Two questions

[Marcuss]

1. Where's the fife?
2. Gimme the fife.

Reminds me, where is Casson?

[Prince EWS]

Reminds me, where is Casson?

Grade cricket.

[Spikey]

And at number 3! Watch out Ponting.

[BoyBrumby]

I don't really have a dog in the fight but I have to say this collection of Oz selectors do seem to be particularly clueless.

So many of their shouts seem to be made in desperation initially then the error is compounded out of some misguided sense of loyalty and/or fairness to the player who was holding the parcel when the music stopped.

Yes, Oz won in Perth, but it was a victory whose foundations weren't set on a firm basis. Hussey continued his freakish form and Johnson and Harris produced wonderful performances. Useful 50s from Watson and Haddin aside, the rest of the side was conspicuous by its absence. Siddle hardly bowled and Smith and Watson actually didn't but the win seems to have convinced the selectors all is well (even the squad with poor, hapless Beer in) was ok.

Would be ****ing savage were I a crim.

[Spark]

Again - has Nathan Hauritz **** in Ghappel's lunch box or something?

[Redbacks]

Again - has Nathan Hauritz **** in Ghappel's lunch box or something?

Seems to be the only task the selectors do with consistency. P*** them off and it's curtains on your career until your $tatu$ forces them to reconsider. Hauritz has low marketing power and no signs of undroppable ability.

[andyc]

Yeah, the selectors have a lot to answer for re: their handling of Hauritz. Dropping him after the India tour was arguably justified, but to go to a rookie halfway through the series with 5/6 games of experience under his belt while Nathan's cracking hundreds and taking wickets is ridiculous. The sign of a man is the willingness to admit you've made a mistake and correct it, not to bury your head in the sand and keep doing it.

[GingerFurball]

Would disagree that binning Hauritz after India was fair, every team would be binning their spinner after touring India if the only criteria you were judging them on was performance in India.

Hauritz had at least been competent for Australia, crucially, he'd done well in Australia. Binning him for this series makes precisely zero sense when you look at the alternatives.

[andyc]

Would disagree that binning Hauritz after India was fair, every team would be binning their spinner after touring India if the only criteria you were judging them on was performance in India.

Hauritz had at least been competent for Australia, crucially, he'd done well in Australia. Binning him for this series makes precisely zero sense when you look at the alternatives.

Yeah, totally agreed. Just saying that there was some justification for dropping him after India, even though I didn't agree with it.

[Mister Wright]

Looks like Haurtitz is set to be overlooked again for Sydney, which is an absolute joke.

[vic_orthdox]

From the outside, it doesn't seem like there is a clear hierarchy with the selectors either. Hilditch is the Chairman of Selectors, but Greg Chappell is the "National Talent Identification Manager" or something, and doing all the media; acting as the public face for the selectors.

[Mister Wright]

From the outside, it doesn't seem like there is a clear hierarchy with the selectors either. Hilditch is the Chairman of Selectors, but Greg Chappell is the "National Talent Identification Manager" or something, and doing all the media; acting as the public face for the selectors.

None of them are doing a good job. They can call each other whatever they want.

[morgieb]

Believe the only justification for picking Beer is to look consistent, which really ****s me as Haurie's a far better bowler. And I don't even think Hauritz is that good.