like Tait (if fit) or Johnson who could be successes but have proven little at Test level so far (As an aside, the idiot selectors should of course revert to Gillespie, but they won't). MacGill as specialist spinner, I guess?

That attack doesn't strike me as being overly formidable. Is there a case then for selecting an allrounder who is primarily a bowler who can bat a bit, say someone in the Pollock / Vaas mould? I know England have suffered from tailitis going down this road, but Australia have the Gilchrist insurance, which should make all the difference.

No idea who that'd be, btw. Maybe give Andy Bichel a call, eh

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Perm

I don't think there is any doubt that Kallis would make the Australian XI as a batsman alone. He's better than Hussey, Clarke and Watson/Symonds.

Agree re Watson/Symonds. He's probably better than Clarke. He's not better than Hussey in the time that Hussey has been playing tests.

Since the start of season 2005/6:
Hussey: 16 Matches, 1597 Runs, 79.85 Average, 5 Centuries, 8 Half-Centuries
Kallis: 14 Matches, 1093 Runs, 45.54 Average, 2 Centuries, 7 Half-Centuries

Plus there's the difference in strike rates between Hussey and Kallis.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Agree re Watson/Symonds. He's probably better than Clarke. He's not better than Hussey in the time that Hussey has been playing tests.

Since the start of season 2005/6:
Hussey: 16 Matches, 1597 Runs, 79.85 Average, 5 Centuries, 8 Half-Centuries
Kallis: 14 Matches, 1093 Runs, 45.54 Average, 2 Centuries, 7 Half-Centuries

Plus there's the difference in strike rates between Hussey and Kallis.

Strike rate is largely irrelevant in Test cricket. I thought Kallis would have been better than that TBH, but I think he would make the team ahead of Hussey as a batsman anyway, regardless of being in inferior form.

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Perm

Strike rate is largely irrelevant in Test cricket. I thought Kallis would have been better than that TBH, but I think he would make the team ahead of Hussey as a batsman anyway, regardless of being in inferior form.

Strike rate isn't irrelevant when it is as markedly different as Hussey and Kallis' would be AND when other aspects are at least roughly equal. Other things being equal, its better to score your runs quickly. And rather than other things being equal, other things also point to Hussey being a better batsman over this period.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Strike rate isn't irrelevant when it is as markedly different as Hussey and Kallis' would be AND when other aspects are at least roughly equal. Other things being equal, its better to score your runs quickly. And rather than other things being equal, other things also point to Hussey being a better batsman over this period.

This is Test cricket, you've got 5 days to score your runs. I don't think that Kallis having a strike rate of 42.75 and Hussey having a strike rate of 52.72 is that important, but if they were scoring their runs as fast as Gilchrist or Afridi score them, then strike rate would be a factor that you should take into consideration. As it is, the difference isn't large enough. Obviously Hussey has been scoring more runs, hence your argument, but strike rate isn't a factor.

[Matt79]

Clarke's record over the same period (since 2005/6) suggests that Kallis has been better, but maybe by not as much as I'd have thought:
10 matches (15 innings), 508 runs, 46.18 average, 2 centuries, 1 half century

Despite Kallis only playing 4 additional tests, he played 27 innings compared to Clarke's 15. That said Kallis has obviously been the better batsman - though whether he'll continue to be remains open to be seen.

[iamdavid]

Originally Posted by Steulen

If the Aus Test side needs an allrounder, isn't the first question what he would bring to the bowling attack?

I guess Stuart Clark is a certainty, and in all probability he'll continue to be excellent. But then there's Brett Lee, who simply doesn't take his wickets quickly enough to be a genuine opening strike bowler, and the third seamer will probably be someone like Tait (if fit) or Johnson who could be successes but have proven little at Test level so far (As an aside, the idiot selectors should of course revert to Gillespie, but they won't). MacGill as specialist spinner, I guess?

That attack doesn't strike me as being overly formidable. Is there a case then for selecting an allrounder who is primarily a bowler who can bat a bit, say someone in the Pollock / Vaas mould? I know England have suffered from tailitis going down this road, but Australia have the Gilchrist insurance, which should make all the difference.

No idea who that'd be, btw. Maybe give Andy Bichel a call, eh

That is a very interesting suggestion, and you'd think certainly on paper the Australian batting lineup would be strong enough to accomodate a bowling allrounder at 7 and Gilchrist at 6, but its not something I can realistically see happening.

Firstly because on the occasions when five frontline bowlers have been picked in the past, one tends to be very underbowled, and also because of the risk it involves on the batting front.
I dont think it'd be such a bad idea to explore, just dont see it happening.

Arent really a whole lot of bowling allrounders about atm either, surely they wont resurect Bichel because this is probably his last season. Damien Wright would be an option but while his bowling is pretty good I dont think it'll be a great threat at test level and he's getting on a bit aswell. Matthew Nicholson's batting isnt quite good enough for number 7, same goes for Gillespie. Mark Cleary would have been a candidate but he's fallen away terribly over the last couple of seasons with bat and ball.
The three remaining contenders are Ashley Noffke, his batting is a little up and down but he clearly has plenty of ability and his bowling dosent look as good as it once was but hey he might have a great start to the season. Moises Henriques who this role looks tailor made for if only he were a coupla years older, but he clearly isnt ready yet so not worth a mention. And George Bradley Hogg who is imo the only realistic candidate, FC average of 35 so we know he wont be a complete liability with the bat and good enough to be classified as a frontline bowler.

