View Full Version : Nathen Bracken demands answers as to why he wasn't picked
TheColeTrain
5 Mar 2009, 05:40
NATHAN Bracken was last night awaiting a response from Australian selector Andrew Hilditch as to why he had been snubbed not once but twice from the Test team in South Africa.
Full article here (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25138952-5001023,00.html)
Please just shut up, Nathan, papers have been stamped because you are useless at Test level. Its not like you are Glenn McGrath, you have absolutely no right to expect to get picked.
Not doing yourself any favours either you knob by crying to the media every time somebody else gets selected. :rolleyes:
Black Thunder
5 Mar 2009, 05:50
he's got a point though.... his record at shield level over the past 5 years is well ahead of anyone else's in australia....
unfortunately for him he really doesn't look penetrating enough at test level. it appears the selectors think that way and a lot of people agree with it.
but he still should be getting more of a response from the selectors as to what he's doing wrong.
he also needs to stop going to the media every time he gets overlooked and should be keeping things in-house. it doesn't help his cause at all.
he also needs to stop going to the media every time he gets overlooked and should be keeping things in-house. it doesn't help his cause at all.
Brad Hodge version 2.0
All that he is missing, is a relative (preferably his mother) also complaining to the media :D
lookkg386
5 Mar 2009, 05:57
Wouldn't mind knowing myself, especially without Stuey Clarke, he could replace that kind of role, wouldn't say he runs through teams either.
Exhale You
5 Mar 2009, 06:01
It'll be interesting to see if some are consistent in their views about players airing selection grievances in public.
I can save bracken the call to Aussie selectors;
Nathan you bowl 120 khm off spin, and do not swing the red ball back into right handers!
TheColeTrain
5 Mar 2009, 06:03
Wouldn't mind knowing myself, especially without Stuey Clarke, he could replace that kind of role, wouldn't say he runs through teams either.
No he can't, Bracken bowls nothing like Clark and is a non threat at Test level as we have seen before with his inability to make the batsmen play, which is exactly why Clark is so successful
Bombers_Forever
5 Mar 2009, 06:10
Nathan didn't learn from Hodge - this isn't the first time he has whinged about non selection. Take note from Brad Hodge Nathan - there is a simple reason why he isn't in the team and it has nothing to do with his on field record.
Remember, there is no "I" in team!
wasupwidat
5 Mar 2009, 06:10
he could just get his hot gf to do some favours for the selectors and he would be guaranteed a spot
aussie1st
5 Mar 2009, 06:47
If his pace in the ODIs were anything to go by then he wouldn't be quick enough to trouble the opposition.
NMFC ALWAYS
5 Mar 2009, 06:48
Hilditch replies - " Nathan , there is no place in Test Cricket for men with a woman's hairstyle "
Bracken - " Ok sweet , thanks for clearing that up "
Ill Chicken
5 Mar 2009, 07:17
Coughlan how about backing it up with figures from each series he has played in. Compare that to other players in the series. Compare his stats to players starting off their test careers. Having a general dislike for Bracken clouds your ability to make a point because face it, it is baseless, speculative and one sided. I don't like Bracken but he is easily a viable option and should be in contention for selection ahead of Geeves or Magoffin.
Glenn McGrath after 5 tests: 12 wickets at 40.33 SR 103 ER 2.28
Nathan Bracken after 5 tests: 12 wickets at 42.08 SR 92.5 ER 2.72
Ill Chicken
5 Mar 2009, 07:20
If his pace in the ODIs were anything to go by then he wouldn't be quick enough to trouble the opposition.
Sorry did any of the Australian bowlers trouble the Saffas or NZers?
TheColeTrain
5 Mar 2009, 07:27
Sorry did any of the Australian bowlers trouble the Saffas or NZers?
You realise OD cricket is a totally cricket game?
Cousin Jed
5 Mar 2009, 07:28
Needs more comments from his mum.
Bracken isn't even getting a gig for NSW, who are putting out a 3rd XI attack. I don't get it.
His bowling would be so much better than Andrew McDonald's and he'd do the same job. He's got every right to feel pissed off considering bowlers are falling like flies and he seems to be further and further down the pecking order.
Ill Chicken
5 Mar 2009, 07:38
You realise OD cricket is a totally cricket game?
