Bushies v Redbacks

[dog town]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

Come on. Do you think he's that good a batsman? I think it's somewhat sad we don't have someone else in line

Name someone who is in better form. He has dominated the 2nd 11 games and has been good in te shorter form of the game with the bat. He is certainly talented enough with the bat bu he just has a few brain fades.

[GVGjr]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

Thats fair enough as long as we are judging him on his batting.

I am judging him on his batting and I'd be surprised if anyone could logically support his promotion in the batting order. I provided two options and no one has challenged either of those.

The fact that we can't escape though is that the skill that got him into the side in the first place is that he is a keeper. To be now played as a specialist batsman his form in front of the stumps must be far superior than his form behind it and I don't see it.
IMO, to say that his keeping shouldn't come into consideration is just wrong.

He is a decent, but a far from convincing, number 7 who would only normally be moved up the order if we needed quick runs. If he had been in sparkling form in his last few innings but his keeping had slipped then there would be a case to argue that he could be played as a specialist batsman. I however, don't believe this is the case.

[Sedat]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

I see Darren Berry in today's age is questioning why we are again playing two keepers in the same game.

Bit rich coming from him saying that a call should be made on one or the other. Berry wasn't exactly running to step aside for the younger (and far better with the bat) Roach despite being a liability with the bat late in his career (and Roach making a ton of runs at the same time), which was ironic seeing as Berry was the beneficiary early in his career replacing Michael Dimmatina purely on the strength of his batting (and his youth at the time).

Berry is one of the most self-involved commentators in the print media. He laments the lost art of wicket keeping in most of his articles because he was quite useless with the bat for a large portion of his career.

[dog town]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

I am judging him on his batting and I'd be surprised if anyone could logically support his promotion in the batting order. I provided two options and no one has challenged either of those.

I am far from a Crosthwaite fan but just out of interest who do you think would be a better option?

to say that his keeping shouldn't come into consideration is just wrong.

.

Well he is picked as a batsmen so his keeping has nothing to do with it. They think he is the next best option with the bat. Either that or Wade came into the game with an injury question mark.

He is a decent, but a far from convincing, number 7 who would only normally be moved up the order if we needed quick runs. If he had been in sparkling form in his last few innings but his keeping had slipped then there would be a case to argue that he could be played as a specialist batsman. I however, don't believe this is the case.

He has been in pretty good form as SS pointed out. Why would it matter if his keeping had slipped?

[hujsh]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

Name someone who is in better form. He has dominated the 2nd 11 games and has been good in te shorter form of the game with the bat. He is certainly talented enough with the bat bu he just has a few brain fades.

I don't know that the 2nd 11 means much. As i said Mark Higgs was the leading scorer last year. I don't keep track of scores in club cricket so it's hard to say who's in form but I'd imagine there's more talented batsmen.

[dog town]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

I don't keep track of scores in club cricket so it's hard to say who's in form but I'd imagine there's more talented batsmen.

There isn't really that much behind what is already in the side. Remember we are already stretched by missing Hodge, Hussey and White plus we lost Klinger. Mash is shield standard and rightly came in for this game. After that you have a bunch of kids who may or may not make it and a few middle age guys who are probably not quite up to it. A guy by the name of Hill is probably the stand out of the kids. He captained Australia at u/19 level.

Generally if a player of real quality comes through they will get him in straight away as soon as he performs. You can throw a blanket over the bunch of 10-15 middle age batsmen who consistently make runs at district level. For example Mick Allen who opened in our second 11 last season is now playing at sub district level for Melton so its really hard to tell just how good some of these guys are. Its a massive jump from club cricket to state level.There is not always a heap of guys who could come in and perform so while Crossy might not be in our best 6 batsmen its not a huge stretch to put him in our top 10 which effectively what they have done. I wouldnt have thought he was quite at that level but they have gone for someone with exposure at that level rather than pulling in an untried kid or an improving middle ager. It was probably just easier for them given it is really hard to sort the quality from the mediocre guys at distruct leve.

