WTF is the problem with George Bailey?

I was a huge fan of him when he played for Chennai Super Kings, not for his game but for his attitude, his attitude and play resembled like Steve Waugh of 90's, why did Australia delay in bringing Bailey into the national squad? Bailey is a normal player but when he wears the Australian trousers he turns into a monster, having impressed everybody with his assured captaincy and knocks he is not satisfied and going further and further    

Really Aussie team needs a captain and performer like him, he should lead the Ashes team and not the pup, Bailey brings refreshing attitude to this team which was kinda missing all the time under pup's captaincy.

Nah, not a great red ball player. Would be found out.

how do you know? Have you ever seen him play red ball cricket?

Fists, Considering the alternatives used in the last year or so, Australia would do well to bring Bailey in. And unless they go for Faulkner as the 5th bowler partly to protect Harris from too much overload, I would certainly have Bailey in at 5.
Rogers
Warner
Watson
Clarke
Bailey
Smith
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Harris
Lyon

If Aussies are serious about winning the ashes back they should reinstate Bailey as the captain sooner or later for the tests as well, Clarke can be his vice captain.  

invisiblecoolers wrote:If Aussies are serious about winning the ashes back they should reinstate Bailey as the captain sooner or later for the tests as well, Clarke can be his vice captain.  

which world do you live in  

Bailey certianly has given himself a chance to be at No.6...otehr in the race are Finch, Maxwell .

the otehr guy who will be in the starting 11 is Johnson

CF wrote:how do you know? Have you ever seen him play red ball cricket?

Yes.

yes. that is exactly how you go about repairing Aussie cricket. give the guy with no test experience the captaincy.

#genius

kingraf wrote:yes. that is exactly how you go about repairing Aussie cricket.  give the guy with no test experience the captaincy.

#genius

It was found to be a stroke of genius when CSA gave the captaincy to G Smith  

@KP_Fan

pup doesn't have the charisma or the mentality of a leader like Bailey posses, Bailey is of Steve Waugh mould, pup himself might quit as captain by the time Ashes arrives.

Australia could do worse than put Bailey in at number 5 or 6. I'm not convinced he has the technical attributes for test cricket, somewhat too leg-side oriented possibly, a bit of a tendancy to get stuck on the front foot off just back of a length balls and then poke at them.

However mentally he is clearly up to the standards of international cricket (unlike say Khawaja still). Which is possibly more important than technique. Given the paucity of options (Hughes again? Finch possibly?) he may well be worth a punt.

Collingwood had a fairly similarly limited technique (and similarly started out as a strong ODI player) and he turned out to be a very decent test cricketer. I suspect Australia would take Collingwood at 5 or 6 in a flash in their current team.

Fists of Fury wrote:

CF wrote:how do you know? Have you ever seen him play red ball cricket?

Yes.

when?

Mike Selig wrote:Australia could do worse than put Bailey in at number 5 or 6. I'm not convinced he has the technical attributes for test cricket, somewhat too leg-side oriented possibly, a bit of a tendancy to get stuck on the front foot off just back of a length balls and then poke at them.

However mentally he is clearly up to the standards of international cricket (unlike say Khawaja still). Which is possibly more important than technique. Given the paucity of options (Hughes again? Finch possibly?) he may well be worth a punt.

Collingwood had a fairly similarly limited technique (and similarly started out as a strong ODI player) and he turned out to be a very decent test cricketer. I suspect Australia would take Collingwood at 5 or 6 in a flash in their current team.

Good points, but strong on leg side doesn't mean he is poor on off side, Steve Waugh use to score majority of his runs on leg side, Ross Taylor and M Azharuddin are other captains who predominantly relied on leg side to score a lot of runs when occasion demanded, all these names possessed an attitude of never say die and they excelled on difficult and trying circumstances coz of it, P Collingwood is another name similar of this mold, Bailey would get the test captaincy in time for the Ashes.  

Huge differences

1) Smith had already played Test cricket and featured in a world cup. He wasnt just anointed captain!

