Trevor Hohns resigns as chairman of selectors

[luckyeddie]

sphinctobabble - what a crack up!! Made my day.

Quite, quite brilliant response - my hat is off to you, sir - you are an artist ( or ) of the highest order.

 

[Richard]

1.The obvious choices were Gillespie & Bracken obviously, Dizzy was back in form in domestic cricket in his past record in South Africa was good & Bracken could have done well on seaming pitches in South Africa.

I hardly see how - Gillespie was always going to be a later cab-off-the-rank after the England tour, and Bracken similarly with his so-far woeful performances.

2. I cant see how, no one would have expected him to do so well in his 1st series plus he only for the past 2 seasons being doing well in domestic cricket, while others mainly Tait have done better to get the call ahead of him.

3. Has i mentioned before NO ONE expected Clark to do so well in tests while its only for the past 2 seasons that he has done well to grab the attention of the selectors.

Not really - Clark's record has been pretty good (in both England and Australia) since 2000\01. If I'd known what the pitches were going to be like, I'd have been very surprised if he'd not done pretty well - not neccessarily quite as well as he did, but well enough.

Tait broke the Australian domestic bowling record in 2004/05 so he was rightfully selected ahead of him come on. Bracken has always been regarded a better bowler than him & for a did more at domestic level to get the nod ahaed of Clark. Williams 1st made the aussie side during VB series 2001/02 & was doing well in domestic cricket while Clark was a novice

Bracken certainly did not do far more at the domestic level, nor did Tait. Tait just had one glory season in 2004\05, and hasn't really done much besides. Equally, Bracken before the most recent season barely averaged under 30 in First-Class cricket - I haven't actually looked at his season-by-season breakdown, but has there ever been that much of a sensational season anywhere? If so, I haven't noticed it.

 

[Richard]

With the wonderful help of hindsight of course...Clark hasn't exactly set the world on fire up until now, in either domestic or international cricket. If you've been following his career from the start and come to this assumption then good on you, but I doubt it somehow.

I've certainly been following it since 2000\01 - and he's always been pretty impressive whenever I've come across him. I'm not really too worried about 1997\98 and 1998\99, when he was clearly woeful.
Any fool can use hindsight.

 

[Richard]

LOL! Of course, Richard knew Clark would do well all along, didn't mention it of course until after he gets man of the series in his first series and averages around 15 with the ball... but don't worry, he knew it.

The amount of people that come out 'after the fact' on this board and claim they knew it'd happen or they always had suspicions, but never mention it before hand is quite amusing. But this Clark one takes the cake.

Next I'm sure someone knew Asif was a star and should have played in the tests against England.

Err, where precisely have I had the chance to champion Clark? Has he ever been discussed in great detail in a thread I've been involved in?
I can hardly be expected to start a "Stuart Clark for Australia" thread, can I? Especially before 2004\05.

 

[Richard]

?

Tait is 23 years old. Clark is 30. Obviously Clark has had more solid seasons at first class level, so has Andy Bichel, but it's not the point. Tait has only played three seasons in full for South Australia. The first was good (33 @ 29), the second was astonishing (65 @ 20), and the third was poor, but ravaged by injury(14 @ 38). The season he played before all those three was only a partial season as he was picked midway through the year, but he did very well in it too, averaging 20.

So, exclude the last season, and tell me how he had been inconsistent at first class level before he was selected for Australia? Averaging 20, 29 and 20 in three seasons is inconsistent? It's not just a matter of one good season, it's a matter of his whole career being good, culminating in one especially good season, after which he was picked ahead of guys like Clark who had been middle of the pack without significant success or failure for a number of years.

