Who does Jackson Bird have to screw in order to at least enter the minds of selectors?

Ahh...definitely not Laura Bingle. :wub:

This is how I reckon the selectors will go ...

Cowan

Warner

Watson

Ponting

Clarke

Hussey

Wade

Johnson

Siddle/Hilfenhaus (one misses out due to fitness and/or 'rested')

Starc

Lyon

Johnson is in the squad which leads me to believe he will play . From all accounts he's got a bit of his mojo back and a yard of pace . Been working with DK (who is pleased with his progress) . Means we'd have 2 lefties in the side but in Perth that may well be an advantage .

Hazlewood is a bit of a risk in such an important game though he is coming on and they might go with him .

Would be surprised if they went with Hilfo and Siddle again . Our attack has lacked a bit variation and Starc must have been close to playing in Adelaide .

I'm not making any predictions because I'm a mozz .

Jackson Bird is a potential talent but havent a number of his wickets have come on the newly relaid Bellerive oval which is proving to be a batsman's graveyard.

Funny that he's take a number of wickets at Bellerive when that's where he plays 50% of his cricket. Are you suggesting that the selectors should be biased against Tasmanian bowlers?

Let's take a look at the most recent Shield match at Bellerive, shall we?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-domestic-2012/engine/current/match/576097.html

WA bowled out for 67, Jackson Bird takes 6/25. This may lend some credibility to the pitch being a batsman's graveyard, yet somehow by the end of the first day Tasmanian side was 2/201. Tasmania made a total of 448 which hardly points to outrageously tough batting conditions; the leading scorer was Ben Dunk who made 97. Dunk is a journeyman Queenslander who would've played fewer matches at Bellerive than the experienced WA batsman like Adam Voges, so you couldn't claim it's familiarity with the pitch that helped him.

Mitch Johnson's performance on this bowler's paradise was 4/105, which has half the nation wiping dribble from their chin about his form, but Bird's 6/25 gets dismissed as "oh, it's just because of the pitch". It just seems ridiculous to me.

Funny that he's take a number of wickets at Bellerive when that's where he plays 50% of his cricket. Are you suggesting that the selectors should be biased against Tasmanian bowlers?

RR is right. Bellerive is a graveyard. I know Bird can't help but play half his games there, but selectors do take their home ground into account.

It's like years back when the same venue was a batsmen's paradise and Jamie Cox mad a mountain of runs but never got a look in ahaead of guys like Elliott and Blewett.

I would have gone for Bird personally over Hazlewood, although Hazlewood does have a bright future. We do need a bowler in the McGrath mode which is exactly what Hazlewood is.

Hastings would be useful with his swing bowling into the breeze if Hilfenhaus doesn't get up IMO, but I expect Siddle, Hilfenhaus & Johnson to play given it's The Grand Final as the media are putting it and I think the selectors will want seasoned bowlers out there.

Come the first test against Sri Lanka, given the work load Siddle & Hilfenhaus would have endured, I wouldn't at all be suprised to see our bolwing line up consist of Starc, Hazlewood, Bird & Lyon once Johnson puts in an ordinary performance against RSA.

RR is right. Bellerive is a graveyard. I know Bird can't help but play half his games there, but selectors do take their home ground into account.

Jackson Bird's most recent figures outside of Bellerive in first class cricket:

4/73 against Victoria at MCG

0/51 and 3/53 against SA at Adelaide Oval

3/75 and 3/46 against NSW at SCG

But you and Rhino must be right, he must just look good because he bowls at Bellerive a lot.

Its great the selectors actually go and watch the players rather than just reading the scores in the paper.

Who's in scouring through the papers reading the scores? They'd be the type rooting for Mitch Johnson's inclusion.

As Nasher alluded to, Bird's managed to get wickets across the mainland as well. But, it matters very little now, as he's not in the side. Keep on keeping on I guess, good luck to Hazlewood all the same.

Edited November 28, 201212 yr by stinga81

Jackson Bird's most recent figures outside of Bellerive in first class cricket:

4/73 against Victoria at MCG

0/51 and 3/53 against SA at Adelaide Oval

3/75 and 3/46 against NSW at SCG

But you and Rhino must be right, he must just look good because he bowls at Bellerive a lot.

Good research Nozz. Kerry O'Keeffe and Jim Maxwell discussed Jackson Bird during a slow patch in the last Test.

The dubious state of Bellerive does put a negative relative weighting on wickets taken by any bowler there.

Its unfortunate that Bird has a lot of cricket there. He has not put a foot wrong and continued performance and gaps opening up in the Test side may give him a chance.

