Trevor Hohns resigns as chairman of selectors

[Richard]

what, so the reverswinig inswinger that got got Collingwood, the ball 90 mph beauty that bowled Jones, the delivery that got Bell & the Flinotff Lbw were all crap? you got to be joking.

Has sean just said it wont be crap you are going for 20 rusn between that, but what i'm saying is all he needs to do is improve his accuracy since he has all the tools to become a lethal prospect in the future.

Yes, actually, to be fair the Collingwood ball was a decent one, too. The Jones ball was NOT to his credit, no bowler can cause the ball to creep along the floor. It was certainly not a "beauty".

 

[Richard]

Smith isn't a poor batsman by any means, but he's got some technique issues and even more significantly he has a rather poor temprament for a test batsman, I think. He seems to fall apart as soon as anyone puts him under a bit of pressure, and while Lee did work him out pretty thoroughly during the Australian leg of the recent series and got him LBW with inswingers a few times and caught at slip with straighter ones a few more, half the time he got himself out against other bowlers by playing silly shots.

He'd be better suited to not opening the batting, I think. Unfortunately all three of the major opening options that South Africa have at the moment in Smith, Gibbs and De Villiers would all be better suited to not opening. Smith is definitely the best of the three.

All of Smith, ABdeV and Gibbs are openers, have been all their careers, and are hence most likely to succeed in the opening position.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

All of Smith, ABdeV and Gibbs are openers, have been all their careers, and are hence most likely to succeed in the opening position.

That's not really how it works, is it? Rahul Dravid is better equipped to open the batting at test level than AB De Villiers. It doesn't matter how much he has played there, he has a far better technique and temprament and is well suited to the job, while De Villiers has a very loose technique and is always going to be in danger against the new ball.

Similarly, Justin Langer was always more equipped to be a good opening batsman than someone like De Villiers. The only way you can see how well a player will perform in the position is to play them thee.

 

[Richard]

Err, how is de Villiers not equipped to open the batting?
Dravid certainly isn't - because he, purely and simply, doesn't like opening. And if you don't like opening, you're not well-equipped to open, however good your technique is.
And de Villiers actually has a very good technique - it doesn't stop him getting the odd run of low scores we've seen of late, but it does stand him in good stead - along with the fact that he's always been an opener.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err, how is de Villiers not equipped to open the batting?
Dravid certainly isn't - because he, purely and simply, doesn't like opening. And if you don't like opening, you're not well-equipped to open, however good your technique is.
And de Villiers actually has a very good technique - it doesn't stop him getting the odd run of low scores we've seen of late, but it does stand him in good stead - along with the fact that he's always been an opener.

Are you serious? De Villiers has a shocking technique, he's alongside Chris Gayle. He's a very talented player, but he's got to do major work to be able to handle decent new ball bowling with any success in the long term. He looked all over the shop against Australia, every time the ball did anything at all.

 

[Richard]

Funny how that was so un-apparent against either England or West Indies.
In fact... funny thing... against England he looked infinately more comfortable at the top than in the middle.
Yes, he had problems against Australia but I don't really think that was excessively down to loose driving.

 

[aussie]

Yes, actually, to be fair the Collingwood ball was a decent one, too. The Jones ball was NOT to his credit, no bowler can cause the ball to creep along the floor. It was certainly not a "beauty".

No way that ball didn't creep along the ground, Jones was beaten by the pace of Tait, simple..

 

[Richard]

Utter rubbish. He was beaten (as any batsman, ever, would have been) by the fact that the ball barely rose to knee-height when it should've been about stomach-height.
Decent batsmen don't get beaten by pace.
You'd have to be extremely foolish to think that Jones wouldn't have hit that ball had it bounced properly.

 

[aussie]

Bracken certainly hasn't always done better than Clark at the domestic level - before 2005\06 he'd done little of note. ODIs mean nothing as far as Test cricket are concerned.

That's as maybe - but he didn't go, did he? And I never thought he was likely to, even with no McGrath.
That means there were 6 bowlers ahead of him.

Yep, certainly was.

Based on the fact that he seems a pretty decent bowler, especially on seaming pitches.

Err, yes. Considerably. I've seen both Bracken and Lee bowl so many piles of rubbish it's untrue.

1. Well even so he surely must have done much things better than Clark for a long time since Bracken was first picked for Australia since 2000/01. Plus in Bracken case even though ODI performances don't always relate to good test performances. Bracken OD form since he came back into the team post ashes was very good & with the selectors at the time going through an abundance of bowling options during the summer added to the fact no one tought Clark would be much of a test bowler. Bracken case of being selected in the test side in SA wasn't that hard to understand. Unlike how you are making this argument

2. It wasn't a maybe it was very close to happening. Dizzy & Kasper bowled very well in the Pura cup & Kasper marginally edged him out because in Hohn's opinion Kasper was bowling slightly better.

