Selection errors tally thread

[Richard]

This policy has served Australia very well over the last two decades and has proven itself to be instrumental in giving Australia the edge in developing cricketers.

Younger or new players are given time in the team and like players before him such as Hayden, Ponting, Langer, Katich and many more Hughes has been dropped from the team after a bad run and not only does this assist in allowing them time to reflect on what is required for them to succeed at test level it brings them back to earth on how tough it is to play international cricket. In the long term Hughes will understand that this is part of the learning process and he will come back better or not at all.

Watson himself has been through this process even though mainly due to injuries but you can see the desire this man has to make an impression and to take any chance he gets and make the most of it.

Hughes needs this reminder to instill a bit of discipline and team first ethic which in the long run will benifit Australia and Hughes. This is not a knee jerk reaction from the Australian selectors but a calculated move to build a team for the future. Australian selectors record is second to none in the international scene and their handling of players has been outstanding.

The cases of Stephen Waugh, Martyn, Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Lehmann, Katich etc. bear no resemblence whatsoever to Hughes'. Apart from the fact Hughes was picked as a 20-year-old first-choice (most of the aforementioned were a little older, though Stephen Waugh was not, and were picked only as injury cover), he had success. None of the aforementioned did.

It makes no sense to pick someone then discard him when he does well. The only reason there've been lots of Australians who've come in for a handful of games then returning for a run much later is because that's the way it's happened, not deliberate policy. If such a policy were ever to be applied, it'd be a stupid one.

The majority of Australian batsmen of late have simply struggled to establish themselves because they've not done well early doors. Those few who have (Mark Waugh, Gilchrist) came in and stayed in.

 

[Top_Cat]

The majority of Australian batsmen of late have simply struggled to establish themselves because they've not done well early doors. Those few who have (Mark Waugh, Gilchrist) came in and stayed in.

Quite a few times when Mark Waugh should have been bloody dropped, though. Deadset, if he couldn't get dropped after SL 1992, nothing was going to get the job done. Had raunchy photos of Bobby Simpson, tbh.

 

[Streetwise]

It makes no sense to pick someone then discard him when he does well. The only reason there've been lots of Australians who've come in for a handful of games then returning for a run much later is because that's the way it's happened, not deliberate policy. If such a policy were ever to be applied, it'd be a stupid one.

Once again its probably your lack of ability to think that anything can be something other than what you declare it to be.Hughes has not been discarded and is still very much a part of the Australian squad. The selectors look at more than just how many runs a player scores before making a decision and other factors are considered. One thing would be what damage could be done to Hughes confidence if he continues to fail, would he be better off being out of the spotlight for a while to let him refocus on his game. Many players are kept in the team for to long an as you know cricket is more mental than physical and this can forever destroy thier confidence. The selectors obviously think Hughes would be better served if he is given some time out to regroup, you may not be able to understand that but there are plenty that do.

 

[tooextracool]

The decision to include Watson was about having that extra bowler, then it became a case of who can they leave out ?

Yes that is true, and Hughes was easily the most dispensable batsman given his unproven track record and his unglamorous series this far. However, one needs to look at the crux of the matter with regards to this decision. Australia only needed an extra bowler because Johnson has been crap. If you ask me, the real mistake here was that they didnt drop Johnson for Clark as if they had done so, they would have got that reliability that they desire.

 

[tooextracool]

Sidebottom the only alternative I can think of, and sadly that doesn't seem an attractive one at the minute (or ever again? )

Sidebottom currently has 3/65 and has done decently since the t20 world cup in domestic cricket. I would hold off on the, will he play again part, especially considering that with Freddie and quite possibly Harmison out we are going to need someone to back Anderson, Broad and Onions and I can't see too many other options lurking.

 

[91Jmay]

To be fair, if the ball is swinging, Anderson, Onions, Sidebottom and Freddie would dominate a poor Aussie batting lineup (Ponting, Clarke and Haddin, pending finger, aside).

