PDA

View Full Version : Australia: Who Is To Blame For This Farce


jeesh
March 6, 2013, 11:31 PM
I became a fan of the Australian cricket team as an eight year old because of Steve and Mark Waugh. I remember i even wrote an article about the two in Rising Stars of Daily Star. Over the years i became quite a follower of the Aussies. Ashamed to say i even supported them against Bangladesh in the 1999 WC. The wizardry of Warne, the brilliance of McGrath, the fighting spirit of Steve Waugh, the elegance of Mark Waugh, the arrogance of Ponting, the aggression of Gilchrist, the fiery pace of Lee, the stubbornness of Bevan, power of Hayden. Australia totally changed the game of cricket. They even made test cricket more exciting and interesting. There was a point where they adopted a strategy of run rates in excess of 4-4.5 in tests. Any cricket lover even their fierce rivals couldnt stop admiring their style of play. Each of their eleven players were a treat to watch.

But today, its a totally different story. Australia is no longer the dominant team and judging for their recent performance they ll keep slipping down. Aussie fans will contend they can beat anyone at home, but at their current state i believe they ll struggle against England, South Africa at home, and definitely lose away. The team lacks a backbone, lacks fighting spirit, lacks world class spinners, world class batsmen. They may have quality pacers, but most of them too raw to make a difference away from home. If things keep going this way, Australia will continue to slump. No i am not being dramatic, and not being influenced by the India tour. This team is not even near the shadow of the great Australian team of the late 90's and early 2000's. The way India, England, South Africa are developing the Aussies will have a hard time. The last world cup with a decent team they went out in a timid fashion with a reasonably good team. What will happen in the next world cup with this team?

Who is to blame for this debacle? What has brought them down to this level, and how can they fight back to the top? Whats your opinion?

Gowza
March 7, 2013, 12:38 AM
i reckon they still have the ability to win anywhere they just don't apply themselves like the players in the great team. the talent at the top is there (other than the spin department), the application is not. most of the team haven't played away in foreign conditions very much so tours like the current one in india are a huge learning curve. clarke is obviously quality, warner and wade have as much talent as anyone, khawaja has a lot of talent as does hughes (despite being unorthodox).

the thing is, although the talent is there is hasn't developed like previous generations because the depth of talent is lacking, at the top there is a lot of talent but overall i think the batting and spin talent is lacking a bit. at the same time the pace talent is ridiculous atm, guys like cutting, butterworth and faulkner don't even get a look in for the test side and barely do for the one-day side.

as far as india, england and south africa and their development. well england always have a solid output of talent in pretty much all departments, south africa always have great talent output in everything other than spin and india are starting to develop som decent quicks. i think england and south africa, due to home conditions have a great chance away from home no matter where and no matter who they play, india however are still going to struggle away from home a lot of the time until the new incoming batsmen get some experience outside of home.

why has australia dropped so far? well from my POV a big part why australia was so great before was because there was so much competition for spots, nowadays the talents don't have to perform to keep their spots, be in the aussie team or the state team. there are guys like reardon who have played for probably close to a decade in states and are around 30 who are still struggling to average 30+ in any format. back when australia dominated you had the guys in the team plus rogers, hussey's, jacques, hodge, watson (when he was batting well), katich, lehmann, bevan, clarke, love, maher. there was a big list of batsman performing at about a 50 average in FC cricket who weren't making the team.

jeesh
March 7, 2013, 02:17 AM
Nicely put Gowza. I used to like Australia's rigid selection strategy. But sometimes they overdo it. Look how beautifully India has replaced Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman, Ganguly with a new set of stars. When you know there will be a vacuum once senior players retire you immedeatly try to integrate a few talented young players into the system. By now guys like Henriques, Philip Hughes, Marsh, Steven Smith, Ferguson, Khwaja etc should have been established players. The way they play they seem like newcomers. And i dont get their approach with Nathan Lyon. He's their best spinner, why not give him exposure in ODI's, T20's. They are just being too stubborn, almost forcing him to be a test bowler, when they are suffering so much without quality spinners in limited overs.

