So uhh, is Inverarity happy with Australia's batting depth or not?

[Ruckus]

Yeah indeed. Might even be more interesting than the international cricket!

 

[Briony]

Ferguson anyone????? What did he do to get dropped???? Got injured, then got fit and not heard of again. ODI record for Aus is pretty good, he and Voges must be unlucky to not be there.

Invers said that he wanted him and the older Marsh to get some solid first class runs behind them before he picks them again.

 

[MW1304]

For ODIs?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

I think it became clear when Ponting and Hussey weren't cast aside when they were both in wretched runs of form that the selectors didn't rate what was coming behind them. Those two had far more chances than some other Australian players have been given to refind their form. Worked for them to be fair but in previous years they would have been dropped long before they turned it around.

 

[Red]

Notice how it's gone wrong since that ponce Watson became a regular.

It won't get any better now he's vice captain.

 

[Prince EWS]

I find it tough to select people for tests based on their ODI record or ODD performances. Entirely different game. Khawaja looks solid enough, I wouldn't be surprised if his problems were primarily mental.

I think he was actually talking about ODI cricket, since that was the context of Inverarity's second article.

 

[pup11]

Tbh... Australia' selection woes are more because of inept adminstration and lack of vision among people who are running the show then the actual performance of players playing out in middle.

Take Hughes for example, he has got an exceptional FC record which is better than many an Australian batsmen currently involved in domestic cricket and the best thing is he is only 23, so one would have thought the selectors would leave no stone unturned to establish him as a permanent player in the national side, but then here is the thing, Hughes has already been picked and dropped from the national side 4 times, I mean what good is this doing either him or the team?

When likes of Ponting, Hussey, Hayden, Waugh bros. went through long lean phases selectors kept backing them to come good due to their proven track records, but then why have different yardsticks for younger players?

Guys like Hughes or Khwajha have little left to prove at the domestic level and their next hurdle would have been establishing themselves at the international level and any technical flaws they have could/should have been corrected with the help of the support staff, but then the support staff too is full of useless people and rather than bringing in some accountability into that area of the team all sort of lame excuses are being made.

 

[Red]

Yep, Hughes was screwed over to make way for Watson, who was brought in to the side as an opening batsman to provide some medium pace bowling to cover Johnson's rubbish erratic pace bowling.

 

[Flem274*]

Hughes was gone. Had to be dropped.

 

[Spikey]

The most recent time yep. But he's talking about being dropped because we didn't want to drop MJ in the 09 Ashes. One could say that was deserved too. The problem was, he was always next in between 2009 and 2011. This dropping will be good, because he's no chance of playing for Aus again for awhile. He can just focus on domestic cricket or w/ever. After the Ashes dropping, he was still on call all the time, while trying to work on his technique he was being told to fix up.

 

[Red]

The most recent time yep. But he's talking about being dropped because we didn't want to drop MJ in the 09 Ashes. One could say that was deserved too. The problem was, he was always next in between 2009 and 2011. This dropping will be good, because he's no chance of playing for Aus again for awhile. He can just focus on domestic cricket or w/ever. After the Ashes dropping, he was still on call all the time, while trying to work on his technique he was being told to fix up.

Yeh, I'm referring to the first time is happened, which really messed him up I think.

The first time, he was dropped after two tests in England. Everyone knows that it takes time to adjust there. In the series before (his first test series), he'd made scores of 75, 115 160, 33 and 32 against a SA attack including Steyn, Nitini, Morkel and Kallis.

Then in the English series of 09, he made a 36, a 4 and a 17, and was then dropped for Watson. Bizzaro.

Guy has serious talent, which he's proven at international level against high quality pace bowling. I think at some point we need to recognise he's good and play him.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeh, I'm referring to the first time is happened, which really messed him up I think.

The first time, he was dropped after two tests in England. Everyone knows that it takes time to adjust there. In the series before (his first test series), he'd made scores of 75, 115 160, 33 and 32 against a SA attack including Steyn, Nitini, Morkel and Kallis.

Then in the English series of 09, he made a 36, a 4 and a 17, and was then dropped for Watson. Bizzaro.

Guy has serious talent, which he's proven at international level against high quality pace bowling. I think at some point we need to recognise he's good and play him.

That is glossing over the fact that England had made him look decidedly ordinary, even in the warm-up games with the Lions where he was unable to score at bowling aimed at his body.

However, I think that it is fair enough - especially with the benefit of hindsight - to say that it was a mistake to drop Hughes, and to have given him a chance to sort things out himself. The way he bats, he's always going to look bad when he gets out, he has (in FC cricket, and up to that point in Engalnd) just gotten out less regularly than most!

EDIT: in response to the last line, yes, he does have serious talent and he proved that he could play fast bowling against South Africa. But he hasn't been able to prove that in the time since teams had properly analysed his technique and discovered how to restrict his scoring.