Like I say - knock out that 2004\05, then actually include the pile of rubbish he bowled in England - I don't care what excuses you might make for it - and you see that he's not really set The World on fire - certainly no you'd have to be stretching it to call 33 wickets at 29 "good" - not poor, no, but certainly not the sort of thing that suggests international material.
I'm not one for picking someone on 1 season, and as I said to someone (might have been Liam) on MSN when watching The Oval - how Tait got such good figures in 2004\05 I'll never know. Either a) he bowled a hell of a lot better than he did in the Ashes Tests or b) he was extremely flattered by his 2004\05 figures.
As such, until Tait does something more than being a one-season wonder, I'll not consider much of him.

Now look at Clark's record in the Pura Cup, since he became a regular pick in 2000/01

2000/01 - 8 @ 25.75
2001/02 - 45 @ 23.26
2002/03 - 36 @ 33.00
2003/04 - 23 @ 38.26
2004/05 - 40 @ 25.97
2005/06 - 2 @ 35.50

Now, there's nothing wrong with that record, and there's a couple of very good seasons there, but it's not exactly domination, and based on that first class record there's no way in the world you'd consider him ahead of Tait. Take into account also the fact that aside from the 01/02 season he's never taken many 5-wicket hauls in a year, that he's bowled in a team with guys like Lee, Bracken, Nicholson and MacGill over that time who have consistently outshone him, his age (remembering he's the same age as Gillespie, who is considered past it) and his low number of wickets per test and inconsistency, and he's simply not an obvious choice.

I hardly see how Bracken or Nicholson have ever outshone him. They've never been beacons of consistently good figures when I've been watching. Lee and MacGill haven't really been regulars.
As for 5-fors - I really don't give a damn about them. Taking 5, 6 and 7 is all well and good, but give me a bowler who consistently gets 4-60 over someone who takes 5-60 one day and 1-143 the next any time.
Also - with Clark you could also do him the decency of including his record in England. Australian First-Class cricket isn't the be-all-and-end-all you know. Being able to perform in different circumstances does matter, y'know.

 

[Richard]

Clark isn't that good - the South Africans were just bad

Clark wouldn't get into a full strength NSW team - McGrath, Lee, Bracken and MacGill get picked before him.

Clark is a case of a guy stepping up when he got his opportunity - good on him. But lets see bowl in more than 3 tests before proclaiming him the messiah. (Remember Bob Massie!!)

p.s. I hope he continues to do well.

Once again - where exactly did I say Clark was The Messiah?
I just said it must've taken something for him to be selected after Williams, Bracken and Tait.
And also - I'd take Clark over Bracken ANY time.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Like I say - knock out that 2004\05, then actually include the pile of rubbish he bowled in England - I don't care what excuses you might make for it - and you see that he's not really set The World on fire - certainly no you'd have to be stretching it to call 33 wickets at 29 "good" - not poor, no, but certainly not the sort of thing that suggests international material.
I'm not one for picking someone on 1 season, and as I said to someone (might have been Liam) on MSN when watching The Oval - how Tait got such good figures in 2004\05 I'll never know. Either a) he bowled a hell of a lot better than he did in the Ashes Tests or b) he was extremely flattered by his 2004\05 figures.
As such, until Tait does something more than being a one-season wonder, I'll not consider much of him.

The Durham stuff is really irrelevant. He bowled about 20 overs and then came home because he had no ball problems, which he then sorted out. How does that have any bearing on his test prospects?

And why dismiss his best season, when it is part of a consistent trend? He came into the team, had a partial season and averaged 20. He then had his first full season, did pretty well and averaged 29. Then he had his second full season, dominated with 65 wickets, and was picked in the test side as a young prospect. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that decision - it was perfectly justified by consistent domestic performances.

As far as how he did it goes, Tait's strength as a bowler is that he bowls as many unplayable deliveries as anyone you'll ever see. Often he'd take a wicket or two in each spell he bowled, and if he went at 4 or 5 an over it hardly mattered because he'd be off again in 5 or 6 overs. Tait showed a lot of the same stuff in tests... he bowled near-unplayable balls to take a couple of his wickets, and bowled crap a lot of the rest of the time. Obviously the wickets-crap ratio was better in Australia, but given how little Tait actually got to bowl in the Ashes you can't really say he had a terrible time of it.

