Selectors trying to keep their jobs?

[Simple Jack]

I have noticed recently the selectors (probably Hilditch) doing some common sense things which have surprised me and been in direct opposition to the Ashes philosophy.

I.e. Sending Ferguson (even though not playing him) and Krejza as replacements. Fergy has been in good form, and Krejza can turn the ball and is an attacking spinner, which was needed considering we have a couple of ok part timers.

In addition to that, the most recent situation seems so sensible I am completely stumped.
When Bollinger got injured, not sending a player over straight away was a good move because it gave us time to assess Hussey properly.
After that, choosing to send Hussey who we desperately need to prop up our middle order, and then sending Nannes who was in good form from the List A final as an extra 'touring member' so he can swap in if we have another fast bowler injury.
All of these seem to be good decisions to me, and even though I still don't agree with a few of their selections, nothing they're doing seems outrageous.

If you consider some of the selections in the Ashes series;
Not selecting Hauritz,
Giving Doherty a baggy green after ODI wickets,
Picking North so persistantly despite shit form and then dropping him half way through,
Picking Steve Smith as a non bowling number 6 who was so bad he had to be dropped to 7 (what the ****?),
Picking Phil Hughes after averaging 16 in the Shield (averaged 20-something in the Ashes so actually increased his performance),
Picking Beer on the back of a part tounge in cheek comment from Warnie, and the not playing him in WA. etc

This seems like a massive change of direction for the NSP since the beginning of the world cup towards sensisbility and common sense.

So do you think it's Hilditch trying desperately to keep his job? Or is Greg Chappell starting to have an impact?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I think they panicked a bit leading up to the Ashes with our substandard form in the Test arena. They tried to invent changes instead of making the obvious ones, thinking that something special had to be done to win the urn. It didn't.

Not picking Hauritz was the obvious mistake, and one that he really should get a formal apology from the selectors for!

 

[courtjester]

I think people can bag the selectors decisions all they like, but the reality is they haven't done a heap wrong with the cattle they have to choose from.

The one glaring problem was Hauritz's non selection for the Ashes.

They have ticked a big box by selecting Mike Hussey (we need a left hander who can play spin) and also sending Nannes over as extra pace cover.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I think people can bag the selectors decisions all they like, but the reality is they haven't done a heap wrong with the cattle they have to choose from.

The one glaring problem was Hauritz's non selection for the Ashes.

They have ticked a big box by selecting Mike Hussey (we need a left hander who can play spin) and also sending Nannes over as extra pace cover.

They really have, but I agree with the OP. I was actually shocked to see them do two sensible things in a row in Mussey and sending Nannes over there as well. Maybe Hilditch was walking his dog when these decisions were made.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Uhh... let's not go overboard guys. Hussey should have been in the squad right from the start. Remember, they ditched him rather prematurely. Had he been left in the original squad, he would already be in India right now and Nannes would be making his way over as an official replacement for Bollinger. As it stands, we are now a bowler short and a batsman heavy. It was a screw up, pure and simple.

They've mitigated the screw up somewhat now. But they still screwed up.

 

[Wallaby]

I think the selectors had painted themselves into a corner pre-ashes. they had their side set, and had few options.

Bollinger was a key - his injuries screwed up the bowling. Add Johnson's erratic form and that was trouble. When the quicks failed, they desperately started searching for a magic spinner to 'Do a Warne'.

Katich's injury had a huge effect on the batting. Kat and Watson had been a very good opening pair.

The trouble was - Plan A was 'Katich to open batting, Bollinger to open bowling'. Plan B was 'What do we do now?'.

But the most, most important thing was England were a far better cricket team than us - and would have been with or without Bollinger and Katich.

 

[King Elvis]

Uhh... let's not go overboard guys. Hussey should have been in the squad right from the start. Remember, they ditched him rather prematurely. Had he been left in the original squad, he would already be in India right now and Nannes would be making his way over as an official replacement for Bollinger. As it stands, we are now a bowler short and a batsman heavy. It was a screw up, pure and simple.

They've mitigated the screw up somewhat now. But they still screwed up.

Yup.

We're celebrating the fact they've done something not completely stupid for a change - a bit of a worry.

I think people can bag the selectors decisions all they like, but the reality is they haven't done a heap wrong with the cattle they have to choose from.

Dude.

 

[mattymac]

woulda been nice if they started trying to keep their jobs after the 09 ashes

 

[Alex_au]

I doubt having Hauritz for the ashes would have imroved us by much. He is a handy cricketer at best. Nothing special.

 

[The Big Steele]

magnificent. Can we have the Ashes back.

 

[dumb]

sending over paine to the WC when there is roughly one match per week in the early part of the tournament stands out to me for its stupidity. hussey could have safely taken his spot in the original squad.

 

[BACCS]

sending over paine to the WC when there is roughly one match per week in the early part of the tournament stands out to me for its stupidity. hussey could have safely taken his spot in the original squad.

Paine, Fergy and Hastings must be really getting bored over there.

 

[The Governor]

The 3 dumb selectors (The Golden Retriever, Cox and Boon) are trying to keep their jobs by heeding the advice and selection theories of Greg Chappell who served under Lawrie Sawle from 1984 to September 1988.

