The PlanetCricket View: How much more sweeping can the Aussies do?

[sifter132]

I haven't got any idea why Katich has left out. He had proven his ability of scoring runs under pressure but I don't get the point of replacing him. Taking over him, Hughes has struggled thoughout the year, perhaps averaging under 30 which is actually low for any Test cricketer. If he would have scored some runs last test, he would have been in the squad for the India series. Cowan looks to be a good player, in my opinion because he's being in great touch and if he performs well in the warm game, I am sure that he will be picked for the test.

Well originally it was about his age, and making a transition from old to new. It wasn't because he couldn't play anymore. I think the selectors were just wary of having 3 over 35s in the batting lineup that wasn't really performing, so why not give a youngster or 2 a go? They also didn't want to get to 2012/13 and then all 3 players decide to retire just before the Ashes for example, so better to transition them out one at a time. Katich was the least valuable to Aussie cricket, so he got the short end.

Trouble is now that some of those young guys aren't going so well, fans want Katich back - it was always going to happen, but it's part of the renewing process I'm afraid. Personally, I think it's just short sighted and reactionary. It'll be the same people that call for Shane Warne to come back eg. after Lyon gets targetted around the MCG and Warney has a good game in the Big Bash...And as you say about Cowan, he might be just as useful as Katich, but 6-7 years younger.

I've got a problem with the type of players being selected and when they are selected rather than who's being snubbed. Picking players who go hard at the ball and then wondering why we keep getting skittled is stunning. Or picking players who aren't in form eg. Hughes last Ashes. Find us an opener who leaves the ball prudently and plays with soft hands and who is in form, and maybe some of these problems might start going away. Wouldn't go astray with some of our middle/lower order players too. It's a shame Paine's career is in jeopardy for example, he would have been a valuable fighter instead of having Haddin's airy wafts.

And yeah Justin Langer, he's dining out on his Test resume and the fact he can babble important sounding stuff. He's worse than Troy Cooley who we kept for about 2 years too long - the only bowler who improved under his watch was Nathan Hauritz...

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

Maybe, maybe not. One thing for certain is we would have known either way as instead of being a 5 match veteran he would have been 15 matches. If Kallis or Tendulkar were judge on their first few matches they would have been dropped too.



The current selectors only came into place for the series against NZ. The previous selectors were in charge of the 9/21. The previous selectors were in charge of 6 of the innings I mentioned above. How can you blame the current selectors when they weren't in charge?

Ferguson picked the wrong time to have a mini form slump. Just like the guy you are advocating in Jaques who has been performing worse than Ferguson. Players have these slumps just his one along with a few others this season have picked the worse times to have them.

actually, I wasn't aware that was when the new selectors came in, I thought they had been in for a while, I seemed to remember a change in CA but perhaps that was just board members. if I had I wouldn't have said that so fair enough.

but my first point is still the same, and I guess we'll just have sit on opposite sides of the "maybe". I think if khawaja had come in, played 15 tests and failed as hughes has done, then what? you drop him in the hope that some other debutant will be better. Leaving you in an identical situation. There is no rational logic to suggest they would be better, in fact the only logic dictates that they would be worse as surely young players would be picked on their ability to put together mature performances and be identified on their technique so you pick the best looking ones first.

for me the problems of australia are at domestic level. I said this ages ago, a player like hughes shouldn't be making that many runs in a strong domestic competition. and as sifter pointed out in another thread, he perhaps should have been re-positioned in the batting order by a more observant coach (not to suggest sifter agrees with me about any of this, he just said that he couldn't see why Hughes ended up opening)

 

[aussie1st]

but my first point is still the same, and I guess we'll just have sit on opposite sides of the "maybe". I think if khawaja had come in, played 15 tests and failed as hughes has done, then what? you drop him in the hope that some other debutant will be better. Leaving you in an identical situation. There is no rational logic to suggest they would be better, in fact the only logic dictates that they would be worse as surely young players would be picked on their ability to put together mature performances and be identified on their technique so you pick the best looking ones first.

It is the same situation that occurs when you punt on any youngster. What if Tendulkar didn't come good? What if Kallis didn't come good? And Khawaja has been picked on mature performances and his technique is regarded the best of the youngsters.

for me the problems of australia are at domestic level. I said this ages ago, a player like hughes shouldn't be making that many runs in a strong domestic competition. and as sifter pointed out in another thread, he perhaps should have been re-positioned in the batting order by a more observant coach (not to suggest sifter agrees with me about any of this, he just said that he couldn't see why Hughes ended up opening)

It's not one particular aspect where the problem is. As I have said the experienced guys need to take part responsibility as they are the ones who are meant to prevent the situations we have seen. We have the selectors which we have already discussed. And as I pointed out some youngsters and even the middle aged batsmen either haven't kicked on or have picked the wrong time to hit a form slump. The standard of the domestic competition has slipped from the glory years but it's hard to know where it is at. Some people say it's too bowler friendly and hence the good records of some youngsters but then Hughes and co were playing on these same pitches and making runs. Also the thing is Hughes backed up his test series debut by going to English country cricket by scoring 574 runs in 5 innings which was better than Bradman. So really you can't just blame the Aussie comp, even the English one made him look brilliant.

 

[Sedition]

Maybe Hughes should go prove himself in the Indian domestic comp since Australia and England's obviously isn't good enough. Averaging 55 for NSW and 66 in England.. pfft joke.