Jackson Bird's most recent figures outside of Bellerive in first class cricket:

4/73 against Victoria at MCG

0/51 and 3/53 against SA at Adelaide Oval

3/75 and 3/46 against NSW at SCG

But you and Rhino must be right, he must just look good because he bowls at Bellerive a lot.

I would have gone for Bird personally over Hazlewood, although Hazlewood does have a bright future. We do need a bowler in the McGrath mode which is exactly what Hazlewood is.

You're preaching to the converted Nasher. I was just playing Devils Advocate and simply giving an opinion as to why he may not have been picked, if I was the selector he would have been in the squad for sure.

As I mentioned in another comment though, I think there's a very good chance that he may debut in the first test against Sri Lanka in Hobart. If he performs well there, then he may find himself play out the series ahead of Hilfenhaus.

A question re the LBW rule: why is that it is possible to be out for not playing a shot when ball pitches outside off stump (as long as other criteria are met), but you can't be out not playing a shot when it pitches outside leg, even though ball would have hit stumps? What is the "policy" reasoning here?

Ponting to quit after Perth test:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia-v-south-africa-2012/content/current/story/594213.html

Glad he's doing to before being given the flick. It's been a pretty sad end for a wonderful career.

Ponting to quit after Perth test:

http://www.espncrici...ory/594213.html

Glad he's doing to before being given the flick. It's been a pretty sad end for a wonderful career.

Magnificent cricketer. RT Ponting. Wonderful career.

A question re the LBW rule: why is that it is possible to be out for not playing a shot when ball pitches outside off stump (as long as other criteria are met), but you can't be out not playing a shot when it pitches outside leg, even though ball would have hit stumps? What is the "policy" reasoning here?

Good question Tim. I will have a go at it.

The issue of not playing shot and being given out LBW when the ball pitches outside the line of the stumps (off or leg) will depend upon whether the umpire believes that ball would have hit the stumps had the batsman not blocked it with his pads.

The issue of whether it will hit the stumps when it pitches outside off or leg will depend upon the type of bowler (pace, off spin, leg spin), whether the bowler is bowling over or around the wicket and whether batsman is right or left handed too. There are a number of combinations to consider, but lets just say that its a right hand batsman and a right arm bowler bowling over the wicket. The bowler would have to naturally angle into the stumps so if the ball pitch outside off and the batsman padded it away without offering a shot then the umpire needs to be confident the ball hits the stump. If the ball had pitched outside leg then the umpire would have to be convinced (unlikey) that he could be confident that the ball was turning sufficiently to have hit the stumps without doubt. I am not sure an umpire could resolve that even if the great Shane Warne was bowling.

Also I have in my mind that due to some of the dubious,anti competitive leg theory tactics employed over the years to the detriment of the game of cricket that umpire wont or reluctant to give LBWs where the ball pitches outside leg.

Trust this helps.

Magnificent cricketer. RT Ponting. Wonderful career.

Fully agree. One of the golden greats. Probably our greatest post WWII batsman (excluding the Don on his final tour)

Ponting to quit after Perth test:

http://www.espncrici...ory/594213.html

Glad he's doing to before being given the flick. It's been a pretty sad end for a wonderful career.

Truely has been a wonderful career.

While personally I have Border and Greg Chappell ahead of him (along with the Don of course) when I think about what Australia's greatest XI woild look like, he clearly be the next best there's ever been for mine!

I'll never forget his 156 against England on Day 5 of the 3rd Test against England during the Ashes to save the game. The next highest run getter for us had 39! Came in during the first over of day 5 and was dismissed with 25 balls left in the day. Luckily Lee & McGrath were able to bat out to save the match.

An all time great and he's gone out at the right time, allowing whoever his replacement is to have a home series against Sri Lanka to try and settle into the team before tough tasks with tours of India and England, followed by a home Ashes series.

Good question Tim. I will have a go at it.

Thanks Rhino.

I've pondered this question for a while from time to time - haven't exactly lost sleep over it, though. What got me thinking was Faf (I think) padding Pup away the other day, and being declared not out on review because the ball pitched one centimetre the wrong way outside leg stump. Only about 48% of the ball pitched in line with the stumps, so it was an automatic "not out" even though he padded it away, and it would have hit middle.

Speaking as a left handed bowler, I think it's a bit rich that right hand batsmen get this luxury, as the natural drift of a left hand bowler is from leg to off, to a right handed batsman. The same ball kicked away by a rhb and deemed not out, could be out to a lhb if he kicked it away and it would have hit the stumps.

The leg theory suggestion is interesting, but I reckon balls that would hit the stumps (one pre-req of an lbw) would not constitute leg theory anyway.