[Perm]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Clarke's record over the same period (since 2005/6) suggests that Kallis has been better, but maybe by not as much as I'd have thought:
10 matches (15 innings), 508 runs, 46.18 average, 2 centuries, 1 half century

Despite Kallis only playing 4 additional tests, he played 27 innings compared to Clarke's 15. That said Kallis has obviously been the better batsman - though whether he'll continue to be remains open to be seen.

Kallis is the much better batsman though and ten matches is an indication of form, not class. Based on his career, reputation and solidity, Kallis would likely get picked in the Australian Test team before Hussey and Clarke.

Also, are you suggesting Kallis will start to decline and Michael Clarke will become a better batsman?

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by iamdavid

That is a very interesting suggestion, and you'd think certainly on paper the Australian batting lineup would be strong enough to accomodate a bowling allrounder at 7 and Gilchrist at 6, but its not something I can realistically see happening.

And George Bradley Hogg who is imo the only realistic candidate, FC average of 35 so we know he wont be a complete liability with the bat and good enough to be classified as a frontline bowler.

Interesting - something like?
Jaques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Hogg
Lee
Johnson
Clark
Tait

It looks light for batting. While I don't think we want Gilly at 6 then the tail, Gilly is still probably a better bat than Symonds, and Hogg AND Johnson/Tait is a better bowling combo than Symonds AND MacGill.

[Perm]

Hogg isn't a good enough bowler to make it into the Test side, why won't people see this? His exploits in ODI cricket mean virtually nothing when it comes to Test selection, especially for somebody whose effectiveness is so different in the two different formats.

[iamdavid]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Agree re Watson/Symonds. He's probably better than Clarke. He's not better than Hussey in the time that Hussey has been playing tests.

Since the start of season 2005/6:
Hussey: 16 Matches, 1597 Runs, 79.85 Average, 5 Centuries, 8 Half-Centuries
Kallis: 14 Matches, 1093 Runs, 45.54 Average, 2 Centuries, 7 Half-Centuries

Plus there's the difference in strike rates between Hussey and Kallis.

Hussey's performances over the last two years have been superb and Clarke had an excellent Ashes series. But I find it laughable to suggest either would be selected ahead of Kallis, Hussey's had a great 16 test career and so far he's done everything asked of him and more.
But Kallis has played 100+ tests, scored 8000+ runs and been in the top couple of most consistent and highly regarded batsman in the world since 2000.
His last two years may not have been superb but they've hardly been terrible and his overall record shows his calibre as a player.
Hussey at present is not in his league.

[Pup Clarke]

How's about...

Jaques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Bichel
Lee
Clark
MacGill
Tait

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Perm

Kallis is the much better batsman though and ten matches is an indication of form, not class. Based on his career, reputation and solidity, Kallis would likely get picked in the Australian Test team before Hussey and Clarke.

Also, are you suggesting Kallis will start to decline and Michael Clarke will become a better batsman?

I think Clarke will certainly become a better batsman - I think he showed a new level of skill and maturity with the blade in the last few tests he played (almost 9 months ago, but hey). Whereas, those stats show that Kallis has in the last couple of seasons not matched his own very high peak, and the guy is the wrong side of 30. I'm certainly not writing him off as a quality batsman, but its likely he's not going to dramatically improve, or indeed recapture his peak form.

Form/class aren't distinct things, at some point they blend into each other. Those figures take in at least a couple of series, so I don't think they tell the story of who's the better batsman full stop, but they do show how both guys are going. And that shows that the last couple of seasons for Clarke have been better than his overall career, whereas the last couple of seasons for Kallis have been not quite as good as his overall career for him.

[Goughy]

I find the issue of strike rates interesting in Test cricket.

On the face of it scoring quickly is a big plus. The are definate advantages, it can take the initiative away from the opposition and can impose the will of the batting side.

However, there are downsides.

Firstly, a batsman that scores their runs quickly faces less balls per innings. In these cases a fielding team knows that a wicket is in the offing and on the horizen. Almost as disheartening as getting smashed around the park is not knowing whether you will ever be able to get the guy out. High strike rates means that they lose their wickets in less balls face and there is always a glipse of hope for the bowling team

Secondly, it can lead to smaller partnerships and partnerships are key to success in Test cricket.

If a guy averages 50 at SR 100 (numbers used for ease of calculation) he will last on average 50 balls.

Assuming, equal share of the bowling a partnership between this player and another would on average 100 balls.

If the other player has a strike rate of 50 and a batting average of 50, then he would score 25 runs in that time.

Partnership = 50+25 = 75 run partnership.

Now if both players had SR of 50 and batting averages of 50 then the partnership would last 200 balls (on statistical average).

Each player would contribute 50 runs in that period.

Partnership = 50+50 = 100

Now the same would be true of 2 fast scorers together. However, one fast scorer and a mid/slow scorer = smaller partnerships.