You can read more about it here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_International
Andrew Mc
5 Mar 2009, 07:57
Had a similar conversation with a mate about Bracken the other day - perhaps it's an age thing...
He plays for NSW,so how the hell was he not an automatic selection ? :eek:
He must've really pissed off someone at CA.
Jimthegreat
5 Mar 2009, 08:28
Coughlan how about backing it up with figures from each series he has played in. Compare that to other players in the series. Compare his stats to players starting off their test careers. Having a general dislike for Bracken clouds your ability to make a point because face it, it is baseless, speculative and one sided. I don't like Bracken but he is easily a viable option and should be in contention for selection ahead of Geeves or Magoffin.
Glenn McGrath after 5 tests: 12 wickets at 40.33 SR 103 ER 2.28
Nathan Bracken after 5 tests: 12 wickets at 42.08 SR 92.5 ER 2.72Bowlers who bowl full at less than 130kph will never have the penetration in Test cricket. Remember in Tests you have to get batsmen out. Unlike ODI they can sit on you and wait for the bad ball. You have to find a way. It's why he'll never play another Test.
Please don't put comparisons of him with McGrath. They're not even close.
Bracken was alot more experienced that McGrath when he started playing Test cricket.
Jimthegreat
5 Mar 2009, 08:30
His bowling would be so much better than Andrew McDonald's and he'd do the same job. He's got every right to feel pissed off considering bowlers are falling like flies and he seems to be further and further down the pecking order.Geeves and Magoffin's bowling would be better than McDonald's......and a better option than Bracken at the longer form of the game.
Selective Retention
5 Mar 2009, 08:33
His bowling would be so much better than Andrew McDonald's and he'd do the same job. He's got every right to feel pissed off considering bowlers are falling like flies and he seems to be further and further down the pecking order.
Just about word for word what I was going to say when I opened the thread. If McDonald is being picked as one of our 4 bowlers, Bracken has every right to feel stiff. He still shouldn't be in the side though. Expect a massive wankfest from Doran today on SEN.
bombersno1
5 Mar 2009, 08:54
A bowler bowling 125km won't do anything. Hilfenhaus is a better version of Bracken and bowls 145km
red+black
5 Mar 2009, 09:11
A bowler bowling 125km won't do anything. Hilfenhaus is a better version of Bracken and bowls 145km
I agree. So why did Bollinger get the gig in Sydney?
bombersno1
5 Mar 2009, 09:14
I agree. So why did Bollinger get the gig in Sydney?
Similar reason, Bollinger bowls 135-140km..not that I rate him ahead of Hilfenhaus who has more tricks than Bollinger does.
TheColeTrain
5 Mar 2009, 09:18
You can read more about it here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Day_International
Best you study up on it then champ:thumbsu:
Black Thunder
5 Mar 2009, 10:39
he's got a point though.... his record at shield level over the past 5 years is well ahead of anyone else's in australia....
unfortunately for him he really doesn't look penetrating enough at test level. it appears the selectors think that way and a lot of people agree with it.
but he still should be getting more of a response from the selectors as to what he's doing wrong.
he also needs to stop going to the media every time he gets overlooked and should be keeping things in-house. it doesn't help his cause at all.
should've mentioned too that i don't tihnk he should be in the test team and i do rate magoffin in front of him.... probably not geeves though.
but i still think he should be given some sort of explanation. preferably in private. the whole world doesn't need to know.
his record in sheffield shield is exceptional.
Shutty05
5 Mar 2009, 10:47
The reply would have been
"sorry Nathan we are replacing a quick, we already have two spinners in South Africa"
Please just shut up, Nathan, papers have been stamped because you are useless at Test level. Its not like you are Glenn McGrath, you have absolutely no right to expect to get picked.
Not doing yourself any favours either you knob by crying to the media every time somebody else gets selected. :rolleyes:
and obviously a sook when things don't go his way.
please give a collective awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
what a whiny little b!tch
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
5 Mar 2009, 10:57
Come on children, stop arguing please. You guys on recess at school?
and obviously a sook when things don't go his way.
please give a collective awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
what a whiny little b!tch
Hes not whingeing, merely asking the selectors where he stands, a valid question at that. If they say he's done everything required then I think he deserves a second chance.
