Worth noting with regard to McGrath that he is playing in the C-H series. The process has obviously been a buildup to the World Cup, and it's recognised that McGrath needs some more game time, while Ponting and Gilchrist probably don't. I don't think it's being applied blindly at all.
It's a pity he bowls first up & at the death, really because his body seems to be almost palpably creaking in the field nowadays. If he bowled straight through you could whip him off & put on a halfway-decent fielder in his place.
my goodness yo, you really love to start up a debate don't you. PLEASE explain to me how these players have been rubbish or are rubbish currently because really lost mayn.Tbh I don't see your point here - lots of posts can look hilarious in hindsight, and of the 4 players quoted only Hogg has really proven himself in ODIs IMO. Johnson and Watson have obvious talent but need to play well for longer yet.
And Watson, Johnson and Haddin have proven to be otherwise, have they...? Or Hogg?
I don't think it really takes too much explanation. Hopes, Lee (S), Harvey and Bichel weren't very good.
Not quite that straight forward tho if you happen to have more than the quota of quality players to fit in your team.
He's like a right-footed version of Dan Carter. Although, until I see him in a pair of Jockeys, the comparison can't be complete...BTW on a Rugby note, that young 5/8th (Brett) @ The Crusaders looks depressingly good.
That they aren't hopeless? Yes, they all have. None of them have set themselves apart as particularly good yet (except Hogg), but clearly none of them are hopeless, as evidenced by recent performances.
Yes, Omar Henry did mess AB de Villiers around, didn't he?
I was never a huge fan of Haddin until recently, having seen some of his knocks in domestic cricket. To say that he's been hopeless to date is, while possibly correct statistically, still a poor statement if you ask me. He's never been picked with an eye to a long-term place in the side, nor any semblance of a particular role as a batsman in the Australian team that other players are filling at the moment. If Adam Gilchrist were to retire today, or if Haddin was to find an opening in the side as a batsman, you would see that he is more than a useful player and hardly 'hopeless'. Obviously there are certain difficulties on your end watching Australian domestic cricket, but there is a marked difference in the post-2004/05 Brad Haddin to the relatively mediocre player he was before then.
First time in a while - at work and was bored. I wouldn't want to turn this into a semantic debate, but one does have to be careful with the words they choose. You said Haddin was 'hopeless', in other words, without hope - which is incorrect. Set the world alight in 18 games he may not, but I would suggest that regarding 'hope', there is plenty for a player of his ability...