3. Ok he played then, but it doesn't mean because he did play for Australia A then he was was seriously in consideration for an international spot (let alone a test spot) at that time. I give you the recent England A tour for example Michael Yardy, Rikki Clarke, Jamie Darlymple they were in the squad but you wouldn't say those 3 are seriously in the selectors thoughts for an international call up presently.

4. and how did you come to conclude that, where would you have seen him bowl to make you so sure that he would be so successfull againts SA if picked?

5. , joke of the evening

 

[aussie]

Utter rubbish. He was beaten (as any batsman, ever, would have been) by the fact that the ball barely rose to knee-height when it should've been about stomach-height.
Decent batsmen don't get beaten by pace.
You'd have to be extremely foolish to think that Jones wouldn't have hit that ball had it bounced properly.

I just fast-fowarded the ashes DVD to that point & i stand corrected but you cannot rubbish the fact Tait's pace wasn't a key there in the ball beating Jone's defence.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I think ABdeV has a perfectly fine technique, it's just been a confidence thing. His footwork was so much more positive and definite back in Perth. He also seemed willing to go out there and score quickly, something that's been missing since the Sydney test. Certainly very compact, willing to get behind the ball, and thus far has just been a bit sloppy with his feet when coming forward IMO.

 

[Richard]

I just fast-fowarded the ashes DVD to that point & i stand corrected but you cannot rubbish the fact Tait's pace wasn't a key there in the ball beating Jone's defence.

I can. That ball would've bowled anyone at 70mph. You don't keep out balls that keep that much lower than you expected. Hell, I'd imagine he'd have failed to get down on it if Mark Ramprakash had bowled it (Ramps, BTW, is the slowest spinner I've ever seen, Jeremy Snape aside).

 

[Richard]

1. Well even so he surely must have done much things better than Clark for a long time since Bracken was first picked for Australia since 2000/01. Plus in Bracken case even though ODI performances don't always relate to good test performances. Bracken OD form since he came back into the team post ashes was very good & with the selectors at the time going through an abundance of bowling options during the summer added to the fact no one tought Clark would be much of a test bowler. Bracken case of being selected in the test side in SA wasn't that hard to understand. Unlike how you are making this argument

Bracken's ODI performances have always been good full-stop - as you mention, dating back to 2000\01. Anyone saying "he's bowled well in ODIs, let's give him a go in Tests!" when until 2005\06 his First-Class average was barely under 30 was very foolish.

2. It wasn't a maybe it was very close to happening. Dizzy & Kasper bowled very well in the Pura cup & Kasper marginally edged him out because in Hohn's opinion Kasper was bowling slightly better.

Err, yes - and that an untried bowler such as Clark was picked ahead of them (and that there was very definate surprise that Bracken was omitted) it suggests that both had to go plenty to make-up lost ground. Especially given how well both had done in the Pura Cup that season.

3. Ok he played then, but it doesn't mean because he did play for Australia A then he was was seriously in consideration for an international spot (let alone a test spot) at that time. I give you the recent England A tour for example Michael Yardy, Rikki Clarke, Jamie Darlymple they were in the squad but you wouldn't say those 3 are seriously in the selectors thoughts for an international call up presently.

With Clarke and Dalrymple I'm very sure both are very close to international calls. If Yardy is, well... we're in deep trouble, but both Clarke and Dalrymple are probably next cabs-off-the-rank.
Usually, playing for A-teams means you're in the selectors minds and Clark has been playing for Aus A for a while now, suggesting that you were wrong to say he wasn't in said minds until 2004\05.

4. and how did you come to conclude that, where would you have seen him bowl to make you so sure that he would be so successfull againts SA if picked?

In England. And he always looked like he knew how to land the ball, and bowl with the seam upright.

5. , joke of the evening

Err, what? You seriously think Bracken and Lee haven't bowled rubbish aplenty at the Test level.

 

[aussie]

Bracken's ODI performances have always been good full-stop - as you mention, dating back to 2000\01. Anyone saying "he's bowled well in ODIs, let's give him a go in Tests!" when until 2005\06 his First-Class average was barely under 30 was very foolish.

Err, yes - and that an untried bowler such as Clark was picked ahead of them (and that there was very definate surprise that Bracken was omitted) it suggests that both had to go plenty to make-up lost ground. Especially given how well both had done in the Pura Cup that season.