Zeeshan
March 7, 2013, 02:24 AM
Aussies rotate more than tires in a F1 pit stop.

Jadukor
March 7, 2013, 02:47 AM
I blame three factors:
i) The greatness of the Australian team through the late nineties and early 2000s
ii) Selection blunders
iii) Failure of Academy

i) The Australians once had an all conquering team that sometimes looked invincible during the late 90s and early 2000s (like how they won worldcups without losing a single game). The batting and bowling order consisted of such greats at the time that their replacements got zero opportunities to gain experience at the international level. The vacuum left by them when they all left in a very short time period was simply far too great for their inexperienced reserve players to fill in.

ii) The ideal way for the selectors to deal with the situation would have been to have these greats retire phase by phase. There needed to be enough time to find replacement of Langer while Hayden was still there blood in another wicketkeeper while Gilchrist was still there (by giving up gloves and only batting), debuting XYZ spinners while Warne was still there. I think Australian selectors were too complacent with the way they got rid of their star players to and continue to be even at present times (as evident from kicking out Hussey, Katich, not selecting Hodge, D. Hussey etc). Back in the day they didn't need Maher or Stuart Law because of the great 11 they already had. They could get rid of Bevan, Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh unceremoniously (i remember Waugh wanting to play WC but was denied).

iii) Their academies haven't produced a single quality leg spinner during the time Warne played. Warne had a very long international career and there should have been plans in place decades ago to develop young leg spinners like Warne and S. Mcgill. I know that talent cannot be manufactured but still 10+ years is a long time to not find a decent spin bowling option

Gowza
March 7, 2013, 03:15 AM
I blame three factors:
i) The greatness of the Australian team through the late nineties and early 2000s
ii) Selection blunders
iii) Failure of Academy

i) The Australians once had an all conquering team that sometimes looked invincible during the late 90s and early 2000s (like how they won worldcups without losing a single game). The batting and bowling order consisted of such greats at the time that their replacements got zero opportunities to gain experience at the international level. The vacuum left by them when they all left in a very short time period was simply far too great for their inexperienced reserve players to fill in.

ii) The ideal way for the selectors to deal with the situation would have been to have these greats retire phase by phase. There needed to be enough time to find replacement of Langer while Hayden was still there blood in another wicketkeeper while Gilchrist was still there (by giving up gloves and only batting), debuting XYZ spinners while Warne was still there. I think Australian selectors were too complacent with the way they got rid of their star players to and continue to be even at present times (as evident from kicking out Hussey, Katich, not selecting Hodge, D. Hussey etc). Back in the day they didn't need Maher or Stuart Law because of the great 11 they already had. They could get rid of Bevan, Mark Waugh and Steve Waugh unceremoniously (i remember Waugh wanting to play WC but was denied).

iii) Their academies haven't produced a single quality leg spinner during the time Warne played. Warne had a very long international career and there should have been plans in place decades ago to develop young leg spinners like Warne and S. Mcgill. I know that talent cannot be manufactured but still 10+ years is a long time to not find a decent spin bowling option

agree, although i think they tried to blood jacques while hayden was there, but he got injured and was out for ages and didn't comeback the same.

jeesh
March 7, 2013, 03:17 AM
Shocking how they cant produce a single spinner. And they are supposed to have the best coaches, best academies? They might as well give PR to Mosharraf Hossain or Enamul Haque Jnr. They ll do a better job than their current crop.

Just compare Englands spinners with Australia's. English spinners played a key role in their series win just a few months back.

firstlane
March 8, 2013, 07:16 AM
Here is a good analysis of Australia's reason to lose:


But there are reasons. And there is hope.

Hope? What? Yes, there is hope. For despite being annihilated in two Tests by India, who were beaten 2-1 by England - and this before ten straight Ashes Tests - all is not lost. That's why they call it audacious, hope.

Paul Marsh, CEO of the Australian Players' Association, acknowledges the severity of two drubbings but he does make the point that no Australia team - apart from the ridiculously great side of 2004 - has won in India since 1968. And the pitches in India don't really compare to those the Ashes will be contested on.

There's also the question of how to replace Ricky Ponting and Mike Hussey. Marsh counsels against the "hysteria" that comes with Australia not doing well and reckons the current group should be invested in.

"The keeper's batting at No. 6, there are bowling allrounders at No. 7 and No. 8. Then nine, ten, Jack. Good night, nurse. Remember six batters, keeper and four bowlers? That used to work, didn't it?"
The man can make a case, but it's the manner of these losses, the capitulations. The lack of … well, you wouldn't say an Australian team lacks grit. You don't come up through first-class cricket without bark.

But my - it's been ordinary.

Let's start with selections. I mean, I like Moises Henriques. But Moises Henriques? He played a couple of fine hands in the first Test, and took a couple of wickets. But he's scored one (1) first-class century. He's taken 79 first-class scalps at 28, which is okay. But how has it earned him the trip?

They call Glenn Maxwell "Big Show" and that's a cracking nickname. And he took four wickets when the deck was turning on the third day at Hyderabad. And good luck to him. But Maxwell a Test player? A slow-bowling allrounder batting at No. 8? This is Australia's other spinner? I hope he proves me wrong. But his apprenticeship has been short-form giggle cricket, not years of hard-boned sunstroke and slog.

Nathan Lyon has looked one-dimensional the last few months. And he took some tap from MS Dhoni. But everyone did. Now, fair enough you might replace him. But with Xavier Doherty? He has six wickets at 72, including three in Hyderabad. He was picked for this series on the back of two (2) Shield wickets at 80. He's 30-years-old. He's a good fellah, X-Man. But if he was gonna he'd have dunna.

And they took over Steven Smith. Where to start … I mean … why? For the love of dear sweet Mr Lillee why? Steven Smith? In the Test squad? You may want to give someone experience on Indian wickets but don't hand out Test caps to learn if they can cut it.

I don't get it. The keeper's batting at No. 6. There are bowling allrounders at No. 7 and No. 8. Then nine, ten, Jack. Good night, nurse. Remember six batters, keeper and four bowlers? That used to work, didn't it?

Read more:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/623990.html

Murad
March 8, 2013, 07:41 AM
Where is Nathan Hauritz ? how come he is not playing for Australia anymore?

He was a decent spinner.

Maysun
March 8, 2013, 09:15 AM
Where is Nathan Hauritz ? how come he is not playing for Australia anymore?

He was a decent spinner.

Into oblivion.

BengaliPagol
March 8, 2013, 05:45 PM
Every single pace bowler in the Sheffield Shield played for Australia this year

cricman
March 8, 2013, 07:26 PM
Lyon gets to much flack, he's a good spinner. No shame not being able to get Indian Batsmen out in India.

Their Pace Bowlers are good too.

It's the batsmen that are the problem, It's Clarke and 6 bums.

Night_wolf
March 8, 2013, 10:16 PM
its sad to see that the land of shane warne can produce a single decent spinner..Aus was really unlucky that macgill and warne was around at the same time..if macgill was here at this time Aus would have highly benefited from that..and poor poor stuart macgill he would have been one of the greats of the game if he was with the present team

jeesh
March 8, 2013, 10:20 PM
Lyons a good bowler, they are just not managing him well.

Gowza
March 8, 2013, 11:18 PM
its sad to see that the land of shane warne can produce a single decent spinner..Aus was really unlucky that macgill and warne was around at the same time..if macgill was here at this time Aus would have highly benefited from that..and poor poor stuart macgill he would have been one of the greats of the game if he was with the present team

i consider him a great anyway, the poor bloke was around during the time of warne so couldn't get a regular gig but when he did he made it count. the sad story of macgill is he obviously wanted it soo badly that he tried to keep playing after warne retired so he could get a bit more recognition but unfortunately due to age his body couldn't handle it. he might only average 29 in tests but he had a strike rate of 54, his performance suffered due to his last 1-2 years in test cricket being hampered by his deteriorating body. take out his last 4 test matches (which is his last 1.5 years of test cricket) and he struck every 51.5 balls averaging 27.2.

Tiger444
March 9, 2013, 05:22 PM
They're going through a transition period. I'm sure Australia will come good once again. Australia has usually had trouble in India but who doesn't? Also take in to account that this is such a young team still. I'm sure the likes of Warner, Hughes, Maxwell, and Khawaja will come good if given time. Just have to be patient with these guys.

Also Jeesh bhai, take this young Indian team to England, South Africa, and Australia and I'm sure they too will get manhandled. Even the likes of Dravid and VVS were there and they had no chance. Performing against Australia is always a good thing but like I said, throw them in Australian conditions and they'd fail as badly or more. These 2 teams are going through a transitional phase which is why they're both behind England and South Africa. I'm sure once Australia and India's young players become more seasoned, they'll be able to fit better.

jeesh
June 11, 2013, 12:15 AM
Dismal performance by Australia. We should have been given their spot, we would have put up a better fight.

Gowza
June 11, 2013, 01:47 AM
oz suck atm, got some good pacers, but otherwise not much else. this ashton agar kid might turn out a decent prospect but we don't have much talent coming through in the spin and batting departments imo.

BengaliPagol
June 11, 2013, 04:19 AM
The spinner Fawad Ahmed looks like he will be in the Ashes Squad. The balance in the team is just not there. If they can get it together then they might have a decent showing in the Champions Trophy and also in the Ashes Tour.

BengaliPagol
June 11, 2013, 04:28 AM
Dave Warner needs to get dropped from ODIs. Clarkey needs to bat at #3.

One of the positives has been George Bailey's consistency.

jeesh
June 11, 2013, 05:53 AM
Could it be anything to do with the coach? Maybe a more firm coach can make a difference? Darren Lehmann's been touted as a future coach-very shrewd tactician, man manager, motivator. Perhaps time for Australia to consider Mickey Arthurs future.

BengaliPagol
June 11, 2013, 06:21 AM
Could it be anything to do with the coach? Maybe a more firm coach can make a difference? Darren Lehmann's been touted as a future coach-very shrewd tactician, man manager, motivator. Perhaps time for Australia to consider Mickey Arthurs future.

It's John Inverarity's fault that Australia have spiralled into a huge decline. Selection has been horrendous such as picking Glenn Maxwell the so called "Big Show". He has been the "No Show" for quite some time now.

Constantly neglecting Khawaja has been another feature. He deserved to have a go in India when Hughes was performing poorly but Inverarity had other ideas. Australia do not know their best XI because of the bowling rotation process.

It has been very ugly for a while now.

Gowza
June 11, 2013, 06:59 AM
on a positive note i think faulkner is a very very good find, he's got a lot of potential with the ball and can be more than handy with the bat.

Tigers_eye
June 11, 2013, 07:02 AM
Greg Chapel and the coach.

jeesh
June 12, 2013, 06:23 AM
on a positive note i think faulkner is a very very good find, he's got a lot of potential with the ball and can be more than handy with the bat.
Indeed good bowling all rounder.

jeesh
June 12, 2013, 06:26 AM
It's John Inverarity's fault that Australia have spiralled into a huge decline. Selection has been horrendous such as picking Glenn Maxwell the so called "Big Show". He has been the "No Show" for quite some time now.

Constantly neglecting Khawaja has been another feature. He deserved to have a go in India when Hughes was performing poorly but Inverarity had other ideas. Australia do not know their best XI because of the bowling rotation process.

