- Banned
- #76
Irrigation systems without guards to keep water off the driveway.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Have selectors have lost us another series...
- Thread starter gbatman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
jabbathehut
Debutant
the selectors have not made an error in not picking hauritz as a spinner as thats not what he is. hauritz should be classified as a slow bowler at best. IMO selectors should have picked clarke for lords test but their main error has been not picking a reserve batsmen and going with 2 all rounders (andrew flintoff is to blame for this as since 2005 they have been obsessed with playing one even if they arent any good). this has restricted them enormously in being able to cope with 2 batsmen hopelessly out of form.
and dont get me started on whatever nuffy said clark wouldnt bat at 4 so he didnt have to bat ugly, im sure he could get some career advice off some of the following no 4 batsmen, mark waugh, damien martyn, brian lara, sachin tendulkar, KP. they should be able to give him some tips on how to do it
and dont get me started on whatever nuffy said clark wouldnt bat at 4 so he didnt have to bat ugly, im sure he could get some career advice off some of the following no 4 batsmen, mark waugh, damien martyn, brian lara, sachin tendulkar, KP. they should be able to give him some tips on how to do it
They've made some pretty bad calls (retaining Hussey), some questionable ones (not selecting Clark in favourable conditions) and some good ones (Hilfenhaus).
Generally, however, the Australian cricket team has played like the Pakistani cricket team of the 1990's, only without the talent (and the dire fielding and teamwork) exhibited by that team. They've gone from brilliant to absolutely dire. They're capable of piling on and shooting out teams, but they're also prone to doing the very opposite. Put simply, they haven't been good enough.
Luckily though, we do have some very promising youngsters coming up. I'm reasonably certain that Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Johnson will make for a formidable attack given a year or two, whilst Hughes is still a batsman with incredible talent.
I'm not certain as to how to prevent our batting line-up from falling in a heap. Dropping Hussey is one important step, but he was only one symptom, not the disease itself. When Clarke fails, North tends to, as well. Plus, Haddin has lost consistency, whilst Johnson has never really had any.
I suppose that it was inevitable that we would fall down the ranks. It happened to South Africa from 2003-2006 (when Donald, Rhodes and Kirsten retired, whilst Pollock lost form) and England more recently. India will suffer the same when their batting stars (most of whom, barring Sehwag, are about the same age) retire. I'm still disappointed with the way we've played, though.
Generally, however, the Australian cricket team has played like the Pakistani cricket team of the 1990's, only without the talent (and the dire fielding and teamwork) exhibited by that team. They've gone from brilliant to absolutely dire. They're capable of piling on and shooting out teams, but they're also prone to doing the very opposite. Put simply, they haven't been good enough.
Luckily though, we do have some very promising youngsters coming up. I'm reasonably certain that Hilfenhaus, Siddle and Johnson will make for a formidable attack given a year or two, whilst Hughes is still a batsman with incredible talent.
I'm not certain as to how to prevent our batting line-up from falling in a heap. Dropping Hussey is one important step, but he was only one symptom, not the disease itself. When Clarke fails, North tends to, as well. Plus, Haddin has lost consistency, whilst Johnson has never really had any.
I suppose that it was inevitable that we would fall down the ranks. It happened to South Africa from 2003-2006 (when Donald, Rhodes and Kirsten retired, whilst Pollock lost form) and England more recently. India will suffer the same when their batting stars (most of whom, barring Sehwag, are about the same age) retire. I'm still disappointed with the way we've played, though.
- Thread starter
- #79
time to go selectors, when we had a "dream team" selecting the team was easy. Now it's a challenge they are failing miserably. Time for a new fresh selection panel.
Selectors are useless, get rid of them.
They cost us this Series, and arguably the home Saffer Series too.
GBat; we had a dreamteam because we had selectors with the balls to make hard decisions - like dropping Healy for Gilchrist; these Selectors don't have the nads or the ability to make those calls.
They cost us this Series, and arguably the home Saffer Series too.
GBat; we had a dreamteam because we had selectors with the balls to make hard decisions - like dropping Healy for Gilchrist; these Selectors don't have the nads or the ability to make those calls.