With Clarke and Dalrymple I'm very sure both are very close to international calls. If Yardy is, well... we're in deep trouble, but both Clarke and Dalrymple are probably next cabs-off-the-rank.
Usually, playing for A-teams means you're in the selectors minds and Clark has been playing for Aus A for a while now, suggesting that you were wrong to say he wasn't in said minds until 2004\05.

In England. And he always looked like he knew how to land the ball, and bowl with the seam upright.

Err, what? You seriously think Bracken and Lee haven't bowled rubbish aplenty at the Test level.

1. Not that foolish because even though most people know that ODI success doesn't always relate to test success. That conclusion is made after we see or selectors see players play both forms of the game. So picking Bracken to debut againts India in 2003/04 after some superb ODI performances wasn't foolish at all.

2. Who are you refering to here Dizzy, Kasper or Clark?.

3. I seriously doubt that Darlympe and Clarke are that close to internationa call ups in either international side prsently. Also yea being selected in your national A team means the selectors are impressed by your ability but it doesn't mean you are a front runner for an immediate international call up as was the case with Clark in 2002/03, you gotta be crazy to think he was seriously going to be called up at tha time.

Other than McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Bichel who were the main 4 seamers around that time (the ashes summer) behind them were Bracken, Williams, Kasper who were at least showing something in either domestic or Inernaional OD cricket to be worth a call up. Clark was just doing respectably for NSW, but nothing to worth an international call up until the 2004/05 season.

4.Well i admit i wasn't always aware of his decent performances in domestic cricket, but i don't think thats enough for one to be sure he would have done well vs SA. You bluffing me mayn..

5. I wasn't laughing at that, since Lee and Bracken have bowled their fair share a trash at international level. I was laughing at the fact that you always thought that Clark was a better bowler that them both wish is utter crap judging by the fact that in Lee's case he has never done anything better than Lee at domestic cricket nor Bracken.

 

[aussie]

I can. That ball would've bowled anyone at 70mph. You don't keep out balls that keep that much lower than you expected. Hell, I'd imagine he'd have failed to get down on it if Mark Ramprakash had bowled it (Ramps, BTW, is the slowest spinner I've ever seen, Jeremy Snape aside).

looking at it again i think that ball skidded more than it kept low (his low whippy release along with his pace also playing a major part).

 

[Richard]

1. Not that foolish because even though most people know that ODI success doesn't always relate to test success. That conclusion is made after we see or selectors see players play both forms of the game. So picking Bracken to debut againts India in 2003/04 after some superb ODI performances wasn't foolish at all.

It was, given that there were better options (Kasprowicz and Clark).

2. Who are you refering to here Dizzy, Kasper or Clark?.

Gillespie and Kasprowicz. Both of whom were unfathomably dreadful in The Ashes and it was going to take one hell of a lot of good form to get them back into the picture.

3. I seriously doubt that Darlympe and Clarke are that close to internationa call ups in either international side prsently.

I could name you countless players who've been called-up seemingly out-of-the-blue. Anyone who's in an A-team is always going to be not-too-far-short.

Also yea being selected in your national A team means the selectors are impressed by your ability but it doesn't mean you are a front runner for an immediate international call up as was the case with Clark in 2002/03, you gotta be crazy to think he was seriously going to be called up at tha time.

Had there been an injury or two, I'd be very surprised if he weren't to have been.

Other than McGrath, Gillespie, Lee and Bichel who were the main 4 seamers around that time (the ashes summer) behind them were Bracken, Williams, Kasper who were at least showing something in either domestic or Inernaional OD cricket to be worth a call up. Clark was just doing respectably for NSW, but nothing to worth an international call up until the 2004/05 season.

How on Earth was Williams doing more to merit attention than Clark? Seriously, how on Earth did anyone ever get the impression that Williams was anything other than a nothing bowler? Indeed, the same applies to Bracken before the most recent season.

4.Well i admit i wasn't always aware of his decent performances in domestic cricket, but i don't think thats enough for one to be sure he would have done well vs SA. You bluffing me mayn..

No, it's not. No-one can know anything for sure. But had I known what the pitches were going to play like, I'd sure as have said somewhere that I backed him to do well.

5. I wasn't laughing at that, since Lee and Bracken have bowled their fair share a trash at international level. I was laughing at the fact that you always thought that Clark was a better bowler that them both wish is utter crap judging by the fact that in Lee's case he has never done anything better than Lee at domestic cricket nor Bracken.

