Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Rix was a ruckmansaintspremiers wrote:All true JB, but we need a few talls to play ruck.
Unfortunate but that's the reality.
.
It is good to use evidence to back up your claims ...BigMart wrote:Same logic (we took Ross because he is better so its right) would mean
Armitage was seen as better than Frawley/Riewoldt in 2006 because we overlooked them, and we made the right call...
or
Cripps was taken ahead of Jack Darling in 2010..therefore we can suggest Cripps was the right call... on evidence, clearly not
In HINDSIGHT both were errors of judgement......and that is the point
Its just JUDGEMENT...Its hard to be sure who will make it at this stage....there is NO certainty that Seb Ross or Elton will make the grade...its just opinion. Elton is seen as lazy but physiacally gifted, Ross is slow....
To balance the argument
Was Luke Molan a better pick in 2001 than NDS???
this. the problem with getting an over abundance of ruckmen is you invest all this time into developing them and if you actually find more than 1 decent one at the same time then you lose them to another club.joffaboy wrote:Rix was a ruckmansaintspremiers wrote:All true JB, but we need a few talls to play ruck.
Unfortunate but that's the reality.
.
Brooks was a ruckman
Patterson was a ruckman
All turned out to be duds.
Dont get a ruckman for ruckmans sake.
Lever may get a gig in two or three years.
A King or Gardiner might turn up in the interim.
Do you read what people write or just make things up to suit yourself. I dont think anyone has said those talls cannot play. As people have pointed out we recruited for what our clubs thinks are our needs and other clubs do the same. Also we obviously thought Ross was better than Elton. Should we have picked Elton because he is tall even if our poeple thought he wasnt going to be as good for the club as Ross? I dont think so.BigMart wrote:So are we saying that Elton 26, Talia 39, Paine 50, Kersten 34 all cannot play because our recruiters did not select them.....and that it is a certainty that the players we picked MUST be better...
We have a dearth of talls going forward, so to us I would suggest a strategy to find a couple was logical....to suggest those ones drafted are hopeless....basically says the recruiting depts of other clubs are negligent. Not so sure....and I would think they have plans for them to play AFL Footy going fwd
Paine was Drafted to Collingwood as a fwd....They have Cloke 26, Dawes 23
Elton was drafted as a fwd/Ruck....they have Vickery 21, Riewoldt 23, and just reruited Maric 26
Western Bulldogs took Talia.....They have Lake 29, Williams 25, Wood 23, Morris 28 - so they needed him
Geelong drafted Kersten......Pods 31, Vardy 21, Hawkins 23, Johnson 28 - smart pick.
Same logic (we took Ross because he is better so its right) would mean
Armitage was seen as better than Frawley/Riewoldt in 2006 because we overlooked them, and we made the right call...
or
Cripps was taken ahead of Jack Darling in 2010..therefore we can suggest Cripps was the right call... on evidence, clearly not
In HINDSIGHT both were errors of judgement......and that is the point
Its just JUDGEMENT...Its hard to be sure who will make it at this stage....there is NO certainty that Seb Ross or Elton will make the grade...its just opinion. Elton is seen as lazy but physiacally gifted, Ross is slow....
To balance the argument
Was Luke Molan a better pick in 2001 than NDS???
Obviously limited golf knowledge. When they had to pick the captains pick Allenby was actually in pretty good form. He was out of form by the time they played. And not a lot of options at the moment for openers for Australia either.BigMart wrote:I too trust them......but just dont understand the logic
But I also dont understand the logic that Hughes and Warner will open the batting against NZ on Thursday and niether even have a reasonable technique.....to play test cricket, let alone open....
Both will fail 3 out of 4 innings and make an explosive 50 in the other???
or why Robert Allenby played in the Presidents cup, when he is so far out of form he cant make a cut
Selectors have gone mad IMO - world wide
Those famous stats of your again. He finished 13th in a good field the week before they had to select and also a couple of top 25 finishes. That is pretty good in those american fields. Also as you cant come up with another opener but whinge about others being selected I suppose you didnt have anyone to replace Allenby either.BigMart wrote:Played like he was in good form...so good a form that he has slipped to 70 in the rankings from 25 ...... so going well
Has had one top ten finish since Feb...AT&T National in July - Tied 6th...
So you rate Warner a test match opener????
with Hughes
????