It has been very ugly for a while now.
Whats the reason behind not giving Nathan Lyon a go in shorter formats. They did the same thing with Stuart McGill. As if they have decided themselves Lyon wont have any luck in ODI's. Given up on the player.

But Lyon certainly adds a little bit more variety to the attack. And he's not a bad bowler as such, quite intelligent. Xavier Doherty their "Shorter Version" spinner is an average cricketer. If he bowled in Bangladesh he wouldnt even make it into the top 6 SLA's list.

MohammedC
June 12, 2013, 06:45 AM
Warner dropped after bar bust-up

http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2013/content/story/641109.html

do we need a thread to discuss this

BengaliPagol
June 12, 2013, 06:51 AM
Whats the reason behind not giving Nathan Lyon a go in shorter formats. They did the same thing with Stuart McGill. As if they have decided themselves Lyon wont have any luck in ODI's. Given up on the player.

But Lyon certainly adds a little bit more variety to the attack. And he's not a bad bowler as such, quite intelligent. Xavier Doherty their "Shorter Version" spinner is an average cricketer. If he bowled in Bangladesh he wouldnt even make it into the top 6 SLA's list.

Lyon i dont think would be good in shorter formats. But they could try him out.

Warrior868
June 12, 2013, 04:25 PM
Who is to blame for this debacle? What has brought them down to this level, and how can they fight back to the top? Whats your opinion?

Sometimes you have a special generation, when its gone its gone. Same goes for alot of Football teams, look at Brazil for example. May take years before Aus returns to the top

BengaliPagol
June 13, 2013, 04:08 AM
This is the team which Australia should play

Australia's Best ODI XI
1. Shane Watson
2. Phillip Hughes
3. Michael Clarke
4. George Bailey
5. Adam Voges
6. C. Ferguson
7. Brad Haddin
8. James Faulkner
9. Mitchell Johnson
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Clint McKay

jeesh
June 14, 2013, 03:49 AM
Imo a spinner needs to be brought in. 5 pace bowlers=very one dimensional attack. And none of these bowlers create any fear or doubt in the batsmans mind.

Clint McKay for example is a very average bowler who is featuring prominently because of Australia's dearth in talent. Too bad Glen McGrath is coaching upcoming Indian prospects. He should be there working on guys like Starc instead.

BengaliPagol
June 14, 2013, 07:42 PM
Clint McKay for example is a very average bowler who is featuring prominently because of Australia's dearth in talent.

Are you serious bro? Clint McKay might not look like an exciting bowler to you but he has been a very consistent performer for Australia in ODIs for a very very long time. Probably Australia's MVP in ODIs in terms of bowling.

A great wicket taker and bowls good lines to dismiss batsmen mostly by getting them caught behind. I don't know how a bowling average of 21 in ODIs seems average to you... :-/

And with the spinner situation Clarke and Voges are good enough to bowl some overs of spin. Don't think a specialist spinner is needed because Australia's strength lies in pace bowling.

Faulkner and Watson are natural wicket takers when they come in as 3rd change. Better to go in with these two than to go into the game with Doherty or Maxwell.

BengaliPagol
June 14, 2013, 08:24 PM
Well Australia A are playing Ireland atm and Steve Smith seems to be firing. Scored a hundred so congrats to him. Should be considered for the up coming Ashes. I think he would do well. Khawaja hasn't been doing well recently. Doolan has been hot and cold.

I'm anticipating on the Nathan Lyon vs. Fawad Ahmed showdown. I'm also interested in seeing how Ashton Agar goes.

BengaliPagol
June 14, 2013, 08:32 PM
The Ashes Team is looking like it's going to be something like...
1. Shane Watson
2. Dave Warner (might not play Ashes)
3. Chris Rogers
4. Michael Clarke
5. Steve Smith
6. Matthew Wade
7. James Faulkner
8. Peter Siddle
9. James Pattinson
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Nathan Lyon/Fawad Ahmed

Not looking like a good enough team to beat England tbh...

jeesh
June 15, 2013, 01:52 AM
Are you serious bro? Clint McKay might not look like an exciting bowler to you but he has been a very consistent performer for Australia in ODIs for a very very long time. Probably Australia's MVP in ODIs in terms of bowling.