Ill Chicken
5 Mar 2009, 11:17
Bowlers who bowl full at less than 130kph will never have the penetration in Test cricket. Remember in Tests you have to get batsmen out. Unlike ODI they can sit on you and wait for the bad ball. You have to find a way. It's why he'll never play another Test.
Again, speculative, baseless statements.
Please don't put comparisons of him with McGrath. They're not even close. Bracken was alot more experienced that McGrath when he started playing Test cricket.
Tell me how much more experience?
bombersno1
5 Mar 2009, 11:32
Hes not whingeing, merely asking the selectors where he stands, a valid question at that. If they say he's done everything required then I think he deserves a second chance.
He has already had a 2nd chance at test level..he did not play 5 tests straight and guess what he got 0/100 odd or whatever he got
DoubleO7
5 Mar 2009, 11:41
Tell me how much more experience?
I don't know but maybe the 4 years in first class cricket could be counted compared to McGrath who only had 1 year in the system before making his debut for the Australian side?
Exhale You
5 Mar 2009, 12:00
Tell me how much more experience?
McGrath was in his first season of first-class cricket when he made his test debut whilst Bracken was in his 5th (or even 6th) season when he made his test debut.
Bracken was also about three years older.
Hes not whingeing, merely asking the selectors where he stands, a valid question at that. If they say he's done everything required then I think he deserves a second chance.
he is whingeing.
He could've taken his actions privately. Obviously he thinks he is better than the other bowlers and thought he may put the selectors over a barrel by publicly airing his views.
i doubt that will work.
courtjester
5 Mar 2009, 12:25
Get him in the side now if Siddle and Hilf are out. We badly need his skill and experience.
Anyone who thinks he's not a good bowler in all forms of the game knows nothing about cricket. Stupid arguments about his pace just reveal a lack of knowledge. How fast did McGrath bowl?
Jimthegreat
5 Mar 2009, 12:48
Again, speculative, baseless statements.
Tell me how much more experience?Baseless!!! It's a fact and re-inforced when he played. Those type don't penetrate at Test level. No pace, no bounce, no intimidtaing factor. Any idiot knows that. How can YOU not know that????? It's not rocket science for anyone who knows anything about the game. Baseless....what a ****** joke!
Bracken had been around the one-day scene for a while when he started played Tests. Anyway, don't EVER compare McGrath and Bracken.
Jimthegreat
5 Mar 2009, 12:55
Get him in the side now if Siddle and Hilf are out. We badly need his skill and experience.
Anyone who thinks he's not a good bowler in all forms of the game knows nothing about cricket. Stupid arguments about his pace just reveal a lack of knowledge. How fast did McGrath bowl?
You just lost your argument in that last statement. McGrath hit the pitch hard and generated bounce as does Clark. "Hit the pitch type" bowlers are generally slower bacause it's hammered into the wicket. Not the mention the ability to move it off the seam in that corridor of uncertainly with that type of bounce. Put bats on the back foot. Penetrative and very difficult to play. On the other hand Bracken bowls full at that pace. Front foot down the pitch, no real bounce or intimidation. Much harder to get a dismissal as there's no penetration. That's why he struggled at Test cricket where you actually have to get a batsman out not just cut runs. And why he's way down the pecking order despite being the world's no.1 ODI bowler. Understand????
Anyone who doesn't know all that certainly knows nothing about cricket. That is actually simple.
You can take the foot out of your mouth now.
You just lost your argument in that last statement. McGrath hit the pitch hard and generated bounce as does Clark. "Hit the pitch type" bowlers are generally slower bacause it's hammered into the wicket. Not the mention the ability to move it off the seam in that corridor of uncertainly with that type of bounce. Put bats on the back foot. Penetrative and very difficult to play. On the other hand Bracken bowls full at that pace. Front foot down the pitch, no real bounce or intimidation. Much harder to get a dismissal as there's no penetration. That's why he struggled at Test cricket where you actually have to get a batsman out not just cut runs. And why he's way down the pecking order despite being the world's no.1 ODI bowler. Understand????
Anyone who doesn't know all that certainly knows nothing about cricket. That is actually simple.
You can take the foot out of your mouth now.
Well said.
