Agree we need a Chairman that will let the players know what they need to do and for some players why they were dropped. Hohns at least moved the players on, Hilditch does nothing right really. I really hope some changes are made after the review as I don't see the white light with the way our administration is atm.
Warne-Muralidaran Trophy (Australia in Sri Lanka) Aug-Sep 2011
- Thread starter angryangy
- Start date
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Yes no doubt someone like Marsh needs to become selector. WE GOTTA GET RID OF HILDITCH, NEILSEN AND CHAPPELL FFS!!. 
As i've been saying the Ashes, the talent in AUS is very much their. When i look at the development of the current England fast-bowler and look at what AUS have, they ability wise are just as good as England's quicks if not better.
But their ability will not be harnessed unless we have a proper coach/selectors like what England have. AUS need people at the helm that played the game and are tactically astute picking the team right now. Not people like Hilditch and Neilsen who never player cricket at high level.
Although Chappell played i'm starting to see why he caused so much havoc when he coached India. Everytime he has explained some of the reasoning behind some of his selections since he took over during the Ashes, it been straight bullshit. He is quickly turning out to one of those guys who may have played the game excellently - but is not so good at coaching probably.
On the O'Keefe issue. Yea he is the best spinner statistically right now and certainly should have been in the test squad to SRI - id give you that. But watching him bowl in international cricket, i'm very skeptical as to how AUS domestic batsmen have managed to allow him to have such great stats.
So IMO really ATS, he looks nothing more than an average tweaker who would struggle to make an impact in tests vs quality bats. So if it that maybe the selectors weren't impressed by him based on watching him bowl - i can see with them. But regardless given he is statistically the best among a poor crop - he certainly deserved a shot a tests before Beer and Lyon.
----------
Australia in Sri Lanka 2011: Bollinger on the outer | Cricket News | Sri Lanka v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo
Of course he is. Everyone except those idiot selectors knows that
As i've been saying the Ashes, the talent in AUS is very much their. When i look at the development of the current England fast-bowler and look at what AUS have, they ability wise are just as good as England's quicks if not better.
But their ability will not be harnessed unless we have a proper coach/selectors like what England have. AUS need people at the helm that played the game and are tactically astute picking the team right now. Not people like Hilditch and Neilsen who never player cricket at high level.
Although Chappell played i'm starting to see why he caused so much havoc when he coached India. Everytime he has explained some of the reasoning behind some of his selections since he took over during the Ashes, it been straight bullshit. He is quickly turning out to one of those guys who may have played the game excellently - but is not so good at coaching probably.
On the O'Keefe issue. Yea he is the best spinner statistically right now and certainly should have been in the test squad to SRI - id give you that. But watching him bowl in international cricket, i'm very skeptical as to how AUS domestic batsmen have managed to allow him to have such great stats.
So IMO really ATS, he looks nothing more than an average tweaker who would struggle to make an impact in tests vs quality bats. So if it that maybe the selectors weren't impressed by him based on watching him bowl - i can see with them. But regardless given he is statistically the best among a poor crop - he certainly deserved a shot a tests before Beer and Lyon.
----------
Australia in Sri Lanka 2011: Bollinger on the outer | Cricket News | Sri Lanka v Australia | ESPN Cricinfo
Of course he is. Everyone except those idiot selectors knows that
Last edited:
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
Doodlesweaver
Club Cricketer
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
The ability of the Aus bowlers is not that close to the English bowlers. They don't have a player who has such a dodgy termperament as Johnson for example. Or a bowler who can't seem to learn like Hilfenhaus. They bowl as a team, our lot rarely seem to. During the Ashes, their bowlers seemed to get something out of pitches that looked like cement when our lot bowled. But then that has something to do with batsmen flashing at everything as well instead of playing disciplined cricket. Overall, our team does not have much confidence in its ability to win big matches, you can see that clearly. And that is everything in sport.
