maniac Posted August 16 Posted August 16 What the hell? Why are such players in the full time Aussie squad. Also the next gen of Aussie players lack any clutch cricketers look like.
nevada Posted August 16 Posted August 16 He had some crucial contributions against India(surprise, surprise!) and in a couple of other series IIRC. But at that time, he was filling in for Cam Green. Now, why would the Australian selectors pick both him AND Green in the same X1? At best, Webster is a substitute player when someone is injured. Instead of him, they could have picked a bowler like Boland in this game as all their bowlers can bat a bit.
Tillu Posted August 16 Posted August 16 2 hours ago, maniac said: What the hell? Why are such players in the full time Aussie squad. Also the next gen of Aussie players lack any clutch cricketers look like. Players like Beau Webster devalue the Aussie Test cap. maniac 1
singhvivek141 Posted August 16 Posted August 16 12 hours ago, Tillu said: Players like Beau Webster devalue the Aussie Test cap. He is similar to Ian Harvey, James Hopes, Brandon Jullian type, Shane Lee typw cricketers. Australia always had those of them along with the star performers. Its just that Gulf in quality between Australia and other teams have shrinked. So such players get exposed more.
BacktoCricaddict Posted August 16 Posted August 16 On the flip side there's no reason Boland should be sitting. It seems like the only way he gets in is if Hazelwood gets hurt. maniac 1
Lord Posted August 16 Posted August 16 3 hours ago, singhvivek141 said: He is similar to Ian Harvey, James Hopes, Brandon Jullian type, Shane Lee typw cricketers. Australia always had those of them along with the star performers. Its just that Gulf in quality between Australia and other teams have shrinked. So such players get exposed more. Most of them were restricted to white ball though.
singhvivek141 Posted August 17 Posted August 17 8 hours ago, Lord said: Most of them were restricted to white ball though. True...Australia was lucky that it was able to play with 7 batters and 4 bowlers...and even in those 4 bowlers, Warne & Lee were capable batters, while amongst 7 batters...Waugh brothers were very handy with the ball. Later they were joined by Lehman, Symonds, Clarke who all can roll their arms. tweaker 1
The Realist Posted August 22 Posted August 22 (edited) O runs. 0 wickets. Only 32 so a youngster in Aus. The new Agarkar? @maniac @vvvslaxman Edited August 22 by The Realist nevada and Sgattick10 2
vvvslaxman Posted August 22 Posted August 22 3 hours ago, The Realist said: O runs. 0 wickets. Only 32 so a youngster in Aus. The new Agarkar? @maniac @vvvslaxman This guy played a big role in SCG to beat us. :( THat is the sad story. Legit trundler. Average batsman
Suhaan Posted August 22 Posted August 22 On 8/17/2026 at 10:30 AM, singhvivek141 said: True...Australia was lucky that it was able to play with 7 batters and 4 bowlers...and even in those 4 bowlers, Warne & Lee were capable batters, while amongst 7 batters...Waugh brothers were very handy with the ball. Later they were joined by Lehman, Symonds, Clarke who all can roll their arms. They all could bat ,the early 2000s side only had McGrath who was their genuine tailender The LO of Bichel,Hogg,Lee all could bat and were quite stubborn,didn't loose their wicket while scoring at fair clicks
bsriharsha Posted August 23 Posted August 23 11 hours ago, Suhaan said: They all could bat ,the early 2000s side only had McGrath who was their genuine tailender The LO of Bichel,Hogg,Lee all could bat and were quite stubborn,didn't loose their wicket while scoring at fair clicks Gillespie had a double century.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now