The PlanetCricket View: The decline of Australian Cricket

[AngryPixel]

Is he 35 already?? Checked his stats. He's been pretty impressive this season

 

[Covvy]

Hodge is the best batsmen in Australia at the moment. Give him a go FFS.

 

[aussie1st]

There hasnt been a super quick bowler since Tait. Mitch can bowl 155-157 but not consistently. It would be a effort ball every few overs.

Don't think Mitch has ever been clocked that quick. Low 150s at best, hes never been in the Tait/Lee category for speed. Isn't really any young quicks that are bowling at that sort of pace.

On Brad Hodge, he won't be picked for Test. ODI he is definitely pushing for selection but for him to be effective, he has to be opener or 3. Watson has a lock on one of the opening spots so really he would have to take Haddin spot as opener and push him down the order.

 

[AngryPixel]

They should give khawaja a go. He looks bloody brilliant and he's just 18. So even if he fail, it would be a learning experience for him.

 

[lethalhughes]

lethalhughes added 0 Minutes and 23 Seconds later...

They should give khawaja a go. He looks bloody brilliant and he's just 18. So even if he fail, it would be a learning experience for him.

Actually Khawaja is 23 soon to be 24, so he isn't ''too young ''as some ppl tend to think.I know this is ashes and all but picking Khawaja or Hughes vs Sticking with both Hussey and North atleast equal to the same risk of failure in my opinion.I would argue its riskier sticking with both Hussey and North.I'm saying that cause some people think picking a young Hughes or Khawaja in the ashes is way to risky but they don't realise how unlikely it is that Hussey will have a good serious.Don't ppl realise how bad Hussey has looked in test in the last year or so.

 

[AngryPixel]

lol. I misread his age on cricinfo. His birth date is 18 December which i read as his age Still it is better to give a 23 year old a chance than hoping two out of form batsman to perform. If not hussey, he can surely replace North

 

[lethalhughes]

lol. I misread his age on cricinfo. His birth date is 18 December which i read as his age Still it is better to give a 23 year old a chance than hoping two out of form batsman to perform. If not hussey, he can surely replace North

lol kool.Seriously if aussie selectors see 24 as being too young for selection then something has definitely gone wrong, no wonder we're now 5th.

 

[War]

I thought Krejza looked pretty good tbh. He may concede runs, but is the most likely spinner to bowl a side out. He certainly could have been persisted with a bit longer at least.

Yea the national selectors, Ponting & tasmania have treated & used him poorly. The simply didn't understand his stenghts & weaknesses as a bowler.

War added 2 Minutes and 51 Seconds later...

Of all the people you could have picked he'd be very low on the list as inconsistent as Johnson if the truth be told. And he's retired from Tests.

Hilfy is going to be the leader of the Australian attack for me. Shows aggression whilst keeping things very tight and he has very few days where you'd say he's expensive or poor.

Bollinger is clearly the leader of the attack ATM. Hilfenhaus a close second however.

War added 15 Minutes and 1 Seconds later...

Article by Sylvester -

Throughout the history of cricket, there have been vital matches which have marked the beginning of the end for a once dominant side. The previous one was the fall of the mighty West Indies in 1994 which continues to be marked as the day when the dominance moved from West Indies to Australia. We have now reached a similar stage but this time around, there is no clear number 1 side despite what the ICC rankings say.

More...

Yep too bad many in the cricket world believe India are that.

But the problem with AUS is basically the selectors. They are ones at fault for sttrcuturing of AUS team that has made the test team especially (T20s as well, although the ODI side has remainded solid) since the 2008 tour to windies.

The biggest blunder for me as most you guys have heard me articulate regularly before. Since 07/08 home summer vs IND & tour to Windies when we saw Hogg & MacGill couldn't last our main test spinner. Since then AUS should have been playing 4 quicks regularly in tests. But noooo, they wasted time for two years behind Hauritz a man who did nothing in FC cricket wickets wise to earn his place. In the hope he could do a job in tests & he has failed.

AUS depth in bowling is all about the pace. Picking a spinner should be a last resort thing unless some spinner takes alot of wickets in a sheild seaon & thus demands selection. As i type Mitchell Starc is showing his talent & showing up the idiot selectors..

So basically AFAIS, just need to get rid of the selectors & replace them with good tactical slectors who is going to pick the best team 90% of the time. Since without the legends around, very smart selectors are needed. Do this & AUS will be dominating again in tests im sure.

Looking around i'm not sure how many very smart cricket brains are around AUS who could do this role. Mark Taylor, Border, Jim Maxwell, Chappell bros, Warne come to mind. So maybe a combination of any 3 of these will work.

 

[AngryPixel]

Who are the Aussie selectors these days?? In India we have Former Players, is it same in Australia too?

 

[aussie1st]

Looking around i'm not sure how many very smart cricket brains are around AUS who could do this role. Mark Taylor, Border, Jim Maxwell, Chappell bros, Warne come to mind. So maybe a combination of any 3 of these will work.

Could add Steve Waugh as well. I posted that article by MacGill, he seems to be on par with what we are thinking regarding Hauritz, Hussey and North. He definitely doesn't see North as the best number 6 batsmen we have which is a good start.

 

[War]

Could add Steve Waugh as well. I posted that article by MacGill, he seems to be on par with what we are thinking regarding Hauritz, Hussey and North. He definitely doesn't see North as the best number 6 batsmen we have which is a good start.

Maybe, Maybe not with S Waugh for me. Given he had a great team to skipper we never really saw how tactical he was, so i'd have reservations about him to be honest. But then again i guess he wont be the worst.

I know for sure i'd definately love to see Mark Taylor as a selector in the near future.

 

[sifter132]

Looking around i'm not sure how many very smart cricket brains are around AUS who could do this role. Mark Taylor, Border, Jim Maxwell, Chappell bros, Warne come to mind. So maybe a combination of any 3 of these will work.

Well I can almost guarantee that most of those guys would prefer to have a spinner and not 4 quicks - so you'd be disagreeing with them again mate

Ian Chappell worships leggies. Greg Chappell's already given Hauritz some support in the media by suggesting Australia would play a spinner at the Gabba. Warney would have 2 spinners given the choice I reckon . Taylor regularly talks about the value of spin and given his experiences with Warne who would blame him.

And just on Krejza - he doesn't fit the role Ponting wants. It's not because he hasn't got any skills. Ricky's already got overly attacking quick bowlers in Johnson, Bollinger and Siddle - guys who can barely keep it quiet on a good day, why would he want an overly attacking spinner? What's the most expensive attack in Test cricket history, because something like a Johnson, Krejza, Siddle, Bollinger combo would get carted IMHO. There'd be some great spells in the day for sure, but there'd be plenty of loose stuff too.

 

[aussie1st]

Hauritz doesn't really fit his plan either. Ponting told him to bowl more attacking lines like Harby which didn't suit him and now hes sticking with his old style. I do agree we don't need our spinner getting carted with Johnson already in the side to do that but we do need one that looks more threatening than Hauritz.

 

[sifter132]

Well that's true about India, but that's the hardest series the Aussie attack is going to face in 5 years. In India, yes maybe you do have to pick an attack based on raw wicket taking potential, but otherwise I think it's overkill to have 4 very aggressive and attacking bowlers.

 

[War]

Well I can almost guarantee that most of those guys would prefer to have a spinner and not 4 quicks - so you'd be disagreeing with them again mate

Ian Chappell worships leggies. Greg Chappell's already given Hauritz some support in the media by suggesting Australia would play a spinner at the Gabba. Warney would have 2 spinners given the choice I reckon . Taylor regularly talks about the value of spin and given his experiences with Warne who would blame him.

And just on Krejza - he doesn't fit the role Ponting wants. It's not because he hasn't got any skills. Ricky's already got overly attacking quick bowlers in Johnson, Bollinger and Siddle - guys who can barely keep it quiet on a good day, why would he want an overly attacking spinner? What's the most expensive attack in Test cricket history, because something like a Johnson, Krejza, Siddle, Bollinger combo would get carted IMHO. There'd be some great spells in the day for sure, but there'd be plenty of loose stuff too.

Ye i know the views they have on spin. But somehow if they were selectors after during the 2008 period when Hogg & MacGill failures exposed the fact that AUS didn't have any good spinners. Hauritz wouldn't have lasted as long as he has currently & Krejza would have been treated better.

Once a 4-man attack is picked. I certainly wont have both Johnson & Siddle in for sure, since it would indeed be overall to have all of them. Unless Siddle in the near future can find back that accuracy he had in SA 09. It would be Hilfy/Bollinger/Johnson/Harris - only Johnson in this attack we have to really worry out being eratic.