I hardly see how Bracken or Nicholson have ever outshone him. They've never been beacons of consistently good figures when I've been watching. Lee and MacGill haven't really been regulars.
As for 5-fors - I really don't give a damn about them. Taking 5, 6 and 7 is all well and good, but give me a bowler who consistently gets 4-60 over someone who takes 5-60 one day and 1-143 the next any time.
Also - with Clark you could also do him the decency of including his record in England. Australian First-Class cricket isn't the be-all-and-end-all you know. Being able to perform in different circumstances does matter, y'know.

Clark has never been a beacon of consistently good figures either. 3 seasons out of 5 full ones averaging in the 20s, and 2 in the 30s. That's not consistently good, that's decent but up and down.

England results are generally ignored by Australian selectors because they are often warped by the gap in quality, particularly to the second division. Michael Hussey averages something like 70 in English domestic cricket, and about 35 in Australia, which is why he was never picked for a long time. Hell, Ian Harvey averages about 20 with the ball in England.

Anyway, the reason I didn't mention Clark's county efforts is obviously because there's not much too them. Two seasons, 10 @ 21.70 and 15 @ 27.46. Decent but not much to go by. Also there's the fact that Tait hasn't bowled extensively in England, so the selectors wouldn't have really taken that into account either.

The point of all this is that for someone who takes first class cricket so seriously, it's absurd to suggest that Clark was an obvious pick. Even if you think he's done well since 2001 (which he hasn't really... it's been up and down), you'd have to look at plenty of other bowlers first if you were going on that. Clark was the fifth choice seamer for NSW in the season leading up to the Ashes, his first class average was about 30, he'd not set the world alight in domestic cricket and when picked for ODIs he'd done nothing particularly special. There were many other more obvious options around, and nobody going on domestic or ODI efforts would ever have picked Clark. Obviously the selectors saw something there that wasn't shown by his first class returns and wasn't visible in ODIs or to the average fan, and they picked him despite the obvious flak they would inevitably cop, especially if he did badly. For that, they deserve credit.

 

[aussie]

I hardly see how - Gillespie was always going to be a later cab-off-the-rank after the England tour, and Bracken similarly with his so-far woeful performances.

Not really - Clark's record has been pretty good (in both England and Australia) since 2000\01. If I'd known what the pitches were going to be like, I'd have been very surprised if he'd not done pretty well - not neccessarily quite as well as he did, but well enough.

Bracken certainly did not do far more at the domestic level, nor did Tait. Tait just had one glory season in 2004\05, and hasn't really done much besides. Equally, Bracken before the most recent season barely averaged under 30 in First-Class cricket - I haven't actually looked at his season-by-season breakdown, but has there ever been that much of a sensational season anywhere? If so, I haven't noticed it.

1. Well then you weren't following the domestic competition then, one Gillespie got back to some sort of form he was in most people's opinions an obvious choice, while Bracken recent ODI performaces also would have put him ahead, really its not that hard to understand

2. It could not have been that good until the 2004/05 season because he was never in the selectors thinking.

3. Dont you think that since Clark was & old domestic bowler who had never done anything spectacular or good enough to make the selectors look in his direction until 2004/05 would be second to a potentiallay young bowler who suddenly broke the domestic record while the majortiy of the attack was ageing?

I won't check the stats either but the fact that Bracken has been in the selectors thoughts since 2000/01 season & has done somethings at domestic level since then while Clark hasn't really done anything of note would explan this quite easily.

You are making it sound as if you knew that Clark would have done so well & that the selectors of all these other bowlers over the years has been stupid, come on..

 

[Richard]

The Durham stuff is really irrelevant. He bowled about 20 overs and then came home because he had no ball problems, which he then sorted out. How does that have any bearing on his test prospects?