2) Smith was 22 when he was made captain - Bailey is 31... Hardly a long-term solution. You forget (or choose to ignore) that Smith's reign did not go too well for the first few years. Series draw in England, Series loss in India, home series loss vs England. Lost the six-test Super Series vs Australia 5-0 (six tests). Then we lost 2-0 vs Sri Lanka (Smith was admittedly missing). Smith was kept on because he averaged nearly 50 at the time and was still young. Does a 31-year old debutant skipper, with an average of 40 get four years to right his ship? Can't compare carrots with steak, my friend. I certainly didn't see his Waugh-esque properties when his troops couldn't defend 360. I like the guy, but captain? LOL.

3) As for his place in the squad, well I suppose you can make an argument for him. But hardly seems like the return of the messiah.

kingraf wrote:Huge differences

1) Smith had already played Test cricket and featured in a world cup. He wasnt just anointed captain!

2) Smith was 22 when he was made captain - Bailey is 31... Hardly a long-term solution. You forget (or choose to ignore) that Smith's reign did not go too well for the first few years. Series draw in England, Series loss in India, home series loss vs England. Lost the six-test Super Series vs Australia 5-0 (six tests). Then we lost 2-0 vs Sri Lanka (Smith was admittedly missing). Smith was kept on because he averaged nearly 50 at the time and was still young. Does a 31-year old debutant skipper, with an average of 40 get four years to right his ship? Can't compare carrots with steak, my friend. I certainly didn't see his Waugh-esque properties when his troops couldn't defend 360. I like the guy, but captain? LOL.

3) As for his place in the squad, well I suppose you can make an argument for him. But hardly seems like the return of the messiah.

Exactly, thats why Bailey is more qualified than Smith to be the captain

1]Bailey already captained the Aussie team in 2 of three formats and have excelled in it

2]Bailey @ 31 comes up with truck load of maturity and that can be easily seen in his game as well the way he handles the team, so it makes more sense to give the position to him at this moment of crisis than to somebody who himself struggling for confidence.

3]As for his place, he will get it sooner or later coz he deserves it and I won't be surprised if capitalized it big time like how M Hussey did.

You are giving lack of credit to Indian batting sensations like kohli and Dhawan, easily two of the best one day players on the current era on sub continental pitches, SA would have suffered the same fate too, before the series started many where expecting 7-0 white wash by Indians but guess what its 2-2 after 6 matches and a lot of credit goes for Bailey's captaincy. I guess you need to watch more of Bailey and you will then accept my argument was right.  

Can't compare Carrots to Steak coz Carrots are better

So the flaws in your original argument are now the exact reasons he should be captain? Smith is an outlier, he shouldn't even have been made captain, which only happened because CSA took a knee-jerk reaction in firing Pollock, who had a 54% win rate, which is amongst the highest in world cricket history.

This is of course hypothetical scenarios. CA are not stupid. They wont hire a 0 cap veteran as captain. No board would.

invisiblecoolers wrote: @KP_Fan

pup doesn't have the charisma or the mentality of a leader like Bailey posses, Bailey is of Steve Waugh mould, pup himself might quit as captain by the time Ashes arrives.

let him find a place in the test side...on merit..and then perform....over a period of 15 odd tests
and then he might become a captaincy replacement for Clarke should even after 15 tests Clarke is struggling to win

kingraf wrote:So the flaws in your original argument are now the exact reasons he should be captain? Smith is an outlier, he shouldn't even have been made captain, which only happened because CSA took a knee-jerk reaction in firing Pollock, who had a 54% win rate, which is amongst the highest in world cricket history.

This is of course hypothetical scenarios. CA are not stupid. They wont hire a 0 cap veteran as captain. No board would.

There was never a flaw in my argument, it was actually a flaw in ur view point towards Bailey and accepting him as a captain, soon it will happen and you have to digest it. My earlier argument was clear that Smith's promotion to captain was a genius move and so would be if Bailey is promoted as a captain, you just trying  different ways to bluff around the argument as you don't like to see Bailey as the cap.

IMO Bailey is the future test captain i cant see Clarke's back lasting much longer...and its only a matter of time before Bailey finally gets his deserved test cap.

