Kasprowicz or Tait?

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Beny

Tait is renowned for his ability to swing the ball at high pace. His stock ball is a pitched up out-swinger.

Beny,
Can you tell us how fast Tait bowls in MPH if possible please.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Dean jones

He bowls good pace at around 90-95mph but sometimes doesn't know where they're going.

So roughly the same speed as Harmison or Flintoff, maybe a tad quicker, Flintoff was clocking near 94MPH at Old Trafford.

Should be a good contest Flintoff Harmison - Tait Lee.

Of course Simon jones bowles 90MPH plus.

Bandages all round I think.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by cantplaycantalk

Don't get this, the conditions at TB are condusive to swing bowling, and Australia pick an out and out quick???
What is more he is an out and out quick who sprays it about

Absolute fools the Aussie selectors. Totally inbalanced team - the only reason Tait should have played is as a replacement for Lee. Interesting that those who now support Tait being in the team are the same ones that supported Gillespie. No idea about the subteties of cricket and are more concerned about hpre and reputation.
In the only test Kaspa got, he knocked over 3 of the 7 top order in the first innings and only got a go late in the second innings when England were 9 wickets down and Flintoff was running rampant.
Kaspa was the pick of the pace bowlers in that test so claims that he is no good and had his chance are completely wrong. Tait on the other hand has got only 4 wickets in two tour games against waek counties.
So it could'nt be the reputation that got him in - only the hype i suppose.

[Beny]

Tait on the other hand has got only 4 wickets in two tour games against waek counties.

Which is more than Kaspa who can't seem to keep his foot behind the line...

Kaspa was the pick of the pace bowlers in that test so claims that he is no good and had his chance are completely wrong.

In the first innings he picked up Tresco after the man had belted everbody around and got 90.. It's almost by law that somebody had to get him out.

He got Bell who was strugling to find form.

And he got Jones who is really nothing more than 50 odd player. For all that he bowled 8 nb and went for 80 runs of 15 overs... given that all the aussie bowlers were having a bad day I think we can forgive that.

In the second innings he went for nearly 10 an over off 3 overs whilst Lee bowled well.

So it could'nt be the reputation that got him in - only the hype i suppose.

His reputation is as the future of Australian test bowling, an exciting prospect and a player who has proformed (better than Kaspa although not for as long yet), in Pura Cup cricket and List-A cricket.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Originally Posted by Seamer

Interesting that those who now support Tait being in the team are the same ones that supported Gillespie.

Little bit of a generalisation

Originally Posted by Seamer

No idea about the subteties of cricket and are more concerned about hpre and reputation.

I presume that you are referring to the selectors, rather than casting out criticisms on the back of generalisations?

Originally Posted by Seamer

In the only test Kaspa got, he knocked over 3 of the 7 top order in the first innings

Extending the top order to seven is stretching it a little, but fair comment, he got the batsmen out as opposed to Gillespie

Originally Posted by Seamer

and only got a go late in the second innings when England were 9 wickets down and Flintoff was running rampant.

Its here we really digress in opinions. Kaspa came on to bowl (after a token single over before stumps) when Flintoff was on 34 off 54 balls, after scoring 8 off 13 in the prior 7 overs. Hardly 'running rampant'. The English then clobbered 24 off 2 Kaspa overs including one over of 3 no balls. Admittedly he came on when England upped the pace and started going for it and Lee did little better when he came back on. However, he bowled poorly when Oz needed him to bowl tight. Given the (undeserved) lack of confidence that Punter obviously had in him, this certainly didn't help.

Originally Posted by Seamer

Kaspa was the pick of the pace bowlers in that test so claims that he is no good and had his chance are completely wrong.

Yes, Kaspa was probably the pick of the Oz pace bowlers (I would certainly suggest that Flintoff was the pick of the pace bowlers in the match), but let's face it, the Aussie attack was not good. Prior to getting Tresco's wicket Kaspa's previous five overs went for 9,0,8,11 and 7 runs. A couple of lucky runs, but even ignoring the numbers, generally his bowling matched those figures. Kaspa, like all of the Oz seamers, did not have a good test, so the fact that he was the best of a poor lot doesn't really provide a great deal of confidence. Throughout the summer he has not threatened or really had penetration. Ponting doesn't seem to have faith in him, although I wouldn't back Punter's judgement on most things cricketing at the moment. But if the captain doesn't have faith in you, the opposition looks forward to you coming on (which it is evident the English are) and you're not bowling well, then its hard to argue that you really are fulfilling a role in a team, balance or not.

I don't actually think that Tait is a better choice than Kaspa, as I have stated elsewhere, but that's more about reservations regarding throwing Tait in than faith in Kaspa on current form. Suggesting that anyone who backs the inclusion of Tait ahead of Kaspa doesn't know anything about the subtleties of cricket is your call, not mine. I think its a close call, probably marginally favouring Kaspa's experience and the fact that generally he has done it before for Oz, despite his form. Hey, but then again, this was the argument I used to favour Gillespie in the first test, so the logic's flawed and Tait the obvious choice...

[Aussie-Yank]

Well Seamer, I probably agree with you on 99% of what you say. But on this occassion I am leaning towards Tait and am interested in how he goes. Unless McGrath does not bowl we will not know which one is the better pick so in light of that I will take Tait and roll the dice and see what comes.

By the way, if it does not work out my hat will be the first one off to you in appreciation of your skills as a selector. You have been right so far with Gillespie, but I was miffed he was actually selected after NZ Tour.

[greg]

Or both of them when Glenn McGrath is missing

[cantplaycantalk]

The loss of McGrath certainly made selection a lot easier. Pick the 3 fit seamers who are not totally out of form.

Does that make for less or more pressure on the kid?

So far he is the only bowler to get any hint of swing.

[Beny]

Well, two wickets later dare I say he has'nt had an awful debut yet... Looked as good or better than any other bowler and was'nt as bad with the NB's.

[greg]

He bowled well.As i said on another thread though,i bet the Sri Lankans can't wait for him to tour there as they have been waiting for any Aussie with an unusual action since the Murali thing blew up.
Before i get it in the neck for calling him a chucker may i say he isn't,he just has a strange action.I would say though that he looks a candidate for injuries as his body looks all over the place as he bowls and nothing like a natural action.Must be stressful on back and knees.