The Expendables

[Ill Chicken]

Is this the new name for the current era of the Australian team? Besides the poor selection policy currently troubling the selectors, the team as is, is almost wholly expendable. Katich, Clarke and Ponting are the only sure things, a run of poor form from Hussey could spell the end of his test career while Haddin's form needs to remain the same as over the last four months to see him in the side till the Ashes in Australia.

The bowling line-up is about as set as jelly in the sun with two possible debutants and a couple of one capped wonders. You're in real trouble when Hauritz is one of the most experienced bowlers in the team at test level.

What will be required for Australia to get through this period is the batsman stand up, make runs consistently and take the pressure off the bowlers that will be coming into the side over the next two or three years so that we can potentially unearth another Warne or McGrath and they don't cop a baptism of fire by trying to defend totals of under 300 for their first half dozen tests they play.

 

[courtjester]

What poor selection policy? The selectors can only pick the best players available, which is what they are doing. Who would you be picking that they are not?

Everyone knows the bowling is inexperienced. Not a lot we can do with Clark, Lee, Watson injured and McGrath, MacGill and Warne gone. McGain is a good selection, Hauritz is ok, Siddle will be very good, Hilfenhaus needs to be tried.

You say Ponting, Katich and Clarke are the "only" sure things. That's 3/5 of our current batting line up. And you're saying Hussey's career could be over? Ha! That leaves the exciting new opener we are debuting and the largely un-tried all-rounder (North or McDonald) at 6. Doesn't sound so bad does it?

 

[Ill Chicken]

Yeah I suppose you're right, White, Casson and Krezja aren't sitting on the side lines because of a poor selection policy. Nor did Hauritz get cast aside whenever the selectors feel there is a better spin option. Picking guys who are neither great at either field but because they can do a little bit of both, is probably the way to go. Don't pick guys doubling their wicket takings or run scoring for the current season in domestic cricket.

As for the batting line-up, it doesn't go to five, it goes to six. Clarke is hardly a sure thing to play this test, so you're down to two guys that are making runs, Katich and Ponting. I wouldn't be surprised if he played though, we sure like taking injuries into a test. Hussey's run of form is comparable with Hayden's, while North and Hughes are exactly that, debutants.

We are deciding on Hilfenhaus, Boilinger, Johnson and Siddle. All of whom are strike bowlers. McDonald is a trundler and then you've got an untried spinner in McGain. Can you imagine, four debutants going into the first test of a series? It won't happen. They'll just drop whoever didn't perform. Which is the point, almost the entire Australian team will be expendable over the next year.

 

[Bomber Bears]

In fairness to Casson the selectors expected Macgill to go the series, Casson was on an 'experience' trip. He had been in some decent form the back end of last season also (what happened to that i do not know).

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Bit rich people starting blaming the selectors for Cassons slump. NSW were getting stuck into the selectors a while back yet they weren't even playing Casson in their first side.

Selectors have had to deal with some lots of players retiring, injuries and series losses and a whinging media.

Rather then blaming the selectors the buck stops with the players on the bloody field.

 

[Ill Chicken]

I don't think anyone has blamed the selectors for Casson's poor form since playing for Australia. It is easy to say it was the catalyst when he was dropped. The selectors decisions since the West Indies tour have been average to extremely poor. I doubt they'll find redemption in South Africa.

If the buck stops with the selectors then they've got to stop their rotating door policy on new caps. Give them a run. Hardly any bowler starts off all guns blazing.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Thats exactly what they did with Peter Siddle when everyone wanted him dropped after the Perth test.

This "rotating door policy" has been pushed upon the selectors by injuries. Lee had to be replaced, Symonds was injured and needed to be replaced, McGain got injured before the first test in India. Krezja got belted innings after innings.

Its easy to say "oh, the selectors need to make their mind up" but its hard when the team is getting beaten and injuries are occuring. After Perth changes needed to be made, Krezja wasnt up to it.

