The selectors

[The Speaker]

This thread is amusing.

 

[Outshined]

Doherty the would be saviour.

Please.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Doherty the would be saviour.

Please.

On this pitch, Doherty was surely a better option than Starc?

 

[Caesar]

Starc wasn't really a bad choice going in. He hits the deck hard, which is what made Pattinson so successful, and has a good yorker (which is useful on a track that gives you nothing). If you were going to play pacemen you could have done worse.

He didn't play very well but I don't think he was that bad a selection.

 

[Hayesuel]

The real **** up here is taking Doherty on tour in the first place. Never ever good enough, a proven failure at test level which is even more insane. Not picked by Clarke as he has zero confidence in him. That selection has thrown the balance of the team into question. Smith/Maxwell are worse than Clarke.

If O'keefe is in that team over say Starc or Siddle, results may not look quite as disastrous as they do now with a probable 10 wicket loss.

If they are going to pick best 11 not 11 for the conditions, you better hope your top 6 is up to scratch. Cowan, Hughes, Wade are all walking wickets at the moment.

 

[The_Reaper]

The real **** up here is taking Doherty on tour in the first place. Never ever good enough, a proven failure at test level which is even more insane. Not picked by Clarke as he has zero confidence in him. That selection has thrown the balance of the team into question. Smith/Maxwell are worse than Clarke.

If O'keefe is in that team over say Starc or Siddle, results may not look quite as disastrous as they do now with a probable 10 wicket loss.

If they are going to pick best 11 not 11 for the conditions, you better hope your top 6 is up to scratch. Cowan, Hughes, Wade are all walking wickets at the moment.

Clarke was on the selection panel that selected Doherty

 

[BarneyBent]

Clarke was on the selection panel that selected Doherty

That still doesn't mean that much. He's one member of 5.

I actually don't think Doherty would do that badly on these sorts of pitches, could be similar to Jadeja.

 

[The_Reaper]

That still doesn't mean that much. He's one member of 5.

I actually don't think Doherty would do that badly on these sorts of pitches, could be similar to Jadeja.

They wouldn't have selected a bloke if Clarke indicated that he had no confidence in him.

 

[Hayesuel]

They wouldn't have selected a bloke if Clarke indicated that he had no confidence in him.

Doherty is contracted to Cricket Australia, O'Keefe for example is not. May be a case of making do with what's available. There are obviously exceptions, Bird is also not contracted but they've got Doherty on a nice retainer of $230,000k.

Someone is accountable. If Clarke wanted him on tour i cant see how he wasnt picked given the conditions. Clarke definitely has a stronger say in the 12 that make the team sheet each test. Given that Doherty wasnt picked may speak a little louder.

 

[The_Reaper]

Doherty is contracted to Cricket Australia, O'Keefe for example is not. May be a case of making do with what's available. There are obviously exceptions, Bird is also not contracted but they've got Doherty on a nice retainer of $230,000k.

Someone is accountable. If Clarke wanted him on tour i cant see how he wasnt picked given the conditions. Clarke definitely has a stronger say in the 12 that make the team sheet each test. Given that Doherty wasnt picked may speak a little louder.

Perhaps Clarke thinks that Doherty is the second best fit spinner in the country?

 

[Caesar]

Clarke's primary job is as a player and captain of the existing team. He spends most of his time touring; he rarely makes an appearance in the Shield. He doesn't have time to do the scouting and so forth that helps selectors decide when this player or that player is ready is ready to make the step up to international level. It's the rest of the selection board who attend matches and see how guys like Butterworth or Agar or O'Keefe or whoever is playing.

Based on that, I suspect that when everyone sits down at the selection table to pick a squad, he probably mostly defers to the other selectors when it comes to evaluating players who haven't debuted at the international level yet.

On the other hand, he probably has a great deal of influence when it comes to deciding on the final XI to take the park.

 

[Hayesuel]

Perhaps Clarke thinks that Doherty is the second best fit spinner in the country?

Could well be true. If so, Clarke and Arthur must shoulder a large portion of the blame for the outcome of this test based on the 11 selected.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Could well be true. If so, Clarke and Arthur must shoulder a large portion of the blame for the outcome of this test based on the 11 selected.

Yep.

At least in page 2 of this thread we've moved on from the term "The Selectors" as if they were a bunch of faceless men and begun referring to some of them by name. Just to refresh everyone's memory - Inverarity, Rod Marsh, Andy Bichel, Pup and Arthur.

Clarke is not only a selector but he also has plenty to say in the media about selection issues. He has to wear the selection disaster that was the first test and the touring squad as much as the other selectors.

Personally, I've always had my doubts about the wisdom of making the captain a permanent selector but that's for another thread. I have even more concern however about the captain/selector regularly commenting on selection issues. If there's ever been a bigger recipe for team disharmony I'd like to see it. If Pup must be a selector he'd do well to politely decline to publicly discuss selection issues and defer to the chairman of selectors (though after the "We intentionally shielded Hughes from the South African attack" comment I've got my doubts about him saying too much publicly too.

