View Full Version : 5 of the last 17 tests
wavefall21
9 Dec 2009, 08:30
Yep, its a fact, this Australian team has won 5 of its past 17 tests, yet selectors continues to pick practically the same side, as Rodney Hogg (who should be a selector) said, this selection panel picks players based on reputation, personalities and relationships, that's all it is, they don't pick players in form, or if they do, they drop them (eg Krezja, and to an extent Hughes) immediately after 1 or 2 poor innings
It's a damning stat, and it prob reflects why the Aussies have slipped in the rankings, big time. Here is my memo to the selectors:
TAKE A RISK AND PLAY YOUNG UP 1 OR 2 UP AND COMING YOUNGSTERS AND PICK PLAYERS IN FORM
For the first time in a very long time, I was really hoping that the Windies would win the test in Adel, purely because they were the better team and outplayed us, and because I want changes to the team that was on the park. Punter has gone on record as saying we are in a transitional period and are rebuilding, yet the majority of the side is 30 or over or in their late 20s
How can you possibly justify picking the same team that lost the ashes? Is it because it's just the Windies? Cos if that's the case then that's disrespectful, and a loss yesterday would have been the best kick in the arse the selectors could have got, as well as the team
Now there are reports in the paper with Siddle's injury that we could send an SOS to Stuey Clark..... please, the guy has been a great servant for the Aussies but he's passed his best, look to a young prospect rather than relying on players who have passed their best
Some prospects that come to mind are obviously Hughes and Krezja, Steve Smith, Mitch Marsh, Scott Walter etc
Rodney Hogg should not be a selector, he thinks Warner should play all three forms of the game for Australia, he fails straight away.
Still think players should have to earn their way into a test team. Players like Henriques, Smith, Marsh should have to play for first class cricket for a few years before promoting them.
They made a mistake by not opening with Hughes and putting watson in at either 5 or 6 and dropping either hussey or north.
wavefall21
9 Dec 2009, 09:27
well the panel needs some guy with a hard edge, who will voice his opinion and not be soft like the whole panel is
Selective Retention
9 Dec 2009, 09:27
We need Pakistan to come over and roll us before the selectors are forced to make changes. India in India, South Africa and England in England they can fob off.
It's the perfect summer to blood a player but we are wasting our time with Hussey.
Simon_Nesbit
9 Dec 2009, 09:52
If you subscribe to the theory that players need match experience and responsibility to develop (I do), then you should be looking towards a framework of constant 'transition' of players.
With most careers ending by 34, and starting (at shield level at least) in the early 20s - there's basically a 10-year 'window' for player performance.
So in any 10-year period, you will most likely replace the entire squad.
Given the quantity of cricket played these days, 'squads' are in the region of 20 players, so you need to replace two players every year, on average. This would maintain an "average age" in the mid-late 20s, approximately when players peak.
A well-balanced squad of 20 players (IMO):
3 openers
5 middle-order bats
2 all-rounders
2 keepers
2 spinners
6 paceman
(I like all-rounders at #6...I think we're going to need it for firepower in the coming years, unless the selectors find another McGrath/Warne)
How does our current team fit into this? (sorted by age - 26 squad + extras)
3 openers
Katich (34)*
Rogers (32) - Younger alternative in Hughes as developing option.
Jacques (30)*
Marsh (26) - Replacing Katich on form.
Warner (23)
Hughes (21)*
5 middle-order bats
Ponting (35)*
M.Hussey (34)*
Hodge (33) - too old now
D.Hussey (32) - too old now
North (30)*
Voges (30) - better, younger alternatives
Clarke (28)*
Bailey (27) - replacing 2nd retiree
White (26)*
Ferguson (25) - replacing 1st retiree..should be there allready.
Pomersbach (25)
2 all-rounders
Hopes (31)*
McDonald (28) - better than Hopes IMO
Watson (28)*
Henriques (22) - needs seasoning
S.Smith (20) - ditto
2 keepers
Haddin (32)*
Manou (30)*
Ronchi (28) - missed his time
Paine (25) - ideal reserve now.
2 spinners
McGain (35) - too old now
Hauritz (28)*
Krezja (26)*
Cullen (25)
Holland (22) - needs seasoning
6 paceman
Clark (34)*
Nannes (33) - too old now.
Lee (33)*
Bracken (32)*
Bollinger (28) - replaces 1st retiree, IMO should be there allready
Johnson (28)*
Geeves (27) - replaces 2nd retiree, IMO should be there allready
Hilfenhous (26)*
McKay (26) - almost 'his time'
Tait (26) -
Siddle (25)*
So based on that, I'd look at my 20 being:
Katich, Jacques, Hughes
Ponting, North, Clarke, White, Ferguson
Watson, McDonald
Haddin, Paine
Hauritz, Krezja
Clark, Bollinger, Johnson, Geeves, Hilfenhouse, Siddle
OUT: Hussey, Hopes, Ronchi, Lee, Bracken
IN: Ferguson, McDonald, Paine, Bollinger, Geeves
...and then we're back into a "reasonable" spread...still too clustered, but at least most have 4-5 years left and we can work within that structure.