 

[Uppercut]

Yes that is true, and Hughes was easily the most dispensable batsman given his unproven track record and his unglamorous series this far. However, one needs to look at the crux of the matter with regards to this decision. Australia only needed an extra bowler because Johnson has been crap. If you ask me, the real mistake here was that they didnt drop Johnson for Clark as if they had done so, they would have got that reliability that they desire.

Yeah, and Agarkar's law struck Johnson this morning too.

 

[Richard]

Once again its probably your lack of ability to think that anything can be something other than what you declare it to be.Hughes has not been discarded and is still very much a part of the Australian squad. The selectors look at more than just how many runs a player scores before making a decision and other factors are considered. One thing would be what damage could be done to Hughes confidence if he continues to fail, would he be better off being out of the spotlight for a while to let him refocus on his game. Many players are kept in the team for to long an as you know cricket is more mental than physical and this can forever destroy thier confidence. The selectors obviously think Hughes would be better served if he is given some time out to regroup, you may not be able to understand that but there are plenty that do.

It's the wrong decision AFAIC - no lack of understanding about it, I understand it perfectly, I just disagree with it. There is nowhere near enough evidence of Hughes possessing a weakness to merit his being discarded - that is what has happened, temporarily or not - at this point, IMO.

"What damage might be done IF someone fails" is such a stupid mantra. Allowing fear of failure to eliminate the chance of success is simply the worst thing anyone can do in cricket.

 

[pup11]

It's the wrong decision AFAIC - no lack of understanding about it, I understand it perfectly, I just disagree with it. There is nowhere near enough evidence of Hughes possessing a weakness to merit his being discarded - that is what has happened, temporarily or not - at this point, IMO.

"What damage might be done IF someone fails" is such a stupid mantra. Allowing fear of failure to eliminate the chance of success is simply the worst thing anyone can do in cricket.

Yeah, agree with this...

You can't shield Hughes (or anybody for that matter) from failure, he did extremely well in RSA and everyone was going gaga over him, but three failures in a row and all of sudden people (including his own coach) are saying he is out of his depth.

I think that sort of harsh treatment does more damage to a young player's psyche, then
trying to compete out on the field and failing in the process, if nothing he can atleast learn a lot from his failures.

 

[Uppercut]

Jeez, they're giving him a rest when he's not as his best and giving someone who adds more to the team a go. It's not ****ing mental abuse, he's not going to end up at a shrink with post-traumatic stress. It's so, so patronising to Hughes that people think just because he's been left out for a game he's going to be mentally scarred for life and unable to ever play cricket again or something.

 

[Top_Cat]

Jeez, they're giving him a rest when he's not as his best and giving someone who adds more to the team a go. It's not ****ing mental abuse, he's not going to end up at a shrink with post-traumatic stress. It's so, so patronising to Hughes that people think just because he's been left out for a game he's going to be mentally scarred for life and unable to ever play cricket again or something.

And, if it did affect him so much, a little HTFU therapy would be in order. Either that or a directional career adjustment.

 

[NUFAN]

Quite a few times when Mark Waugh should have been bloody dropped, though. Deadset, if he couldn't get dropped after SL 1992, nothing was going to get the job done. Had raunchy photos of Bobby Simpson, tbh.

No one deserved a spot over M. Waugh in 1992 and I think this was proven for the rest of the century, where no Australian batsman scored as many runs as him.

 

[Top_Cat]

No one deserved a spot over M. Waugh in 1992 and I think this was proven for the rest of the century, where no Australian batsman scored as many runs as him.

Come on. There were plenty of times where he was vulnerable only to make his one decent score for months. That he kept Lehmann, Cox, Love, Law, etc. out of the side, despite them making tons of FC runs, wasn't unforgivable but wasn't great either. Given, mid-career, he made some scores which contributed strongly to Aussie wins but he had an awful lot of lulls for a bloke who pretty much had a guaranteed spot in the side.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Come on. There were plenty of times where he was vulnerable only to make his one decent score for months. That he kept Lehmann, Cox, Love, Law, etc. out of the side, despite them making tons of FC runs, wasn't unforgivable but wasn't great either. Given, mid-career, he made some scores which contributed strongly to Aussie wins but he had an awful lot of lulls for a bloke who pretty much had a guaranteed spot in the side.

