Panel was doing a good job - Hilditch

[aussie1st]

National chairman of selectors Andrew Hilditch says he is gutted by Australia's Ashes loss but has dismissed criticism from Shane Warne, among others, saying he believed the panel was doing a good job.

Even Ponting conceded leaving Hauritz out of the deciding Test was a mistake.
(http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25972290-5009880,00.html)
"We probably got that wrong. Not before the game, we thought we were picking the right attack for the conditions that we saw," Ponting said.
"But in hindsight, a specialist spinner would have been pretty handy out there."



http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,25977939-5009880,00.html

Great we are going to continue losing series due to our incompetent selectors.

[damochandler]

of course the idiot would say that. our pannel is made of blokes who havent either. played a test or havent played a test in 15 years. bring some new blood in

[sumavich]

Hilditch is full of s$$t, he was a crap player and is a crap selector.
Bring in some blokes that demand respect i.e. Steve Waugh.

[Caesar]

This bunch are rubbish, but the whole "oh, half of them were shit players" thing is not the reason. I can think of plenty of people with far less distinguished Test/FC records than Merv Hughes who'd make better selectors.

Different job, different skills required. Sure professional experience is very desirable in a job like this, but plenty of the best coaches/team managers in all sorts of sports (including cricket) have very humble professional careers as players.

[hogman]

I really think Steve Waugh would be a very good 'selector'

[Barwick17]

"We probably got it wrong" re Hauritz. Probably?

Everyone read the pitch wrong was another excuse - yeah, except for England, the commentators, anyone who had actually seen a turf wicket before knew it would turn.

Im sorry, but blokes on big money who continually back eachother and offer excuses for their poor decisions should go. It is similar in the AFL where if we keep telling everyone its ok, we will keep our big pay packets and the world continues. If anyone admits they were wrong = scapegoat and sacked.

Time to demand accountability from these blokes in the cushy jobs.

[Nel Mangle]

You know you've hit a low point when you blame the selectors for not picking the "mighty" nathan hauritz as a reason for a crushing loss.
I suppose Hauritz could have boosted the dismal 160 total in the first innings with his batting?
The batsmen lost the critical 5th test. It wasnt even a spinner who ripped through the aussie order (medium pacer stuart broad).

Blaming the selectors is just a desperate angle to try and mask the fact that you havent got many decent player options. Hauritz is about as dangerous as shaun udal.

There hasnt been a single comment that said "england played well in the 5th test" .Just fiction about the selectors. Least I would expect from a bunch of clueless ockers who are incapable of any sportsmanship .

[mattymac]

There hasnt been a single comment that said "england played well in the 5th test" .Just fiction about the selectors. Least I would expect from a bunch of clueless ockers who are incapable of any sportsmanship .

South Africa played well in the 5th test.

[grizzlym]

Well, a certain chairman of selectors who shall remain nameless, can take the blame for not heeding the advice of a senior fast bowler who approached him 6 months before the ashes tour started.

Apparently, the gist of the conversation was advice on the necessary preparation for the English conditions given the inexperience in our ranks.

I note that Peter Siddle was quoted as saying it took him until around the 4th test to get used to the ball and conditions (or something along those lines).