In another season, Ponting, Clark and Katich retire - with Bailey, McKay and Marsh to replace them.
King Elvis
9 Dec 2009, 10:04
Yep, its a fact, this Australian team has won 5 of its past 17 tests.
Wow... That's a pretty damning statistic.
You're right though - we've lost the 3 biggest Series we've played in recently, and what have been the consequences?
Absolutely zero.
Remember when we had real men in charge of the Selection Panel, and players performed, or they were gone? Guys like Martos when he had his first crack - got dropped with absolute ruthlessness, wouldn't happen now.
Now there are reports in the paper with Siddle's injury that we could send an SOS to Stuey Clark..... please, the guy has been a great servant for the Aussies but he's passed his best, look to a young prospect rather than relying on players who have passed their best
Only thing I'd disagree with - Stuart Clark deserves to be in the side on the strength of his performances. Our bowling unit is not currently strong enough to throw a young kid in the deep end, so if Clark is available, he gets the nod, but if not, sure, throw a younger fella in (that tall bugger from the Redbacks is worth a look).
TheColeTrain
9 Dec 2009, 10:15
Bring back Trevor Hohns, just get rid of Hilditch FFS, he isn't fit to be a selector for the local 3rds team, let alone the national team
scooter22
9 Dec 2009, 10:24
The selectors screwed up big time in england in the first place. They had to drop someone because the results were not going our way. Drop anyone over 30, and youi could pretty much end their career (hussey). So, not wanting to drop clarke, ponting, north or katich (who were all in form), they had to drop hughes so that the results might go their way.
As it turns out, the results still didnt change, but they couldnt drop watson because he had been preforming, and they couldnt drop katich because he had also been performing. they couldnt drop hussey becuase he had been good for so long and if he had been dropped it could mean the end of his career. These are the reasons why Phil Hughes couldnt get back in.
Rodney Hogg should not be a selector, he thinks Warner should play all three forms of the game for Australia, he fails straight away.
He said Katich should be captain in the press in the last day or so.
Cooldude
9 Dec 2009, 11:00
The selectors clearly have no long term planning in place. That's why Hughes was dropped, a makeshift opener in Watson (who should be in the middle order for the long term) takes his place, while Hussey keeps retaining his place.
The message sent to Krezja was also baffling. Alright, Hauritz is doing a good job right now, but we're still way short of finding a wrist spinner or a spinner of any genuine quality.
The only good selections had been Pete Siddle and the House, both of whom need to be persisted with.
our best lineup:
Katich
Hughes
Pont
Clarke
North
Watson
Haddin
Jonno
hauritz
Siddle
Hilfy
Yep, its a fact, this Australian team has won 5 of its past 17 tests
not quite true.
we've won 5 of the last 11 tests and its actually 7 of the last 19 tests.
(i think you are forgetting the 2 test series v nz last summer).
if you take it back further to the warne/mcgrath retirement its 13-8 and 7 draws.
you also need to take into account the amount of cricket we've played against the number 1 & 2 teams (india and south africa).
when the stats are put this way, it hasn't been so bad for australia in this transition period.
against india/south africa since warne/mcgrath retirement:
played 14, won 5, lost 6, drawn 3
against others since warne/mcgrath retirement:
played 14, won 8, lost 2, drawn 4
Navyblues09
9 Dec 2009, 12:25
6 paceman
Clark (34)*
Nannes (33) - too old now.
Lee (33)*
Bracken (32)*
I dont know but I found that bit confusing :confused: How is 1 too old and the other 3 fine? Or is it because they have had experience their age doesnt matter? :confused:
Still think players should have to earn their way into a test team. Players like Henriques, Smith, Marsh should have to play for first class cricket for a few years before promoting them.
They made a mistake by not opening with Hughes and putting watson in at either 5 or 6 and dropping either hussey or north.
Another confusing post, on one hand you want players to play a few years of first class cricket, on the other you want Hughes with about 15 matches of experience in the side, which is it?
King Elvis
9 Dec 2009, 12:41
Siddle shouldn't be in the Aus XI at present.
He's a young guy with very little FC experience; he did a great job for us, but he's clearly struggling for form at present - he needs to go back to the Domestic Comp and get his mojo back.
No different to Brett Lee, Andy Bichel, Kaspa, Michael Clarke etc - once you're in the side as a kid, it shouldn't be a sure thing.
It's a damning stat, and it prob reflects why the Aussies have slipped in the rankings, big time.
we went up from 4 to 3 the other day !!
Simon_Nesbit
9 Dec 2009, 13:39
I dont know but I found that bit confusing :confused: How is 1 too old and the other 3 fine? Or is it because they have had experience their age doesnt matter? :confused:
Yep, got it in one. Clark, Lee and Bracken are "established" international players - at 33 Nannes has just missed his chance. As you'll note late I have all 3 of those players on the way out in the next 12 months, if not before.
