SLICKR392 Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 At least not because of his batting as he was sent at 11. He was picked in the squad for the 2nd Test for his batting. Was also promoted to 8.
maniac Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 I excpect Aussies to still get pwned by Paki spinners.....Hafeez is good enough for these mediocre Aussie batsmen(except Clarke and Smith)........Similarly Aussie pace bowlers will pwn Paki batsmen....I think Pak's advantage has definetely reduced with Ajmal's ban but they still have the edge on UAE pitches-If they are anything like they were in that England series
rkt.india Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 He was picked in the squad for the 2nd Test for his batting. Was also promoted to 8. Only after he scored 99 at 11 and they wanted to give him one more chance. Was dropped after that and was never picked again.
SLICKR392 Posted September 11, 2014 Posted September 11, 2014 Only after he scored 99 at 11 and they wanted to give him one more chance. Was dropped after that and was never picked again. Yes. And they gave him a second shot because of that 99, not his bowling. It was a reply to Brendan who says Aussies never opt for a bowler based on their batting.
brendan07 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 So...explain me why agar was played ahead of Lyon in ashes ( English) Lyon was barely taking a wicket, and the thinking was Pieterson has issues with left arm spinners. Lyon was out of form, was nothing to do with Agar's batting.
brendan07 Posted September 12, 2014 Posted September 12, 2014 Yes. And they gave him a second shot because of that 99' date=' not his bowling. It was a reply to Brendan who says Aussies never opt for a bowler based on their batting.[/quote'] Agar took wickets in the first test as well, take his batting out of it, was a bonus. He took 3 or 4 wickets in the first test. That is more than reasonable on a green seamer.
rkt.india Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Yes. And they gave him a second shot because of that 99' date=' not his bowling. It was a reply to Brendan who says Aussies never opt for a bowler based on their batting.[/quote'] No, batting was bonus, but they wanted to give one more chance to his bowling. If he was preferred for batting, would have played some more matches.
SLICKR392 Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 No' date=' batting was bonus, but they wanted to give one more chance to his bowling. If he was preferred for batting, would have played some more matches.[/quote'] Lyon took his place because he failed with his bat & ball. Its quiet obvious he got a second chance because of his 90 odd.
rkt.india Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Lyon took his place because he failed with his bat & ball. Its quiet obvious he got a second chance because of his 90 odd. He had some wickets in first game that lead him to play in 2nd, not his 99. Because if he was selected based on batting, he would not have been dropped based on failure in one test.
SLICKR392 Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 He had some wickets in first game that lead him to play in 2nd' date=' not his 99. Because if he was selected based on batting, he would not have been dropped based on failure in one test.[/quote'] Oh c'mon, rkt! He was quiet clearly picked on the basis of the 90. Those 2 wickets just made his place more solid. Failed in both departments in the 2nd test and they were 2 down, so quiet clearly Clarke turned to Lyon. Even Huges was dropped after his poor show in the 2nd Test despite having a good score in the
King Tendulkar Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 Oh c'mon' date=' rkt! He was quiet clearly picked on the basis of the 90. Those 2 wickets just made his place more solid. Failed in both departments in the 2nd test and they were 2 down, so quiet clearly Clarke turned to Lyon. Even Huges was dropped after his poor show in the 2nd Test despite having a good score in the[/quote'] No way. Was picked in 1st test purely on bowling. And for second test same thing. That's why did not do it with ball so axed after second test. They wanted to give him at least 2 games, cant axe on one games bowling when debut and young Odd pick full stop
SLICKR392 Posted September 13, 2014 Posted September 13, 2014 No way. Was picked in 1st test purely on bowling. And for second test same thing. That's why did not do it with ball so axed after second test. They wanted to give him at least 2 games, cant axe on one games bowling when debut and young Odd pick full stop I'm talking about the 2nd Test. 1st based was obviously on his bowling since he was slotted at 11. Unlike Dhoni or Cook, Clarke dropped both Huges and Agar since they failed in the 2nd Test. 2 wickets in the 1st Test just lend him a hand for that 90 odd going into the 2nd Test.
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