Page 7 of 47 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 698
Like Tree63Likes

Thread: Australia's test side for the Ashes in Australia

  1. #91
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Spikey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    All Glory To The Nev
    Posts
    32,800
    fails the rohrer test iirc
    Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?

    With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left

  2. #92
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    18,124
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    Has Adam Voges been considered at all for tests? Just remembered he existed and thought it seemed strange that he was never mentioned. He has a few things going for him, good ODI record, plenty of experience in England etc etc
    Not really. Its strange though that he hasn't given the alternatives. All the way back in the 2006 Ashes, Voges was named 12th man after Martyn's retirement and Symonds got the nod in the XI, so you would think that with him averaging 54,38 and 54 from 2009/2010 to 2011/2012 in Shield Cricket and good ODI performances would have been enough to get him a game. I would have definitely picked one of Voges or Bailey in the initial squad.
    NRL Tipping Champion 2014

  3. #93
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,674
    I was an avid reader of Steve Waugh's tour diaries, and the recurring theme in all of them - at least the one that sticks in my mind - is his commentary on the Poms creating a losing culture by constantly chopping and changing their side and having everyone look over their shoulders. Now that the boot's firmly on the other foot, it's a great deal easier to empathise with the 90's English mindset of selection - we have to persist with someone, but what if that someone is the next Ramprakash or Hick, constantly in the frame by weight of FC runs but never making the step up in temperament for Test matches? That's our only obstacle to a pick-and-stick policy, otherwise we'd have confirmed it by now. Will Hughes go down the same path by the scars of three droppings giving him mental blocks? Is Khawaja just not Test class? Will the People's Champ ever get his breakthrough ton? Hard to see when their Test averages are being challenged by Mitchell Starc.

    If we persist with them, they may never deliver. But if we don't persist with them, we'll be forever haunted with the spectre of what if. That's not a traditionally English mindset, it's one of any struggling team of neophytes who don't believe in themselves. When Waugh's team went from losing to winning, he forgot the **** decision that the selectors faced each Test before 1989.

    Honestly, I don't envy Invers at the moment. He's on a hiding to nothing whoever he puts in the top 6, and even the spinner and third seamer. Do we want to hop back on the twenty Test merry-go-round of blooding the next big thing and pray they become the proverbial duck to water?
    Monk, straw man and Flem274* like this.
    "The Australian cricket captain is the Prime Minister Australia wishes it had. Steve Waugh is that man, Michael Clarke is not." - Jarrod Kimber

    RIP Fardin Qayyumi and Craig Walsh - true icons of CricketWeb.

  4. #94
    International Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,322
    The difference I can see between the situations is that in the 90s England had people scoring runs in CC, probably because of the low quality, so there was normally a few other realistic options for us to chop and change to. In some ways the fact that you don't appear to have many other candidates in SS who are scoring runs, could mean you just stay with the incumbents. Khawaja aside, he looks totally out of his depth and the hold Swann has over him now is akin to Warne/Cullinan level, that might be something of a blessing in disguise as at least one of them (my bet would be Smith) has to come good at some stage.


  5. #95
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,144
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    I was an avid reader of Steve Waugh's tour diaries, and the recurring theme in all of them - at least the one that sticks in my mind - is his commentary on the Poms creating a losing culture by constantly chopping and changing their side and having everyone look over their shoulders. Now that the boot's firmly on the other foot, it's a great deal easier to empathise with the 90's English mindset of selection - we have to persist with someone, but what if that someone is the next Ramprakash or Hick, constantly in the frame by weight of FC runs but never making the step up in temperament for Test matches? That's our only obstacle to a pick-and-stick policy, otherwise we'd have confirmed it by now. Will Hughes go down the same path by the scars of three droppings giving him mental blocks? Is Khawaja just not Test class? Will the People's Champ ever get his breakthrough ton? Hard to see when their Test averages are being challenged by Mitchell Starc.

    If we persist with them, they may never deliver. But if we don't persist with them, we'll be forever haunted with the spectre of what if. That's not a traditionally English mindset, it's one of any struggling team of neophytes who don't believe in themselves. When Waugh's team went from losing to winning, he forgot the **** decision that the selectors faced each Test before 1989.

    Honestly, I don't envy Invers at the moment. He's on a hiding to nothing whoever he puts in the top 6, and even the spinner and third seamer. Do we want to hop back on the twenty Test merry-go-round of blooding the next big thing and pray they become the proverbial duck to water?
    The biggest obstacle to a pick and stick policy is losing. No selection panel, journalist or fan from Australia (or England for that matter) is going to say "well do you know what, the 11 blokes we picked are the best 11 for the job, and the brutal truth is that we're not good enough to beat England."

  6. #96
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,144
    I've started re-reading Gideon Haigh's review of the 2010/11 Ashes and some of his articles from before that series make for interesting retrospective reading.

    One of the criticisms levelled at the selection panel prior to the last Ashes was that the top 6 became a closed shop - between Hayden's retirement and the start of the Ashes only 7 players had been selected for the top 6 - Hughes, Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, North and Watson.

    Now, Australia have gone completely the other way. Since the start of the 2010/11 Ashes Australia have had 9 players play in the number 3 position alone, and excluding nightwatchmen, have picked 17 different players in their top 6.

