Selection errors tally thread

[BoyBrumby]

It was about the extra bowling more than the lack of runs at the top of the order, IMO. It was either North or Hughes that had to make way and North has two tons on the tour already.

Think that's a fair enought shout, but would probably have still ditched North myself as his offies aren't really a factor with Hauritz playing and, all things being equal, Hughes is arguably the better batsman, despite the hideous-looking technique.

 

[Woodster]

The decision to include Watson was about having that extra bowler, then it became a case of who can they leave out ? By process of elimination, Hughes was deemed the man to go. Imo, shuffling Hussey up the order to open would probably have been my thought process rather than Watson opening, and whether he should or should not be up there, he did bat very well in those 30 overs, in the face of some admittedly below par bowling.

It was a brave decision and currently one that is paying off, in terms of Watson playing an innings Hughes currently does not look capable of. I still think it's not a bad thing for England as it may persuade Australia to stick with him at the top for the rest of the series, and that can only work in our favour.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

What's the current tally of errors?

 

[GIMH]

For England I'd say just one so far, Monty shouldn't have played the first Test, even accounting for his heroic batting. People have their concerns over Bell, but for me he was the right choice once KP went.

Australia's selection seems a lot more debatable at the minute.

 

[Richard]

I would certainly not have picked Bell for this Test (or the Lions game) ahead of Shah, but that isn't completely and totally brainless.

Several of Australia's selections this tour have been, IMO, regardless of how masterstroke-ish they've appeared in hindsight.

And however naturally talented MSP remains, at the current time he should be nowhere near a Test side, and shouldn't have played that First Test. Onions, however many doubts anyone (myself absolutely included) retain about him, should have played that opening Test. You only find out whether someone can bowl by giving them the chance.

 

[GIMH]

Didn't you call Onions a club bowler a couple of months back? Thought you'd be well against his inclusion tbh.

 

[Richard]

Not sure I went quite that far - said that until this season he was absolutely not a county-standard bowler, though he was probably still second-XI standard - but regardless, he's been superb this season, performed decent-ish-ly against West Indies, and should have played the Ashes opener.

If anyone could name me a better option, for any of these three Ashes games so far, I'd like to hear it. I'd not have picked him against West Indies, but once he played there, he had to play against Australia.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

For England I'd say just one so far, Monty shouldn't have played the first Test, even accounting for his heroic batting. People have their concerns over Bell, but for me he was the right choice once KP went.

Australia's selection seems a lot more debatable at the minute.

I'm just a bit confused by the criteria for counting up the tally.
If Watson makes a double century does that still count as an error because it appeared rather silly or does performance in the game count for anything.

 

[GIMH]

Oh I agree, just didn't think you were all that impressed with him against the Windies.

Sidebottom the only alternative I can think of, and sadly that doesn't seem an attractive one at the minute (or ever again? )

 

[GIMH]

I'm just a bit confused by the criteria for counting up the tally.
If Watson makes a double century does that still count as an error because it appeared rather silly or does performance in the game count for anything.

Well as you well know, it depends who you ask

 

[GIMH]

Not sure I went quite that far - said that until this season he was absolutely not a county-standard bowler, though he was probably still second-XI standard - but regardless, he's been superb this season, performed decent-ish-ly against West Indies, and should have played the Ashes opener.

If anyone could name me a better option, for any of these three Ashes games so far, I'd like to hear it. I'd not have picked him against West Indies, but once he played there, he had to play against Australia.

BTW

Still a dreadful selection, obviously. You could virtually have picked a decent club bowler (which is what Onions is mostly little more than) and he'd have run through the pathetic batting West Indies managed in that first-innings.

 

[Richard]

I see - I suppose I should emphasise that I do like to use the tool of exaggeration from time to time. Well, Onions has the rest of his county career to prove he's more than just a decent club bowler, and has made a good start to that task with this 2\3-of-season. Until this season, though, he was not a county-standard bowler. Whether this season proves a flash-in-the-pan or a turning point remains to be seen in coming seasons.

Since I made that post it should be emphasised that Onions has gone from having a good 2-3 county games and knocking-over a piss-poor West Indies to taking 50-odd FC wickets in 7 games or so.

 

[Richard]

Oh I agree, just didn't think you were all that impressed with him against the Windies.

FTR, I wasn't. But his performances there have gained a little stature as his county season has worn on. He did a few things right; at the time my reaction was "decent batsmen would've dealt with that bowling easily", which I still think is the case; but since he's taken another stack of county wickets afterwards I've begun to consider that he was showing some amount of potential while bowling a lot of crap, rather than the reaction of the time which was purely that he was mostly bowling crap.

 

[marc71178]

People have their concerns over Bell, but for me he was the right choice once KP went.

There's nobody else who's a better pick IMO.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

what would Oz have done if we hadn't let Manou play?

Hussey would have kept and someone would have substitute fielded, I suspect.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hussey would have kept and someone would have substitute fielded, I suspect.

Reckon? Would have thought they're taking the long view but if there was no choice Haddin would play through it. Ponting should do more 'keeping I reckon; saw him do it for Tas a couple of times, was a gun! But yeah, Huss is a real option for sure.

Manou would be bricking it right now. The pressure's off in some ways, though; Haddin will clearly come right back as soon as he's fit so he's got one Test, maybe two. There's plenty of batting around him in the lower-order so as long as he doesn't shell a sitter and scores a run or two, it'll be looked as a successful match for him.

 

[Streetwise]

Nope, Hussey would've been a better choice and I said so. Anyway, the idea that Hughes had to go is nonsensical IMO, he'd had 1 bad game. Absolutely ridiculous to drop him for this Test AFAIC.

This policy has served Australia very well over the last two decades and has proven itself to be instrumental in giving Australia the edge in developing cricketers.

Younger or new players are given time in the team and like players before him such as Hayden, Ponting, Langer, Katich and many more Hughes has been dropped from the team after a bad run and not only does this assist in allowing them time to reflect on what is required for them to succeed at test level it brings them back to earth on how tough it is to play international cricket. In the long term Hughes will understand that this is part of the learning process and he will come back better or not at all.

Watson himself has been through this process even though mainly due to injuries but you can see the desire this man has to make an impression and to take any chance he gets and make the most of it.

Hughes needs this reminder to instill a bit of discipline and team first ethic which in the long run will benifit Australia and Hughes. This is not a knee jerk reaction from the Australian selectors but a calculated move to build a team for the future. Australian selectors record is second to none in the international scene and their handling of players has been outstanding.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah with Australia now having batted first, unless it's a very serious break I imagine he'd have played through. If we bowled first I am quite sure Huss would've donned the gloves though.

 

[Uppercut]

Did you mention this before the game started? If so I missed it.

Sure did, in this very thread and in the match thread too.

 

[Uppercut]

There's nobody else who's a better pick IMO.

Yeah, have to reluctantly agree. Wish Samit Patel would stop being so fat though.