 

[courtjester]

Yeah I suppose you're right, White, Casson and Krezja aren't sitting on the side lines because of a poor selection policy. Nor did Hauritz get cast aside whenever the selectors feel there is a better spin option. Picking guys who are neither great at either field but because they can do a little bit of both, is probably the way to go. Don't pick guys doubling their wicket takings or run scoring for the current season in domestic cricket.

As for the batting line-up, it doesn't go to five, it goes to six. Clarke is hardly a sure thing to play this test, so you're down to two guys that are making runs, Katich and Ponting. I wouldn't be surprised if he played though, we sure like taking injuries into a test. Hussey's run of form is comparable with Hayden's, while North and Hughes are exactly that, debutants.

We are deciding on Hilfenhaus, Boilinger, Johnson and Siddle. All of whom are strike bowlers. McDonald is a trundler and then you've got an untried spinner in McGain. Can you imagine, four debutants going into the first test of a series? It won't happen. They'll just drop whoever didn't perform. Which is the point, almost the entire Australian team will be expendable over the next year.

I don't get what you're whinging about the selectors for. What more can they do?
White should not play tests again unless his batting improves and he can bat at 6.
Krejza would have to be the most overhyped guy ever. He picked up a few wickets and everyone went off. He just bowls big turning long-hops that are very very hittable.
I don't know much about Casson, but he hasn't set the world on fire.
McGain was ALWAYS going to get a run before injury and with MacGills untimely retirement. That's why Hauritz will make way, McGain is more likely to win us a test.

And as for being expendable, I'd say we're in transition mode. Siddle is going to be very very good I think. We got beaten by a FAR better team than us in Australia, but the defeats weren't comprehensive, which makes me think we have a fair bit to work with over the next year.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Funny how the stuff you're whinging about doesn't make sense. I mean if the gap isn't so great then you'd think we don't have that much work to do to close it. If McGain was always going to get a run, then where was he in the West Indies? Shane Warne's first test, really set the world on fire didn't he. White should never have played a test match nor been in a test touring side, yet played four.

Far from having a set test team, we've had inconsistent selections and poor selections at that. It doesn't help a player knowing that one day they're in the side on a whim and the other day they're out. Krezja has played two tests in two different series in two different continents on two different wickets. Why select him at all? You select people who you think are the long term option. If a player is injured, you select next man in to give them the taste and then hopefully they can slot straight in when required.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

You'd be a good journo mate, just keep over-stating everything. You don't pick guys who you think are a "long term option". WTF does that mean?

Does it mean that you pick a guy who probably isn't ready to play test cricket but you pick him anyway to give him experience?

Lots of phrases are put out there by people but they don't really mean much.

Lets look at the facts. Krezja has played 2 test matchs and gone for 100 runs in each innings his bowled. You simply cant keep picking a guy that goes for those many runs because it compromises the entire bowling lineup. People have been saying Krezja was unlucky to be dropped. I cant see how, the way I look at it is that he was very lucky to ever be picked. Our only spinner at the moment is McGain, when he was injured in India we had no-one else. Its easy to slam the selectors then but who could have they picked.

It's also hard to have a "set team" when you have been losing games of cricket which is what happened to us in Australia. It's pretty simple. We have also had a few injuries, so its pretty hard to maintain a "set" side if you have players breaking down combined with losing games of cricket.

Right now we are not selecting the side with a "long term view". We are selecting the side based primarily on the best option to win the series against South Africa. The selectors have to be acknowledged for sticking with Siddle when you consider the push for him to be dropped after the Perth test. Now people are talking about SIddle being on of our strikers, it puts it into perspective how young our side is.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Lots of phrases are put out there by people but they don't really mean much.

Like "looking to the future".

 

[Ill Chicken]

You'd be a good journo mate, just keep over-stating everything. You don't pick guys who you think are a "long term option". WTF does that mean?

It means you pick Phillip Hughes because you think he is going to play the next 10 years, even if he averages 35 to 40 for the first couple.

