fails the rohrer test iirc
fails the rohrer test iirc
Brad McNamara @bbuzzmc
Will say this once and then nothing else. Defamation laws quite clear in Aus.be careful.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Somebody has to...
Don't think its as bad tbh. Our bowling stocks are seriously good.
Don't go chasing waterfalls
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.
A no dickheads policy would be nice, but I doubt the current Australia A side would fare well at the Oval.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)