View Full Version : Decent Article on how crap our Selectors are.
King Elvis
16 Jun 2009, 12:59
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/405090.html
Seriously, these guys are useless.
Cousin Jed
16 Jun 2009, 13:46
If not, Australia's batting looms as one of two big potential problems. Their other big potential problem is their bowling.
How much did he get paid to write this stuff?
legend166
16 Jun 2009, 15:26
And as you contemplated these questions, questions that went unasked at this morning's press conference, you looked at Ricky Ponting, sitting to Hilditch's left. And you felt for poor Bradley John Hodge of Sandringham. And you wondered whether perhaps the VB logos on the collar of Ponting's shirt stood not for Victoria Bitter but for Bitter Victorian.
That's where I stopped reading.
grizzlym
16 Jun 2009, 15:45
"Probably the best batsman in Australia not getting a look-in is Chris Rogers. Rogers is an opener. It has seemingly occurred to no one that Simon Katich, a Test opener by default courtesy of Phil Jaques's travails, and a fine batsman, would be just as fine, and perhaps even finer, in the middle order, where he has after all batted almost all his life. Not once have the selectors tried a top six of Hughes, Rogers, Katich, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey. It looks a lot like an Ashes-winning top six"
There was a very persistent rumour doing the rounds in state cricket that this is what the selectors were considering prior to the South African tour.
Article not that bad. Style over substance though. Made a good point re the lack of a specialised back-up batsman in the squad. Obviously wanted to give Hilditch a serve, but I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.
What a load of self-righteous horse shit.
Lets get Christian Ryan to pick a side then everyone can take personal pot shots at him for every single pick they disagree with.
King Elvis
16 Jun 2009, 17:11
What a load of self-righteous horse shit.
Lets get Christian Ryan to pick a side then everyone can take personal pot shots at him for every single pick they disagree with.
It's an annoying article, because, while I think the message is spot on, the delivery and framing of it is rubbish.
Our Selections of late have been baffling; and the reasoning behind them from the Selectors hasn't exactly shed any light on them.
Grizzly, have heard that Rogers is a bad bloke, and not liked/wanted around the team.
Ill Chicken
16 Jun 2009, 18:48
I thought it was because you can't have two red nuts in the side.
Not a fan of Christian Ryan, his article on Matthew Hayden was extremely poor and this one, while it does have some valid points is patronising to say the least. All those guys that missed out generally over there playing County cricket anyway so the issue isn't really that relevant for touring England.
grizzlym
16 Jun 2009, 19:51
Who is Christian Ryan? Apart from writing the tome on Kim Hughes what has the guy done?
ManWithNoName
16 Jun 2009, 23:24
Seemed like boring Victorian bitching to me. Are we sure we haven't just discovered Bushrangers alias?
Brad Hodge has copped a raw deal. Deserves to be in the T20 side and should be part of the Test make up.
I'm not complaining now, its back2back shield title time with Rogers/Jewell/Hodge/Dussey as your top 4. You cant go wrong with Dirk leading the bowling attack. I genuinly think Victoria could beat Australia in a three test series in Australia if Siddle was in the Vic Side.
courtjester
17 Jun 2009, 06:40
Ridiculously biased article (and very poorly written).
"Probably the best batsman in Australia not getting a look-in is Chris Rogers. Rogers is an opener. It has seemingly occurred to no one that Simon Katich, a Test opener by default courtesy of Phil Jaques's travails, and a fine batsman, would be just as fine, and perhaps even finer, in the middle order, where he has after all batted almost all his life. Not once have the selectors tried a top six of Hughes, Rogers, Katich, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey. It looks a lot like an Ashes-winning top six"
I have thought this before as well, but there is clearly some reason Rogers is not being selected. Outside of the team we don't have the information why. This guy has basically written up the national top 6 (selected by the selectors), changed one name (Rogers in for North) and claimed it as some stroke of frickin' genius on his behalf.
Never mind that Katich has excelled as an opener for us. Never mind that North made a lot of runs in SA, this writer seems to clearly know best!
In truth, Australia's selectors are clueless when it comes to determining who is Australia's best No.6.
Marcus North started his test career in South Africa, has only played two tests to date, and has a century. Clearly, they have some idea of who to pick.
Their other big potential problem is their bowling. The plan is to field four fast bowlers, subscribing to the reasonable-sounding logic that you pick your best bowlers and Australia's best bowlers are fast bowlers.
Um, no. They picked Hauritz. As you say a paragraph or two later!
Australia have picked only one of these, Nathan Hauritz, not because he spins the ball sharpest or loops it highest but because he is regarded as the one least likely to get slaughtered -
Or, because we need a spinner, and he is the best in the country? It's easy to take cheap shots at a good off-spinner after 15 years of Warne, but is it constructive journalism? Hauritz will do his job well.
"England's ability to over-theorise and complicate the game of cricket is legendary," observed Ian Chappell 15 years ago. "Ever since I became involved in Ashes battles, I've felt that Australia could rely on some assistance from the England selectors."
Too true, eh? Get that man a job on the NSP. Get three others, any others, to join him. For Australia's selectors have gone mad, madder even than England's.
This is the only sensible thing this flog writes, and that's only from a career perspective. Suck up the ass of Ian Chappell (senior writer for cricinfo and a man who has always disliked all authority).
Worst article i've read on cricinfo.
grizzlym
17 Jun 2009, 13:26
Grizzly, have heard that Rogers is a bad bloke, and not liked/wanted around the team.
Interesting. I haven't heard that one. Rogers was most definitely in the frame to open with Katich dropping down the order. I just thought the selectors were at loath to move Katich after his success opening. Plus with blooding Hughes, it meant a very inexperienced pairing.
Respected Journo
18 Jun 2009, 03:55
Poor article.
Why move Katich from his opening position? He appears settled there, and likes the responsibility associated with the position. He is also a state team mate of Phil Hughes.
Moving Ponting to 4 is absurd.
People like to get stuck into the selectors, but I think they have mainly done a good job. Sometimes you need to know what doens't work before finding something that does work.
The Ashes squad is an inexperienced group, but it is an ambitious and hungry squad. I can't fault any of the selections. Hauritz has come on in leaps and bounds, his drift and spin can easily account for batsmen who show him no respect.
This fellow appears to be whinging for the sake of it. Not a lot of substance in the article. If i read another article with a mention of Ian Chappell i will headbut some soft lad.
Blackout
23 Jun 2009, 22:46
If any of our batsmen are in trouble, I would've thought Michael Hussey would've been next to go, not Marcus North...
Respected Journo
24 Jun 2009, 01:21
Just read that article again, coupled with his portrait pic he seems to be one of those people who would whinge if the rain was falling on them in the middle of a drought.
Fair enough if he wants to have a whinge about the selections, that's his right, but no alternatives are put forward apart from a mention of Brad Hodge. This merely seems like a battered Victorian having a good bleat.
Then the illogical suggestion to change the batting order, things like moving Ponting to number 4 and Katich to 3 and Rogers to open. Totally absurd, not based on any logic at all. I mean that top 6 has just led us to a 2-1 series win, lets take a chainsaw to it though.
It's articles like this one that remind me how lucky we are that the general public don't have a say in selection.
King Elvis
24 Jun 2009, 11:11
If any of our batsmen are in trouble, I would've thought Michael Hussey would've been next to go, not Marcus North...
Move him back down the order, where he was Bradman-esque.
courtjester
24 Jun 2009, 14:56
Agreed. Our test batting line up should be:
Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
North
Hussey
Haddin
Or possibly even better would be:
Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
North
Haddin
Hussey