Tim Nielsen

[Doodlesweaver]

I've heard from numerous people, in both Victoria, SA and WA, that Nielsen is more of a hindrance than a help.

This tour has been a pretty much unmitigated disaster. Won nothing in the other formats, plus drawn a test series against a team full of politics and rookies (with a very fine team of bowlers, I'll admit).

But nothing will happen. There won't probably be even a token scapegoat in North. But it will be panic stations after the Ashes.

 

[Ill Chicken]

There doesn't seem to be that much drive about the team in comparison to when Buck was running it.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

There doesn't seem to be that much drive about the team in comparison to when Buck was running it.

Yes, they seem so lifeless so often on the pitch. No tension at all out there.

That screams a lack of confidence to me.

 

[King Elvis]

This tour has been a pretty much unmitigated disaster. Won nothing in the other formats, plus drawn a test series against a team full of politics and rookies (with a very fine team of bowlers, I'll admit).

But nothing will happen. There won't probably be even a token scapegoat in North. But it will be panic stations after the Ashes.

You think?

The home Saffer Series was a disaster.

The Indian Series before that was a disaster.

The last Ashes Tour was a disaster.


**** all happened; we have a spineless and content Administration and Coaching setup.

Get AB in there somewhere, he wont tolerate this pathetic mediocrity.

 

[mattymac]

although his rubbishness is indisputable, its not just nielsen. its CA to the core. they're so bloody conservative and its such an old boys club. its almost impossible for anyone to lose their spot, whether coaching staff, admin or selectors. they're a bunch of underachieving nepotists. all scared to rock the boat with new ways of thinking. sticking to rigid selection formulas and matchplans and incapable of thinking on their feet and changing tack midcourse for fear of appearing weak/ appearing to have been forced by their opponents into backing down. its a 'not one step back' mentality that leaves us exposed when our opponents do find our range.

and it sh1ts me no end how none of them can admit failure. they make ad hoc decisions (eg- elevating watson to open the batting because johnson was having a brain fart and they scapegoated hughes) and then act as if it was the result of long term planning and never back down from it. generally we prefer to let injuries do the selection for us.

someone needs to come along with a big f'n broom and sweep out CA from top to bottom. there needs to be more accountability for not performing at all levels. players, selectors, coaching staff.

nielsen should go, hilditch and co should go, cooley is about as useful as **** on a bull now we all know it wasn't his masterly coaching but lollie spit that engineered the poms' prodigious reverse swing in 2005. ponting's days as captain must be numbered aswell.

we need a border or a simpson type figure who focuses on results and achievement not jargon and computer generated models and excuses and what not. unfortunately we're not gonna get one. it won't surprise me at all if the more flexible and merit based english set up triumphs in the ashes on our own turf. /end rant

 

[Take Aim]

Australia has been a moderate team for a year or two now.

People are still in denial.

Is changing the coach really going to make a difference? Is sacking the selectors really going to do much? Is changing the side every few games going to do anything.

The answer is no. In fact, doing all of that will probably make the situation worse.

By no means am I saying you have to accept losing. All I am saying, is that you shoud probably start getting used to it.

Really, apart from Ponting, there are no players in the lineup that strike fear into an opposition

 

[King Elvis]

The answer is yes, the Selectors have cost us at least two major series in the last couple of year, which should be enough to have them all sacked.

 

[Take Aim]

What two series have the selectors categorically cost us?

The Ashes were lost on the back of two shocking batting collapses. Yes, we should have played a spinner at the Oval. But did that lose us the match. No. The batting did.

The Australian public needs to reign back its expectation of the team. In all areas of life, one needs to be realistic. Yes, you can be optismitic, but at the end of the day, you still need to base your expectations on reality.

The fact of the matter is, this Australian team is prone to dramatic batting collapses, especially when the ball is moving. Hell, the ball doesn't even have to be seaming or swinging, a few months ago we lost 7/60 against New Zealand.

Until the batting is sorted it out, we will continue to lose just as many games as we win. Sorting the batting out will take time. Sacking selectors, sacking coachs, won't make a damn difference.

 

[King Elvis]

The South African series at home, without question.

They were a factor in the loss of the away Indian and Ashes Series as well.

How do you sort the batting out though mate?

By leaving North in the side? By refusing to tweak the order?

 

[Take Aim]

If you drop North, then he has to be replaced.

I don't think Smith is the answer at this stage. I'd toy with the idea of dropping Watson to 6 and reinstating Hughes, but at this point in time Hughes is recovering from shoulder surgery so that scenario is void.

Outside of that, I don't see Smith or Uwaja (sp) as viable options before 2 big series. I'd back North over both of those players. England are sending a very inexperienced attack under Australian conditions, and I'd back our current order to take the long handle to them.

The time has passed to make changes to this side outside injuries or unless there was a player that was in such red-hot form that they could simply not be ignored. At this point, in the off-season, there won't be many chances for these players to push for selection.

