If England had a half decent Test class spinner people like Panesar who'd done little to justify his selection and someone like Swann who's never been anything more than a good County pro would never have played for England.
In fact we've not really had an unreservedly decent test spinner since I've been watching (early-mid 80s). Tuffers flattered to deceive and was tempramentally suspect, Monty seems unable or unwilling to even attempt to grow as a player and blokes like Emburey and Giles attract adjectives like "solid", "decent" & "workmanlike".
What went wrong ?
Absolutely stunned when they walked without Clark in the first test. Remember the conditions were more favourable than in the last game, and even then he went for only two runs an over.
Most people are admitting now that Johnson was rubbish for most of the series but Siddle was almost as bad
Haddin's byes were mainly due to Siddle sending them down to fine leg
What was wrong dropping these blokes for a game or two. You can always bring them back
Like the batting, it seemed that the selectors were unable to admit that things needed changing. Like jackasses they made a decision and stubbornly stuck with it even when losing !.
For me the only certainties in the next test team are Clarke, Katich and Haddin.
Even Punter, he's not what he used to be and should be made to earn his spot.
Hussey is going the same way as Hayden did last summer, no longer quite there. He has to make runs in shield cricket or make way.
For everyone else, it should be - play the first three shield games and pick the best from there.
Sutherland is just making a bigger joke of himself and the Australian team by turning his back to an obvious problem and conveniently living in the past, the selectors always keep talking about this horses for courses approach, but it very rarely gets implemented, what happened in RSA (which were totally different conditions) shouldn't even have been mentioned in the present context.Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyBrumby
Every average fan knows that Australia didn't pick the right team at the Oval, and for him to come out and defend that blunder only makes matters worse.
Check his figures for last summer and this series some good runs but how many times did he make them when it counted.
I know he is not the only one but he's not sacred, he was great, now he is occasionally very good .
Did the bowlers really let us down? Really? I don't think so. They regularly kept England to par scores but were given too much to do when the batting line-up really **** itself in those two tests.
For me, the Australian bowlers were steady but rarely threatening. At many times during the series, you felt that the England batsmen had just tossed their wickets away when everything looked so easy rather than Australian bowlers getting them out. Only at Leeds did the bowlers actually get England out, for the rest of the series the batsmen just obliged.
I take your point that the Australian bowlers were rarely poor during the series whilst their batting veered from excellent to fragile at some points. However, even that collapse at Lords was on the back of a very poor bowling performance in the first innings at Lords which arguably had just as much of an impact on the game as the bad batting did.