[GVGjr]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

Well he is picked as a batsmen so his keeping has nothing to do with it. They think he is the next best option with the bat. Either that or Wade came into the game with an injury question mark.

His keeping does have to something do with it because he isn't a strong enough batsman to hold his spot on that skill alone and he does not have another sting to his bow. I still haven't anyone come up with one piece of logic that says he either should be in the side on his batting alone.
Forget about the keeping or not keeping aspect and just provide something that explains why he is in the side as a batsman because it isn't the weight of runs that has forced his way into the side.

Have a re read of this and hopefully you will see what I am saying. If he is in the side because he is the next best batsman then district cricket here in Victoria isn't as strong as it should be. The same goes for Wade's inclusion in the limited over games.

http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showpost.php?p=69680&postcount=11

He has been in pretty good form as SS pointed out. Why would it matter if his keeping had slipped?

He has actually been in just average form but got promoted anyway.

The fact is that the selectors don't have a real plan for Wade and Crosthwaite. In this 4 day game Crosthwaite bats ahead of Wade but in a recent limited over game Wade batted at 4 and Crossy at 7. I think they are trying to get one of these guys to stand up and make the decision for them.

I think Crossy is still a bit better than Wade at the moment but the selectors didn't entice Wade over here just for the hell of it. There was question marks over Crossy's ability with the bat and the gloves plus his temperament and that's why they looked around. I think they still haven't made up their mind which one they want to go with.

[dog town]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

His keeping does have to something do with it because he isn't a strong enough batsman to hold his spot on that skill alone and he does not have another sting to his bow. I still haven't anyone come up with one piece of logic that says he either should be in the side on his batting alone.
Forget about the keeping or not keeping aspect and just provide something that explains why he is in the side as a batsman because it isn't the weight of runs that has forced his way into the side.

Have a re read of this and hopefully you will see what I am saying. If he is in the side because he is the next best batsman then district cricket here in Victoria isn't as strong as it should be. The same goes for Wade's inclusion in the limited over games.

http://www.woof.net.au/forum/showpost.php?p=69680&postcount=11

He has actually been in just average form but got promoted anyway.

The fact is that the selectors don't have a real plan for Wade and Crosthwaite. In this 4 day game Crosthwaite bats ahead of Wade but in a recent limited over game Wade batted at 4 and Crossy at 7. I think they are trying to get one of these guys to stand up and make the decision for them.

I think Crossy is still a bit better than Wade at the moment but the selectors didn't entice Wade over here just for the hell of it. There was question marks over Crossy's ability with the bat and the gloves plus his temperament and that's why they looked around. I think they still haven't made up their mind which one they want to go with.

He is not keeping in this game. Why would the selectors take the fact that he keeps into consideration? I am not in disagreement as to Crossy being not quite there as a batsmen but just think the fact that he keeps is irrelevant. In my view they have taken a bit from his batting in the 2nd 11 games and the shorter version then decided he is the next best option given his exposure. Do you think they are sort of rewarding him for maintaining pressure on Wade? Telling him he is close?

Just out of interest who would you prefer? The stocks are not overflowing at the moment.

[GVGjr]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

He is not keeping in this game. Why would the selectors take the fact that he keeps into consideration? I am not in disagreement as to Crossy being not quite there as a batsmen but just think the fact that he keeps is irrelevant. In my view they have taken a bit from his batting in the 2nd 11 games and the shorter version then decided he is the next best option given his exposure. Do you think they are sort of rewarding him for maintaining pressure on Wade? Telling him he is close?

Just out of interest who would you prefer? The stocks are not overflowing at the moment.

IMO, you are way too fixated on a bit of word play but FWIW his primary skill is still his wicketkeeping and that is why I believe it is very relevant to this discussion. It's what got him into the side in the first place. If he could bat like DeVilliers or even like a Ryan Campbell then fine but he is way off that mark.
Just so we don't keep going over the wicketkeeping aspect, I'll take your view that he has been included because of one performance in a 2nd 11 game and that being a reflection on the standard of District cricket here in Victoria. If his form in a 2nd 11 game got him promoted then the depth clearly isn't there.