Doodlesweaver
Club Cricketer
- Joined
- May 25, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
The closest bowler to Johnson that they had was Steve Harmison and they gave him the flick. He also is a match-winner on his day and completely awful when 'off'. They automatically improved once they were shot of him as he - like Johnson - would drag the whole team along with him when bowling horribly - and the opposite while also true, just didn't happen that often.
I agree that confidence is huge as I stated before, but I'm not sure how the Aussie team is going to find some apart from winning some close matches instead of losing them.
Do you think that the Aussies being at the top for so long was purely based on confidence? There was some real mongrel - as well as talent - in players like Warne and McGrath, it wasn't just confidence.
Bob Simpson once said that it was mostly down to luck!
War
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2010
- Online Cricket Games Owned
I dont agree with that. If you just look at the natural talent wise in the respective bowling group that both teams have. Then AUS pace options for tests from: Bollinger, Johnson, Harris, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Copeland, Starc, Pattinson, George, Cummins.
Is not that far off ENGS from Anderson, Broad, Tremlett, Bresnan, Finn, Onions, Shazad, Meaker, Woakes, Dernbach.
The difference especially with the first 5 names in the ENG ranks is that they are playing under a sane selection committee and coach. Who are backing them to succeed even if they may be going through a trott.
You look at the recent situation with Broad. Most ENG fans before the startof the IND series wanted Bresnan or Finn to start over him based on how average he bowled vs SRI. But the management backed him and look at him now.
You compare that that how stupidly AUS have treated Bollinger in the last 6 months. Going into the Ashes he was the leader of AUS pace attack after the 2009 Ashes. They stupidly drop him before the crucial Brisbane tests, then after one struggle in Adelaide - they are suddenly making all these dumb excuses about his fitness for test cricket and have the nerve to say AUS have no "attack leader".
Its inconceivable that if Flower was AUS coach, that Bollinger would have been treated that way.
Also although Hilfenhaus also has alot of work to do before he gets anywhere near the test side again. I wouldn't be so harsh on him, since lets not forget this is same Hilfenahus between S Africa 2009 - IND 2010 that was such a reliable swing bowler. This same man outbowled Anderson in English conditions during the 2009 Ashes & was the reason why Sehwag didn't tear AUS apart in India 2010.
Somehow as Chappell highlighted he technically lost his ability to swing the ball during the 2010/11 Ashes compared to Anderson. Whether he can find that back is mystery.
Look at Bresnan as well a bowler who many in England questioned his Ashes squad selection since he was viewed as nothing more than a county trundler and one could not see what Flower and co was seeing in him. They kept backing him and look at what he is doing now. Getting the ball the swing, coventional and reverse along with adding a few exra mphs to his bowling.
A bowler like Johnson who ability to swing the ball seems to come and go like a full moon, can certainly benefit from a coaching system that can assist him in perfecting those skills consistently.
The horrific indecisiveness in the bowling selection is best highlighted in the disgraceful treatment of the spinner since MacGill/Hogg left after the 2008 tour to the West Indies.
They are thrown out all sane selectional logics, that usually states players should be picked based on solid performances in FC cricket. But they have gone so bad that players are being picked on guesswork after Shane Warne said he liked them.
Their approach to selecting spinners is all wrong, which IMO is the problem changing spin options like a deck a cards. They need to accept that their is no proper spin talent in AUS and none should be picked unless once dominates the way Colin Miller & Stuart MacGill did by showing "special talent" in FC cricket in the 90s. They need to forget them aveage looking non-turning spinners like Doherty and O'Keefe - they need to learn from the Hauritz failure that generally such bowlers aren't going to be successful in test cricket.
AUS bowling strength is the quick bowlers - thats were the talent is clearly. They need to place more emphasis on building the bowling attack around them and forget about picking a spinner for the time being.
StinkyBoHoon
National Board President
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2009
- Location
- Glasgow, Scotland
For once I totally agree with you War. The thing that's working a lot better with englands selection that isn't working with Australia's is the culture of competition. something australia were famed for at their height.