And why dismiss his best season, when it is part of a consistent trend? He came into the team, had a partial season and averaged 20. He then had his first full season, did pretty well and averaged 29. Then he had his second full season, dominated with 65 wickets, and was picked in the test side as a young prospect. There's nothing whatsoever wrong with that decision - it was perfectly justified by consistent domestic performances.

As far as how he did it goes, Tait's strength as a bowler is that he bowls as many unplayable deliveries as anyone you'll ever see. Often he'd take a wicket or two in each spell he bowled, and if he went at 4 or 5 an over it hardly mattered because he'd be off again in 5 or 6 overs. Tait showed a lot of the same stuff in tests... he bowled near-unplayable balls to take a couple of his wickets, and bowled crap a lot of the rest of the time. Obviously the wickets-crap ratio was better in Australia, but given how little Tait actually got to bowl in the Ashes you can't really say he had a terrible time of it.

Err, about the only wicket-taking ball Tait bowled in The Ashes was the Trescothick one - at least the only 1 for which he deserved credit (clearly, he didn't force the G Jones ball to creep along the ground - anyone who happened to hit that spot would've bowled that ball).
I've not seen Tait bowl that much, so I don't have any evidence of his extraordinary ability to produce the wicket-taking balls. I don't think he's really played enough to judge definitively. I do think that the Durham stint had some relevance - no-balls were by no means the only problem. And including that, and excluding 2004\05, his First-Class record is pretty average.
Only time will tell if it will perk-up again.

Clark has never been a beacon of consistently good figures either. 3 seasons out of 5 full ones averaging in the 20s, and 2 in the 30s. That's not consistently good, that's decent but up and down.

England results are generally ignored by Australian selectors because they are often warped by the gap in quality, particularly to the second division. Michael Hussey averages something like 70 in English domestic cricket, and about 35 in Australia, which is why he was never picked for a long time. Hell, Ian Harvey averages about 20 with the ball in England.

Anyway, the reason I didn't mention Clark's county efforts is obviously because there's not much too them. Two seasons, 10 @ 21.70 and 15 @ 27.46. Decent but not much to go by. Also there's the fact that Tait hasn't bowled extensively in England, so the selectors wouldn't have really taken that into account either.

The point of all this is that for someone who takes first class cricket so seriously, it's absurd to suggest that Clark was an obvious pick. Even if you think he's done well since 2001 (which he hasn't really... it's been up and down), you'd have to look at plenty of other bowlers first if you were going on that. Clark was the fifth choice seamer for NSW in the season leading up to the Ashes, his first class average was about 30, he'd not set the world alight in domestic cricket and when picked for ODIs he'd done nothing particularly special. There were many other more obvious options around, and nobody going on domestic or ODI efforts would ever have picked Clark. Obviously the selectors saw something there that wasn't shown by his first class returns and wasn't visible in ODIs or to the average fan, and they picked him despite the obvious flak they would inevitably cop, especially if he did badly. For that, they deserve credit.

Who were these more obvious options for the SA Test series, then, prey? Bracken? Who's had 1 good spell in his entire Test career. Gillespie? Who was always going to take some time to regain the trust of anyone - me included. Tait? Who'd been ineffective most recently (and injured plenty too). Watson? Presumably not. Johnson? Please, God, no. Dorey? I think not, somehow. Nicholson? I've heard nothing of him being mentioned internationally for a LONG time now. Anyone else?
Incidentally - as far as Hussey averaging infinately better in Australia than England - Hussey currently averages 42 for WA (47 at The WACA) and 64.30 for Australia A. Yes, his record in England is better - averaging above 70 for both Northants and Durham, and in the 30s for Gloucs - but we don't really need to be told that that standard is higher in Aus than Eng. It's not like he's been a rip-roaring success in Eng without doing much in Aus - he's been a success in both countries, and a bigger success in Eng. As, indeed, have many of his counterparts (Katich, Cox, Maher, Love, Hodge, Symonds, Mark Waugh, etc.) - it's a clear pattern.
Clearly, anyone who completely ignores success in either country doesn't really know what they're doing.

 

[Richard]

1. Well then you weren't following the domestic competition then, one Gillespie got back to some sort of form he was in most people's opinions an obvious choice, while Bracken recent ODI performaces also would have put him ahead, really its not that hard to understand

ODI performances do nothing; Gillespie might clearly have returned to himself in 2005\06 but it was always - quite justifiably - going to take a bit of time for the trust in him to come back.

2. It could not have been that good until the 2004/05 season because he was never in the selectors thinking.

Err, how come he was playing for Australia A in 2002\03 then?

3. Dont you think that since Clark was & old domestic bowler who had never done anything spectacular or good enough to make the selectors look in his direction until 2004/05 would be second to a potentiallay young bowler who suddenly broke the domestic record while the majortiy of the attack was ageing?

I won't check the stats either but the fact that Bracken has been in the selectors thoughts since 2000/01 season & has done somethings at domestic level since then while Clark hasn't really done anything of note would explan this quite easily.

You are making it sound as if you knew that Clark would have done so well & that the selectors of all these other bowlers over the years has been stupid, come on..

No-one knew anything of the sort. However, if I'd known what the South African series pitches were going to be like, I'd have backed Clark to do pretty well - if not neccessarily as well as he ended-up doing.
I've seen plenty of second-string Australian seamers behind McGrath and Gillespie - most never really impressed me, Bichel included; indeed, Kasprowicz included until 2003\04. Clark, however, never looked all that bad whenever I saw him, and I always thought he was a better bet than pretty much anyone who ended-up getting in (Lee, Williams, Bracken, Watson, Tait; Dorey, Johnson, Lewis, Hopes, Harvey).

 

[Tom Halsey]

I've not seen Clark or Tait apart from at international cricket, so I'm not well placed to comment, but to me Clark has looked a much better bowler than Tait has looked.

Tait bowls a good ball and follows it up with a load of trash. I predict he won't be particularly successful at International cricket.

Clark is far more consistent.

 

[oz_fan]

Hilditch named chairman of selectors.
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/243560.html

 

[oz_fan]

I've not seen Clark or Tait apart from at international cricket, so I'm not well placed to comment, but to me Clark has looked a much better bowler than Tait has looked.

Tait bowls a good ball and follows it up with a load of trash. I predict he won't be particularly successful at International cricket.

Clark is far more consistent.

Yep. Last year he bowled a lot of wides in the ING season. He always seems to be taking wickets though. He needs to try to be a bit more like Lee and focus on controlled aggression.

 

[aussie]

ODI performances do nothing; Gillespie might clearly have returned to himself in 2005\06 but it was always - quite justifiably - going to take a bit of time for the trust in him to come back.

Err, how come he was playing for Australia A in 2002\03 then?

No-one knew anything of the sort. However, if I'd known what the South African series pitches were going to be like, I'd have backed Clark to do pretty well - if not neccessarily as well as he ended-up doing.

Clark, however, never looked all that bad whenever I saw him, and I always thought he was a better bet than pretty much anyone who ended-up getting in (Lee, Williams, Bracken, Watson, Tait; Dorey, Johnson, Lewis, Hopes, Harvey).

1. How could ODI performances mean nothing?, in Bracken case it would have since he has always done better at domestic level than Clark & the fact that his ODI recently was good would in most people's thoughts put him ahead in selection over Clark (but the selectors didn't thhink so).

I dont agree with your idea about Gillespie. He wasn't that far off from going to SA, i remember reading the article when the squad was announced & Hohns saying Kasper had bowled slightly better the Dizzy that why he went.

2. He was?

3. Based on what?

4. What are you saying here you always thought Clark while you saw him was better than Lee or Bracken.

 

[aussie]

Tait bowls a good ball and follows it up with a load of trash. I predict he won't be particularly successful at International cricket.

i dont think you can be too certain about that as yet. He has pace & has the ability to swing the new & old ball, all he needs is to improve his control & he could be a lethal prospect in the future.

 

[Matt79]

Part of the reason Clark was selected over Tait was the desire to do a like-for-like replacement for Glenn McGrath.

(A small digression - Clark is not the next Glenn McGrath. He looks and bowls somewhat like McGrath, but he is not the next Glenn McGrath. Every journo and pundit who feels the need to include that description should pause, breath deeply, punch themselves in the groin - hard, and skip to the next line. I think Clark's done v. well, but its like labelling somebody the next Don Bradman, its silly and helps noone)

Anyway, with McGrath being unavailable, the obvious candidates were Tait, Bracken, Clark, Kaspa and Dizzy. Choosing one of Kaspa or Dizzy was considered advisable given their previous experience, particularly in SA/variety of conditions with McGrath's experience gone. Kaspa got the nod because he had slightly less making up to do than Gillespie. Then the choise became who out of Bracken, Tait and Clark best complemented Lee and Kaspa/Dizzy. Choosing Tait would mean two gen. fast bowlers, but also two potentially expensive bowlers. Choosing Clark would mean maintaining a similiar range of styles of attack as when McGrath is in the team (bearing in mind at all times that Clark IS NOT THE NEXT MCGRATH). Choosing Bracken would require considering his quite decent efforts when not dropped for McGill/Symonds, the fact he's a leftie and hence brings something different, and his likely ability to do well on SA seemers. Bracken was stiff, but he's been given lots of chances without stamping his authority - after a while merely being *thereabouts* doesn't cut it during a team retrofit I suppose. Hope he comes back.

To me the likely three man pace attack going forward three years from now is 1) Brett Lee who's probably by then lost some pace but has replaced it with smarts, 2) Tait, and 3) Bracken, with 4) Clark carrying drinks more often than not. Probably won't come to pass like this, but I'm putting myself on the record so in 2009 I can say - TOLD YOU SO

 

[Matt79]

Hohns did a good job in moving on players like Mark and Steve Waugh (albeit maybe trying to move a bit soon on Steve), Healy etc, ensuring that sensible succession plans were in place to avoid a simultaneous mass exodus and resulting collapse.

The only selections I've really had a problem with are: retaining all three of Martyn, Clarke, and Katich throughout the Ashes when Hussey or Hodge were available and those three were struggling so badly (though I'm glad to see Martyn do well now and Clarke get back near to the team), and McGill not getting a game in the Ashes. Either or preferably both of those moves would have won at least one more test, in my humble opinion.

Not sure about Symonds, but Watson might be a better long term option. (Cue chorus from Watson haters )

 

[marc71178]

(A small digression - Clark is not the next Glenn McGrath. He looks and bowls somewhat like McGrath, but he is not the next Glenn McGrath. Every journo and pundit who feels the need to include that description should pause, breath deeply, punch themselves in the groin - hard, and skip to the next line. I think Clark's done v. well, but its like labelling somebody the next Don Bradman, its silly and helps noone)

You mean like someone labelling Smith the next Bradman (or was it best batsmen since Bradman?)

 

[Mister Wright]

I think it is pretty pointless debating the future of Shaun Tait at the moment if he doesn't fix his action. Despite what Top_Cat may think, his action is causing him to be continually injured and if he doesn't fix it soon he will get left behind other bowers who can get out on the park and perform.

 

[Mister Wright]

You mean like someone labelling Smith the next Bradman (or was it best batsmen since Bradman?)

Around the same time that people were saying that Hayden was a flat track bully, I was saying that Smith was even more of a one and I got blasted. We've just seen over the last few months that Smith isn't all he's cracked up to be.