War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
The state of test cricket post Australia's 1995-2006/07 decline
- Thread starter War
- Start date
^Bandwagoning if you ask me. I remember reading this sort of stuff after England won the Ashes a year and a half ago. SA have some talented players, but not THAT talented. They haven't really conquered everyone on the cricket calendar either eg. couldn't beat Australia or India at home last year.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
actually, reading some of your posts back War is maybe the first time I agree with one of your complaints about the ranking system.
I agree it seems ridiculous that we hold a big party and present a trophy every time a team makes it to no.1 like that is an achievement in itself when it could happen several times a year.
it would be like presenting a trophy to man u, man city, liverpool, arsenal or chelsea (what have spurs ever done to you?) every time they reached the top of the table instead of at the end of the season.
don't think it discredits india's rise as you think though, they held it for a significant period and using the above example it's not like you could say manchester city are denied the premier league title because when they played united rooney and nani were injured. or say "well, man united actually were all over everton when they drew 1-1 so you have to count that as a win."
but i do think if the no.1 ranking is to be a big deal there needs to be a more explicit time frame, either like in tennis where they consider the season over at the end of the year (maybe in cricket 2 years would be more appropriate) and have a year end no.1 or preferably the test championship.
I agree it seems ridiculous that we hold a big party and present a trophy every time a team makes it to no.1 like that is an achievement in itself when it could happen several times a year.
it would be like presenting a trophy to man u, man city, liverpool, arsenal or chelsea (what have spurs ever done to you?) every time they reached the top of the table instead of at the end of the season.
don't think it discredits india's rise as you think though, they held it for a significant period and using the above example it's not like you could say manchester city are denied the premier league title because when they played united rooney and nani were injured. or say "well, man united actually were all over everton when they drew 1-1 so you have to count that as a win."
but i do think if the no.1 ranking is to be a big deal there needs to be a more explicit time frame, either like in tennis where they consider the season over at the end of the year (maybe in cricket 2 years would be more appropriate) and have a year end no.1 or preferably the test championship.
^Yeah I mentioned this in the Eng-SA thread - we've got news article today talking about how England is back at #1 in ODIs again. 1 loss later this week and the articles will be reversed 
It's turning into a gimmick, and not the way it should be used.
It's turning into a gimmick, and not the way it should be used.
VC the slogger
PlanetCricket Forever
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2010
I think SA can stay at the top for a period if they don't become complacent like England and India did. They are more likely to stay as they are way better overseas that those two.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
yeah, I thought that innings by amla as the best of last year pretty much for that reason. there was a brutality about it designed to break a team as australia, clarke and hussey in particular, had been imovable at times in that series. That was the sort of step and be counted type innings by a player wants to be the best in the world and isn't afraid to show it. not particularly an attitude you'd associate with south africa until recently.
the lack of a spin bowler might not matter that much as long as they have so many good quicks. australia relied on warne to break down england and the saffers countless times away and that went against the grain of thought having a spinner cause havoc in a seam friendly country, if philander, steyn, morkel or whoever are getting purchase in asia even on dusty tracks who cares if they're not spinners.
the lack of a spin bowler might not matter that much as long as they have so many good quicks. australia relied on warne to break down england and the saffers countless times away and that went against the grain of thought having a spinner cause havoc in a seam friendly country, if philander, steyn, morkel or whoever are getting purchase in asia even on dusty tracks who cares if they're not spinners.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Ye they don't need a world-class spinner to be frank. The Windies of the 80s certainly dominated without one.
The only problem with S Africa as i always say that still concerns me is their quota/transformation (whatever they call it) policy. I have realized since it became prominent during the 2001/02 Australia tour incident with Ontong/Rudolph, is that S Africa have been able to get away with picking the odd token black/coloured player without merit, because the team has generally been good enough carry them.
Few times it has blown up in their faces like during the 2009/10 England series when Ntini clearly wasn't being dropped due to political influence even though he was passed it, for the in-form white bowler Fridel De Wet. Or the 2012 T20 world cup squad selection.
Looking at some of the recent players S Africa can easily get away with having Phangiso in over Van Der Merwe or Tsotsobe over Chris Morris/Kyle Abbot in ODIs for eg.
And as long as De Villiers keeps performing as keeper/batsman across all formats they probably can get away with claiming Tsokelie is the back-up keeper over guys like De Kock/Vilas/Kuhn.
I just hope that now given that S Africa baring some surprising turnaround are pretty much on the verge of dominating across all formats - that these quota/transformation decisions does not affect their potential progress.