I don't want to out myself as a raging conspiracy theorist, but to my mind Waugh jnr must've been quite severely (over)rated by the selectors in the 90s given the competition available. He was deemed so vital to the cause the ACB chose to hush up his "relationship" with John the Indian bookie. Even if one believes all he gave is team and pitch info (and I think I do, ftr) he got off very lightly.

 

[NUFAN]

Come on. There were plenty of times where he was vulnerable only to make his one decent score for months. That he kept Lehmann, Cox, Love, Law, etc. out of the side, despite them making tons of FC runs, wasn't unforgivable but wasn't great either. Given, mid-career, he made some scores which contributed strongly to Aussie wins but he had an awful lot of lulls for a bloke who pretty much had a guaranteed spot in the side.

Jamie Cox, Are you serious?

The key to Mark Waugh survival in the Australian team I feel was that whenever he was struggling in Test Cricket, he'd perform well in ODI Cricket so the selectors would have thought another good score was coming soon.

I think 1992 was his only poor year in both. It also helps that he was a brilliant fielder.

 

[Top_Cat]

Jamie Cox, Are you serious?

The key to Mark Waugh survival in the Australian team I feel was that whenever he was struggling in Test Cricket, he'd perform well in ODI Cricket so the selectors would have thought another good score was coming soon.

I think 1992 was his only poor year in both. It also helps that he was a brilliant fielder.

Cox at the lower end, sure, but others should definitely have been more strongly considered when Waugh was in his low periods. He was a good enough player that if you gave him enough innings, eventually he HAD to get a score. Just saying he should have felt the pressure on his spot more when Lehmann/Cox/Law were backing up 1000+ runs in an Aussie summers with 1500+ runs in England. Marty Love especially would have been aggrieved; remember QLD shuffling him all over the order to get the selectors' attention because 4 and 5 in the Test side were locked-in.

 

[social]

No one deserved a spot over M. Waugh in 1992 and I think this was proven for the rest of the century, where no Australian batsman scored as many runs as him.

Mark Waugh was a protected species ffs!

It's a crying shame that Darren Lehmann only got a decent run in the side when he was past his best because he was a much better player than Waugh and could've ended up as one of Oz's greatest ever players

 

[aussie]

Mark Waugh was a protected species ffs!

It's a crying shame that Darren Lehmann only got a decent run in the side when he was past his best because he was a much better player than Waugh and could've ended up as one of Oz's greatest ever players

Have to disagree. Lehmann when he did showed a bit of an alarming weakness againts serious pace i.e Lawson @ Antigua 03 & Akhtar @ Perth 04 that junior never did. So even if Lehmann played in the 90s more regularly i think he would have had some problems.

They where definately comparable againts spin though.

 

[Top_Cat]

Have to disagree. Lehmann when he did showed a bit of an alarming weakness againts serious pace i.e Lawson @ Antigua 03 & Akhtar @ Perth 04 that junior never did. So even if Lehmann played in the 90s more regularly i think he would have had some problems.

He was almost in his mid-30's by then! In his 20's, was as good against pace as anyone (ironically, when he was carrying a lot more weight). Not as good against pace as someone like Ponting but he was no mug.

 

[pup11]

Jeez, they're giving him a rest when he's not as his best and giving someone who adds more to the team a go. It's not ****ing mental abuse, he's not going to end up at a shrink with post-traumatic stress. It's so, so patronising to Hughes that people think just because he's been left out for a game he's going to be mentally scarred for life and unable to ever play cricket again or something.

The axing isn't fair that's what I'm saying, Hughes was excellent in very tough batting conditions in Aussie domestic cricket and made a ton of runs there, and that's how he made his way into the Australian side (he didn't get an easy ride on the back of his talent alone), to back that up he was brilliant against South Africa in their own backyard.

Now after doing all that, if you're not even entitled to have a few failures without losing your place in the side then something is clearly wrong with the way the selectors and team-management are thinking.

My only fear with Hughes is, that since now he has been discarded from the test side, I hope he doesn't (or is told) to go back to the drawing board and start making changes to his technique and the way he plays.