Cooldude
5 Mar 2009, 13:35
He is still responsible for bowling one of the most boring spells in Test cricket I've ever seen. Think it was the last Test he played in Sydney against the Indians when Tendulkar made that unbeaten double ton. Bracken bowled for AGES around the wicket and very wide outside off stump to Tendulkar, who obviously wasn't interested in having a go.
It was as boring as Giles bowling over the wicket to right handers when they were obviously not obliged to have a go at the deliveries
Bracken might have his little cutters and so forth that might be useful in some countries and in the shorter forms of the game, but in the longer form, you need a heck lot more than that to be successful. If I want a swing bowler in the side, we already have one in hilf, who bowls 20kphs quicker and 10 years younger
Budda 230
5 Mar 2009, 14:54
You just lost your argument in that last statement. McGrath hit the pitch hard and generated bounce as does Clark. "Hit the pitch type" bowlers are generally slower bacause it's hammered into the wicket. Not the mention the ability to move it off the seam in that corridor of uncertainly with that type of bounce. Put bats on the back foot. Penetrative and very difficult to play. On the other hand Bracken bowls full at that pace. Front foot down the pitch, no real bounce or intimidation. Much harder to get a dismissal as there's no penetration. That's why he struggled at Test cricket where you actually have to get a batsman out not just cut runs. And why he's way down the pecking order despite being the world's no.1 ODI bowler. Understand????
Anyone who doesn't know all that certainly knows nothing about cricket. That is actually simple.
You can take the foot out of your mouth now.
Just so you know, a bowlers speed is measured from out of the hand, not off the pitch. Bracken and McGrath are similar speeds out of the hand.
If anything McGrath zipped it off the pitch from hammering it into the pitch.
Whether we think he should be in the team or not, he is certainly entitled to be made aware of the reasons why he is no longer considered for test duties. I remember Shane Harwood saying last month that he was never told that he was even getting close to T20 selection, and afterwards, he never got told that he wouldn't be needed anymore.
If a player is consistently doing something that negatively affects his chances of selection, surely an open line of communication allows that player to at least get the opportunity to correct it. In fact, it wasn't so long ago that the selectors stated clearly that this year they would improve their communication with players on the fringes of selection, or that had been dropped.
That communication may not ever result in Nathan Bracken playing Test cricket again, but I'm sure he'd be grateful to know the exact reasons why he is overlooked for players with inferior records. I'd go so far as to say that if the selectors are still not providing that information, then they are not the right people for the job. Whether the reason is that he can't swing a red ball, that he doesn't bowl quick enough or that he mouths off too much, he deserves to be told by the selectors what he is doing wrong, and what they would like to see from him in the future.
TheColeTrain
5 Mar 2009, 16:15
Hes not whingeing, merely asking the selectors where he stands, a valid question at that. If they say he's done everything required then I think he deserves a second chance.
You could say he wasn't whinging if it was the first time he went in the media demanding answers.
But its not the case, almost every time he gets overlooked he complains in the media
scooterselwood
5 Mar 2009, 16:43
come on guys, he has a point.
hes ranked near (if not is) the top of one day bowler rankings. he should be given an answer.
i, for one, would like to know why he isn't getting a go.
DoubleO7
5 Mar 2009, 16:52
come on guys, he has a point.
hes ranked near (if not is) the top of one day bowler rankings. he should be given an answer.
i, for one, would like to know why he isn't getting a go.
He is ranked fourth but it's close enough.
Blue Dimension
5 Mar 2009, 16:58
He has every right to question it.
He doesn't get the opportunity to take buckloads of wickets for NSW because he's touring around with Australia playing ODI cricket. He should easily be ahead of Geeves, no doubt in my mind.
One of the best ODI bowlers in the world and isn't even acknowledged in the Test ranks. Absolute joke.
aaronm46
5 Mar 2009, 17:11
just give him a dead rubber one day so he'll shut up
Ok Gary!!
5 Mar 2009, 20:43
You realise OD cricket is a totally cricket game?
Twenty20 is a totally cricket game aswell!!
Chops_a_must
5 Mar 2009, 21:24
I don't know how they can pick Ranga and not Bracken, and still keep a straight face.
It really is laughable.
I remember Bracken was played for exactly the same reasons Ranga now is - with Waugh at the time saying exactly the same things Ponting now is about Ranga.
After that Indian match, Bracken was scape goated and never played again.