Australia, and almost every Test playing country for that matter, doesn't pick a Test team by picking a captain first - you pick the best XI, then you pick your captain from the XI. Logic therefore dictates your captain should then be one of your more indispensable players (go ahead, I dare ya, Name one Australian captain in the last eternity that wouldn't be amongst the first names on the Aussie teamsheet). How on earth have you guys established that Bailey is now indispensable? Even his captaincy record is hardly remarkable. Good start? Yes. But he has hardly drawn blood from a rock, and the ODI squad is much better than their Test team... Well no, they aren't. But their deficiencies are less visible in 50-overs than in day one on a seamer Newlands, or the WACA.

So in essence

1) He'd first need to cement his place in the team before selectors even think about giving him the "armband"

2) I thought this was stating the obvious, but apparently not. A successful ODI captain does not translate to a successful Test skipper. Sri Lanka reached the World Cup final in 2011. During that same time period, they engineered one Test win out of around fourteen.

3) Still haven't seen enough of Bailey to even call him a good ODI captain.

If Clarke's back does give in though, it creates an interesting toss-up.

I hope Bailey do make the test squad. Michael Clarke will be the skipper at least up to the end of this Ashes. Depending on the series score, things could happen after that. Clarke is a very good skipper on the field, but I've never rated him as a leader off the field, and the revelations from the likes of Ponting are making it more clear. But George Bailey is not yet captaincy material at the test level, first he has to get a chance, then he has to take the chance and establish himself as a player. If he manages to do that in this Ashes series and Clarke's fitness and the team's results do not hold up, then Beiley will be in with a good chance to take over.
But If Australia are looking at a Graeme Smith like moment, then they should look at his namesake Steven for the job in a post-Ashes era. For me, Smith should come in to the ODI squad as well in place of Voges and ideally, should take up the leadership of the side in another year or so.

Bailey has demonstrated with Tasmania that he is a first rate captain. He has done himself no harm with his efforts leading Australia in limited over cricket.
However , he is yet to play a Test Match. Getting into the Test team is obviously his priority ; and he looks to have a good chance this year. If and when he does establish himself in the Test team he will become a candidate for the captaincy.
But until then we are just idly speculating. And as he is 31 his prospects of ever leading at Test level rather depend on how long Clarke carries on...

CF wrote:IMO Bailey is the future test captain i cant see Clarke's back lasting much longer...and its only a matter of time before Bailey finally gets his deserved test cap.

 

kingraf wrote:Australia, and almost every Test playing country for that matter, doesn't pick a Test team by picking a captain first - you pick the best XI, then you pick your captain from the XI. Logic therefore dictates your captain should then be one of your more indispensable players (go ahead, I dare ya, Name one Australian captain in the last eternity that  wouldn't be amongst the first names on the Aussie teamsheet). How on earth have you guys established that Bailey is now indispensable? Even his captaincy record is hardly remarkable. Good start? Yes. But he has hardly drawn blood from a rock, and the ODI squad is much better than their Test team... Well no, they aren't. But their deficiencies are less visible in 50-overs than in day one on a seamer Newlands, or the WACA.

So in essence

1) He'd first need to cement his place in the team before selectors even think about giving him the "armband"

2) I thought this was stating the obvious, but apparently not. A successful ODI captain does not translate to a successful Test skipper. Sri Lanka reached the World Cup final in 2011. During that same time period, they engineered one Test win out of around fourteen.

3) Still haven't seen enough of Bailey to even call him a good ODI captain.

If Clarke's back does give in though, it creates an interesting toss-up.

Bailey will become the Captain very soon coz he is competent enough to become a captain and not coz Clarke has back troubles, Clarke has troubles handling and managing the team not just his back.  

You hug the guy who says Bailey will become captain as a result of Clarke's back giving in, then tell me that Bailey will become captain regardless of whether or not Clarkes back gives in?

Smith also had troubles managing his team, kicked Klusenar out. Kicked quite a few players out... Gibbs too.

kingraf wrote:You hug the guy who says Bailey will become captain as a result of Clarke's back giving in, then tell me that Bailey will become captain regardless of whether or not Clarkes back gives in?

Smith also had troubles managing his team, kicked Klusenar out. Kicked quite a few players out... Gibbs too.