If you get selected for england and show some potential you cement yourself in the pecking order for a while, other bowlers then feel the need to keep their game up or they know who is coming up behind and the chasing pack are very clear about who's in the running for a place and where they stand so they see the results of upping their game.
australia right now, particularly with bowlers hand out places on whims. It's worth remembering England have been backing anderson and broad for years, long before they were doing very well. Australia seem to still be reeling from not being the best and if one set of bowlers don't magically win them a test series then they get chucked for someone else. There doesn't seem to be anyone saying "right, who is the best, lets pick them until someone else is playing better." it's more "well, maybe this guy will magically become a very good test player if we give him a baggy green."
If you get selected for england and show some potential you cement yourself in the pecking order for a while, other bowlers then feel the need to keep their game up or they know who is coming up behind and the chasing pack are very clear about who's in the running for a place and where they stand so they see the results of upping their game.
australia right now, particularly with bowlers hand out places on whims. It's worth remembering England have been backing anderson and broad for years, long before they were doing very well. Australia seem to still be reeling from not being the best and if one set of bowlers don't magically win them a test series then they get chucked for someone else. There doesn't seem to be anyone saying "right, who is the best, lets pick them until someone else is playing better." it's more "well, maybe this guy will magically become a very good test player if we give him a baggy green."
Yes and as a result of handing out Test spots randomly, you suddenly get bowlers who are selfish and only bowl for themselves rather than the guy at the other end. It was the main difference to my eye in the last Ashes. England bowlers were happy to plug away at the same spot and starve the Aussie batsmen, building up pressure. They didn't feel the need to bowl 3 wicket balls an over. Australian bowlers on the other hand, rarely stuck to plans for more than an over to 2 (part of that could be Ponting's captaincy though. And if they were trying to stick it in the same spot and test the batsmen's discipline then they generally did a shabby job of it.
Just on Greg Chappell, I don't see how you appoint a 60 year old with a spotty coaching record and expect him to learn new tricks. He was picked on name and playing prowess only, and it's not right. It's part of the reason I had hoped Ally DeWinter won the bowling coach spot over McDermott or Allan Donald, just to make sure we weren't picking coaches on name recognition alone.
Just on Greg Chappell, I don't see how you appoint a 60 year old with a spotty coaching record and expect him to learn new tricks. He was picked on name and playing prowess only, and it's not right. It's part of the reason I had hoped Ally DeWinter won the bowling coach spot over McDermott or Allan Donald, just to make sure we weren't picking coaches on name recognition alone.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
They've been backing Johnson, Siddle and Hilfenhaus quite a lot. Hilfy has lost out, but you wouldn't say it was a short fuse. His career was always going to take a blow if it looked like he wasn't going to take more than a couple of wickets in a home Test series, especially when even in bowler friendly conditions, he never quite got dangerous.
The also love Harris, but his knee has been a bit of an issue. Doug's been the one really painfully unlucky fast bowler; maybe they've mismanaged him, maybe he has to work harder; whatever the case, he's still going to play one dayers and maybe prove a point there. I don't think that's quite a trainwreck.
England have show a lot of persistence with Broad, but I think Anderson had to work quite a bit harder to get a game. He was a regular from about 2008, but at that stage, he was owning his spot.
Spinners though, that's another story.
The also love Harris, but his knee has been a bit of an issue. Doug's been the one really painfully unlucky fast bowler; maybe they've mismanaged him, maybe he has to work harder; whatever the case, he's still going to play one dayers and maybe prove a point there. I don't think that's quite a trainwreck.
England have show a lot of persistence with Broad, but I think Anderson had to work quite a bit harder to get a game. He was a regular from about 2008, but at that stage, he was owning his spot.
Spinners though, that's another story.
Well generally yeah, they backed Johnson and Hilf...up until they failed in Brisbane, giving their best bowlers a whopping ONE Test at England before being turfed. And naming a 17 man squad was just stupid. If you don't know the best 11/12 by that stage, then it's obvious there are problems.
One thing I liked about England in 2005 was that after they lost the 1st Test they picked the same XI again. In previous years they'd panic and change 4 players. Instead that's what Australia is starting to do. It'd be great if they played the same team for all these Sri Lanka Tests, just as a show of confidence.