Does it mean that you pick a guy who probably isn't ready to play test cricket but you pick him anyway to give him experience?

Phillip Hughes?

Lots of phrases are put out there by people but they don't really mean much.

Is that an example?

Lets look at the facts. Krezja has played 2 test matchs and gone for 100 runs in each innings his bowled. You simply cant keep picking a guy that goes for those many runs because it compromises the entire bowling lineup.

But picking two injured players, one an all-rounder and the other a strike bowler, doesn't?

People have been saying Krezja was unlucky to be dropped. I cant see how, the way I look at it is that he was very lucky to ever be picked. Our only spinner at the moment is McGain, when he was injured in India we had no-one else. Its easy to slam the selectors then but who could have they picked.

McGain is overlooked for the West Indies tests for an unfit Magill and debutant Casson. Magill retires half way through the series. Casson plays one test and is dropped from the squad. McGain and Krezja are picked for the India series. McGain is injured and White is his replacement. White comes in ahead of Krezja, plays all four tests. Clark is dropped for Krezja in the final test. White and Krezja don't play in the Brisbane and Adelaide against New Zealand. Hauritz's plays in Adelaide for an injured Krezja. Hauritz is dropped for Krezja in Perth. Krezja is dropped for Hauritz in Melbourne. Hauritz goes onto play in Sydney and is selected for the South African tour along with a returning McGain.

Yeah the selectors really know what is going on.

It's also hard to have a "set team" when you have been losing games of cricket which is what happened to us in Australia. It's pretty simple. We have also had a few injuries, so its pretty hard to maintain a "set" side if you have players breaking down combined with losing games of cricket.

But taking them into a match is worthwhile still. So basically, you lose two players and two players on the sideline lose a game.

Right now we are not selecting the side with a "long term view". We are selecting the side based primarily on the best option to win the series against South Africa.

So would that mean that each player in the squad is expendable?

The selectors have to be acknowledged for sticking with Siddle when you consider the push for him to be dropped after the Perth test. Now people are talking about SIddle being on of our strikers, it puts it into perspective how young our side is.

Some people would call it inexperience.

 

[courtjester]

McGain is overlooked for the West Indies tests for an unfit Magill and debutant Casson. Magill retires half way through the series. Casson plays one test and is dropped from the squad. McGain and Krezja are picked for the India series. McGain is injured and White is his replacement. White comes in ahead of Krezja, plays all four tests. Clark is dropped for Krezja in the final test. White and Krezja don't play in the Brisbane and Adelaide against New Zealand. Hauritz's plays in Adelaide for an injured Krezja. Hauritz is dropped for Krezja in Perth. Krezja is dropped for Hauritz in Melbourne. Hauritz goes onto play in Sydney and is selected for the South African tour along with a returning McGain.

Yeah the selectors really know what is going on.

No one knew MacGill would retire when he did. Nor should they have known. It was expected MacGill would play for 2-3 more years after Warne (and do a good job of it). Casson was there not expecting to play at all. Hauritz is our best off-spinner currently, McGain is our best leg-spinner. The selectors can't do more than that. They dropped Krejza cos he leaks runs. Hauritz doesn't do that.

Funny how the stuff you're whinging about doesn't make sense. I mean if the gap isn't so great then you'd think we don't have that much work to do to close it.

I don't think we do. SA are a powerful side, but with the squad we have at the moment we will challenge them in SA and be contenders the next few years. They (SA) are going to be a very very good side for 5 years, no one denies that.

It means you pick Phillip Hughes because you think he is going to play the next 10 years, even if he averages 35 to 40 for the first couple.

No one is arguing with this. Jaques has been injured and hasn't made runs this year. Rogers seems out of favor for some reason. Hughes is very much ready for test cricket, and the best option.

 

[King Elvis]

Ill Chicken is 100% correct; very poor selections played a major part in both the Series loss to India and South Africa.

Playing White fullstop. The stuffing around with the spinners in India.