I'll say it again - Bracken before the most recent season had done little of note at the domestic level. Lee has barely even played for the last 5 seasons, so I hardly see how he's relevant.
Both have bowled crap at the Test level on many, many occasions, and hence I'd not be surprised if Clark turns-out to be a better bowler than either, because he seems to me to have more of the raw materials.

 

[Richard]

looking at it again i think that ball skidded more than it kept low (his low whippy release along with his pace also playing a major part).

You really are clutching at straws here. The ball crept along the floor. No credit WHATSOEVER can go to the bowler for a ball keeping low, never mind that low. Equally, whatever pace a ball's bowled at, a ball that keeps that low is always going to be realistically impossible to lay a bat on.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

You really are clutching at straws here. The ball crept along the floor. No credit WHATSOEVER can go to the bowler for a ball keeping low, never mind that low. Equally, whatever pace a ball's bowled at, a ball that keeps that low is always going to be realistically impossible to lay a bat on.

That's certainly not true. As we saw in the most recent test between Australia and Bangladesh, the key to success on a wicket which is keeping low is simply to play forward as often as possible. If you play forward all the time you won't get caught out by the ball staying low, which is why Gilchrist survived long enough to make 140 odd despite facing at least a dozen balls which kept as low as the ones that got Ponting and Martyn out when they were playing back.

 

[aussie]

You really are clutching at straws here. The ball crept along the floor. No credit WHATSOEVER can go to the bowler for a ball keeping low, never mind that low. Equally, whatever pace a ball's bowled at, a ball that keeps that low is always going to be realistically impossible to lay a bat on.

it kept low but it didn't role along the ground, that i can assure you.

 

[aussie]

It was, given that there were better options (Kasprowicz and Clark).

Gillespie and Kasprowicz. Both of whom were unfathomably dreadful in The Ashes and it was going to take one hell of a lot of good form to get them back into the picture.

I could name you countless players who've been called-up seemingly out-of-the-blue. Anyone who's in an A-team is always going to be not-too-far-short.

Had there been an injury or two, I'd be very surprised if he weren't to have been.

How on Earth was Williams doing more to merit attention than Clark? Seriously, how on Earth did anyone ever get the impression that Williams was anything other than a nothing bowler? Indeed, the same applies to Bracken before the most recent season.

No, it's not. No-one can know anything for sure. But had I known what the pitches were going to play like, I'd sure as have said somewhere that I backed him to do well.

I'll say it again - Bracken before the most recent season had done little of note at the domestic level. Lee has barely even played for the last 5 seasons, so I hardly see how he's relevant.
Both have bowled crap at the Test level on many, many occasions, and hence I'd not be surprised if Clark turns-out to be a better bowler than either, because he seems to me to have more of the raw materials.

1. No the TVS cup was in October to mid november, where Bracken was so superb Kasper starting hitting form if i remember at the start of december which eventually lead him to being selected in the VB series finals as Bichels repalcement. So in Kasper case before the 1st test vs India picking him over Bracken was not in the question. In Clark case no way, geez he did nothing that year to be anywhere near the selectors thought for the first test, dam thats stupid. So you are suggesting that the selectots should have picked a novice who had done nothing to grasp there attention over a bloke who had just caused the Indian much problems in India just before?

2. Yea initially after their poor ashes bowling performances it would have taken something big from them both to get back into the side soon. But has we saw during the Australian summer other than McGrath, Lee, Bracken and with Tait injured and the backup pace bowlers like Dorey, Johnson looked were poor a Clark just looking average to everyone (except the selectors who picked him) in his ODI's before the test series in SA. As soon they two veterans begun to show form in domestic cricket they definately became front runners for a call up.

3. Yea i know but seriously yo look at both England test & ODI side, even looking at the fact that some players do pop up from no where these two even though were in the A-team have to be way down the line. come on..

4. Had their been an injury or two Bracken, Williams were ahead of him, plus at that time he was like the 5th best bowler for NSW even Mark Nicholas and Ashley Noffke (who subsequently went to the Caribbean in 2003) were ahead of him.

5. Willams overall may have been average but when he played for Australia especially in ODI during the VB series 2003/04 where he was bowling very well he wasn't rubbish thats for sure. You keep saying Bracken was trash but its not like Clark was doing better than him in domestic cricket during the 2002/03 for the selectors to want to pick him over Bracken..

6. Pull of Bracken's facts in in FC career then vs Clark then?. Plus what do mean Lee is irrelevant you said that you always thought Clark was a better bowler than him...

I'd agree that he looks like to have more to offer than Bracken in tests, but christ not Lee what raw materials Clark could have that Lee doesn't?