And while I'm in rant mode, was there a reason we announced our starting eleven a full 24 hours (at least) before the match started? There used to be a view that you kept the other team guessing until after the coin toss. I'm not sure it would have made any difference, but unless there's a reason I can't fathom why you'd do it.

 

[Caesar]

ITT: People who overrate the impact of team selection.

 

[Gough]

ITT: People who overrate the impact of team selection.

To be fair man, picking only one spinner for this game was a bit of a balls up.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Clarke's primary job is as a player and captain of the existing team. He spends most of his time touring; he rarely makes an appearance in the Shield. He doesn't have time to do the scouting and so forth that helps selectors decide when this player or that player is ready is ready to make the step up to international level.

If so, why on earth is he a national selector?

 

[Caesar]

To be fair man, picking only one spinner for this game was a bit of a balls up.

We've won a shedload more matches in India playing one spinner than two spinners, and we've often had much better spinners at our disposal than we do now. If we'd played two spinners and they'd both gone for 200, everyone would be saying we should have played to our strengths and picked a full pace battery because that's how we won in 2004.

Blaming selection is mostly a way for people to get around the uncomfortable idea that perhaps our opponents have better players than we do.

 

[Gough]

We've won a shedload more matches in India playing one spinner than two spinners, and we've often had much better spinners at our disposal than we do now. If we'd played two spinners and they'd both gone for 200, everyone would be saying we should have played to our strengths and picked a full pace battery because that's how we won in 2004.

Blaming selection is mostly a way for people to get around the uncomfortable idea that perhaps our opponents have better players than we do.

I agree that it is most likely for Indian conditions the Australian players aren't really up to it.
I was taught by Inverarity at school and have a massive amount of respect for him, he's usually the smartest guy in the room and should have been Australian captain during WSC.
Cricket is a cyclical game and I suspect for many on here this is the first time they are witnessing an Australian team that isn't jam packed full of once in a generation players.

 

[Caesar]

If so, why on earth is he a national selector?

He can offer opinions on the players he's familiar with, which is most of the guys who are around the national setup. And he can offer opinions on who he wants to see take the field, based on what he's seen in camp.

It's pretty obvious that the other selectors are going to have better knowledge of what's happening in the Shield with uncapped players than he is, though. That's just a matter of practicality.

There are good arguments for and against the captain being part of the selection panel.

 

[BarneyBent]

To be fair man, picking only one spinner for this game was a bit of a balls up.

Picking a second spinner for the tour, and then not picking him for the game was a bit of a balls up. It may not have made a difference, but it sends a very confusing signal when you talk about playing 2 spinners and then pick 1 on one of the driest, dustiest pitchers you're ever likely to see.

 

[Black Diamond]

We've won a shedload more matches in India playing one spinner than two spinners, and we've often had much better spinners at our disposal than we do now. If we'd played two spinners and they'd both gone for 200, everyone would be saying we should have played to our strengths and picked a full pace battery because that's how we won in 2004.

Blaming selection is mostly a way for people to get around the uncomfortable idea that perhaps our opponents have better players than we do.

Not often I agree with anything you post but this is exactly correct.

Lyon is our best spinner, he bowling lacked control and he was smashed. The idea that picking a second spinner who isn't as good Lyon to play too is absurd.

Three fast bowlers is our strength. If Bird was fit I'd seriously entertain playing him instead of Lyon because at very least Bird won't be as expensive. No change to the bowling lineup for me.

 

[Caesar]

If you're agreeing with me, I might have to rethink things.

 

[bird_man]

The selectors would look ridiculous if we went with a similar attack. 3 of the 4 pacemen never looked like getting a wicket, not a lot will change next test so why try something we know will fail again?

 

[western royboy]

Remember the days when the SCG turned? Some of you probably can't but I certainly can. We would regularly roll out a spinner hell any spinner and we would usually win. Peter Sleep, Murray Bennett, Dutchy Holland, Peter Taylor, hell even Border himself - all good bowlers in their own right but hardly in the Test Spinners Hall of Fame - yet they always played in tandem when we played on a deck that was going to turn.

Easy to be wise after the event but many warned we had an unbalanced side given the the facts are India played 2.5 and we played 1 and got duly butt ****ed as a result.

It's the equivalent to turning up to a green wicket at Headingly on an overcast day and saying "spin bowling is our strength - let's play three" -it wouldn't happen and it shouldn't of happened here - pick sides according to form and conditions.

 

[bird_man]

Remember the days when the SCG turned? Some of you probably can't but I certainly can. We would regularly roll out a spinner hell any spinner and we would usually win. Peter Sleep, Murray Bennett, Dutchy Holland, Peter Taylor, hell even Border himself - all good bowlers in their own right but hardly in the Test Spinners Hall of Fame - yet they always played in tandem when we played on a deck that was going to turn.

Easy to be wise after the event but many warned we had an unbalanced side given the the facts are India played 2.5 and we played 1 and got duly butt screwed as a result.

It's the equivalent to turning up to a green wicket at Headingly on an overcast day and saying "spin bowling is our strength - let's play three" -it wouldn't happen and it shouldn't of happened here - pick sides according to form and conditions.

Best post on this thread by a mile.