Personally, I'd rather have 4-5 blokes playing shield that have had their international career, captaining or VC'ing teams, teaching the youngsters everything they know....rather than keeping secrets in a desperate attempt to hold onto a spot.
The Reaper
9 Dec 2009, 14:02
I dont know but I found that bit confusing :confused: How is 1 too old and the other 3 fine? Or is it because they have had experience their age doesnt matter? :confused:
Another confusing post, on one hand you want players to play a few years of first class cricket, on the other you want Hughes with about 15 matches of experience in the side, which is it?
hughes clearly earnt his spot in the team though
Zacisonfire
9 Dec 2009, 15:21
I'm not a 100% convinced on North he has played well so far with a few 100s it just seems like if he doesn't make a big score he fails...
Belnakor
9 Dec 2009, 15:58
Sa should be top in the rankings not India, but whatever.
The selectors have said time and time again - you play the best available for tests, and ODI you "blood" players. No reason to change.
Belnakor
9 Dec 2009, 16:00
not quite true.
we've won 5 of the last 11 tests and its actually 7 of the last 19 tests.
(i think you are forgetting the 2 test series v nz last summer).
if you take it back further to the warne/mcgrath retirement its 13-8 and 7 draws.
you also need to take into account the amount of cricket we've played against the number 1 & 2 teams (india and south africa).
when the stats are put this way, it hasn't been so bad for australia in this transition period.
against india/south africa since warne/mcgrath retirement:
played 14, won 5, lost 6, drawn 3
against others since warne/mcgrath retirement:
played 14, won 8, lost 2, drawn 4
dead right. The thing is the aussie team is in such high demand from other countries we don't end up playing the annual bangladesh tour which people use to pad out averages and stats.
Best 11 IMO.
Katich
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
Ferguson
North
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
McKay
Hilfenhous
Back up.
Paine, Hughes, White, Bollinger, Siddle.
Best 11 IMO.
Katich
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
North
White
Ferguson
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
McKay
Hilfenhous
Back up.
Paine, Hughes, Bollinger, Siddle.
Uh that is 12 players you listed. :thumbsu:
Uh that is 12 players you listed. :thumbsu:
Haha, my bad.
OzBomber
9 Dec 2009, 17:37
Get Alan Border back in there along with someone like Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh. They'd make the tough decisions.
wavefall21
10 Dec 2009, 07:13
I would love this to be the team
Hughes
KAtich
Ponting
Watson
Clarke
North
Haddin
Krezja/Smith
Johnson
Hilfenhaus
Bollinger
12th man: Siddle
I would love to see us pick Krezja or Smith, every1 says Hauritz hasn't done anything wrong but he hasn't taken near enough wickets for mine, I think Bollinger would be a better option than Siddle cos he can bowl good reverse swing when the ball gets older and genuine swing when the ball is new
On a pitch like Adelaide I think you could make a case for playing both Smith and Krezja cos on flat pitches I think 2 specialist spinners is important, North won't get the job done as a part timer
I know I'm wasting my time here, cos the Aussie selectors willl continue to play players who aren't worthy of their spot, as is evidenced by the third test squad which has remain unchanged because of a "hard fought draw" in hilditch's words
I would love to see us pick Krezja or Smith, every1 says Hauritz hasn't done anything wrong but he hasn't taken near enough wickets for mine, I think Bollinger would be a better option than Siddle cos he can bowl good reverse swing when the ball gets older and genuine swing when the ball is new
He came 4th on wickets in the ashes despite missing 2 tests. And is currently 2nd in the WI series. He can also bat.:cool:
King Elvis
10 Dec 2009, 08:46
I know I'm wasting my time here, cos the Aussie selectors willl continue to play players who aren't worthy of their spot, as is evidenced by the third test squad which has remain unchanged because of a "hard fought draw" in hilditch's words
How can we lose so many Tests, lose the major series we play in, escape with a draw against one of the worst teams in the world - and not have a single change made to the team, or even muted?
How can we lose so many Tests, lose the major series we play in, escape with a draw against one of the worst teams in the world - and not have a single change made to the team, or even muted?
Exactly right and i will tell you why becasue Andrew Hilditch does not have a set of testicles to make a hard call.
No players liked Trevor Hohns, he called it a day to many a test players career moslty notibly Ian Healy and Mark Waugh he did not receive home farewell tests and sacking Steve Waugh as ODI captain after the 01/02 series. He made tought decisions but the correct decisions, Mike Hussey should be dropped from the test team never to be seen again!
Ill Chicken
10 Dec 2009, 17:31
Some good posts in here. Simon Nesbit is almost right on the money with his. I feel they just need to fracture the teams up as well, make T20/ODI a completely separate squad if not three different squads all up, along with a new selection committee.