Not sure thats the pairing I would go with....but you must be right because you agree with the selectors.....who are ALWAYS right
Personallly I think both are found wanting defensively...I guess I share Geoff Boycotts POV....both have the image of an aussie cricketer desired, but fall short in technique IMO. Niether are conventional, and this will be their undoing. I believe CA wants one of them to partner Watson, so both are being tried......without an agenda - I would have gone for the much more sound temprement and technique of Cowan to partner on of the hit and miss openers
BTW - Opening batsman fill most spots in the top ten of Highest Run scorers in the first class over the last 4 seasons
Shane Watson, Simon Katich, Michael Klinger, Ed Cowan, Phil Hughes, Rob Quiney, Clint Rogers, Wes Robison, Chris Lynne (2011) and Jaques (but has batted at 4)
I like 2 openers and you didnt want both that are playing now. That leaves us one short so as I said who is the other. Also that tournament you talk about was after the sides had to be picked. But I do love the hindsight. Has hindsight ever been wrong? I think you would know. You are the king of it.BigMart wrote:I did state another opener quite clearly....he just made 145 in 7 hours against the kiwis....please read more carefully
and you agree with the selection of Allenby....who basically humilated himself....not just losing, but getting flogged....
anyway....he did indeed finish T13 in the asia pacific in a (Huge) field....that included a few players in the top 50...in the same tounament John Sendon finished 7th and would have been my pick.....just the week before the Cup he finished RU in the Aus Open and is ranked 44 in the world......
Rob Allenby was picked for his knowledge and history at Royal Melbourne
Unfortunately
has lost his putting stroke..... wh
My bad. I didnt realise you were happy to have one of the openers failing 3 out of every 4 innings as your described it. And i thought you didnt accept mediocrity. And I didnt realise Chalmers had won the PGA when we posted this. Again my bad. As Harry Ho would say, amazing.BigMart wrote:again
Read more carefully!!!!
"TO PARTNER ONE OF THE HIT AND MISS OPENERS"
where does the hindsight come in???
The game hasent started.......or were you talking Sendon??? topic had never came up...you asked, I answered...
Real Hindsight - I would have said Chalmers...considering he just won the Open and the PGA and beat Tiger, Scott, Baddely, Ogilvie and Co...
So which is it P66
Its not OK to make a critisism too early and I need to give time
or
I am not allowed to make on in hindsight
What would be the perfect balance????
I Know........Just agree with the Admin at every turn....they have served us well over the journey
Watson should bat at 6. Very good batsman but isnt an opener as he doesnt go on to make big scores enough. Bowls well in the right conditions otherwise can be pedestrian. Very good all round cricketer.BigMart wrote:I didnt say Chalmers either...and still dont.....just using your 'hindsight' jibe
I rate Sendon very highly, very solid player, playing well...
No I actually dont rate either lad they have selected as TEST openers....having said that, I would have stuck with Hughes because at least he has played a dozen tests and averages near 40.....
Opening with 2 debutants would be silly......ultimately though
Hughes was always going to get found out.....will do again....Hope we Bowl first if its Juicy or Punter could find himself facing the second over......BTW - I love the look of Khwaja..
How do you rate Watto???
And both are small. Should have chosen a tall opener to give the team balance regardless of how good he is.BigMart wrote:But I also dont understand the logic that Hughes and Warner will open the batting against NZ on Thursday and niether even have a reasonable technique.....to play test cricket, let alone open....
yes that is dead right, and according to our fulltime recruiters there were no talls like that before our pick of #25 left.skeptic wrote:joffaboy wrote:Hard to believe that anyone would argue that a good tall is just as or more important than a good small.
not saying it was a poor decision but good talls are much harder to find so getting a good one is much more important
and we have recruited Lever and Wilkes with Ferguson and Archer in our rookie stocks - why would recruiting Elton or another tall be seen as a better pick seeing as you say it's all speculation anyway.BigMart wrote:So are we saying that Elton 26, Talia 39, Paine 50, Kersten 34 all cannot play because our recruiters did not select them.....and that it is a certainty that the players we picked MUST be better...
We have a dearth of talls going forward, so to us I would suggest a strategy to find a couple was logical....to suggest those ones drafted are hopeless....basically says the recruiting depts of other clubs are negligent. Not so sure....and I would think they have plans for them to play AFL Footy going fwd
Paine was Drafted to Collingwood as a fwd....They have Cloke 26, Dawes 23
Elton was drafted as a fwd/Ruck....they have Vickery 21, Riewoldt 23, and just reruited Maric 26
Western Bulldogs took Talia.....They have Lake 29, Williams 25, Wood 23, Morris 28 - so they needed him
Geelong drafted Kersten......Pods 31, Vardy 21, Hawkins 23, Johnson 28 - smart pick.
Same logic (we took Ross because he is better so its right) would mean
Armitage was seen as better than Frawley/Riewoldt in 2006 because we overlooked them, and we made the right call...
or
Cripps was taken ahead of Jack Darling in 2010..therefore we can suggest Cripps was the right call... on evidence, clearly not
In HINDSIGHT both were errors of judgement......and that is the point
Its just JUDGEMENT...Its hard to be sure who will make it at this stage....there is NO certainty that Seb Ross or Elton will make the grade...its just opinion. Elton is seen as lazy but physiacally gifted, Ross is slow....
To balance the argument
Was Luke Molan a better pick in 2001 than NDS???