Still puzzled, but more likely to dream about Toumpas/Viney/Hogan than this matter!

Good call from Ponting. Let's hope he can crack one final ton and help us win the Test.

With Siddle and Hilfenhaus both out, hopefully it's Hazlewood over Hastings (I like Hastings, but I don't see a long term future in Hastings and I don't think his bowling is threatening enough to take wickets against South Africa). Lyon needs to play.

Good call from Ponting. Let's hope he can crack one final ton and help us win the Test.

With Siddle and Hilfenhaus both out, hopefully it's Hazlewood over Hastings (I like Hastings, but I don't see a long term future in Hastings and I don't think his bowling is threatening enough to take wickets against South Africa). Lyon needs to play.

I hope Hastings does play. I reckon with the Fremantle doctor his swing will be very handy and I think he's a better swing bolwing prospect then Hilfenhaus personally. He'd also be a handy no 8, although I think Hazlewood could be useful on this wicket also.

I hope we go with Hastings, Hazlewood & either of Johnson or Starc. Siddle will be gutted I reckon, I'm gutted for him!

Thanks Rhino.

I've pondered this question for a while from time to time - haven't exactly lost sleep over it, though. What got me thinking was Faf (I think) padding Pup away the other day, and being declared not out on review because the ball pitched one centimetre the wrong way outside leg stump. Only about 48% of the ball pitched in line with the stumps, so it was an automatic "not out" even though he padded it away, and it would have hit middle.

Speaking as a left handed bowler, I think it's a bit rich that right hand batsmen get this luxury, as the natural drift of a left hand bowler is from leg to off, to a right handed batsman. The same ball kicked away by a rhb and deemed not out, could be out to a lhb if he kicked it away and it would have hit the stumps.

The leg theory suggestion is interesting, but I reckon balls that would hit the stumps (one pre-req of an lbw) would not constitute leg theory anyway.

Still puzzled, but more likely to dream about Toumpas/Viney/Hogan than this matter!

As a left armer Tim I share your frustration. When Clark bowls left arm orthodox over the wicket to a right hander he is giving up the LBW. On the other hand in a different situation, Clarke could effectively kill any offside play by bowling outside leg with the ball spinning back to leg stump, He could bowl like that all day and there could be little off side play unless the batsman reverse paddles the ball. In that situation, Clarke could close down the game with 8 to 9 players on the legside. It would not work with every batsman but the risk is that it kills the game.

I hope Hastings does play. I reckon with the Fremantle doctor his swing will be very handy and I think he's a better swing bolwing prospect then Hilfenhaus personally. He'd also be a handy no 8, although I think Hazlewood could be useful on this wicket also.

I hope we go with Hastings, Hazlewood & either of Johnson or Starc. Siddle will be gutted I reckon, I'm gutted for him!

I would be disappointed if Mitch J is prefered over Mitch S.

Thanks again RR - best explanation I've heard.

As a left armer, Tim

Ah yes - now I can see why I've thought your contributions have been coming from a different hemisphere.....

Thanks Rhino.

I've pondered this question for a while from time to time - haven't exactly lost sleep over it, though. What got me thinking was Faf (I think) padding Pup away the other day, and being declared not out on review because the ball pitched one centimetre the wrong way outside leg stump. Only about 48% of the ball pitched in line with the stumps, so it was an automatic "not out" even though he padded it away, and it would have hit middle.

Speaking as a left handed bowler, I think it's a bit rich that right hand batsmen get this luxury, as the natural drift of a left hand bowler is from leg to off, to a right handed batsman. The same ball kicked away by a rhb and deemed not out, could be out to a lhb if he kicked it away and it would have hit the stumps.

The leg theory suggestion is interesting, but I reckon balls that would hit the stumps (one pre-req of an lbw) would not constitute leg theory anyway.

Still puzzled, but more likely to dream about Toumpas/Viney/Hogan than this matter!

I reckon if there is any portion of the ball that is pitched in line - using the DRS - of the stumps it should count as "pitched in line". In that instance as you say nearly half the ball is in.

If the whole ball is outside the stump line zone, it should be not out.

The Australia A Bowling attack is on fire....Good stuff

75/6 so far

I bet Nathan Lyon has never had a standing ovation like that before when coming out to bat.

I bet Nathan Lyon has never had a standing ovation like that before when coming out to bat.

Nasher, don't worry about the bloody cricket, get over to the Melbourne Demons board and restore the deleted "No T$ no BS " thread which has been deleted. That is an event that is affecting Australia.

We might be chasing a few in our 2nd innings

Steyn right at the top of his game . Philander not far behind him . Morkel lurking . We're in allsortsa .

Reverse mozz required

Johnson...