Lance was one of my favourite player, but I heard he had many disciplinary issues and hence thrown out of the team, nothing anybody could do for it, regarding Gibbs he involved in some needless controversy.

Atleast the above guy believes Bailey will become the captain sooner, n I gave the hug for that, where as you don't believe Bailey as done anything special to merit a place as Captain.

I see Ian Chappell has raised his doubts about Bailey as a Test prospect...but I also saw Bailey handle questions about that criticism rather smoothly in his press conference.

We will of course see how his technique holds up when he gets a try - as he surely must. But his character suggests to me he has a very good chance of making a successful transition to the longer game. And it has to be said he doesn't have an enormous task to better the performances of most of Australia's recent new batsmen...

The last time an Australian captain averaged under 40, was during the 70s. Australia don't pick the best captain (still not convinced it's Bailey btw), they pick the best XI, and find a captain there. Why anyone actually believes Bailey should have this wrapped up by the end of the Ashes is beyond me...

Even players with good technique fail at the highest level. Technique is what works for you. Temperament is of greater importance. Shiv Narine Chanderpaul has been scoring test runs for fun for the last 19 years, Sourav Ganguly scored lots of test runs, Graeme Smith doesn't look a batsman with a classical technique. Mark Ramprakash had a pretty good technique and in fact obsessed over it and yet averaged only 27 in 52 test matches.
Bailey may have technical weaknesses, but he has shown a fine temperament in limited over cricket so far. His technique is not half as bad as of the likes of Hughes anyways.

surely he deserves a go..if he fails then fair enough, but he is one of the few aussie batsman around right now, who ACTUALLY has some form, give him a go..

I don't know if that is related to me, msp. But if it is, I must stress that Im not saying Bailey doesn't deserve a shot at test cricket (which isn't the question).

What I am saying is that I can't see how Bailey will manage to convince the selectors that he is an indispensable member of the team in five tests, and then usurp Clarke as the Test team captain.

kingraf wrote:I don't know if that is related to me, msp. But if it is, I must stress that Im not saying Bailey doesn't deserve a shot at test cricket (which isn't the question).

What I am saying is that I can't see how Bailey will manage to convince the selectors that he is an indispensable member of the team in five tests, and then usurp Clarke as the Test team captain.

Was not really at you kingraf. Alfie had mentioned Ian Chappell's criticism of Bailey, and a few others, former players and common cricket lovers have been talking down' Bailey's technique and suggesting that he's not test class. Was more of a general response to that.

with watson being a huge doubt for the first test, he could end up coming in anyway..

Watson's not ruled out as yet is he? If Watson plays, he has to play as an all-rounder. Watson as batsman only has no place in even this rather fragile lineup. If Watson doesn't play and Harris does, then I think Australia should go in with Faulkner as well.

msp83 wrote:Watson's not ruled out as yet is he? If Watson plays, he has to play as an all-rounder. Watson as batsman only has no place in even this rather fragile lineup. If Watson doesn't play and Harris does, then I think Australia should go in with Faulkner as well.

if Rohit got short circuited for his show on those Patta pitch ODIs........Faulkner can rightfully claim the same

Does Faulkner average 60 in FC cricket, KPF?

ShankyCricket wrote:Does Faulkner average 60 in FC cricket, KPF?

Ha Ha discussion here is not of a player with a sepcialist batsman's role
BUT
that of a batsman cum seam bowler.

and if slam-bang on Patta pitches get one specialits batsman to short-circuit anotehr incumbent specialist

THEN

the display on the same Patta pitches can get a batsman cum seam bowler also a short circuited entry.

I'd argue that Rohit should've been ahead of Rahane in the pecking order in the first place, regardless of ODI performances.
Not sure you can say the same about Faulkner. I'm not saying he doesn't deserve a chance but please don't compare him as a batsman to Rohit.

James Faulkner averages 45 after playing 19 ODIs. Rohit Sharma has a fair few way to average that much despite playing over a hundred games!. Wonder how much Rohit averaged after 19 games? International cricket is usually more intense than domestic cricket particularly when top sides are involved!.
Not really suggesting Faulkner is a better bat or anything by the way!.  
And on a more serious note, think if Watson isn't fully fit, Faulkner should indeed play. Though Faulkner's 6 wickets may not truly reflect the quality of his bowling in the only test he played, his First Class average of 22 at a strike rate of 45 suggests a good bowler in the making, and the lad can certainly bat. And as I often said during the England leg of the Ashes early this year, he can't be any worse than the likes of Hughes and Khawaja with the bat.