Of course they did... not the player's fault at all
If you are looking for someone to blame then Mike Hussey would be a good place to start.
Of course they did... not the player's fault at all
If you are looking for someone to blame then Mike Hussey would be a good place to start.
Definitely the players fault; that's why you have selectors to drop them from the side when they aren't performing.
Or, in our case, to just be idiots who lead wine tasting tours through France, pick completely unbalanced squads, are incapable of picking the right players based on pitch conditions and lack the testicular fortitude to make hard decisions.
Langford4FBOTC
Club Legend
To my mind, the selectors are stuck in a time warp. When we had a side packed with some of the greats of the game, we could carry a player or two and give them time to regain form or allow them a gracefull exit. We just don't have that luxury at the moment, but the selectors are unwilling to make the shift in thinking. Granted there is a balance and you can go too far the other way, but there are clear examples going right back to the 2005 Ashes where the tough calls weren't made.
In this time of transition I think stability is more important than ever. The team would be total rubbish if they chapped and changed players at the drop of a hat.
They persist with players who have proven they can perform at a very high level. Usually that pays off but sometimes we get hurt by it.
Our bowling attack is still very, very raw. I think rushing in and replacing experienced batsman with young players would leave our team extremely inexperienced and vulnerable.
They persist with players who have proven they can perform at a very high level. Usually that pays off but sometimes we get hurt by it.
Our bowling attack is still very, very raw. I think rushing in and replacing experienced batsman with young players would leave our team extremely inexperienced and vulnerable.
The "if I was in charge" rant.
Rather than the notion of a best XI, and changes to that, I'd much prefer to see us develop a 'squad' of 15, with a breakup something like: 3 openers, 3 middle-order bats, 3 quicks, 2 spinners, 2 keepers, 2 all-rounders.
From that 15, pick on form, and suitability for conditions. Every season look at dropping 2-3 players and picking 2-3 new players - but during the season itself, everything should be covered.
I don't think we can get by with 4 bowlers, unless Watson AND North, (or a fit Katich/Clarke) are playing.
I'd rather lose a test match when the players we have aren't good enough, than lose a test match because our bowlers aren't suited to the pitch.
Rather than the notion of a best XI, and changes to that, I'd much prefer to see us develop a 'squad' of 15, with a breakup something like: 3 openers, 3 middle-order bats, 3 quicks, 2 spinners, 2 keepers, 2 all-rounders.
From that 15, pick on form, and suitability for conditions. Every season look at dropping 2-3 players and picking 2-3 new players - but during the season itself, everything should be covered.
I don't think we can get by with 4 bowlers, unless Watson AND North, (or a fit Katich/Clarke) are playing.
I'd rather lose a test match when the players we have aren't good enough, than lose a test match because our bowlers aren't suited to the pitch.
We chopped and change by dropping Hughes at a whim; same with Krezja. Hussey, who I love, has been rubbish for over a year now, and hasn't gone anywhere. We aren't really talking about inexperienced bats either; we're talking a Hodge or a Jaques or a Rogers; all proven players.
And, again, the issue with Selection wasn't purely on the sides picked, it goes way back and includes the rookie mistakes regarding player management and preparation for our most important Test Series.
I have a problem with guys like Manou, McDonald and Hauritz being selected in our squads. Sure, they are used as depth but they are stop gaps at best. We should be looking to rebuild the side, but none of the above are a real option for the future.
Surely at this stage if we don't have a player capable of filling a position, we should be looking at a player capable of filling it in the future instead of a player who will do an adequate job at best?
Reminds me of Carlton of the early 2000's
Surely at this stage if we don't have a player capable of filling a position, we should be looking at a player capable of filling it in the future instead of a player who will do an adequate job at best?
Reminds me of Carlton of the early 2000's
They don’t just blindly pick a side based on 1 or 2 issues. There are long term and short term issues that have to be balanced. What they did with Krezja makes 100% perfect sense to me. Disagree with what happened with Hughes. Though Watto (who they have been lambasted about for years) performed very well.