 

[aussie1st]

I've got a problem with the type of players being selected and when they are selected rather than who's being snubbed. Picking players who go hard at the ball and then wondering why we keep getting skittled is stunning. Or picking players who aren't in form eg. Hughes last Ashes. Find us an opener who leaves the ball prudently and plays with soft hands and who is in form, and maybe some of these problems might start going away. Wouldn't go astray with some of our middle/lower order players too. It's a shame Paine's career is in jeopardy for example, he would have been a valuable fighter instead of having Haddin's airy wafts.

Is Hughes really going that hard at the ball? It looks more like his new technique more than anything. I still wonder what he would have been like if he wasn't dropped in the 2nd Ashes test. With his old technique he did this. I loved using that match when pushing for his selection. He was a class above all the players in that match, no one got close to his 1st or 2nd innings digs. That is the sort of innings you look for in players, how did it go so wrong from there? For me we should have left him with his old technique at least for a few more matches. Dropping the bloke 2 test after what he did in SA was silly for me, it's not like he was getting out in the same fashion as he is right now.

 

[Sedition]

And as for Khawaja, if he had 15 tests under his belt now, we'd obviously have a better idea of where he's at and what his weaknesses are, like with Hughes, and we could be trying another promising batsmen now instead while Hughes/Khawaja went off to county.
As it stands, his 6 tests have not been as bad as some of the veteran batsmen and if his results gradually improve, it's far better than Ponting or Hussey regaining some form and then retiring.

And as some ex-players/selectors are saying "You can't buy the experience of Ponting and Hussey".. no, but you can sure as fearsome tweak start giving experience to the next generation.

 

[aussie1st]

And as some ex-players/selectors are saying "You can't buy the experience of Ponting and Hussey".. no, but you can sure as fried chicken start giving experience to the next generation.

That excuse would work if we weren't being rolled so cheaply I could accept us losing test matches after making 200 runs in each dig. We knew we would struggle and lose matches although when Warne and McGrath retired I don't think many of us would have thought it would be the batting where the big problem lies. We lose Langer and Hayden but still maintained the core middle order and threw in Katich at the top. The problem is we have scores under 100 three times in the past two years. The last time we had a score under 100 was 1978 and we had never been bowled under 50 until last month, heck these guys could have taken the lowest ever test total from NZ. How on earth does a batting lineup with Clarke, Ponting, Hussey, Haddin and Watson almost take the lowest test total from this lineup?

As you say, those sorts of excuses have long sailed.

 

[Sedition]

Yeah, I'm not understanding how they can just ignore the results and count experience for everything. If experience is that valuable, we should be building it up with the next group of guys. Clarke and Watson are almost 31 now, so what if they're at their peak now? Will we need to carry them for their last 2-3 years while we build Hughes, Warner, Khawaja etc. up?

 

[swacker]

And as some ex-players/selectors are saying "You can't buy the experience of Ponting and Hussey".. no, but you can sure as fried chicken start giving experience to the next generation.

Australian cricket should make players choose between playing for your country and playing that slog and giggle $hit.

 

[Keeper]

One of the good things about England's resurgence in my opinion has been the smart use of the A/Lions team. Rather than an old county pro team it's become a test bed for young talent that have to deal with some testing conditions and decent competition.

Wonder if Oz are doing anything similar?

Sticking Australia A into the County Championship would make a helluva difference. Just one reason we wouldn't allow it mind

 

[aussie1st]

Apparently Aus A have tour to England playing the Lions so it seems like they are bringing it back. They had the tour to Zimbabwe this year.

 

[Keeper]

Ooh, wouldn't mind a day or two off work to watch Lions-Oz A. Will look out for that.

Did anyone impress against Zimbabwe? I think the trick is to make it a virtual trial for the test team and see how they respond to the pressure and still show good team spirit, leadership etc.

 

[aussie1st]

Warner in particular scored a 200. Hughes made a 100 too. As you can imagine the pitches were flat so no bowler really stood out. Copeland, Siddle and Butterworth were all solid without being spectacular.

 

[6ry4nj]

Bring Katich back. It was always a politically-motivated mistake to drop him (or possibly simply Hilditch-stupidity-motivated). Not necessarily long-term, but it sends the necessary statement that ?we are not bound by the mistakes of the past (nor by the 'macho code' of not picking anyone who criticizes the selectors)?.

On the basis of the stats in the OP, bring Cowan and Wade in now. Again, not necessarily long-term. Blooding new players is always a risk ? I?m not saying they have brilliant Test careers ahead of them, but now is not the time to die wondering. There has to be some reward (I believer the technical term might be 'reinforcement') for domestic seasons like that.

I personally don?t think Hughes will ever make it in Tests, but that?s just some sort of hunch. What I can say about Hughes is, he has this flaw illustrated by c. Guptill b. Martin x4. That?s an easy flaw to fix. He could be back for another try in three months or less, after he goes away and fixes it.

On a more facetious note, my attitude to sweeping is precisely that:
While there is no visible bulge under the carpet, more sweeping needs to be done. I also have another favourite maxim that relates to sweeping and new blood. I'm fond of saying: "A new broom rearranges the deckchairs"...

 

[swacker]

Clarke 'opens door' for Katich to return

Why do selectors try and make it hard for the fans, to like their own nation cricket team?