You watch, if we ever get a mammoth score posted against us like that, Ranga will be scape goated and never heard from again.
But it's a joke, because Bracken is so so much better at what Ranga is now doing.
Neither should be in the test side. Bowlers are there to take wickets - nothing else. But if you are going to play Ranga for such stupid reasons... you have to pick Bracken ahead... every single time.
Ill Chicken
5 Mar 2009, 21:57
Baseless!!! It's a fact and re-inforced when he played. Those type don't penetrate at Test level.
We don't take too kindly to those type around here.
No pace, no bounce, no intimidtaing factor. Any idiot knows that. How can YOU not know that????? It's not rocket science for anyone who knows anything about the game. Baseless....what a ****** joke!
Yes, you continue to provide baseless, speculative points that can not be measured. As some sort of counter to that, you throw in "Any idiot knows that" or "It's not rocket science for anyone who knows anything about the game". I believe the basis for your argument is that you are suffering from male pattern baldness and are extremely envious of Bracken's long flowing locks.
You statistically can not prove that he shouldn't be in contention for test selection going on his first class career for NSW. Furthermore his involvement in the Australian ODI side restricts him from putting performances in the Sheffield Shield due to playing with the national team, where he is led to believe that his performances at ODI level will not be detrimental in his quest to gain test selection.
Bracken had been around the one-day scene for a while when he started played Tests. Anyway, don't EVER compare McGrath and Bracken.
After 17 ODI's Bracken had 28 wickets at 19.7 with a strike rate of 30 before being put on a 2 year hiatus, while McGrath at the same point had 21 wickets at 27 with a strike rate of 44.
Playing five tests over two years in three different series can't be used as a means tested way of saying "he isn't good enough to play test match cricket". Yet you are able to use the form from his first three tests, which were against a peak Indian batting line-up even though no bowler averaged under 29 for the series from six years ago to justify his non-selection, but his ODI form is non-plus because the format is entirely different.
Bomber Bears
5 Mar 2009, 22:28
I don't know how they can pick Ranga and not Bracken, and still keep a straight face.
It really is laughable.
I remember Bracken was played for exactly the same reasons Ranga now is - with Waugh at the time saying exactly the same things Ponting now is about Ranga.
After that Indian match, Bracken was scape goated and never played again.
You watch, if we ever get a mammoth score posted against us like that, Ranga will be scape goated and never heard from again.
But it's a joke, because Bracken is so so much better at what Ranga is now doing.
Neither should be in the test side. Bowlers are there to take wickets - nothing else. But if you are going to play Ranga for such stupid reasons... you have to pick Bracken ahead... every single time.Actually he played another test against south africa a couple of years later (the one rudolph batted out the final day).
Now i think it is a legit question from him. I understand him being behind Lee and Clark(injured) Siddle Hilfy Bollinger Johnson, however behind MacGoffin and Geeves is a bit of a surprise considering his relative experience in international cricket compared to those two and his shield record.
I personally dont really mind because i dont think he is a test bowler at all. Too slow and predictable, doesnt hit the pitch and, unlike ODI cricket, the batsmen dont have to play. Still fair enough for him to question how he's slipped so low in the pecking order.
Actually he played another test against south africa a couple of years later (the one rudolph batted out the final day).
Now i think it is a legit question from him. I understand him being behind Lee and Clark(injured) Siddle Hilfy Bollinger Johnson, however behind MacGoffin and Geeves is a bit of a surprise considering his relative experience in international cricket compared to those two and his shield record.
I personally dont really mind because i dont think he is a test bowler at all. Too slow and predictable, doesnt hit the pitch and, unlike ODI cricket, the batsmen dont have to play. Still fair enough for him to question how he's slipped so low in the pecking order.
You would think that he would be picking up the phone and calling Andrew rather than going to the media. Going to the media is a sure fire way of ensuring you will never be selected again. And rightly so IMO.
FWIW I don't rate him as a test bowler. Full, straight mediums. Now if he could swing the red ball he would be worth a shot. Sticking with the young bowlers is the way to go.
LIONS then DAYLIGHT
5 Mar 2009, 23:33
I have always felt that the reason's for Bracken's exclusion from the test side are based around his lack of penetration with the red ball. He isn't very fast and at test level i never really saw him swing the ball. He isn't a known seamer of the ball and at ODI level he is known for his accuracy rather then any wicket taking ability.
