North will play 2nd Test. HIlditch is full of crap.

From today's SMH

''No player is safe in international cricket, you've got to perform,'' said Andrew Hilditch, the chairman of selectors.

Yet a bloke who in 30 Test innings has failed to make double figures in 16 of them will get another match? Talk about cheaping Test cricket and the baggy green.

46 runs in his last 6 digs. If I don't know better I would think that Hilditch was too big a c0ck to admit he made a mistake in picking him in the first place.

Some strange comments from Hilditch.

It's weird that they have so much confidence in North, yet in the last ashes they unceremoniously dumped Phil Hughes after two bad tests, when his average was still around 50.

It's quite clear that Aus want to give the impression of being a stable side going in to the ashes, but in truth, three or four players should be close to getting the axe- North, Hauritz, Hussey, and dare one say it, maybe even Ponting.

30 Test innings.
4 centuries
4 half centuries
5 ducks
11 other scores of 10 or less

Can one of the stats-minded FBers see if they can find any other batsman in Australia Test history with figures like these from their first 30 innings?

Gotta fly out for a bit but the obvious one that comes to mind is SRW.

Up to the end of the Pakistan tour in 1988 Tugga had played:

32 Test innings
0 centuries
6 half centuries
4 ducks
11 other scores of 10 or less.

And no, I have no faith that Ollie will be a Stephen Rodger, who turned it all around from 1989 onwards.

The difference being that Waugh was in his early 20s and a long term investment for Australia, whereas North was 30 when he made his debut and should now really be in the prime of his career.

Indeed Trev. Hence my view that Nought needs to be jettisoned now for a George Bailey or Callum Ferguson. In this rebuilding phase we need some young blood with talent. If either of these players had a similar record to North to this point there is no question I'd say stick with them.

But at 31 Ollie is no spring chciken. He really needed to do something like Paris to warrant his continued place in the side i.e. score regular runs in the middle order when the team needed them. I reiterate the point I've made numerous times - the lowest Team score Ollie has ever come in and made runs from is 4-157. We need him making good scores when he comes to the wicket with less than 100 on the board.

FTR Bailey is 28 and Ferguson is 25.

Good decision, give the lad a chance.

I would take Ian Bell over MArcus North.

Henry wrote:The difference being that Waugh was in his early 20s and a long term investment for Australia, whereas North was 30 when he made his debut and should now really be in the prime of his career.

The other difference was Waugh's bowling. He was a genuine option back then. North is more of a "fingers crossed we're in the crap" type of option.

So if he fails again at Bangalore, then what? They can't justify selecting him. There will be an uproar. They should have given another guy a go in England against Pakistan, but they've put all their eggs into one basket with North, and they're now not strong enough to admit they were wrong in sticking with him.

Still, it's not like he wont peel off a couple of centuries on the flat Aussie pitches during the ashes if the top 5 five give him a platform.

JGK wrote:I would take Ian Bell over MArcus North.

I am sure you would like to add that if we had a half decent spinner the selectors would probably have p!ssed him off long ago

skully wrote:Gotta fly out for a bit but the obvious one that comes to mind is SRW.

Up to the end of the Pakistan tour in 1988 Tugga had played:

32 Test innings
0 centuries
6 half centuries
4 ducks
11 other scores of 10 or less.

And no, I have no faith that Ollie will be a Stephen Rodger, who turned it all around from 1989 onwards.

SRW was also picked primarily as a bowling all-rounder for his early Tests. North is supposedly a batsman who could bowl a bit.

JGK wrote:I would take Ian Bell over MArcus North.

Bell is a legend.

shermanator rocks