The fallout

[social]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

This last point is interesting, any idea why?

They do realise the SA series is over don't they? I can see why they might hold it in high regard as it highlights the potential some of our young players have. But there must be a limit to the leeway it gives them for future series surely.

Problems with Clarke are image (tatts, bimbo fiancee etc), not a team man (threw a hissy fit when forced to travel to training team bus rather than in his Lamborghini with girlfriend) and a couple of former greats claimed that team wouldnt follow him

Possibly the most senior person in CA stated that Clarke would be captain "over his dead body."

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by social

Problems with Clarke are image (tatts, bimbo fiancee etc), not a team man (threw a hissy fit when forced to travel to training team bus rather than in his Lamborghini with girlfriend) and a couple of former greats claimed that team wouldnt follow him

Possibly the most senior person in CA stated that Clarke would be captain "over his dead body."

So how long do we have to wait for that to happen?

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by slippyslip

Who cares about CA? Their job is to administer the game. To market it and grow it.

Doesn't surprise CA hate M. Clarke. If he wasnt such a good bat he would fall into the Chris Rogers/Brad Hodge category of "not fitting in with the team". Suppose he's not bland or boring enough to be held in high regard by CA.

It surprises me tbh. I always got the impression that he was a bit of a selectors' darling. Him having an extended run of exceptionally poor form in ODIs then being given the captaincy being a case in point.

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It surprises me tbh. I always got the impression that he was a bit of a selectors' darling. Him having an extended run of exceptionally poor form in ODIs then being given the captaincy being a case in point.

Yeah that would be my impression of him as well, given that he was hand picked at a young age and a modest domestic record. Seems strange that he would be made vice captain if they are completely against the idea of him captaining Australia as well.

[age_master]

Originally Posted by social

Problems with Clarke are image (tatts, bimbo fiancee etc), not a team man (threw a hissy fit when forced to travel to training team bus rather than in his Lamborghini with girlfriend) and a couple of former greats claimed that team wouldnt follow him

Possibly the most senior person in CA stated that Clarke would be captain "over his dead body."

Thought he used to drive a Ferrari tbh, and he sold that a couple of years back.

I agree that he wouldn't be VC if he wasn't likely to captain in the future.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by social

Problems with Clarke are image (tatts, bimbo fiancee etc), not a team man (threw a hissy fit when forced to travel to training team bus rather than in his Lamborghini with girlfriend) and a couple of former greats claimed that team wouldnt follow him

Possibly the most senior person in CA stated that Clarke would be captain "over his dead body."

This "anonymous" source of yours, who is probably nothing but a pencil pusher, wouldnt have many people care/cry if Clarke was made captain over his dead body.

Funny how this anonymous CA source seems to be in 100% agreement with you on everything,

How many WAGs are not bimbos? Just because Bingle has a career outside of Clarke shouldnt be held against them.

I dont like tatts ... but lots of people do. Wouldnt hold it against them.

Is Clarke a bit of a tosser? No doubt. But hey, thats professional sport. Imagine if every player in the Premier League or NBA were dropped or held back for being tossers - you wouldnt have enough to field 3 teams in either.

[slippyslip]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

It surprises me tbh. I always got the impression that he was a bit of a selectors' darling. Him having an extended run of exceptionally poor form in ODIs then being given the captaincy being a case in point.

Depends on what we mean by CA. Do you count the selectors as part of CA? The selectors have always loved M. Clarke. When he made his debut his first class average was well under 40. He was fast tracked into the Australian team.

Maybe some administrator types, who never played above grade cricket, hate his guts. Theres still lots of very very conservative cricket types in Australia.

I didnt mean to imply that everyone is against Clarke. He obviously has his supporters and his detractors.

[howardj]

I think the fallout should be huge.

With due respect to England, who were the better team it must be said, we lost to a pretty so-so side.

- Cook, Bell, Collingwood all had a very quiet time of it, and all have pretty standard career records
- But for Flintoff's brilliance at Lords, their two best players were either missing (KP) or hobbling.
- Their bowling attack all have fairly standard career records, but for Flintoff who is world class.

The reality is that, just before the Ashes, we rolled who I consider to be the best Test team in the world, in their own backyard.

Yet, with all of the above in our favour, we still lost.

It worries me that the team and hierarchy just seem to shrug losses off nowadays. The good thing to see in the aftermath to 2005, was how much the Aussies (and the whole Aussie cricket community including the public) hurt. There was national outrage at the loss! I loved that - it shows you care, and that you reject mediocrity. These days our reaction to losing is that "oh the team is in transition". How long can you be in transition for? We just beat SA in SA.

I really think CA need to take back control and:

- Conduct a thorough review as to why we lost, given the above points in our favour
- Follow up any recommendations out of that review
- Only allow small windows for wives on tour
- Schedule more 4 day tour games, and tell the players that if that means more time away from home, then too bad
- Make the selectors accountable

Losing the Ashes, in cricket terms, was disasterous and should not have happened. A serious review needs to be conducted and action taken.

[inbox24]

Agree.

There is a major acceptance of crapiness these days. I'm a firm believer that if they didn't take it so lightly and they selected the right people, we'd still be the number one team in the world and would've certainly won everywhere except probably in India.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by howardj

I think the fallout should be huge.

With due respect to England, who were the better team it must be said, we lost to a pretty so-so side.

- Cook, Bell, Collingwood all had a very quiet time of it, and all have pretty standard career records
- But for Flintoff's brilliance at Lords, their two best players were either missing (KP) or hobbling.
- Their bowling attack all have fairly standard career records, but for Flintoff who is world class.

Tbf, it's a pretty exceptional attack in home conditions. We were telling you before the series started to be wary of looking at their career figures, and so it proved. These are good bowlers.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by inbox24

Agree.

There is a major acceptance of crapiness these days. I'm a firm believer that if they didn't take it so lightly and they selected the right people, we'd still be the number one team in the world and would've certainly won everywhere except probably in India.

Being the world's number one team isn't about simply selecting "the right people" and not taking defeat lightly, there's a lot of other countries who are also trying to be the world's number one team and at the moment they've got better players than you do. England's not an easy place to tour- despite how you made it look when you had an all-time great side. You can't overhaul a long-term plan just because you narrowly lost one series 9,000 miles away from home.

There's a time to stick and a time to twist. I think with the promising young players Australia have now is the time to stick.

[inbox24]

FFS it's not JUST ONE series, it's a bunch of problems over an 18 month period. Get that into you.

[Redbacks]

^^ Exactly, dwelling on past series for 4 years is pointless!

Facts are if the people within CA are still satisfied with the past results then it's time to move on.

When we had ...... and .......

Back when................

The past .... years..........

Decadence, time to **** off.

[Jamee999]

You realise if you make major changes because of losing this series, you're basically making huge changes because you couldn't take one tail-end wicket?

[Redbacks]

Change of selectors is required. Soon enough the honeymoon from the press is winding up, people will be demanding results/high standards of performance and competent selection very soon.