We already have a bowler who can be a guy who can keeps it tight in McDonald. He can also bat. I don't see Bracken as a strike bowler and we need strike bowlers to cover for Siddle and Hilfenhaus. As such Geeves and Magoffin were selected.
Fair enough, you can't pick everyone.
courtjester
6 Mar 2009, 04:46
You just lost your argument in that last statement. McGrath hit the pitch hard and generated bounce as does Clark. "Hit the pitch type" bowlers are generally slower bacause it's hammered into the wicket. Not the mention the ability to move it off the seam in that corridor of uncertainly with that type of bounce. Put bats on the back foot. Penetrative and very difficult to play. On the other hand Bracken bowls full at that pace. Front foot down the pitch, no real bounce or intimidation. Much harder to get a dismissal as there's no penetration. That's why he struggled at Test cricket where you actually have to get a batsman out not just cut runs. And why he's way down the pecking order despite being the world's no.1 ODI bowler. Understand????
Anyone who doesn't know all that certainly knows nothing about cricket. That is actually simple.
You can take the foot out of your mouth now.
Thanks for the lesson chief. Really insightful. My point was really that pace is not everything, not that Bracken is the same bowler as McGrath. Hope you feel better trying to make me look stupid...
Have a look at his first class records and see he has no dramas taking wickets with a red ball.
Piethrower
as an earlier poster has already stated, Hifenhaus is an upgrade on him
Jimthegreat
6 Mar 2009, 11:14
Thanks for the lesson chief. Really insightful. My point was really that pace is not everything, not that Bracken is the same bowler as McGrath. Hope you feel better trying to make me look stupid...
Have a look at his first class records and see he has no dramas taking wickets with a red ball.I do...lol! Just kidding.
Pace isn't everything but some style of bowlers need to ouch the ball though a bit quicker to prenetrate and worry the batsman. Barring a real juicy track Bracken's bowling won't transfer to penetration at Test level. Didn't before, won't now. McGrath's did at the same pace as he bowled a difficult length, got bounce and seamed it with great skill of great lines. Bracken's style of bowling doesn't have that so he needs to be able to swing the ball in the high 130's to cause problems. SA might actually suit him but there's many others that'd cause alot more trouble.
blackhead&boil
6 Mar 2009, 11:18
a lot of people are claiming that bracken will not be able to penetrate at test level due to his slow 120kmh pace. unfortunately, what they have failed to realise is that bracken is quite capable of bowling in the 130-135 range and did so until shortly before the recent OD WC where he dominated. he deliberately slowed down his speed to around 120 so he could bowl more variations and so that the keeper could stand up to the stumps. when he bowls at 120 he is bowling in his ODI/T20 mode that is designed specifically to restrict runs rather than take wickets.
when bracken was dumped from the test team all those years ago it was not due to a lack of pace, rather it was because he went through a patch where he found it diffincult to swing the ball in to the right handers. I'm pretty sure he's got his swing back now, and he's a much more experienced and mature cricketer, still with several years ahead of him at international level.
to be honest, I too can't see why he has been overlooked in favour of players such as mcranga...
Abba Lonie
6 Mar 2009, 14:11
I don't know how they can pick Ranga and not Bracken, and still keep a straight face.
It really is laughable.
I remember Bracken was played for exactly the same reasons Ranga now is - with Waugh at the time saying exactly the same things Ponting now is about Ranga.
After that Indian match, Bracken was scape goated and never played again.
You watch, if we ever get a mammoth score posted against us like that, Ranga will be scape goated and never heard from again.
But it's a joke, because Bracken is so so much better at what Ranga is now doing.
Neither should be in the test side. Bowlers are there to take wickets - nothing else. But if you are going to play Ranga for such stupid reasons... you have to pick Bracken ahead... every single time.
McDonald's first-class batting average of 36 helps him out. I think there are far superior batsmen with similar averages going around, but it must give the selectors some confidence that he can also contribute with the bat at test level (not that we've seen that yet).
Is he an idiot?
Regardless of any and all ability he may or might not have at test level, he has just guaranteed that he will not play another test.
If he was to be selected now, I might as well give ch7 a call and let them know how disappointed I am that Hilditch has not told me what I should be doing to be selected.