The best bet is to hold tight with the current order. Review the team after the Ashes, make the changes you need to following any retirements or omissions and then move forward.

As I said, it is harsh to drop North after 2 tests when he had very little prior preparation for the series, and especially after his work in NZ.

 

[King Elvis]

Yea, you're probably right mate, I guess I'd argue that we need to have the balls to make the big calls, but the reality is, those calls should've been made at the start of last Summer, where somebody like Khawaja or Hughes could settle in for 12 months before the Ashes.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Yea, you're probably right mate, I guess I'd argue that we need to have the balls to make the big calls, but the reality is, those calls should've been made at the start of last Summer, where somebody like Khawaja or Hughes could settle in for 12 months before the Ashes.

In some ways I am inclined to agree that it feels like shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic and they really have missed the boat by not going with younger players after the Ashes. The SCG against Pakistan was a real turning point. If they had lost that one, heads might have rolled. (Though I doubt it). They've just lost a test match almost a match replay and not too much in the way of heads rolling will happen. Again.

However, if another team in the top 3 went on tour, lost the ODI series, then the 20/20 series then drew a test series against a team much lower in the rankings, do you think changes would be made to at least a couple of the members of the respective squads? I suspect they would have to be.

But our selectors prize continuity overall. Plus the skipper's form has been so poor that it's difficult to look at dropping other players when he is performing so poorly at 3.

And having a continual rotation of bowlers through injury gives the selectors the perfect excuse. Lack of experience, not our strongest teams, just coming back from injury, so on and so forth.

 

[Ill Chicken]

The issue with North is that he is a poor man's Brad Hodge or Martin Love or any other player that has come into the side for an intermittent period. North could have been moved on for Hughes at the end of last summer. Hughes could then have moved backed to the opening position once Watson's purple patch had worn off. Watson could have slipped back to five or six with Hussey, while Clarke should have been at number four at least two years ago.

From there they can push Hussey out after the Ashes which gives the option of Ferguson or Khawaja to come in. Even Klinger wouldn't be a bad option. Either way if they go with the young bloke, he is being groomed specifically to take the number three position once Ponting retires. From there all you have to worry about is Katich and then filling the number six position which could be Ferguson or Khawaja anyway. That would have the batting settled for the next couple of years anyway and the real opportunity here is that Paine looks good at test level, Haddin should be relegated to T20/ODI's.

Basically from my point of view, it looks as though Nielsen and the selectors have no foresight, pigeon hole players and don't play the best eleven. Shane Watson is going to get an extended run opening the batting, then they'll give him an extended run in the middle order, then they'll consider dropping him. So instead of looking for one opener in a couple of years, we'll be looking for two.

The bowling selections over the last few years, are another story completely and worse in comparison.

 

[GreekLunatic]

Tim Nielsen is a dud coach. The way he talks makes u feel like he has no clue what he is going on about. Its ironic our lowest score in the last years is under him.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Tim Nielsen is a dud coach. The way he talks makes u feel like he has no clue what he is going on about. Its ironic our lowest score in the last years is under him.

You are not wrong. Look at this quote from after the first day debacle at Headingley.

""I would prefer that we were exposed to these experiences now than (for) the first time it happens to be in an Ashes series which everyone is going to be focusing on."

He is speaking as though this is the first time the Aussies have collapsed. And like we've never collapsed before in an Ashes series. Duh. There is spin... and there is stupidity.

"We have got a couple of young blokes who are playing in their second Test match, we have got a young bowling attack, we have got five or six players I think in this squad who are just starting their Test match careers, so I don't think it is a worry, it is exciting that they be exposed to this sort of pressure and understand that Test match cricket is not easy."

He always speaks about the 'youth' of our team. Which sounds lame if you look at the comparative ages and number of test matches played by the opposition, especially in this case. And if you consider that most of our players are closer to 30 than 20, (Smith is the only one without much first class experience) and at least 4 of them are over 30.

 

[saj_21]

You are not wrong. Look at this quote from after the first day debacle at Headingley.

""I would prefer that we were exposed to these experiences now than (for) the first time it happens to be in an Ashes series which everyone is going to be focusing on."

He is speaking as though this is the first time the Aussies have collapsed. And like we've never collapsed before in an Ashes series. Duh. There is spin... and there is stupidity.

"We have got a couple of young blokes who are playing in their second Test match, we have got a young bowling attack, we have got five or six players I think in this squad who are just starting their Test match careers, so I don't think it is a worry, it is exciting that they be exposed to this sort of pressure and understand that Test match cricket is not easy."

He always speaks about the 'youth' of our team. Which sounds lame if you look at the comparative ages and number of test matches played by the opposition, especially in this case. And if you consider that most of our players are closer to 30 than 20, (Smith is the only one without much first class experience) and at least 4 of them are over 30.