In my opinion, Cricket Australia are a bunch of hypocrites who are looking after their own. The Independent panel that was appointed by CA to review the test side; the coaching personnel; selectors; selection policies and the team's sport science area is not independent from a certain point of view for the following reasons:

1. Mark Taylor was appointed by the board to review the test team. Gee, he is a board member of CA and it appears to me he has a conflict of interest. How can he provide an objective opinion when he comes out on SEN to tell everyone that Hilditch should not be sacked.
2. Malcolm Speed was an excellent CEO for CA. He was a mentor to James Sutherland during Sutherland's time as Finance Manager at CA.
3. James Sutherland. How could he be appointed to the review panel when his job should be reviewed.

How can the review panel provide an honest brutal assessment of the state of Australian cricket when these people are not totally independent from Cricket Australia?

Why did not the incompetent CA board approach Barry Richards, Ric Charlesworth, Ross Smith or David Parkin to give CA an insight how elite sporting teams should prepare themselves for a test match?

Cricket Australia is a joke at the minute.

At least the ECB appointed a totally independent panel to review the English team after the 2006-07 thrashing!!

THE GOV

 

[Doodlesweaver]

The 3 dumb selectors (The Golden Retriever, Cox and Boon) are trying to keep their jobs by heeding the advice and selection theories of Greg Chappell who served under Lawrie Sawle from 1984 to September 1988.

In my opinion, Cricket Australia are a bunch of hypocrites who are looking after their own. The Independent panel that was appointed by CA to review the test side; the coaching personnel; selectors; selection policies and the team's sport science area is not independent from a certain point of view for the following reasons:

1. Mark Taylor was appointed by the board to review the test team. Gee, he is a board member of CA and it appears to me he has a conflict of interest. How can he provide an objective opinion when he comes out on SEN to tell everyone that Hilditch should not be sacked.
2. Malcolm Speed was an excellent CEO for CA. He was a mentor to James Sutherland during Sutherland's time as Finance Manager at CA.
3. James Sutherland. How could he be appointed to the review panel when his job should be reviewed.

How can the review panel provide an honest brutal assessment of the state of Australian cricket when these people are not totally independent from Cricket Australia?

Why did not the incompetent CA board approach Barry Richards, Ric Charlesworth, Ross Smith or David Parkin to give CA an insight how elite sporting teams should prepare themselves for a test match?

Cricket Australia is a joke at the minute.

At least the ECB appointed a totally independent panel to review the English team after the 2006-07 thrashing!!

THE GOV

Got to agree with you here. This 'independent' panel looks like nothing of the sort.

 

[The Governor]

According to Jess Hogan from the Age, the Golden Retriever will arrive in Bangalore tonight to oversee the selection of the one day side!!

And, the Golden Retriever saw a leading Melbourne neurolgoist to find out why he was playing the hook shot when a fast bowler or medium fast bowler bowled him a short ball during the 1985 calendar year?

The 3 selectors are trying to save their jobs whlst Cricket Australia appointed 3 members of the review panel who have conflict of interests with Cricket Australia!!

It is ok to appoint Steve Waugh and Allan Border to the review panel. They had 2 to 7 years away from the Cricket Australia circle to allow them to form independent and objective opinions on Australian cricket. Mark Taylor is too close to Cricket Australia at the minute. He is a board member who continues to promote the positive aspects of Australian cricket on Channel 9 and SEN!!

I just hope we don't win the World Cup!!

The blow torch will have to be fired up at the highest after burner to conduct the most brutal and honest review of Australian cricket!!

THE GOV

 

[AM]

I'd be surprised if any of the selectors keep their jobs after the review. One or two back-up staff and possibly an administrator as well

 

[The Governor]

I'd be surprised if any of the selectors keep their jobs after the review. One or two back-up staff and possibly an administrator as well

Ammo Man,

If you look at the panel members, Mark Taylor loves to jump to the defence of Hilditch and Nielsen. He is a board member of CA who approved the contract extension of Tim Nielsen and gave Hilditch a huge endorsement on SEN1116 in February of this year with Andy Maher and Andrew Gaze!!

Mark Taylor was one of the best attacking captains in Australian test cricket history. But, having him as a member of the review committee has conflicts of interests stamped all over it.

Why did not CA look at appointing Ross Smith (former St Kilda captain and one of the head chiefs at the AIS) and David Parkin to review the team and selection structures of Australian cricket?

David Parkin would definitely give an honest and independent opinion about the selection and team structures of the Australian side (including the coaching and sport science staff). He is not involved in the day to day operations of the Australian side and he is a 4 time AFL/VFL premiership coach!!

And, you have James Sutherland who has stuffed up Australian cricket since 2002. Peter Jackson and James Sutherland must be the 2 prominent CEOs in elite Australian sport who granted unwarranted contract extensions to two coaches (Tim Nielsen and Matthew Knights) whilst a board member of CA is a part of the Argus review!!

CRICKET AUSTRALIA IS A JOKE!! The review should have been ordered in January 2011...not in March 2011!!

With Mark Taylor on the review panel, I think the coaching staff and 3 out of the 4 selectors will be around next season. Mark Taylor loves to support the players and coaching staff. He approved the appointments of Hilditch and Nielsen!! People have forgotten about this important element!

THE GOV