One thing I liked about England in 2005 was that after they lost the 1st Test they picked the same XI again. In previous years they'd panic and change 4 players. Instead that's what Australia is starting to do. It'd be great if they played the same team for all these Sri Lanka Tests, just as a show of confidence.
angryangy
ICC Chairman
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2004
I'm sure different people would argue that across his career, Mitchell Johnson has deserved to be dropped more than that one time.
However, sometimes it's a case of denial trading as persistence. In the case of North, would it have been better to drop him sooner or later? They might have prepared better for the Ashes by deciding to persist with someone else and making that decision well ahead of time.
Inevitably, plan B is equally as important as plan A. Not necessarily at first, but eventually you're faced with the ultimatum of either working around the charred remains of your best laid plan or falling on your sword. So it's important that progress is not solely a matter of how long you can keep going in bloody-minded fashion or how many games a player can rack up. As with James Anderson; it can be agreed that England never gave up on him, but it can also be agreed that they didn't need him to play every game to stay confident in their long term goal.
Stability and change are both important and both can be executed badly. Proactive changes hardly happened before the Ashes and it's not unrelated that suddenly there was a lot of selecting done during the series.
However, sometimes it's a case of denial trading as persistence. In the case of North, would it have been better to drop him sooner or later? They might have prepared better for the Ashes by deciding to persist with someone else and making that decision well ahead of time.
Inevitably, plan B is equally as important as plan A. Not necessarily at first, but eventually you're faced with the ultimatum of either working around the charred remains of your best laid plan or falling on your sword. So it's important that progress is not solely a matter of how long you can keep going in bloody-minded fashion or how many games a player can rack up. As with James Anderson; it can be agreed that England never gave up on him, but it can also be agreed that they didn't need him to play every game to stay confident in their long term goal.
Stability and change are both important and both can be executed badly. Proactive changes hardly happened before the Ashes and it's not unrelated that suddenly there was a lot of selecting done during the series.
^Hmm, yes that sudden urge to chop and change mid series seemed to coincide with the arrival of a certain Greg Chappell too...I'm not sure I like him too much at the moment 
You make some good points about Marcus North though. Mike Hussey was arguably held onto for too long as well given his age and extended bad run. Now only a few months after dragging an out of form 35 year old Hussey into an Ashes series they want to turf Simon Katich ASAP.
I don't mind chopping and changing after series are played out, but I hate mid series changes unless a guy is clearly out of his depth. I think Doherty probably was out of his depth last Ashes, Phil Hughes 2009 Ashes certainly was, but generally players need to be backed and given some peace of mind about their places, especially if they are players who've been around for a while.
You make some good points about Marcus North though. Mike Hussey was arguably held onto for too long as well given his age and extended bad run. Now only a few months after dragging an out of form 35 year old Hussey into an Ashes series they want to turf Simon Katich ASAP.
I don't mind chopping and changing after series are played out, but I hate mid series changes unless a guy is clearly out of his depth. I think Doherty probably was out of his depth last Ashes, Phil Hughes 2009 Ashes certainly was, but generally players need to be backed and given some peace of mind about their places, especially if they are players who've been around for a while.
cricket_icon
International Cricketer
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
I've just been goin through the squads for the tests and am totally confused. They have chosen two spinners in the team, Beer and Lyons, where the hell is Hauritz?? Is he hated by the selectors or something? Beer is pretty much averaging 46 in FC, can you imagine how the Lankans will take to him? And Lyon is just as bad, averaging 43...and his only played 4 FC matches, why has he been picked?
The fast bowlers seem a little stronger, with Copeland looking to me on stats alone a strong proposition, but with 6 pace bowlers in the squad (I'm including Watson) wouldn't it have been better to leave out Pattinson in favour of a batsman?
The fast bowlers seem a little stronger, with Copeland looking to me on stats alone a strong proposition, but with 6 pace bowlers in the squad (I'm including Watson) wouldn't it have been better to leave out Pattinson in favour of a batsman?
Similar threads