Raise some good points there, arguably Paine and Smith were two of our better performed players in that series. Our bowling line up may be inexperienced but it is not youthful, Hilf 27 Bollinger 29 Johnson 28 have all played enough first class cricket to be experienced. The bowling sides looks promising considering we have Hauritz, Siddle and Harris all out of the side. The batting is horrendous, north needs to be dropped and replacements need to be found for Ponting, Katich and Hussey who all have 2 years in them at best.

 

[sudzz]

I think coaches are hardly the issue for Australia, what surprises me as an outsider is the amazing lack of quality in the new comers to the team.

I remember an era when people like Bevan, Law, Moody, etc came on and performed right away and more than the above mentioned even Hussey, Katich etc came in and delivered right away.

But currently in the last couple of years the new comers have not had either the aura or the ability to play for Australia and would have never been selected in a team led by Waugh, Taylor or even by Ponting at the start of his captaincy.

I think either the supply chain is badly messed up or that selectors are perpetrating some kind of a sick joke on the team.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Australia has been a moderate team for a year or two now.

People are still in denial.

Is changing the coach really going to make a difference? Is sacking the selectors really going to do much? Is changing the side every few games going to do anything.

The answer is no. In fact, doing all of that will probably make the situation worse.

By no means am I saying you have to accept losing. All I am saying, is that you shoud probably start getting used to it.

Really, apart from Ponting, there are no players in the lineup that strike fear into an opposition

There's no doubt we are not near where we were 5 years ago, BUT

- Selectors dropping Hughes after 2 bad tests, shooting his confidence in the process, whilst keeping North for a long dry patch.
- Not picking Clark in the early tests of the Ashes series, he killed it in Headingly and would've been good in Cardiff and Lords, maybe Birmingham. Oval wasnt his wicket at all.
- The batting lineup has been all wrong for a while now, in order and in players. It's seen us collapsing and yet nothing has been said about it.

We could be in a better position than we are with better selection. I dont know how much of a difference a coach can make, but Nielson does seem like a dropkick.

 

[Take Aim]

Look, Clark had lost it. He was lucky to be in the Ashes squad IMO.

The selectors have to juggle the need to look ahead to the future, and the need to address the current fixtures as they come up. I think they have done a decent job at that task.

If you want to totally rebuild and play the kids then you have to be prepared to deal with the consquences of playing inexperienced players like Smith, Uwaja (sp) and Hughes. They will be on some days, and others it will be a disaster.

Are any of those guys really a better bet than North at this point?

The ony alternative I can see is to drop Watson to #6 and play Hughes in the opening spot. Hughes is currently injured, so that is not a valid configuration at this point in time.

When we lose, it's very easy to throw your hands up and say, 'play this kid, drop him'. But at the end of the day, if you do that you just end up going in circles.

Decide on a configuration, and give it a good run.

 

[YOTC]

Look, Clark had lost it. He was lucky to be in the Ashes squad IMO.

Clark was averaging 22. Had an injury, never got his spot back. Just amazed me how we shunted him.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Clark was averaging 22. Had an injury, never got his spot back. Just amazed me how we shunted him.

Clark was down to about 82 mph tops. He was never going to be a long term choice due to this.

Really, they might as well have stuck with Andy Mac if they were going to go down that route, he is a fair bit faster, equally accurate and can bat.

 

[Bomber Bears]

Clark, of course, did want to go and play county cricket to ensure fitness for the Ashes. Then got selected for ODI's in the UAE ffs.
And you can talk about long term options all you want, in the Ashes you choose your best squad. Im sure Clark would've been much more effective than Shitchell Johnsons express pace at Lords.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Clark, of course, did want to go and play county cricket to ensure fitness for the Ashes. Then got selected for ODI's in the UAE ffs.
And you can talk about long term options all you want, in the Ashes you choose your best squad. Im sure Clark would've been much more effective than Shitchell Johnsons express pace at Lords.

You are being revisionist. There is no way after the tour of South Africa that he'd just had, a player coming back from injury was going to jump ahead of Johnson.

They might now and frankly I wouldn't complain at all, I'm fed up with his inconsistency but not then.

I remember them calling Stuart Clark over to the Pakistan series. He was very good about it as he obviously didn't want to go, had never been a first pick for ODI's and wanted to play long-format matches. It was a dumb call by the selectors and appeared so even at the time, but we are used to that now.

 

[Take Aim]

Clark was averaging 22. Had an injury, never got his spot back. Just amazed me how we shunted him.

Got smashed in India before getting injured.


When Clark made his debut in test cricket in early 2006, very successfully it must be said, everyone knew that at best, we'd get 4 years out of him.

That we did.

He was probably unfairly shunted in a way, but the 3 quicks in Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Johnson did the job in SA and we wanted to play a spinner.

International cricket is very harsh.

 

[YOTC]

wah wah wah.

Back again?