Scape goats?
- Thread starter aussie1st
- Start date
Cullen Bailey finished the season well, if only SA would play him more than 1 match per season!
. He's great at keeping the run-rate down.That what Hauritz does already. Hes probably the best we have atm, but hes never going to be a match winning spinner something which I feel we need unless our 3 quicks plan on winning games. Of the lot only Johnson has that ability.
Why was it a bad decision. Clark from all accounts wasn't bowling with the same zip as he has had over the past, and going by his bowling in the 4th and 5th test matches there was probably some truth to that. Clark isn't anywhere near the bowler he was a year ago, the selectors made the right decision in playing Hilfenhaus.
It was hardly a risky selection, I'm sure the selectors knew who would fair better.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
Hilfenhaus looked like a surprise decision, but in the end I think everyone's perception of Stuart Clark mellowed quite a bit. Simply looking at the two bowling, it would have been hard to pick the more senior player and claim it was on merit. Don't forget that Hilfenhaus was actually the incumbent from South Africa.
To see Lee take 14 wickets at 18.2 in 3 tour matches might suggest grave selectorial error, but due to an untimely injury, he was really only in contention for the final game. It wouldn't just have been the selectors who were not keen to make a risky change.
Some would say that the risky change had already been made. Up to the point of his axing, Hauritz had done his job. He was bowling tight overs, picking up wickets and even bowled with a recently dislocated finger. He certainly wasn't the worst bowler of the series and up to that point he'd done his job better than Johnson.
And what about that Johnson? What does a selector do when your best bowler suddenly becomes your worst? You can drop him, but that doesn't undo the damage and it rules out the chance of him actually coming up with the match winning performance that you picked him for in the first place. What they really needed was for him to on song at Lords. Alas, he couldn't do it.
The analysis is ever so simple. The team that lost the series had the best batting averages and the best bowling averages. If they got things right on average, then what is the missing data? The extremes. The maximums and minimums. I don't blame the bowlers too much for not destroying their opponents, because you could see from both sides, conditions mostly did not favour bowlers of any sort. However, there were sessions where the bowling, even for day 1 on a belter, was unacceptable. There were times where the bowling rotations were forced onto the defensive. Similarly, for all their hundreds, the lows of the batting were just too low. Australia often caught the gift of a wicket thrown away, but they all too easily handed the advantage back by collapsing.
In both losses, there were questions to be raised about both the bowling and the batting, but at other times, those questions seemed a touch ridiculous. Unfortunately, consistency is an intangible scapegoat. It is not so easy to find as it is to blame a single person.
To see Lee take 14 wickets at 18.2 in 3 tour matches might suggest grave selectorial error, but due to an untimely injury, he was really only in contention for the final game. It wouldn't just have been the selectors who were not keen to make a risky change.
Some would say that the risky change had already been made. Up to the point of his axing, Hauritz had done his job. He was bowling tight overs, picking up wickets and even bowled with a recently dislocated finger. He certainly wasn't the worst bowler of the series and up to that point he'd done his job better than Johnson.
And what about that Johnson? What does a selector do when your best bowler suddenly becomes your worst? You can drop him, but that doesn't undo the damage and it rules out the chance of him actually coming up with the match winning performance that you picked him for in the first place. What they really needed was for him to on song at Lords. Alas, he couldn't do it.
The analysis is ever so simple. The team that lost the series had the best batting averages and the best bowling averages. If they got things right on average, then what is the missing data? The extremes. The maximums and minimums. I don't blame the bowlers too much for not destroying their opponents, because you could see from both sides, conditions mostly did not favour bowlers of any sort. However, there were sessions where the bowling, even for day 1 on a belter, was unacceptable. There were times where the bowling rotations were forced onto the defensive. Similarly, for all their hundreds, the lows of the batting were just too low. Australia often caught the gift of a wicket thrown away, but they all too easily handed the advantage back by collapsing.
In both losses, there were questions to be raised about both the bowling and the batting, but at other times, those questions seemed a touch ridiculous. Unfortunately, consistency is an intangible scapegoat. It is not so easy to find as it is to blame a single person.
Hilfenhaus is made for these conditions and we lost the last Ashes because of swing so you can't blame them for actually learning from their mistakes and picking one. We will never know if he would have been in the 1st Test if Lee wasn't injured. Siddle may have been dropped. But right now Hilfenhaus isn't quite at the stage where I thought he would be given his ODI debut. His swing isn't as late or as much but more importantly he lacks the ball that goes straight on.
mattfb
Chairman of Selectors
Because Hilfy hasn't done much of late.
D
Dutch
Guest
Blame?
:banana2
Blame it on the boogie!
:banana2
Blame it on the boogie!
smssia0112
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
All pretty good points. On face value, we were the better team of the series really. Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Johnson took more wickets than Anderson, Flintoff and Broad. Hauritz took more wickets in his two tests than Swann did in four and a half (he only overtook him last night). Ponting, Clarke and North batted better than Strauss,
With Pietersen out and Flintoff unfit for most of the series, it is just not good enough that we batted and bowled so poorly in patches. We need consistency for sure. Siddle bowls with aggression and enthusiasm, and he will improve. He never drops his head, something Clark almost seemed to do in the second innings at Leeds. He and Hilfenhaus are the future and warrant retention. Johnson is out of form and needs a spell, same with Hussey. Both had one good test, but they don't make up for the months of poor form leading up to it.
Now is the time for the selectors to be aggressive and take risks. They picked the wrong squad and weren't proactive at all. The same thing happened in 2005 with Hayden, Martyn and Katich. The only change they really made was Gillespie out for Tait.
It is time to make a serious change on the selection panel. It is interesting to note that 3 out of the 4 guys on it were opening batsmen. We need a spin bowler on it clearly (MacGill stands out as a likely candidate), and a change of guard is needed. We also perhaps need full time selectors. Bring in some of these recently retired guys - they know what it takes in the modern day and keep a balance.
Cricketdude
Chairman of Selectors
We weren't good enough. That's it.
doubt Stuart Clark will get many more chances, with age against him and good performances from Siddle and Hilfenhaus.
But on Hauritz, why drop him? There is not any contender or like for like replacement, the more games he plays the better he will get, Australia's policy on rotating there spinners hasn't worked so it's time they stuck by one, Hauritz! :sarcasm
But on Hauritz, why drop him? There is not any contender or like for like replacement, the more games he plays the better he will get, Australia's policy on rotating there spinners hasn't worked so it's time they stuck by one, Hauritz! :sarcasm
mattfb
Chairman of Selectors
No, he got injured and didn't get a chance again. Just like Jaques. Unlike Watson.
Totally agree. I'd be very surprised if he even plays another test for Australia. Tis a shame really.
Themer
Chairman of Selectors
This is what the problem is for Australia they're searching for a Match winning spinner ala Shane Warne all you really need is a decent spinner who keeps the run rate down. Look at Harris of South Africa on face value he isn't a great spinner but he has the ability to keep the run rate down and does a very good job.
Australia have a really good pace attack in development (Siddle, Hilfy, Johnson) and they only really need a decent spinner.
Similar threads