The only problem with S Africa as i always say that still concerns me is their quota/transformation (whatever they call it) policy. I have realized since it became prominent during the 2001/02 Australia tour incident with Ontong/Rudolph, is that S Africa have been able to get away with picking the odd token black/coloured player without merit, because the team has generally been good enough carry them.
Few times it has blown up in their faces like during the 2009/10 England series when Ntini clearly wasn't being dropped due to political influence even though he was passed it, for the in-form white bowler Fridel De Wet. Or the 2012 T20 world cup squad selection.
Looking at some of the recent players S Africa can easily get away with having Phangiso in over Van Der Merwe or Tsotsobe over Chris Morris/Kyle Abbot in ODIs for eg.
And as long as De Villiers keeps performing as keeper/batsman across all formats they probably can get away with claiming Tsokelie is the back-up keeper over guys like De Kock/Vilas/Kuhn.
I just hope that now given that S Africa baring some surprising turnaround are pretty much on the verge of dominating across all formats - that these quota/transformation decisions does not affect their potential progress.
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
midgetwars
Club Captain
That just confirms it, there are probably 23 million solutions.
Bird does not deserves to get dropped in his line up. He has done nothing wrong except average something like 20 or under (bowling). These weren't these green tops in Hobart these were SCG and MCGs.
Including Rogers who's 35 is stupid although I never knew his average now is quite good and consistent with his career average.
Possibly the worst suggested I've seen.
No promising young players in it. Apart from Khawaja. I still don't know why Haddin is chosen. He was dropped for a reason. Why not bring in Hartley?
Bird does not deserves to get dropped in his line up. He has done nothing wrong except average something like 20 or under (bowling). These weren't these green tops in Hobart these were SCG and MCGs.
Including Rogers who's 35 is stupid although I never knew his average now is quite good and consistent with his career average.
Possibly the worst suggested I've seen.
No promising young players in it. Apart from Khawaja. I still don't know why Haddin is chosen. He was dropped for a reason. Why not bring in Hartley?
Australia Cricket News: Sun sets on Australian batting - Ian Chappell | ESPN Cricinfo
Finding myself agreeing to a lot of that, our batsmen just don't have the application to apply themselves for long enough. Maxwell was the prime example of it. It'll be interesting seeing how silk goes after playing more t20 as right now he has shown he can bat for long periods.
Finding myself agreeing to a lot of that, our batsmen just don't have the application to apply themselves for long enough. Maxwell was the prime example of it. It'll be interesting seeing how silk goes after playing more t20 as right now he has shown he can bat for long periods.
He's exactly right. And this is why I say it's pretty harsh to pin Aussie problems on selections. At the moment, the only 'right' selection is to pick MJ Clarke! Seems everyone is pretty quick to identify the 'wrong' selections eg. Doherty, but no one can get on the same page when it comes to picking the right guys.
With no one doing outstanding work in the Shield it's come down to personal preference. eg. I like Shane Watson, and I think Watson in good form solves a lot of Australia's problems, so I'd keep picking him. Yet I sympathise with those that can't find a spot for him - he's not doing enough right now. It's the same with most of the other 10 spots in the team...
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
-
Ha i just realized i put this cricinfo link in the wrong thread. Was supposed to be the AUS test/odi/t20 discussion thread:
Anyway on this point, despite the obviously lack of talent - this is where the selectors have to earn their pay.
It was easy picking AUS teams from 95-2007, the talent was obvious & the starting XI picked itself so well that any average fan knew what the best team was.
In a period where the best team is not obvious, the real skill or lack of skill of selectors gets exposed. A selector role in cricket is always under-rated - they suppose to be better than me, you & any average fan @ having a unique understanding of the game & spotting talent.
AUS are not Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. So the selectors can't hide behind the perceived lack of talent for the poor results of the current team across all formats.
A point will come (a point which i think is already here) where the logic they use behind picking teams will have to be questioned & when they happens they Inverarity/Arthur will have to be axed like Andrew Hilditich & his cohorts was.
----------
If they have any aspirations to win in India they'll need a class spinner, simple as. I know, there's always IND v AUS 2004 in terms of hope, but we've learned from that, we no longer wait the last match to bring out the raging turner.
The majority of non-asian teams that have won series in India since they have been a force @ home have done without a spinner though.
And that Mumbai 2004 pitch was non a standard "raging turner" - that was poor test pitch that was severely under-prepared according to ICC regulations.