Playing an out of form Symonds. Playing an injured Symonds.

The stupid fixation on all-rounders.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

WTF, both White and Krezja played in the 4th test?

LOL at those who actually think poor selections lost us the series.

If a cricket team is losing cricket games, which is what happened in India and our home summer then changes are going to be made.

Krezja was rightly not picked in India for the first 3 test matchs, he was bowling poorly in the nets and hadnt adjusted to the required length. Our gameplan and had been based around fast bowling and using reverse swing (as we did in 2004). Cameron White was selected to provide some part time spin to rest the paceman and keep it relatively tight. He also bolstered the batting, he performed well in the role he was selected for. He was never ment to be a wicket taker.

Krezja was bought in for the last test and as the last roll of the dice. He did alright, but his record suggests that it was fluke. He played in Perth and bowled poorly, leaking too many runs at such a rate that winning the game becomes impossible. TO select him for another match would basically concede the series to SA. He had to be replaced and Haurtiz did a pretty good job.

Once McGain was fit he'd take Hauritz's spot. Your argument that the selectors are rotating the side too much is based primarily on events such as injuries, pretty weak argument.

The side is selected to win the series it is contesting, or the match, if the player is 35 or 20, if his good enough he plays. Stuff developing the side with young players, the best way to develop a side is too win cricket matchs.

 

[krusden]

WTF, both White and Krezja played in the 4th test?

LOL at those who actually think poor selections lost us the series.

If a cricket team is losing cricket games, which is what happened in India and our home summer then changes are going to be made.

Krezja was rightly not picked in India for the first 3 test matchs, he was bowling poorly in the nets and hadnt adjusted to the required length. Our gameplan and had been based around fast bowling and using reverse swing (as we did in 2004). Cameron White was selected to provide some part time spin to rest the paceman and keep it relatively tight. He also bolstered the batting, he performed well in the role he was selected for. He was never ment to be a wicket taker.

Krezja was bought in for the last test and as the last roll of the dice. He did alright, but his record suggests that it was fluke. He played in Perth and bowled poorly, leaking too many runs at such a rate that winning the game becomes impossible. TO select him for another match would basically concede the series to SA. He had to be replaced and Haurtiz did a pretty good job.

Once McGain was fit he'd take Hauritz's spot. Your argument that the selectors are rotating the side too much is based primarily on events such as injuries, pretty weak argument.

The side is selected to win the series it is contesting, or the match, if the player is 35 or 20, if his good enough he plays. Stuff developing the side with young players, the best way to develop a side is too win cricket matchs.

To be fair to Krazy LTD - perth is a shite ground for spinners. He should not have been played there and they shoulda replaced him wiv a quick for that test.
Mcgain or horrorwitz would have leaked runs in perth.

 

[Ill Chicken]

WTF, both White and Krezja played in the 4th test?

LOL at those who actually think poor selections lost us the series.

If a cricket team is losing cricket games, which is what happened in India and our home summer then changes are going to be made.

Krezja was rightly not picked in India for the first 3 test matchs, he was bowling poorly in the nets and hadnt adjusted to the required length. Our gameplan and had been based around fast bowling and using reverse swing (as we did in 2004). Cameron White was selected to provide some part time spin to rest the paceman and keep it relatively tight. He also bolstered the batting, he performed well in the role he was selected for. He was never ment to be a wicket taker.

Krezja was bought in for the last test and as the last roll of the dice. He did alright, but his record suggests that it was fluke. He played in Perth and bowled poorly, leaking too many runs at such a rate that winning the game becomes impossible. TO select him for another match would basically concede the series to SA. He had to be replaced and Haurtiz did a pretty good job.

Once McGain was fit he'd take Hauritz's spot. Your argument that the selectors are rotating the side too much is based primarily on events such as injuries, pretty weak argument.

The side is selected to win the series it is contesting, or the match, if the player is 35 or 20, if his good enough he plays. Stuff developing the side with young players, the best way to develop a side is too win cricket matchs.