Hussey was absolutely brilliant for an extended period and they have obviously given him every opportunity to recapture that. If he could do that, he would again be an incredibly valuable player. Much more valuable than someone who might come in and do an okay but not spectacular job.
Obviously he has not performed, and it would be incredibly easy with 20/20 hindsight to say he should have been dropped last year. But who knows he could go back to being the best batsman in the world again. He has shown he has the ability to do that. It’s not a simple black and white decision there are many factors involved.
Yeah I think most of that is very subjective and much of it nothing to do with the selectors anyway.
Langford4FBOTC
Club Legend
I agree that stability is important Weevil. I'm not advocating wholesale changes, but I do believe that the selectors have baulked at making tough decisions over recent years where there have been viable alternatives (experienced and most importantly, in form players).... The King highlighed a couple of examples in his recent post. S Clark is another on the bowling front.
If you look at the Hussey example, yes, he could get back to being the best batsman in the world (I seriously hope he does), but IMO the course he and all seriously out of form players should tread is to drop down a level, be it to state or tour games, and make enough runs that they demand a recall. This is the point where I think reputations and records should come into play. Given his outstanding record and renewed form, he should come into the side, even if the incumbant's form doesn't warrent being dropped.
There is a problem with this, and that is the lack of tour games these days, but I think it just needs some creative thinking by administrators to overcome this problem. One idea would be to find games for touring players in the local grade/county/state cricket.
If you look at the Hussey example, yes, he could get back to being the best batsman in the world (I seriously hope he does), but IMO the course he and all seriously out of form players should tread is to drop down a level, be it to state or tour games, and make enough runs that they demand a recall. This is the point where I think reputations and records should come into play. Given his outstanding record and renewed form, he should come into the side, even if the incumbant's form doesn't warrent being dropped.
There is a problem with this, and that is the lack of tour games these days, but I think it just needs some creative thinking by administrators to overcome this problem. One idea would be to find games for touring players in the local grade/county/state cricket.
I have no problem with someone thinking that parts of their overall strategy needs tweaking. I myself think they have lingered with some players a little too long sometimes.
It’s the often repeated OTT accusations that the selectors are a total rabble and have absolutely no idea that I have a problem with.
It’s easy to sit back and blindly criticise. But I think they really clearly have a very structured set of ideas they follow and that they have been steadily working to a long term plan to transition the team. All at the same time as attempting to balance that goal with the game by game needs of the team.
Mostly they get it right, sometimes they don’t.
The overriding fact remains that we just do not have the cattle that we once did. They are working steadily at getting the mix between youth and experience, but that cannot happen overnight.
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.
Nah don’t think you could get a clearer example than Bing as to the selectors working to a plan. Identified very early with and persisted with for a long time despite his performances not really justifying it. Ultimately he did not turn into the bowler he should have been but that is not the selectors fault.
Roy is also another player they picked way before his performances justified it. Stuck with him for a long time as an underperforming talent. And in the end backed him to the absolute hilt when his behaviour did not justify it.
Same with guys like MJ, Watto and Siddle. If they identify a player with genuine talent they generally stick with them through thick and thin.
They have had trouble with the spinners, but that is based primarily on the fact that none of them are really good enough.
They have all been given a chance and Ritz has proven to be least worst option for the time being. They will be keen to see Krezja back in the team but he is too much of a liability ATM and needs to work on his consistency.
If a young spinner bobs up with even the smallest bit of potential they will be in the team so fast it will make your head spin.
Yep they do exactly this sort of thing all the time. Never get any credit for it.
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
Having Holland in a 30 man squad should be applauded why?
You didn’t read the posts above?
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
What credit should that get for that? It's a 30 man squad, it means nothing. All it does is highlight the fact they're desperate for any spinner, who has played first class cricket, is young and has shown some potential. It's not a hard gig to grasp.
Errr...isn’t the discussion is about how keen they are to bring on young spinners???
The example is a rookie state player being named in a national squad. What do you expect them to do name him as test captain?
Ill Chicken
Premiership Player
Again, why should they be applauded?
Really don’t get your point. A player goes out and scores a century...why should they be applauded for that?
- Status
Similar threads
