Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well they need to be selected first before they can perform or underperform, don't they?If and when Burns, Wade and whoever else is performing in the Shield comes in and doesn't perform - who/what will people target next?
He is accountable for the results of the national team, especially as he is a selector. Instead of objective assessments of performances based on runs made, we now have fake news. The ruckus earlier this week about "no one averaging above 30" is a symptom of the delusion. Maybe it’s time we went back to the tried and tested formula of coach and selectors being separate.
If I’m brutally honest I don’t really believe in selection panels. In NSW we changed the selection structure when I started to make the coach accountable for the performance of the team and therefore the selection of the team,” Jones told SEN Test Cricket.
Well they need to be selected first before they can perform or underperform, don't they?
I don't have a target on Langer's head yet, but if people who are demonstrably showing good form at the level below keep being ignored, then my frustration with the whole regime will continue to grow. It's fiddling while Rome burns.
50 against WARenshaw was in the squad in the UAE and was not selected due suffering a head knock after having a history of concussions. Since then he hasn't passed 30 in 6 Shield innings.
I like him and reckon he has a future but FFS he has played 11 tests and averages 33 and as soon as he's not picked he's Bradman.
Actually scored a
50 against WA
That’s the concerning point, the slap bang communication that is really poor and leaving individuals frustrated. Ed Cowan gives it a real shake on Grandstand and Nathan Coulter-Nile was on today saying quite candidly that he was told he wasn’t picked because of a back issue when there wasn’t one. He had soreness, got checked, and report came back clear, yet the selectors still said ‘you seemingly have an injury’.Bolded nails it for me. It's too early to draw a line through Langer, but there is something awfully concerning about our selection and lessens are not being heeded, seemingly. The messages about selections are puzzling and contradictory.
a) Renshaw's treatment in the UAE coming off great form in England was bizarre
b) what do Burns and Maxwell and Wade have to do to get a gig?
c) players being played in odd positions; Finch opening, Lab number 3; really?
I know sometimes, when the chips are down, you just have to adopt a sink or swim approach; Australia kind of had to do that between 1985 and 1988. It didn't pay dividends overnight, but it eventually did. But the moves above seem inexplicable and, as tough a job as Langer has trying to fashion a side with the universal problems afflicting domestic cricket here at the moment, it strikes me that there is a lot of shooting oneself in foot going on too.
Renshaw was in the squad in the UAE and was not selected due suffering a head knock after having a history of concussions. Since then he hasn't passed 30 in 6 Shield innings.
I like him and reckon he has a future but FFS he has played 11 tests and averages 33 and as soon as he's not picked he's Bradman.
I think the Sri Lanka squad will be fairly indicative (making wholesale changes for Sydney wouldn't have achieved all that much IMO) - pretty much everyone barring Paine, Harris, Lyon and Cummins should be in the gun IMO.
Wade, Burns score runs and the selectors look elsewhere. Maxwell scores runs in the Shield and performs at ODI/T20I level and the selectors look elsewhere. How we've ended up with Labuschagne as a spinning all rounder over Maxwell has me buggered, let alone how he's ended up at #3. Handscomb is dropped for having a suspect technique then recalled one test later because the wicket might turn. WTF. Mitch Marsh is badly out of form with the bat, has no opportunity to play Shield cricket because it's December and they recall him because they want an all rounder. WTF. People now want Stoinis given a go at #6. He's having a good Shield season by his standards and is averaging 42 with the bat and 25 with the ball. Career averages of 33.6 / 42.4. I like him but will he really do better than his career record from 53 matches going up a level?
He got dropped for the ashes because he was struggling to hit it off the square in shield games leading up to the series. He went on a tear after the ashes series1. Doesn't justify dropping him last summer.
2. Certainly didn't call for Aaron Finch to be his replacement.
It could take years to move on from the Lehmann & Langer era.
Cross that bridge when we come to it. In the mean time just ####ing pick the players who deserve to be there and stop the random bull s**t selections that make no sense and are making a bad side even worse.If and when Burns, Wade and whoever else is performing in the Shield comes in and doesn't perform - who/what will people target next?