I don't know how to respond to above because parts don't make sense and other parts are completely fictitious. Either way, it supports what I'm saying, which is the new name for the this Australian team is The Expendables.

 

[blackhead&boil]

the selectors have not been good a particularly great job for quite a while, now. I'm sure they have had something to do with the current state of the side. they seem to have blinded themselves to the fact they needed to gradually phase out some of the old players and start blooding the new ones. instead they have played the oldies into the ground until they are performing well below their best (eg. hayden), and have now been forced to introduce a bunch of brand new players all at the same time. it's a real shame because you would like to have integrated the new guys with the experienced ones so they can learn more from them and retain the same winning culture and attitude. now a lot of that will have gone to waste and we have had to start it all from scratch...

 

[XFactor1979]

question should be raised if the players dropped will make their way back into the side

to name them:

jaques
bollinger
and krejza...

it seems jaques's back will hamper his test career

im not sure about doug bollinger as a test match bowler...

and krejza is seen to be a two test wonder, he might as well have been a one test wonder instead

 

[XFactor1979]

oh and brett lee...

i totally sympathise with him...

going through... whatever, is almost as bad as having stress fractures in the back

 

[Spudregus_87]

WTF, both White and Krezja played in the 4th test?

LOL at those who actually think poor selections lost us the series.

If a cricket team is losing cricket games, which is what happened in India and our home summer then changes are going to be made.

Krezja was rightly not picked in India for the first 3 test matchs, he was bowling poorly in the nets and hadnt adjusted to the required length. Our gameplan and had been based around fast bowling and using reverse swing (as we did in 2004). Cameron White was selected to provide some part time spin to rest the paceman and keep it relatively tight. He also bolstered the batting, he performed well in the role he was selected for. He was never ment to be a wicket taker.

Krezja was bought in for the last test and as the last roll of the dice. He did alright, but his record suggests that it was fluke. He played in Perth and bowled poorly, leaking too many runs at such a rate that winning the game becomes impossible. TO select him for another match would basically concede the series to SA. He had to be replaced and Haurtiz did a pretty good job.

Once McGain was fit he'd take Hauritz's spot. Your argument that the selectors are rotating the side too much is based primarily on events such as injuries, pretty weak argument.

The side is selected to win the series it is contesting, or the match, if the player is 35 or 20, if his good enough he plays. Stuff developing the side with young players, the best way to develop a side is too win cricket matchs.

Beautifully put champ

 

[courtjester]

Suddenly they don't seem so Expendable.

Ponting and Clarke- runs as usual
Siddle- 6 wickets
Johnson- runs and 8 wickets
Hilfenhaus- tidy figures and key wickets
McDonald- very tight bowling
North- 100 on debut
Hughes- got runs
Haddin- got important runs

All get a pass mark. Only men who didn't contribute much in the test was Katich and Hussey. It was a good team win.

Probably the only changes to make to the current team are McGain in for McDonald (depending on conditions) and possibly S.Clark in for Hilf?

This victory has just made it a little harder for Symonds and Lee to force their way back into the team I reckon.

 

[Blue Dimension]

question should be raised if the players dropped will make their way back into the side

to name them:

jaques
bollinger
and krejza...

it seems jaques's back will hamper his test career

im not sure about doug bollinger as a test match bowler...

and krejza is seen to be a two test wonder, he might as well have been a one test wonder instead

There's no information to suggest Jaques has not fully recovered from his back injury. He's struggling to find form upon his comeback but saying his back is bothering him is totally unfounded.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Suddenly they don't seem so Expendable.

This isn't some one test situation I'm commenting upon. It is for the next 10 tests at least. I'm backing at least one change per test. McDonald, Hilfenhaus and Hughes have by no way cemented themselves in the side, while Hussey is averaging 31 in his last 16 tests. North has obviously got himself a trip to the UK at this stage.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Hopefully this era is now over.