Please Ricky Ponting! Stop with this crap!

[Josh]

Neither Symonds nor Lee should be dropped for the entire VB Series, atm they are One Day specialists. It isn't like Australia is in a funk and is losing matches, so they can afford to carry the Hayden's & Symonds' they are players who have done a lot for Australia over the last few years and deserve to keep their spots.

Why would Lee be dropped anyway?? He is currently Australia's leading wicket-taker and is bowling f***ing beautifully, might I add.

 

[Scallywag]

Are people forgetting the rain ruined game?

I don't think they were winning that one without any hesitation...

Or the last game when they were 5/80 odd.

 

[biased indian]

but they were batting first

its quiet different being 80/5 when chasing at more than 6 per over

 

[Scallywag]

but they were batting first

its quiet different being 80/5 when chasing at more than 6 per over

so you thought that Australia were winning without hesitation when they were 5/80 odd.

 

[biased indian]

so you thought that Australia were winning without hesitation when they were 5/80 odd.

i didnt think that they were winning

while they were loosing in the WI game which i think every one expect one was

 

[howardj]

I am not sure about Hayden. He has been an excellent test player and I don't recall him ever being an outstanding ODI player. He has been a good player, at times very good, but certainly not that good that he cannot be dropped when someone like Clarke is now doing so well and guys like Katich are pushing for a spot.

I agree with that. Hayden has built up an enormous amount of credits in Test Cricket, and should be afforded considerable leniency. Furthermore, there are no other openers of note banging on the Selection door.

By contrast, in ODI's, Hayden has never really been indespensible. Moreover, Michael Clarke has been outstanding in the VB series, as stand-in opener. He is clearly the better option looking towards the 2007 World Cup.

 

[Mister Wright]

Why would Lee be dropped anyway?? He is currently Australia's leading wicket-taker and is bowling f***ing beautifully, might I add.

When I said dropped, I meant rotated.

 

[Black Thunder]

one of the reasons why Australian cricket has been so strong is the selectors don't make snap decisions based on the last three or four weeks of cricket.

They don't drop guys who have established themselves in the team until they fail to perform for an extended period (usually around 6 to 12 months and sometimes more).

The perfect example of the level headedness shown is Damien Martyn. The call to drop him was loud and clear but they kept going with him, and now his favourite for the AB medal.

 

[sledger]

one of the reasons why Australian cricket has been so strong is the selectors don't make snap decisions based on the last three or four weeks of cricket.

They don't drop guys who have established themselves in the team until they fail to perform for an extended period (usually around 6 to 12 months and sometimes more).

The perfect example of the level headedness shown is Damien Martyn. The call to drop him was loud and clear but they kept going with him, and now his favourite for the AB medal.

yes but they are benefited by the fact that they posses huge amounts of quality and dpeth of it throughout the country and so snap decisions wouldnt ever really be needed

 

[Black Thunder]

yes but they are benefited by the fact that they posses huge amounts of quality and dpeth of it throughout the country and so snap decisions wouldnt ever really be needed

that's definetaly true, but i don't believe (especially batting wise) a country like India is so far behind Australia in the talent they possess. The difference being when a player doesn't perform for one test series they get cut from the squad. Look at Pakistan with Tafueeq Umar - had a fantastic start and looked to be a potential saviour to their opening bat position, had two average to poor series then was dropped, and IMO that was abit hastily from the selectors.

 

[Duncan]

Australia should have two international teams... so atleast there could be competition between those two teams! It's really getting boring now... Australia dominated the 90s, they already own the 00's and they don't seem to be slowing down.

Black Thunder makes a good point about Taufeeq Umar... it seems people just keep getting chances and others only get one chance and then they are discarded.

 

[marc71178]

Australia should not have 2 teams - the 2nd team wouldn't come close to challenging, and would be a middle of the road side.

 

[Duncan]

Well just even out the talent... each team can have half of the current team and then the rest can be filled up by new guys. It's just an idea. I know it's not going to happen.

 

[Black Thunder]

Well just even out the talent... each team can have half of the current team and then the rest can be filled up by new guys. It's just an idea. I know it's not going to happen.

actually say Australia allowed Ponting and Gilchrist to select two teams from Australia in an I-pick, then you-pick, you-pick then i-pick fashion, so the teams would be pretty even. It would be very interesting to see how those teams would go against other test nations. I'd back em to win most of the time......

 

[Black Thunder]

Australia should not have 2 teams - the 2nd team wouldn't come close to challenging, and would be a middle of the road side.

I'd back an Australia 2nd XI to beat all other test teams in the world, with only England in their current form to be competitive with them - England probably just in front.

(Based on the test team of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn, Clarke, Lehmann, Gilchrist, Gillespie, Warne, Kasprowicz, McGrath). It would be something along the lines of Chris Rogers, Matt Elliott, Simon Katich, Martin Love, Brad Hodge, Shane Watson, Wade Seccombe, Brett Lee, Andy Bichel, Stuart MacGill, Shaun Tait.

Except for Tait, Watson and Rogers (who are still up and comers) the rest would have all played at least 30 tests (most of them even more) if born in another country by now while the other three would now be regulars in the early stages of their test career.

 

[age_master]

seccombe,, love and hodge played 30 tests :o

 

[Black Thunder]

seccombe,, love and hodge played 30 tests :o

you don't think they're capable??

 

[Mister Wright]

you don't think they're capable??

Unlike yourself Age is a one-eyed N.S.W.

Secombe is easily the best keeper in Australia and Love (current form not included ) would have played 30 tests. Hodge may have been a little too inconsistent to play 30, but more than likely would have.

I don't necessarily agree that a 2nd team would be the 2nd best side in the world. If you put guys like Clarke, Katich & Williams in a team that doesn't have players capable of rescuing the side no matter the score, or putting continuous pressure on all the time, I don't think they would be nearly as successful.

 

[marc71178]

Except for Tait, Watson and Rogers (who are still up and comers) the rest would have all played at least 30 tests (most of them even more) if born in another country by now while the other three would now be regulars in the early stages of their test career.

And how do you know this?

With hardly any experience of International, how do you know they'd all have been great successes?

 

[Linda]

You dont have to be successful to have played 30 Tests. Look at Brett Lee!