Holly s**t. I don't care much for ODIs but it's not the point. We just pick ANYTHING but the blokes that deserve it. I hope we continue to be humiliated.They are wildly inconsistent but that isn't new. Harris, Renshaw and Bancroft were all picked on small sample sizes of Shield performance. They've all shown a bit, but ultimately all average in the 30s at test and Shield level. Finch doesn't even open for Victoria but we pick him as a test opener.
Wade, Burns score runs and the selectors look elsewhere. Maxwell scores runs in the Shield and performs at ODI/T20I level and the selectors look elsewhere. How we've ended up with Labuschagne as a spinning all rounder over Maxwell has me buggered, let alone how he's ended up at #3. Handscomb is dropped for having a suspect technique then recalled one test later because the wicket might turn. WTF. Mitch Marsh is badly out of form with the bat, has no opportunity to play Shield cricket because it's December and they recall him because they want an all rounder. WTF. People now want Stoinis given a go at #6. He's having a good Shield season by his standards and is averaging 42 with the bat and 25 with the ball. Career averages of 33.6 / 42.4. I like him but will he really do better than his career record from 53 matches going up a level?
It's not just the test team either. The selection criteria for the limited overs sides is a complete mystery. We have a nothing ODI series coming up and 9 of the top 10 run scorers from the JLT Cup aren't in the squad nor are 9 of the top 10 wicket takers. It begs the question why have the competition in the first place? Two bowlers took 18 wickets @ 16, 3 batsmen scored 400+ @ 70+. None made it. Instead we have Peter Siddle who not only didn't feature but hasn't played an ODI for 8 years.
Cross that bridge when we come to it. In the mean time just ####ing pick the players who deserve to be there and stop the random bail s**t selections that make no sense and are making a bad side even worse.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I get your points, and don’t think he needs to be sacked yet, but you’ve got to seriously question his ability at the selection table when he is excluding some serious run scorers at shield level and persisting with the Marsh brothers and promoting Head & Finch.Australia is currently ranked #5 in the world in the Test team rankings. We've just lost a series against the #1 ranked Test playing nation in the world in India.
Langer was appointed head coach in May 2018 - just over 6 months ago. I think he's been at the helm for just 6 Test matches.
He inherited a team that had just been through the biggest controversy in Australian cricket history, minus its captain and one of, if not the best batsman in the world, plus both opening batsmen.
I think the calls for his head on this board are a bit premature.
Do you reckon we could maybe hold off the firing squad for at least until after the Ashes?
As for Henry Lawson; he's entitled to his opinion, sure, but I think it's pretty ordinary form from him pulling out his poison pen and writing a hyperbolic pile of s**t article like that after Langer has been in charge for just over 6 months. Shows a distinct lack of class.
Rogers & Voges are exceptions, they were hardened shield players who had patience and great techniques for long form cricket. I am not so focused on our bowling stocks as we are failing to post respectable totals.Fans and media only respond to results.
Chris Rogers played one test in 2008 as a fill in. Did nothing and went back to FC cricket. Was recalled in 2013 at age 35 and ended up playing 24 more tests scoring 5 100s and 14 50s. Adam Voges averaged 100 in the Shield and was given a test debut at 35. Played 20 tests for 5 100s and 4 50s and was dropped averaging 62. One is considered a success, the other a failure.
Mitchell Johnson played one test in India in 2013, didn't feature in the Ashes tour and was recalled for the 2013/14 Ashes having played one Shield game. He then proceeded to take 37 wickets @ 14 and then go to South Africa and take 22 @ 18. 59 wickets in 8 tests from a bloke most people didn't think should be in the side. Ryan Harris played test cricket from age 30-34 for 113 wickets @ 23. Gun. And then we've had McKay, Copeland, Hastings, George, Mennie, Sayers all come in based on Shield form as one test wonders (Copeland played 3).
If it works, you're a hero. If it doesn't work, then you should've done whatever Captain Hindsight says.
You’ve got to come back with a better response than a popular social in comment that is fashionable right now. Saying ‘no, just no’ is not really responding to the argument in a mature way. Talk us through why he is overrated based on his shield results this year and last.No I'm not, he's the most overrated Cricketer in Australia.