  7. #97
    International Captain straw man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    l
    Posts
    6,220
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    One of the criticisms levelled at the selection panel prior to the last Ashes was that the top 6 became a closed shop - between Hayden's retirement and the start of the Ashes only 7 players had been selected for the top 6 - Hughes, Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, North and Watson.
    I can see the logic in that approach - it's pick-and-stick in miniature with the idea that when the three older guys are gone the remaining four have had every opportunity to prove themselves and make up the new core of the top 6. After that you can bring two or three new guys into the side and they have the benefit of batting with established players and the succession plan rolls on. Given this approach (which ofc is not the only one possible) the failure in Australia's transition rests squarely on North, Hughes and Watson in failing to make the grade. Bloodline of kings has failed etc. etc. In hindsight perhaps they chose the wrong guys to put their faith in. You/Haigh are probably right that expanding that pool just a little would have given a better chance of good results.

    IMO a side needs a bare minimum of three quality established batsmen in the top 6 at any one point in time, plus a decent keeper-batsman at 7. Anything less than three consistent, experienced batsmen and the batting degenerates into a rabble. Too many inexperienced guys batting with each other, too much pressure on the 1-2 quality batsmen, too much ability for the opposition to focus just on those players, too many collapses that feed back into the side's psyche. Australia fell below that level a while ago.

    If for the next 18-24 months Australia's core batting could be Clarke, Rogers, someone (Warner?) + Haddin, that would be passable, and might just be long enough for two or three younger batsmen to improve to the point where they can bear that responsibility when Rogers, Hadding and then Clarke retire.
    uvelocity and CricAddict like this.

  8. #98
    State Captain Chubb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,866
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    I was an avid reader of Steve Waugh's tour diaries, and the recurring theme in all of them - at least the one that sticks in my mind - is his commentary on the Poms creating a losing culture by constantly chopping and changing their side and having everyone look over their shoulders. Now that the boot's firmly on the other foot, it's a great deal easier to empathise with the 90's English mindset of selection - we have to persist with someone, but what if that someone is the next Ramprakash or Hick, constantly in the frame by weight of FC runs but never making the step up in temperament for Test matches?
    Good post. Nasser Hussain made similar points in his autobiography. Waugh's talk of consistency of selection, positive thinking etc. was based on the fact he led a golden generation. When you don't have a golden generation you simply don't have that luxury.

    It's also telling I think that many people would point to how many players England had capped compared to Australia in the 90s. Look at the records of both countries since around 2007. The boot is well and truly on the other foot now.
    ZIMBABWE
    Somebody has to...

  9. #99
    International Coach GotSpin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stranger leering through a pair of binoculars
    Posts
    12,826
    Don't think its as bad tbh. Our bowling stocks are seriously good.
    Mark Waugh
    "He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
    RIP Craigos

  10. #100
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,159
    By the same token, however, Invers was a senior player for SA who helped take a bunch of nobodies to a Shield win in the 80's. Hookesy was no great shakes as skipper at the best of times so he relied heavily on Invers who, a bit-and-pieces players himself, had won an awful lot of Shield cricket in WA as captain of a team with top players. The bloke knows how to win games of cricket without the services of out-and-out guns.

    That SA team, though, was full of blokes who knew their games well, played within them and were just basic hard ****s and team men. The current Aussie side has many who could be considered the diametric opposite of that. Picking and sticking with guys is all well and good as long as they're the right guys for the team, not necessarily the 'best' players. Anyone who isn't needs to be gone and Invers would be well aware of that. So, it stands that any failure to pick the right combination of players is and should be one of the metrics by which he can and should be judged. If the wrong players keep getting picked, that's a failure on his part.
    The Colourphonics

    Bandcamp
    Twitderp

  11. #101
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,674
    A no dickheads policy would be nice, but I doubt the current Australia A side would fare well at the Oval.

  12. #102
    International Captain Maximas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Footmarks
    Posts
    6,248
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    A no dickheads policy would be nice, but I doubt the current Australia A side would fare well at the Oval.
    Finch forever Rogers never
    There are two colours in my head

    Sugarealm

  13. #103
    International Captain LongHopCassidy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Nursing a broken ****ing arm
    Posts
    5,674
    #justice4midge

  14. #104
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Top_Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Adelaide, South Australia
    Posts
    23,159
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    A no dickheads policy would be nice, but I doubt the current Australia A side would fare well at the Oval.
    Of course, would rule out most of the A side too. Line-up for The Oval clearly has to be:

    N Maddinson
    M Harris
    K Richardson/M Klinger
    G Bailey
    A Dools
    J Burns
    C Hartley
    L Butters
    N Ritz
    Rhino
    CHADDDDD(DDD)

    Hmmmm. Not as bad as I thought.

  15. #105
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    20,144
    Quote Originally Posted by straw man View Post
    You/Haigh are probably right that expanding that pool just a little would have given a better chance of good results.
    I'm not necessarily saying Australia were right or wrong, I just find it interesting reading back that the selection panel was being heavily criticised for doing the exact opposite of what they're doing now.

    I agree with a lot of the rest of your post and it's interesting to note the role inadvertantly played by Marcuss North in Australia's woes over the last 4 years.

Page 7 of 47 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. australia since Ashes 2005 in test cricket
    By jemo27 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 06:56 AM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-11-2005, 12:15 PM
  3. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 30-03-2005, 04:50 PM
  4. Australia's best ever ODI side
    By MattO in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13-01-2005, 04:16 PM
  5. Australia 'A' Side to take on England
    By Blewy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-11-2002, 02:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •