Have selectors have lost us another series...

[Ill Chicken]

That has nothing to do with it. Holland gets selected in a 30 man squad. Nothing happens, its not like suddenly he gets better training or anything, he just becomes a guy that is looked as the 30 best potential players to play. In that essence he shouldn't be because there are far better spinners who are in the mid range of 20's capable of being the same.

Why should the selectors be applauded for naming a 30 man squad that means nothing?

 

[weevil]

That has nothing to do with it. Holland gets selected in a 30 man squad. Nothing happens, its not like suddenly he gets better training or anything, he just becomes a guy that is looked as the 30 best potential players to play.

If you were picked in the squad you would think it was a pretty massive deal. Who knows might even encourage and inspire you.

But I suppose you would say ‘it means noting, I’m not encouraged at all. I’m not putting any extra effort into my cricket until I get picked in the test team’?

In that essence he shouldn't be because there are far better spinners who are in the mid range of 20's capable of being the same.

That is your opinion, there were probably people saying the same thing about Warne when he was first being promoted through the ranks.

There is a big difference between potential and performance. Zero point picking a plodder because at the moment they have better stats.

 

[Ill Chicken]

If you were picked in the squad you would think it was a pretty massive deal. Who knows might even encourage and inspire you.

But I suppose you would say ‘it means noting, I’m not encouraged at all. I’m not putting any extra effort into my cricket until I get picked in the test team’?

What about encouraging guys who have been doing well?

That is your opinion, there were probably people saying the same thing about Warne when he was first being promoted through the ranks.

There is a big difference between potential and performance. Zero point picking a plodder because at the moment they have better stats.

Where did I say pick a plodder? I'm saying pick a guy in their mid-20's who is performing well. Holland has no stats to speak of, why should he get a look in before someone who has played well?

The selectors jobs are to pick guys with potential, I'm not disagreeing with that. Being applauded for making easy decisions is what I'm questioning.

He played in the Australia A team so you'd say that his inclusion in the 30 man squad is a gimme. How many people applauded Damien Martyn's amnesty from test cricket, even though by current standards, his shot selection didn't cost a series loss. Would Clarke and Haddin still be in the side?

The selectors are inconsistent, have no plan and like to throw sand in performing players faces. Hilfenhaus, Siddle and North are commendable decisions in pool of woeful ones.

 

[weevil]

What about encouraging guys who have been doing well?



Where did I say pick a plodder? I'm saying pick a guy in their mid-20's who is performing well. Holland has no stats to speak of, why should he get a look in before someone who has played well?

The selectors jobs are to pick guys with potential, I'm not disagreeing with that. Being applauded for making easy decisions is what I'm questioning.

He played in the Australia A team so you'd say that his inclusion in the 30 man squad is a gimme. How many people applauded Damien Martyn's amnesty from test cricket, even though by current standards, his shot selection didn't cost a series loss. Would Clarke and Haddin still be in the side?

The selectors are inconsistent, have no plan and like to throw sand in performing players faces. Hilfenhaus, Siddle and North are commendable decisions in pool of woeful ones.

They generally select pretty consistently. They whole point is that they do not just blindly pick guys on the basis of them having reasonable domestic records.

That’s the sort of short sighted policy that would land the team in huge trouble down the track.

They pick players based on their potential to become class players. Not average plodders who may be able to string together okay performances domestically.

They clearly have a plan; it’s just not a simplistic ‘pick the bloke with the best average’ plan.

I don’t really understand what you are trying to say about Martyn.

 

[Ill Chicken]

They generally select pretty consistently. They whole point is that they do not just blindly pick guys on the basis of them having reasonable domestic records.

That’s the sort of short sighted policy that would land the team in huge trouble down the track.

How is picking guys performing at domestic level in a 30 man squad going to land you in trouble?

They pick players based on their potential to become class players. Not average plodders who may be able to string together okay performances domestically.

Again point out how Holland is not an average plodder? His figures have shown nothing that indicate otherwise.

They clearly have a plan; it’s just not a simplistic ‘pick the bloke with the best average’ plan.

Isn't that one of the proven ways to get selected for Australia? Sheer amount of runs over a period of years? Has it not worked for batsman? Bowling is obviously a different story, have half a decent season and you're straight in and then straight out. If the simple plan of picking the best spinner has been working for them, tell me how we should applaud the Australian selectors for their marvelous efforts over the last 18 months their selection on spinners.

I don’t really understand what you are trying to say about Martyn.

It's not that hard. Young player, plays bad shot, dropped. Senior player, plays bad shot, non-issue.

 

[weevil]

How is picking guys performing at domestic level in a 30 man squad going to land you in trouble?

I’m talking in general terms. Picking players simply based on their domestic records is a recipe for disaster. That’s what we did in the 80’s.

Picking players purely based on stats denies opportunities for others. Warne did not have great domestic stats at all, but they thought he had the potential to be a gun. A few players had better records, were they idiots for picking him?

Again point out how Holland is not an average plodder? His figures have shown nothing that indicate otherwise.

Forget figures. No young domestic spinner has good figures. They are making subjective decisions about the potential of players to become elite.

Isn't that one of the proven ways to get selected for Australia? Sheer amount of runs over a period of years? Has it not worked for batsman? Bowling is obviously a different story, have half a decent season and you're straight in and then straight out. If the simple plan of picking the best spinner has been working for them, tell me how we should applaud the Australian selectors for their marvelous efforts over the last 18 months their selection on spinners.

We are in real trouble with spinners, the cupboard is empty. They have given the top few guys a run and for the moment have steeled on Ritz for now. They have indicated that at the moment Krezja is their preferred longer term option but that he needs to tighten up before he can hold his place in the team. Seems completely reasonable to me.

Piece of piss when you have a bunch of champion players to pick from. Much, much harder when even your top few guys don’t seem up to it.

It's not that hard. Young player, plays bad shot, dropped. Senior player, plays bad shot, non-issue.

Way too simplistic. Marto was in an era of gun batsman when there was massive competition for spots.

They like stability and back their senior players. The class is permanent theory is a pretty sound philosophy. They are pretty consistent about this.

 

[Ill Chicken]

I’m talking in general terms. Picking players simply based on their domestic records is a recipe for disaster. That’s what we did in the 80’s.

Yeah, so you can discount all the crap that happened with Australian cricket during the 80's and lament it as picking guys on average (citation needed) who still worked jobs part time. It was still semi-professional, you had rebel tours, Packer era cricket, there was no academy and no Australia A, less cricket and players that wouldn't travel. Don't mind the fact, we didn't actually perform that badly in the 80's considering the above.

Picking players purely based on stats denies opportunities for others. Warne did not have great domestic stats at all, but they thought he had the potential to be a gun. A few players had better records, were they idiots for picking him?

Picking players based on statistics/performance denies opportunities for others who don't perform. Picking guys on potential and then dropping them after one or two tests, sounds like yes, yes the selectors are idiots for picking them.

Hey it worked with Warne when he was given a run when he performed badly first off, yet Krezja performs well straight off and has a bad second test and is dismissed. Make senses. I'm sure it makes sense for Casson, White, Krezja, Hauritz and McGain.

Forget figures. No young domestic spinner has good figures. They are making subjective decisions about the potential of players to become elite.

They've made consistently incorrect decisions when it has come to picking a spinner. Casson, Krezja, Hauritz and McGain have been treated disgracefully. Hauritz has been tossed out whenever they see fit, yet is performing admirably. No domestic spinner is going to become elite when they're considered expendable.

We are in real trouble with spinners, the cupboard is empty. They have given the top few guys a run and for the moment have steeled on Ritz for now. They have indicated that at the moment Krezja is their preferred longer term option but that he needs to tighten up before he can hold his place in the team. Seems completely reasonable to me.

They haven't indicated crap. Hauritz has proven he is more than capable in both forms of the top level. Krezja should have to destroy teams now to get given a go ahead of him.

Piece of piss when you have a bunch of champion players to pick from. Much, much harder when even your top few guys don’t seem up to it.

That a load of crap. There is nothing wrong with Australia's stocks and anybody who says there is, is kidding themselves. What the difference is, is that superstars aren't born in one tests, especially for spinners and especially if you don't know if you're playing more than one test a series.

Way too simplistic. Marto was in an era of gun batsman when there was massive competition for spots.

They like stability and back their senior players. The class is permanent theory is a pretty sound philosophy. They are pretty consistent about this.

Are you serious. Can you tell me what is going on every year in Australian domestic cricket with batting for the last ten years? There have been same blokes scoring truck loads and getting nothing or limited opportunity. Australia have plenty of bats to come through and the same should apply as previously. What it shows is that the selectors don't have a plan currently and if they do, it changes from test to test or series to series.

Class doesn't mean you don't play crap shots, whatever age bracket you're in and shouldn't it be more applicable to a senior player? Yeah set the right example there, once you're established in the team you can do what you want.

 

[King Elvis]

Was an article the other day from regarding David Warner, and the apparent total lack of feedback he's received from the Selectors as to where he stands.

 

[thepower]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/strauss-tells-how-england-removed-our-big-three/2009/09/15/1252780313795.html

good planning from the poms.

i liked this part of the article

Clarke has since blamed the lack of indoor nets at the Oval for his failures in the fifth Test, having played incredibly well in the four previous matches.

 

[weevil]

Yeah, so you can discount all the crap that happened with Australian cricket during the 80's and lament it as picking guys on average (citation needed) who still worked jobs part time. It was still semi-professional, you had rebel tours, Packer era cricket, there was no academy and no Australia A, less cricket and players that wouldn't travel. Don't mind the fact, we didn't actually perform that badly in the 80's considering the above.

Virtually all other teams faced these issues in the same era. We weren’t that bad??? We got smacked by New Zeeland.

Was not until we started picking young players based on their potential that we started to improve. Steve Waugh, in one game alone Hughes Marsh and Reid. None of these players had stellar domestic records; they were picked to rebuild the team.

Picking players based on statistics/performance denies opportunities for others who don't perform. Picking guys on potential and then dropping them after one or two tests, sounds like yes, yes the selectors are idiots for picking them.

Hey it worked with Warne when he was given a run when he performed badly first off, yet Krezja performs well straight off and has a bad second test and is dismissed. Make senses. I'm sure it makes sense for Casson, White, Krezja, Hauritz and McGain.

No, Warne’s figures may not have been brilliant but it was obvious to everyone that he had genuine talent. Krezja to a lot of wickets on a turning deck but even there leaked runs at a prohibitive rate.

Warne could keep an end down. Krezja was party time for the batsman. We can’t forfeit matches hoping that Krezja will get his act together. Nurturing players as they develop is one thing but it has to be balanced, we can not sacrifice a couple of series because of it.

They have clearly stated that they see Krezja as a long term part of the team, but that he has to be able to bowl tighter. Perfectly reasonable.

They've made consistently incorrect decisions when it has come to picking a spinner. Casson, Krezja, Hauritz and McGain have been treated disgracefully. Hauritz has been tossed out whenever they see fit, yet is performing admirably. No domestic spinner is going to become elite when they're considered expendable.

The selectors are desperate to find a spinning option, the candidates get an opportunity; if they can show just a little bit they get more of an opportunity. If they they are just not up to it then they need to go back to work on their game.

They haven't indicated crap. Hauritz has proven he is more than capable in both forms of the top level. Krezja should have to destroy teams now to get given a go ahead of him.

Hauritz is performing adequately in England, don’t get too excited until he bowls again on Australian pitches. Hopefully he can hold a place until a genuine attacking bowler is unearthed.

That a load of crap. There is nothing wrong with Australia's stocks and anybody who says there is, is kidding themselves. What the difference is, is that superstars aren't born in one tests, especially for spinners and especially if you don't know if you're playing more than one test a series.

Nah sorry mate, the evidence does not back you up. Find me a creatable cricket identity who argues that Australia has good spinning talent. If they are as good as you say then their domestic stats would indicate it. Find me some Australian domestic spinners who have even reasonable stats.

Are you serious. Can you tell me what is going on every year in Australian domestic cricket with batting for the last ten years? There have been same blokes scoring truck loads and getting nothing or limited opportunity. Australia have plenty of bats to come through and the same should apply as previously. What it shows is that the selectors don't have a plan currently and if they do, it changes from test to test or series to series.

Rubbish they are very consistent:

The selectors back their senior players who have a proven track record. There are limited spots in the team and team stability is seen as important. Fringe players are given exposure, if they can’t show enough at the top level they are rotated through. Young players who the selectors think have -genuine- talent are promoted quickly and persisted with.

Naturally pitch conditions, team balance, game-in-game-out factors all come into the formula.

Class doesn't mean you don't play crap shots, whatever age bracket you're in and shouldn't it be more applicable to a senior player? Yeah set the right example there, once you're established in the team you can do what you want.

That is a ridiculous over-exaggeration.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Virtually all other teams faced these issues in the same era. We weren’t that bad??? We got smacked by New Zeeland

You can't parrallel our current professionalism to the mid to late 80's nor incur that a statistical based selection policy was used (citation needed) during this period when in the mid-80's three senior players stand down that are considered to be the back bone of your side.

Was not until we started picking young players based on their potential that we started to improve. Steve Waugh, in one game alone Hughes Marsh and Reid. None of these players had stellar domestic records; they were picked to rebuild the team.

They debuted against India in 85. Both teams bowling was too inept to win a test let alone the series. We did win a series of significance until four years later.

No, Warne’s figures may not have been brilliant but it was obvious to everyone that he had genuine talent. Krezja to a lot of wickets on a turning deck but even there leaked runs at a prohibitive rate.

What? So you're selecting a spinner on potential to keep an end down against India who were crap and have never beaten Australia in test series at home. You know what I would call that, an easy ride.

Krejza improved innings by innings with his economy rate. He played two tests, suddenly already shown potential is not warranted? You're contradicting yourself.

Warne could keep an end down. Krezja was party time for the batsman. We can’t forfeit matches hoping that Krezja will get his act together. Nurturing players as they develop is one thing but it has to be balanced, we can not sacrifice a couple of series because of it.

Sacrifice a couple of series? The guys that failed were the quicks, the batsmen and our fielding. The spinners did not fail us. One minute you want inclusion of talent but the next you say its liability, yet don't hold any of the established players liable.

They have clearly stated that they see Krezja as a long term part of the team, but that he has to be able to bowl tighter. Perfectly reasonable.

Where?

The selectors are desperate to find a spinning option, the candidates get an opportunity; if they can show just a little bit they get more of an opportunity. If they they are just not up to it then they need to go back to work on their game.

So as shown with the majority of players that have been successful, that if you give them five to 10 tests their potential is realised. Not boost them up with a selection and then crush them by dropping them the next.

Hauritz is performing adequately in England, don’t get too excited until he bowls again on Australian pitches. Hopefully he can hold a place until a genuine attacking bowler is unearthed.

Are you blind? He'll be lucky to get a game because of the crap mentality the selectors have. Hauritz has bowled exceptionally well and you then say he isn't attacking? He is practically debuting every time he takes the field.

Nah sorry mate, the evidence does not back you up. Find me a creatable cricket identity who argues that Australia has good spinning talent. If they are as good as you say then their domestic stats would indicate it. Find me some Australian domestic spinners who have even reasonable stats.

No spinner does well on the Australian domestic scene. Shane Warne would average over to mid 30's in domestic cricket, if not more. Australian stocks are fine, what isn't is the Australian selectors mentality of chopping and changing because they want a quick fix, not a long term effort.

Rubbish they are very consistent:

The selectors back their senior players who have a proven track record. There are limited spots in the team and team stability is seen as important. Fringe players are given exposure, if they can’t show enough at the top level they are rotated through. Young players who the selectors think have -genuine- talent are promoted quickly and persisted with.

Yeah, tell that to Hughes, Casson, Krejza and Warner.

Naturally pitch conditions, team balance, game-in-game-out factors all come into the formula.

No, they're excuses.

That is a ridiculous over-exaggeration.

Martyn played a poor shot against a strong opposition, in a series we didn't lose and was dropped.

Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin are two established senior players who both played woeful shots in a deciding match of a series against an average opposition. Their positions will not be reviewed.

How is that over-exaggerating?

 

[weevil]

You can't parrallel our current professionalism to the mid to late 80's nor incur that a statistical based selection policy was used (citation needed) during this period when in the mid-80's three senior players stand down that are considered to be the back bone of your side.

This is just rubbish, you are more interested in kicking and screaming than discussing this in a rational way, you are just arguing for the sake of it.

If you can’t accept something basic like Australian selection policies changing in the mid 80s then I have better things to do.

They debuted against India in 85. Both teams bowling was too inept to win a test let alone the series. We did win a series of significance until four years later.

What? So you're selecting a spinner on potential to keep an end down against India who were crap and have never beaten Australia in test series at home. You know what I would call that, an easy ride.

Great , that is totally irrelevant.

Krejza improved innings by innings with his economy rate. He played two tests, suddenly already shown potential is not warranted? You're contradicting yourself.

The point has been explained numerous times now, you are not interested in listening.

They are extremely keen to give young spinners a go, but if the players are totally out of their depth then they cannot leave them in the team. If they can step up to the plate and show some genuine promise they get more of a chance.

They have tried a few options, it looks like for the moment Ritz is the best option.

Is there anything the slightest bit unreasonable about that? You can wail on about how unfair it all is but it is very straightforward. You seem to want every spinner in the team all the time.

Sacrifice a couple of series? The guys that failed were the quicks, the batsmen and our fielding. The spinners did not fail us. One minute you want inclusion of talent but the next you say its liability, yet don't hold any of the established players liable.

Already been discussed several times, if you are not listening then why bother repeating it again?

Where?

You are lambasting the selectors without knowing anything about their decisions and their reasons for them. You go look it up and I'll be bothered talking to you about it.

So as shown with the majority of players that have been successful, that if you give them five to 10 tests their potential is realised. Not boost them up with a selection and then crush them by dropping them the next.

So if I get 10 tests I will be a gun? If the player shows something and can keep their head above water they give them more games. Been discussed a million times now.

Are you blind? He'll be lucky to get a game because of the crap mentality the selectors have. Hauritz has bowled exceptionally well and you then say he isn't attacking? He is practically debuting every time he takes the field.

There are fringe players in every team, that's the way it works, he will never be a world beater.

He is getting games but you are still not happy. He could come back to Australia play a few games, have no penetration and completely release the pressure when he comes on...and let me guess you will be ranting how bad the selectors are for having him in the team?

No spinner does well on the Australian domestic scene. Shane Warne would average over to mid 30's in domestic cricket, if not more. Australian stocks are fine, what isn't is the Australian selectors mentality of chopping and changing because they want a quick fix, not a long term effort.

Yeah, tell that to Hughes, Casson, Krejza and Warner.

Yeah right Casson is as good as Warne.

Martyn played a poor shot against a strong opposition, in a series we didn't lose and was dropped.

Michael Clarke and Brad Haddin are two established senior players who both played woeful shots in a deciding match of a series against an average opposition. Their positions will not be reviewed.

School-yard Simplistic rubbish. Not even going to bother.

 

[Ill Chicken]

This is just rubbish, you are more interested in kicking and screaming than discussing this in a rational way, you are just arguing for the sake of it.

If you can’t accept something basic like Australian selection policies changing in the mid 80s then I have better things to do.

Show me a link where it says Australian selectors only picked players on statistical performances in the 1980's.

Great , that is totally irrelevant.

No it isn't. It took Waugh four years to have a significant impact on a series. Bruce Reid and Merv Hughes missed more games than they played and contributed to only three test match wins prior to 1989. This same scenario included Geoff Marsh who hit four tons in a 50 test match career, three in his first ten tests, then not another for 20 tests and only one came in a winning test match. We won 11 tests out of 45 six of which came in 1989, with 12 losses and 21 draws while early 80's we won 16 tests, lost 19 and drew 17.

So from 1985 to end of 1988, we won five tests, lost 12 and drew 16. Yet you take from 1980 to the end of 1983, we won 14, lost 13, drew 14. What happened in 1984 is significant and relevant due to the turmoil it created.

The side became stable through the performances of Border and Boon and lesser extent Jones, it was the arrival of Mark Taylor in 1989 that gave the team impetus at the top of the order and hence set about the resurrection of Australian Test Cricket Team.

You can support the "youth policy" of the mid to late 80's that saw possible Australia's worst era of test cricket but can't give a potential long term spinner some leverage after one bad performance?

The point has been explained numerous times now, you are not interested in listening.

And you keep ignoring the facts. Lee, Siddle and Krezja all got one for the match. They played at the WACA, which is not known to be anything but bad for a spinner. So how do you equate pitch consideration into Krejza's performance? Horses for courses? The selectors were oh, no Krejza isn't the prodigy that we thought he was. We go from a raging turner to one of Australia's least performed venues and expect the new kid on the block to still be equivalent on each.

They are extremely keen to give young spinners a go, but if the players are totally out of their depth then they cannot leave them in the team. If they can step up to the plate and show some genuine promise they get more of a chance.

Casson wasn't out of his depth and showed promise. Krejza wasn't out of his depth and showed promise. Hauritz isn't out of his depth. McGain has been the only selection where this is relevant. Besides McGain they all still have the potential to be 100 test spinners. But the reality is, Casson will more than likely not play another test, along with Krejza and Hauritz might sneak another five or ten in.

They have tried a few options, it looks like for the moment Ritz is the best option.

Ha. They've destroyed careers and pigeon-holed players.

Is there anything the slightest bit unreasonable about that? You can wail on about how unfair it all is but it is very straightforward. You seem to want every spinner in the team all the time.

MacGill goes to WI, Casson is the understudy. MacGill retires, Casson plays. Casson doesn't go to India. McGain and Krejza do. McGain is injured. White is his replacement. White plays. Krejza plays the last test and does better than anyone expected. Krejza is dropped for a green top and is injured second test of the home series. White isn't even in the squad. Hauritz is rushed in plays and performs well. Hauritz is dropped for SA series and Krejza comes in. Krejza has a bad test, Hauritz is recalled. Krejza is dropped from squad for SA Tour, McGain is recalled and Hauritz included. McGain plays last test and goes for plenty. McGain has not been heard of since and Hauritz makes Ashes squad.

You know what that is? A shit fight.

Already been discussed several times, if you are not listening then why bother repeating it again?

Because you some how honestly believe that it is worth applauding.

You are lambasting the selectors without knowing anything about their decisions and their reasons for them. You go look it up and I'll be bothered talking to you about it.

Ha. So I have to look up your points for you?

So if I get 10 tests I will be a gun?

Just keep hitting that golf ball against the wall and maybe, just maybe you'll get there.

If the player shows something and can keep their head above water they give them more games. Been discussed a million times now.

So you play a new level and are expected to perform to the highest standard straight away. Everyone knows this is not the case with bowlers. Everyone. Hilfenhaus, Siddle, McGrath, Warne, Johnson, Gillespie to name a few Australian bowlers.

There are fringe players in every team, that's the way it works, he will never be a world beater.

No that's your mentality.

He is getting games but you are still not happy.

He could come back to Australia play a few games, have no penetration and completely release the pressure when he comes on

That is exactly how the selectors and you are thinking. It's negative, it gives no indication to the player that they're in the side either on short term ie a full series or the long term several series. It then means they have the pressure on them of performing immediately even though they keep getting dropped when they've performed.

...and let me guess you will be ranting how bad the selectors are for having him in the team?

No that's you making assumptions.

Yeah right Casson is as good as Warne.

Going on first test performances.

School-yard Simplistic rubbish. Not even going to bother.

In other words, you don't have anything.

 

[King Elvis]

Ill Chicken is correct, and dominant.

Ask Casson how he feels the Selectors treated him - he had no idea why he was demoted all of a sudden, apparently had very little feedback, and was messed around completely.

They don't have a cohesive, long term plan; they have a view to pick who they think is the best player, see if they perform, and if they don't, drop them.

If it's about development, why was Phil Hughes dropped so godamned quickly in England?

 

[weevil]

Show me a link where it says Australian selectors only picked players on statistical performances in the 1980's.

No it isn't. It took Waugh four years to have a significant impact on a series. Bruce Reid and Merv Hughes missed more games than they played and contributed to only three test match wins prior to 1989. This same scenario included Geoff Marsh who hit four tons in a 50 test match career, three in his first ten tests, then not another for 20 tests and only one came in a winning test match. We won 11 tests out of 45 six of which came in 1989, with 12 losses and 21 draws while early 80's we won 16 tests, lost 19 and drew 17.

So from 1985 to end of 1988, we won five tests, lost 12 and drew 16. Yet you take from 1980 to the end of 1983, we won 14, lost 13, drew 14. What happened in 1984 is significant and relevant due to the turmoil it created.

The side became stable through the performances of Border and Boon and lesser extent Jones, it was the arrival of Mark Taylor in 1989 that gave the team impetus at the top of the order and hence set about the resurrection of Australian Test Cricket Team.

Classic example of why it is a waste of time to bother with posters who post on OTT emotion rather than those who actually read and think before they post.

What I was arguing the entire time with the “picked on averages” thing was that they moved to a “youth policy”. I did not use the same language as you but if you stop with the frothing at the mouth and go back and actually read what I wrote that will become abundantly clear to you.

You have been ranting and raving about a point you agree completely with me about.

Sorry to sound patronising but calm down, make reasonable, rational points and I will respond in kind.

Write rubbish like “player x was dropped because they played 1 bad shot” and it will be ignored. Not because it was some brilliant insightful point, but because it is simplistic schoolboy rubbish that is not worthy of a response.

You can support the "youth policy" of the mid to late 80's that saw possible Australia's worst era of test cricket but can't give a potential long term spinner some leverage after one bad performance?

You continually ignore that selection is a great deal to do with context. Every example you come up with is player x did this and player y did the same, with no acknowledgement of the different circumstances which can massively influence things.

It is not simply a matter of A + B = C. The Australian team is in a massively different situation now than it was in the 80s and strategies have changed to suite. There are both long-term and short-term factors, questions of team balance, age, direction and harmony.

Of course the selectors have to have an overall strategy, but they also have to respond to short term circumstances.

Unlike the 80s we are not bottoming out, we are attempting to rebuild the side steadily without having a mass clean out. If you take a step back from the raving and the emotion it is very clear to see. Actually look at our current test attack, injury forced it somewhat but it has gone through a massive transition geared at young bowlers. Once our young pace attack is settled the selectors may be able to be more long term with our spinning options.

MacGill goes to WI, Casson is the understudy. MacGill retires, Casson plays. Casson doesn't go to India. McGain and Krejza do. McGain is injured. White is his replacement. White plays. Krejza plays the last test and does better than anyone expected. Krejza is dropped for a green top and is injured second test of the home series. White isn't even in the squad. Hauritz is rushed in plays and performs well. Hauritz is dropped for SA series and Krejza comes in. Krejza has a bad test, Hauritz is recalled. Krejza is dropped from squad for SA Tour, McGain is recalled and Hauritz included. McGain plays last test and goes for plenty. McGain has not been heard of since and Hauritz makes Ashes squad.

You know what that is? A shit fight.

I agree about Casson, I thought he deserved more of a run. McGain was injured and White was brought in as the next best like for like replacement. Completely reasonable decision, White is not expected to play anyway so it will be a good learning experience for him.

But before the first test Krejza’s form falls completely off the rails and bowls absolutely dreadfully both in the tour match and in practice. White is the only other option and plays (partly due to his batting).

White shows that he does not have the potential to be a Test leg spinner and Krejza’s net form dramatically improves towards the end of the tour.

On the basis of this Krejza is selected but puts in a schizophrenic performance getting smashed by the Indians but then picking up wickets.

Understandably no spinners are selected in Brisbane and then Krejza is injured. So Ritz gets a game.

Ritz performs moderately but Krejza the incumbent is back in the team after returning from injury.

The Australians are comprehensively thrashed, with the bowlers aside from MJ coming in for harsh treatment. Krejza getting 1 for 200 at nearly double the rate of the other bowlers.

The team is getting pumped and is under massive pressure, Bing is bowling poorly and the other 3 are virtual rookies.

Amidst calls for mass sackings, the selectors decide that the bowling balance would be much better with Ritz. If the team had been on top with a settled bowling attack they may well have been able to stick with Krejza. This was all explained by the selectors at the press conference at the time.

Ritz again performs moderately, is by no means an attacking option but at least does not haemorrhage free runs to the batsman every over. This helps greatly stabilise the teams bowling.

McGain an attacking leggie who has far and away the best domestic record of any Australian spinner is finally injury free and is given his chance back. Which he completely, utterly botches with an inept display. Only ever being a short term stop gap option, had to hit the ground running there is no point whatsoever in persisting with him.

Ritz is returned in his defensive off spinner role.

As said previously I don’t understand the logic with Casson and think he was harshly dealt with.

White was given a chance and comprehensively proved he is not a viable test spinner.

McGain was given a chance and comprehensively proved he is not a viable test spinner.

Krejza was given a chance and while showed he has genuine potential the team was in no position whatsoever at the time to carry him. Bad timing for him but that is what happens sometimes. He will get another chance.

Ritz was given a chance and has performed steadily by no means spectacularly, though is improving.

Casson on the face of it a poor decision, Krejza a completely understandable one, White and McGain given chances but clearly not up to it.

You can kick and scream all you want they are completely justifiable decisions given the circumstances.

 

[weevil]

Ill Chicken is correct, and dominant.

Ask Casson how he feels the Selectors treated him - he had no idea why he was demoted all of a sudden, apparently had very little feedback, and was messed around completely.

They don't have a cohesive, long term plan; they have a view to pick who they think is the best player, see if they perform, and if they don't, drop them.

If it's about development, why was Phil Hughes dropped so godamned quickly in England?

Elvis you like to talk the big talk but time and again soon as you have been pressed on any of these issues you go MIA.

Don’t bother coming in and sniping unless you are going to stick around to talk about the issues.

 

[King Elvis]

Elvis you like to talk the big talk but time and again soon as you have been pressed on any of these issues you go MIA.

Don’t bother coming in and sniping unless you are going to stick around to talk about the issues.

Not at all.

I've made my points, you disagree with them, I disagree with your assertions, neither of us are going to change the others opinion, so I don't see the point in continuing to debate it over a dozen posts.

Not quite sure how half a dozen sentences, which back up what I've been saying earlier and aren't a personal shot at anybody are sniping.

 

[weevil]

Not at all.

I've made my points, you disagree with them, I disagree with your assertions, neither of us are going to change the others opinion, so I don't see the point in continuing to debate it over a dozen posts.

Not quite sure how half a dozen sentences, which back up what I've been saying earlier and aren't a personal shot at anybody are sniping.

Nah it pretty much every time works by you waving your arms complaining about a player’s situation and saying “The selectors are totally shit man, they have no plan at all”

To which I say “Elvis you may not like their plan but pretty much every selection they make falls within around half a dozen core principals” I’ll then take the time to detail how the situation you complained about very clearly fits into those principals.

To which you never answer. Then later you appear in some other thread making the exact same claim.

Now in this thread there is someone who agrees with you and suddenly you are posting again.

 

[King Elvis]

I've argued my case pretty comprehensively in the other thread, I've re-iterated a few of my opinions in this thread.

The points you made have been argued against extremely well by Chicken in this thread, and I agree with him - I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to post that.

What cores principles did the selection of Andrew Symonds in the home South African Series follow? Throwing an out of form, unfit All-Rounder who couldn't bowl and struggled to field properly into the fray against the best Test side in the world? Playing Brett Lee there as well, when he was also lacking match fitness and hardness.

Same with the White/Krezja debacle in India, and the following omission of Krezja based on one poor performance on a pitch which doesn't favour spinners?

Then the use of McGain and the treatment of Casson.

Taking 2 all-rounders and no specialist batsmen as a backup on the Ashes Tour?

Dropping the best young batting talent we've seen since Ponting on the back of three bad performances, when he'd been completely dominant against the best side in the world on their home track, yet keeping Hussey when he hadn't made a substantial score for something like 4 Test Series?

Perhaps, but as I've stated earlier, the problem also includes the composition of the squad, allowing players to play IPL when they should've been playing Country, dragging players out of County to be a back up bowler in an ODI Series, taking injured players, not having young inexperienced bowlers playing in England in the lead up, etc.

Just seems like a completely unprofessional, disorganised approach to the most important Series we play.

I'd disagree with that, and point at Krezja/McGain/Hauritz/White, Clark, Symonds & Lee as indicators that they don't have a cohesive plan.

 

[weevil]

I've argued my case pretty comprehensively in the other thread, I've re-iterated a few of my opinions in this thread.

The points you made have been argued against extremely well by Chicken in this thread, and I agree with him - I wasn't aware that I wasn't allowed to post that.

What cores principles did the selection of Andrew Symonds in the home South African Series follow? Throwing an out of form, unfit All-Rounder who couldn't bowl and struggled to field properly into the fray against the best Test side in the world? Playing Brett Lee there as well, when he was also lacking match fitness and hardness.

How many times do I type THEY BACK THEIR PROVEN SENIOR PLAYERS TO THE ABSOLUTE HILT. Until you listen?

Like I say, you may not like or agree with that policy. But it is massively clear that they do this time and time again. IT IS A KEY PART OF THEIR PLAN.

Why do I get the feeling that in 5 minutes you will be mouthing off somewhere about the exact same issue but about another player. Feel like I am talking to a goldfish.

Same with the White/Krezja debacle in India,

I explained this in 115 White was selected as the next best like-for-like replacement for an injured player (something they do regularly). And Krejza fell into a massive hole at the start of the tour. 31 overs, at more than 6 an over, no wickets against a Presidents 11 team!!!! **** a duck are you seriously saying that you would have selected him in the test team on that form?!?!?!?!

and the following omission of Krezja based on one poor performance on a pitch which doesn't favour spinners?

Then the use of McGain and the treatment of Casson.

Did you read post 115? Do you just repeat the same thing over and over again while ignoring all the rebuttal?

Taking 2 all-rounders and no specialist batsmen as a backup on the Ashes Tour?

Watto was the backup specialist batsman on the tour averaged 48.

Dropping the best young batting talent we've seen since Ponting on the back of three bad performances, when he'd been completely dominant against the best side in the world on their home track

Agree said it was a bad/inconsistent call at the time.

yet keeping Hussey when he hadn't made a substantial score for something like 4 Test Series?

Gee, you know I kinda feel like we have been here before...Was there some stuff in capitals at the start of this post...When do you think the fish food arrives?

 

[King Elvis]

How many times do I type THEY BACK THEIR PROVEN SENIOR PLAYERS TO THE ABSOLUTE HILT. Until you listen?

Like I say, you may not like or agree with that policy. But it is massively clear that they do this time and time again. IT IS A KEY PART OF THEIR PLAN.

Why do I get the feeling that in 5 minutes you will be mouthing off somewhere about the exact same issue but about another player. Feel like I am talking to a goldfish.

I don't like it and I don't agree with it, isn't that the entire point?

I don't care whether it's their policy or not, I AM SAYING THAT IT IS A TERRIBLE ONE WHICH HAS COST US CONSIDERABLY IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS.

H
I explained this in 115 White was selected as the next best like-for-like replacement for an injured player (something they do regularly). And Krejza fell into a massive hole at the start of the tour. 31 overs, at more than 6 an over, no wickets against a Presidents 11 team!!!! **** a duck are you seriously saying that you would have selected him in the test team on that form?!?!?!?!

How'd Hauritz go in the Tour Matches in England?

NM Hauritz 18 0 98 0 5.44 (3nb)
NM Hauritz 20 5 60 1 3.00 (5nb)
NM Hauritz 18 1 80 0 4.44 (2nb)
NM Hauritz 12.2 4 22 1 1.78

Two wickets for almost 300 runs, against half arsed County sides. Really demanded selection, didn't he?

Indian Tour Matches

JJ Krejza 11 0 35 3 3.18
JJ Krejza 20 1 123 0 6.15 (2nb)
JJ Krejza 11 1 76 0 6.90

In India, where the players are renowned for their ability to play spin.

From what I can see, White didn't play either of those games.

Haven't you been arguing that we're picking on potential at times, and with a plan, and a long term view - meaning that one or two poor performances, especially on the back of a couple of, at worst, good ones, aren't going to cost a player their position in the side?

Did you read post 115? Do you just repeat the same thing over and over again while ignoring all the rebuttal?

Seems to be working alright for you.

Watto was the backup specialist batsman on the tour averaged 48.

Watto was on tour as an All-Rounder; he had to come in as a batsman because of Johnson's struggles.

We're extremely lucky that he performed as well as he did - but that doesn't change the fact that the composition of the squad was extremely unbalanced from day one; as it was on the South Africa tour, which Ricky Ponting himself stated at the conclusion of it.

Agree said it was a bad/inconsistent call at the time.

So their apparent clear and structured plan isn't actually something their going to adhere to.

Gee, you know I kinda feel like we have been here before...Was there some stuff in capitals at the start of this post...When do you think the fish food arrives?

Blah blah blah.

 

[weevil]

I don't like it and I don't agree with it, isn't that the entire point?

No the entire point is that you have repeated ad nauseum that they have no plan or system whatsoever, when in fact, as you have now acknowledged, they clearly do.

I don't care whether it's their policy or not, I AM SAYING THAT IT IS A TERRIBLE ONE WHICH HAS COST US CONSIDERABLY IN THE LAST TWELVE MONTHS.

So you are all for short term quick fixes, where the long term stability of the team does not matter at all? Standing strongly behind established key players when times are tough is a stupid thing to do?

I totally agree that sometimes they stick with players too long. And I agree that Hussey is an example of this. But to make the blanket claim that a policy of backing class players is terrible is ridiculous. Were you screaming for them to drop MJ in the last series when he was bowling badly?

Very, very, very easy to sit back and criticize when you never have to make any of the hard decisions yourself.

How'd Hauritz go in the Tour Matches in England?

NM Hauritz 18 0 98 0 5.44 (3nb)
NM Hauritz 20 5 60 1 3.00 (5nb)
NM Hauritz 18 1 80 0 4.44 (2nb)
NM Hauritz 12.2 4 22 1 1.78

Two wickets for almost 300 runs, against half arsed County sides. Really demanded selection, didn't he?

Indian Tour Matches

JJ Krejza 11 0 35 3 3.18
JJ Krejza 20 1 123 0 6.15 (2nb)
JJ Krejza 11 1 76 0 6.90

In India, where the players are renowned for their ability to play spin.

From what I can see, White didn't play either of those games.

The only thing these stats do is confirm the reports that Krejza had completely and utterly lost the plot at that stage and was unselectable.

You want to throw a rookie with those figures to go in against Tendulkar and co? Can I start a thread now screaming “Elvis is an absolute disgrace of a selector, who has no clue and should be sacked”

...But then again if you didn’t select him I will start a thread screaming “Elvis is treating our spinners disgracefully, he has no long term plan and should be sacked”

And then later in the series White has been a total passenger in the first couple of tests and Krejza starts bowling dramatically better in the nets: If you don’t drop White and put Krejza in I am going to scream that you are a clueless joke and should be sacked. But if you drop White I am going to scream that he was going to be the next Warne and that you have destroyed his career. It’s an easy game you play.

Sometimes there are very difficult decisions to be made with pros and cons on both sides and no clear ‘right’ answer. Sometimes no matter what you do there is a bad outcome. Welcome to the real world.

Haven't you been arguing that we're picking on potential at times, and with a plan, and a long term view - meaning that one or two poor performances, especially on the back of a couple of, at worst, good ones, aren't going to cost a player their position in the side?

No, again, listen to my argument before you misrepresent it for the 1000th time.

As I have repeated numerous times we are not tanking, they are attempting to blend young players into the team but not at the expense of throwing away multiple test series because of it.

They are attempting to balance both competing interests. They are not totally ignoring one priority over the other.

In the 80s it was all about youth, in our golden era it was maintaining our position at the top. Right now we are attempting to balance both.

Just because we do not drop the entire team in favour of 17 year olds does not mean we are not desperate to introduce the right young players into the team. It is possible to have shades of grey, not everything is simple and black and white.

Seems to be working alright for you.

This is the first time you have ever offered any rebuttal. Previously you have been a dump and run guy...Saying “LOLz they are crap” is not rebuttal.

Watto was on tour as an All-Rounder; he had to come in as a batsman because of Johnson's struggles.

We're extremely lucky that he performed as well as he did - but that doesn't change the fact that the composition of the squad was extremely unbalanced from day one; as it was on the South Africa tour, which Ricky Ponting himself stated at the conclusion of it.

He was on tour as a batsman who could bat anywhere in the top 6 who could also offer support to the bowling. They deliberately never described him as an all-rounder. He was selected as a batsman who could bowl a bit.

So their apparent clear and structured plan isn't actually something their going to adhere to.

More simplistic rubbish. They get some things right and some things wrong.

You tell me exactly what you are going to do as a selector and I will rip the shit out of all of it. Easiest game in the world.

Maybe it is a really difficult job in difficult times?

No that's right you have all the answers.

 

[Ill Chicken]

Classic example of why it is a waste of time to bother with posters who post on OTT emotion rather than those who actually read and think before they post.

What I was arguing the entire time with the “picked on averages” thing was that they moved to a “youth policy”. I did not use the same language as you but if you stop with the frothing at the mouth and go back and actually read what I wrote that will become abundantly clear to you.

You have been ranting and raving about a point you agree completely with me about.

Sorry to sound patronising but calm down, make reasonable, rational points and I will respond in kind.

Write rubbish like “player x was dropped because they played 1 bad shot” and it will be ignored. Not because it was some brilliant insightful point, but because it is simplistic schoolboy rubbish that is not worthy of a response.

Besides all the strawman stuff in there, at no point have I agreed with you on the 80's selection policy. You said it was policy picked on statistics, I pointed out it wasn't, asked you to prove that the 80's was picked on statistics and you haven't. You've continually fill your point of view with irrelevant filler that is does not represent anything I have said at all. Frothing at the mouth? You call yourself a moderator and seem to indicate my opinion is irrelevant through these terms yet it is you who appears to be huffing and puffing over being disagreed with. You're not actually saying anything.

If my points are so simplistic, why can you not point out the flaws?

Prove that the Australian selectors picked players on averages in the 80's. I've shown that the first four years of the 80's were productive and would have been more so without the internal rumblings that seriously affected the Australian team. Three senior players retired and we got smoked for next five years because we picked players that weren't good enough.

I've also said the 80's are irrelevant for a number of other reasons, but you seem to think cricket was played the same way back at the administration, international, domestic and grassroots levels when it clearly is not.

You continually ignore that selection is a great deal to do with context. Every example you come up with is player x did this and player y did the same, with no acknowledgement of the different circumstances which can massively influence things.

It is not simply a matter of A + B = C. The Australian team is in a massively different situation now than it was in the 80s and strategies have changed to suite. There are both long-term and short-term factors, questions of team balance, age, direction and harmony.

Of course the selectors have to have an overall strategy, but they also have to respond to short term circumstances.

Unlike the 80s we are not bottoming out, we are attempting to rebuild the side steadily without having a mass clean out. If you take a step back from the raving and the emotion it is very clear to see. Actually look at our current test attack, injury forced it somewhat but it has gone through a massive transition geared at young bowlers. Once our young pace attack is settled the selectors may be able to be more long term with our spinning options.

The only plan the selectors have is to give Clarke the captaincy and to stick with guys that have been through "their system" ie Watson, Clarke, White, Johnson, Haddin and co.

This whole geared to young bowlers is a lie. White, McGain, Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Lee and Clark are not younger bowlers. Nor is Hauritz or Boilinger. They're mid to late 20's and early 30's with years of national experience behind them (besides McGain), speckled with international appearances.

You say gearing towards younger bowlers, how bout two meaningless T20 matches in SA where Harwood played?

You insist that if we keep A - experienced players with B - young quicks we'll eventually end up with C - a spinner. Or is that too simplistic for you, because that is exactly what you're saying. I know it's not the 80's that why I've said that it is irrelevant.

I agree about Casson, I thought he deserved more of a run. McGain was injured and White was brought in as the next best like for like replacement. Completely reasonable decision, White is not expected to play anyway so it will be a good learning experience for him.

No it wasn't. White's selection was a smack in the face to spinners, quicks and bats. He hardly even bowls anymore at state level. Has barely bowled at national level for the last three years. One of the worst selections Australia has ever made, not in terms of White's performance but to even get into the squad as the spin bowlert one can only call ridiculous.

But before the first test Krejza’s form falls completely off the rails and bowls absolutely dreadfully both in the tour match and in practice. White is the only other option and plays (partly due to his batting).

White shows that he does not have the potential to be a Test leg spinner and Krejza’s net form dramatically improves towards the end of the tour.

On the basis of this Krejza is selected but puts in a schizophrenic performance getting smashed by the Indians but then picking up wickets.

Speculating on two tour matches and net form is credible enough to not play him, why even pick him originally? Where is the faith in selectors taking him over there as the second spinner, when every second spinner has played in the last three series over there and performed aptly?

Point out where his "two test career" has been schizophrenic.

Understandably no spinners are selected in Brisbane and then Krejza is injured. So Ritz gets a game.

Ritz performs moderately but Krejza the incumbent is back in the team after returning from injury.

The Australians are comprehensively thrashed, with the bowlers aside from MJ coming in for harsh treatment. Krejza getting 1 for 200 at nearly double the rate of the other bowlers.

The team is getting pumped and is under massive pressure, Bing is bowling poorly and the other 3 are virtual rookies.

Amidst calls for mass sackings, the selectors decide that the bowling balance would be much better with Ritz. If the team had been on top with a settled bowling attack they may well have been able to stick with Krejza. This was all explained by the selectors at the press conference at the time.

Brett Lee was injured, Symonds was injured. Where does a settled team fit in? Doesn't settled also mean not changing it up because of one bad day, which it effectively was for the whole team, not just Krejza. There is nothing at all there indicating Krejza should not have played the second test at the MCG based on the selections they made for that match.

But this so called settled team then sees Boilinger, McDonald play in the third test and then sees Hilfenhaus play in SA. Where does that equate to a settled bowling line-up? Oh, it's okay to play an unsettled line-up when there's injuries.

They explained that they making bad decisions and that is acceptable how? You agree that treating your spinners like crap, picking injured players and then not picking guys you originally picked is something that is all okay, as long as you explain it?

Ritz again performs moderately, is by no means an attacking option but at least does not haemorrhage free runs to the batsman every over. This helps greatly stabilise the teams bowling.

No, your mentality means he is not an attacking option. Every time he bowled in the series something happened. How is that not an attacking option?

McGain an attacking leggie who has far and away the best domestic record of any Australian spinner is finally injury free and is given his chance back. Which he completely, utterly botches with an inept display. Only ever being a short term stop gap option, had to hit the ground running there is no point whatsoever in persisting with him.

McGain got blasted for worst figures of all time because he wasn't at the level required. He was coming back from injury had barely bowled all summer, hadn't played international cricket, wasn't even in the frame for the West Indies last year.

Ritz is returned in his defensive off spinner role.

As said previously I don’t understand the logic with Casson and think he was harshly dealt with.

White was given a chance and comprehensively proved he is not a viable test spinner.

White was never an option. It was a waste of four tests in series that we were going to struggle in, if only ever draw. Wrong, poor selection and wasted four tests on a guy who isn't even a short term option in the Australian team. You could have have picked Brad Hodge and had him bowl his pies and at least you've got a top class batsman in the side.

McGain was given a chance and comprehensively proved he is not a viable test spinner.

Krejza was given a chance and while showed he has genuine potential the team was in no position whatsoever at the time to carry him. Bad timing for him but that is what happens sometimes. He will get another chance.

Ritz was given a chance and has performed steadily by no means spectacularly, though is improving.

Casson on the face of it a poor decision, Krejza a completely understandable one, White and McGain given chances but clearly not up to it.

You can kick and scream all you want they are completely justifiable decisions given the circumstances.

You're not even telling me what the selectors plan is?

If they had a plan, Lee would not have been in England until the ODI's. Clark would have been playing county cricket in the lead up. Hauritz would have played all five tests. Boilinger would have been in the squad. Phil Hughes would not have been dropped.

All it shows me is that the selectors don't have any faith in their own decisions, which makes impossible for a new bloke to come into the team knowing that he isn't just some whimsical decision, made at the drop of the hat. They've wasted test matches that could have seen someone flower into a long term option rather than mistake or project work.

Mitchell Johnson has gone from strike bowler to question being asked whether he should be in the team or not. Hilfenhaus is suddenly the spearhead of the attack, while Siddle has had the same questions put over him as Johnson. They concerned over a technical flaw of Phil Hughes, yet not over Johnson. They don't mind blokes playing poor shots in crucial matches yet it's not the same for others. It's okay for Johnson to go for four an over for a whole test series yet not a new spinner to the team against the best players of spin in the world or on a wicket that has offered nothing for spinners ever?

I don't rate Krejza and I don't care if he plays for Australia again or not. What I don't want to see is test matches being lost (as in experience for a player) because of poor selections that aren't backed with plan or that actually have faith in that bowler to be the next spinner for Australia or opening batsman.

 

[courtjester]

Jesus!

 

[weevil]

[YOUTUBE]PbcctWbC8Q0[/YOUTUBE]

God what a waste of time. Trying to talk sensibly about a subject with the ghost of LtD. You are just screaming in disagreement with everything I say no matter what.

Insisting that “There is nothing at all indicating that he should be dropped” about a player who takes 1 for 200 at 4.5 an over.

When I quote the exact reason why a player was picked your idea of a counter argument is to scream “no he wasn’t” and to spend a paragraph hurling rambling abuse at the player.

Apparently “tour matches and net form” are now no longer allowed to be considered when picking a player.

And Ritz is an attacking bowler.

You will be squealing about the sky being bright purple next.

The ‘best’ one is “You're not even telling me what the selectors plan is”. Despite the fact I have taken the time to explicitly spell it out numerous times in the past few posts alone.

You are just trying to scream long enough and loud enough in the hope that mummy and daddy will give in and give you what you want.

If you are not willing or not able to actually read the posts you are responding to you are not worth the effort.