Remarkably prophetic was this thread... Bailey yet to break the half century mark, Clarke scoring tons in back to back Tests. Can almost hear the Australian fans demanding Clarke's resignation...

To be fair raf, Bailey did score a 50 in his last innings. And has a 30odd to his credit as well. In fact in 3 innings he's only had 1 failure, so he ain't done too badly. Fielded well as well. Certainly matched my expectations of "won't be a world beater, but should do a decent job and it's not as if there are many better options".

Of course Clarke is showing again that he is one of the world's premier batsmen, and his captaincy has been fantastic as well, so predictions of his imminent demise look a bit silly. Not sure that's a reason to knock Bailey though.

Not knocking Bailey at all, Mike... Just the patronizing tones with which I was told that Clarkes demise was inevitable.

Bailey made a 50...... so i'd suggest checking facts before you post?..

Bailey did indeed score a fifty, but I really hope he has that smug smile wiped from his face sooner rather than later.

That's not a smug smile... this is   

Linebreaker wrote:That's not a smug smile... this is   

But you an above average poster (very good actually) where as Bailey is just a half decent batsman   

The "Bailey" factor if he holds his place in the team on merit....allows Australian cricket the comfort of mind...of a back-up captain...in case Clarke runs into an extended horrific patch with the bat....or more likely out due to injury or less likely was continually gonna get walloped as a captain by Englnad even at home.

Australian cricket under Boof is filling holes and more importantly...creating contingencies even for the not very highly likely scenarios.

So they have it factored in case express Johnson, Harris were to break down....Starc, Pattinson, Cummins are recovering and will be there to plug the pace hole.

and Faulkner the standby for Watson......although he won't bat as high as 3.
and a few middle order batsmen I am sure for middle order slots.

Unilke some other sides that had no planned contingencies for even high probablity risk of a critical number 3 with known mental disease breaking down.  

ha ha, Stella. thanks mate. I think I'm an average poster.

From my p.o.v. - I've always liked and respected Bailey's disposition on the field. He reminds me of a happy lumberjack. At first he seemed a bit docile (maybe not the correct word) but th ere is no doubting his capabilities when he starts to fire. There is considerable strength and a certain aggression; despite the smile.  Much prefer these types of players - i.e. a bit of that Derek Randall kind-hearted nature but a very serious and talented competitor too.

Above all though, he is a fantastic team-player... worth his weight in gold. Sure, maybe he was seen by some as some sort of stop-gap measure - during our darkest hours - but I'm very impressed by the way he has handled his place in the team so far. I think he will thrive... maybe not quite reach the Mike Hussey level of recognition (who was also capped at a similar age)but it wouldn't surprise me to see him dig us out of holes in the next few years when needed.

He is very well respected by his team mates - easy to get on with character and a fairly decent captain for his State too. If something were to happen to MC - then I could easily see George fit the part as a leader by example.

C.F. - my apologies. that half century is certainly going to go a long way in his quest to be captain by the end of the boxing day test! Pity I don't know any of the emoticons to display how funny I find it!

I said earlier on that scoring against India in 360 games hardly made him a paragon of batting genius, and you only need to look at the canings the Indian team has taken in South Africa, where Quinton de Kock is on back to back centuries, and Duminy scored a 23-ball fifty... But yes, let's keep pretending Bailey (who actually lost that series) is a captain in waiting, and the next Steve Waugh.

Johnson, siddle, Harris, Pattinson, Cummins, Bird, Starc, Bollinger, Faulkner, Hilfenhaus, Ben Cutting, Luke Butterworth, Alister McDermott, Clint McKay, Nathan Coulter-Nile, Chadd Sayers, Gurinder Sandhu, Michael Hogan, Steve Magoffin, Trent Copeland

that's an incredible amount of pace and seam bowling reserves and a good read here

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/05/27/ranking-australias-fast-bowlers/