For me though, the selectors just can't make up their mind.

[GVGjr]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

A close result today but the Vics got up mainly due to Bryce McGains 5 for in the 2nd dig.

I wonder if that performance puts him down as a certainty for a trip to SA?

[ledge]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

Who knows, after Symonds inclusions in the last year it has nothing to do with form in state comp.

[dog town]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

IMO, you are way too fixated on a bit of word play but FWIW his primary skill is still his wicketkeeping and that is why I believe it is very relevant to this discussion. It's what got him into the side in the first place. If he could bat like DeVilliers or even like a Ryan Campbell then fine but he is way off that mark.
Just so we don't keep going over the wicketkeeping aspect, I'll take your view that he has been included because of one performance in a 2nd 11 game and that being a reflection on the standard of District cricket here in Victoria. If his form in a 2nd 11 game got him promoted then the depth clearly isn't there.

For me though, the selectors just can't make up their mind.

Fair enough. Have no issue with your general opinion here. Depth is obviously a concern. I dont think guys like Finch and Blizzard are up to shield level. Hill will be a player eventually. Needed to hold on to Klinger.

On McGain I think they will take him. Only room for 1 spinner in that squad though so it will be interesting.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

IMO, you are way too fixated on a bit of word play but FWIW his primary skill is still his wicketkeeping and that is why I believe it is very relevant to this discussion. It's what got him into the side in the first place. If he could bat like DeVilliers or even like a Ryan Campbell then fine but he is way off that mark.
Just so we don't keep going over the wicketkeeping aspect, I'll take your view that he has been included because of one performance in a 2nd 11 game and that being a reflection on the standard of District cricket here in Victoria. If his form in a 2nd 11 game got him promoted then the depth clearly isn't there.

For me though, the selectors just can't make up their mind.

I don't get it. Why is his keeping relevant if he's not going to keep? If his fielding was so bad that he was a liability then I could understand it but I've never heard anything bad about it.

If Wally Grout was playing and Gilchrist couldn't get a game as a keeper, would you play him as a batsman?

If Crosthwaite is thought to be one of the 6 best batsmaen available to us then he should play as a batsman.


With regard to his form, Victoria 2nd XI has played 3 games this summer.


V NSW

Vic 132 (Crosthwaite 20, Mash 3, Hill 51*) & 387 (Crosthwaite 106, Mash 69, Hill 85)


V QLD

Vic Hill 24, Mash 28, Lindsay 102, Ludeman 77. Vics only batted once. Crosthwaite didn't play, one day duty.


V ACT

Vic 483 (Crosthwaite 114, Mash 224, Hill 4, Hastings 56) & 8/240 dec. (Crosthwaite 73, Hill 17, Mash 64)



Mash - 388 @ 77.6 - promoted
Crosthwaite - 303 @ 75.75 - promoted
Hill - 181 @ 45.25 - not promoted.


All seems fairly straightforward to me.

[GVGjr]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

I don't get it. Why is his keeping relevant if he's not going to keep? If his fielding was so bad that he was a liability then I could understand it but I've never heard anything bad about it.

It's pretty simple really because he isn't a good enough batsman to have deserved a promotion in the batting order. I've tried to make that point clear as I can but it's obviously missing the mark by a fair way.

Like I said to DT, I'll take your approach that he was included because of his batting prowess but IMO that it is a poor reflection on the standard of the Victorian district cricket batsman.

[Sockeye Salmon]

Re: Bushies v Redbacks

It's pretty simple really because he isn't a good enough batsman to have deserved a promotion in the batting order. I've tried to make that point clear as I can but it's obviously missing the mark by a fair way.

Like I said to DT, I'll take your approach that he was included because of his batting prowess but IMO that it is a poor reflection on the standard of the Victorian district cricket batsman.

Maybe it is, but the fact remains he's the next best performed batsman available.