That's ^ half the problem with the team at the moment though. Eventually, yes, each player manages to fire eventually (Hughes, Ponting, Haddin will peel off the occasional good innings, and Johnson will take the actual bag). In between times though, it's absolute dross. Even Hussey failed for two years straight, then he has three good Ashes Tests, and that will probably buy him another few years. Where's the ruthlessness gone in the selection room? Like with Ponting (averaged in the 30s for the last two years, averaging 18 this year, is 37 years of age) and yet they STILL indulge him. It's got to get back to a 'team first' philosophy in the selection room. When you're ranked fourth or fifth in the world, underperforming players are owed nothing.
- Winner of the 2011 and 2012 CricketWeb AFL tipping competition
- Winner of the 2011, 2012 and 2013 CricketWeb NRL tipping competition
Granted, he played well in SL, but my point was that everyone raved about his Ashes, but what about the two years before that? How he even got to the Ashes beats me. Anyway, the comment about Hussey was a minor point in an otherwise dead accurate post. We need to get back to some accountability at the selection table.
Would be starting with Warner ahead of Khawaja if the Wanderers is even half as lively as Newlands. Philander could cause him all kinds of problems.
Assuming if it is Cummins to come in (and it's nothing if not a bold selection) that means a(nother) life for Johnson too? Dunno what Cummins's batting's like (the stats aren't kind but it's a meaningless sample size) and wouldn't fancy Siddle, Harris or Lyon at 8 much.
Cricket Web's current Premier League Tipping Champion
- As featured in The Independent.
"I don't think that they'll come close to us to be honest."
- Steve Smith before the Ashes
"we use the word Day to describe hours and movements of the earth around the sun" - zorax
The Cricket Web Podcast - episode 22 out now
We're on iTunes - why not give us a review?
A lengthening of the tail might not be a huge concern, but it'd be remiss on the selectors' part if it didn't at least cross their minds. 47ao and all.
Like his bowling we know Johnson can produce a good innings but they are few and far between lately so dropping him won't affect our lower order performance wise. On paper of course it does but on paper Johnson should be getting 5 fers.
Cricinfo have Cummins when they could have just predicted no changes to the bowling lineup so either they know something or they fell into the media trap.
Cricinfo's "probable" lineups have a knack of being somewhat improbable.
Jesus brings life eternal
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)