A great wicket taker and bowls good lines to dismiss batsmen mostly by getting them caught behind. I don't know how a bowling average of 21 in ODIs seems average to you... :-/

And with the spinner situation Clarke and Voges are good enough to bowl some overs of spin. Don't think a specialist spinner is needed because Australia's strength lies in pace bowling.

Faulkner and Watson are natural wicket takers when they come in as 3rd change. Better to go in with these two than to go into the game with Doherty or Maxwell.

Australia's MVP in bowling because there is nobody else. He's an ok by the book bowler. Nothing special. Compare him with South Africa or Englands bowlers? Imo nowhere near. More of an unforced error wicket bowler rather than someone who will pick wickets with genuine application of skill.

Hard to imagine Australia which is so good in producing quality fast bowlers is unable to bring in someone who can put fear in batsmen like Steyn or Anderson does.

Perhaps my expectation is not realistic because i used to be a fan of Australia in the days of McGrath, Lee, Gillespie, Fleming, Bichel etc. But with the resources they possess its unbelievable where they stand now. Perhaps a reason why they are slipping into mid table.

Gowza
June 15, 2013, 01:54 AM
The Ashes Team is looking like it's going to be something like...
1. Shane Watson
2. Dave Warner (might not play Ashes)
3. Chris Rogers
4. Michael Clarke
5. Steve Smith
6. Matthew Wade
7. James Faulkner
8. Peter Siddle
9. James Pattinson
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Nathan Lyon/Fawad Ahmed

Not looking like a good enough team to beat England tbh...

What are your thoughts on Dave Hussey for the ashes? Personally I reckon he should have been given the nod, his experience in those conditions would have made the team stronger imo.

BengaliPagol
June 15, 2013, 02:14 AM
Australia's MVP in bowling because there is nobody else. He's an ok by the book bowler. Nothing special. Compare him with South Africa or Englands bowlers? Imo nowhere near. More of an unforced error wicket bowler rather than someone who will pick wickets with genuine application of skill.


I dont think it's possible for a bowler to average 21 in ODIs when he is "more of an unforced error wicket bowler". And there are other bowlers like Mitch Johnson, Pattinson, Cummins, Starc, Siddle, Ryan Harris, Jackson Bird, Faulkner, Hilfenhaus who are all good bowlers and would walk into any other team in world cricket (except SA). So frankly there are "some bodies".

BTW in ODIs Clint McKay averages better than Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson. McKay is a specialist ODI bowler.

sum_1
June 15, 2013, 02:16 AM
I'd prefer Brad Haddin over Wade for the ashes, for the reason that chances are Wade will be facing Swann a lot more when he comes on to bat. This is where Haddin will have an advantage of being a right hander, and frankly Wade doesn't look too convincing while playing spin.

BengaliPagol
June 15, 2013, 02:20 AM
What are your thoughts on Dave Hussey for the ashes? Personally I reckon he should have been given the nod, his experience in those conditions would have made the team stronger imo.

Dave Hussey would always have been one of the first picked in my books. But sadly i dont think selectors consider him for tests at all. If the team get rid off Faulkner then the batting gets strengthened immensely imo. Australia should look to strengthening the batting as much as possible because that is where our problem will lie imo. Bowling will be fine.

But i do accredit the selectors for picking Chris Rogers. He finally gets what he deserves. He has been consistent in domestics for many many years now. He has played in England and Australia and still maintains a fantastic average. Same goes to Dave Hussey. Dave Hussey is a much better test cricketer then he is a limited overs cricketer.

1. Shane Watson
2. Dave Warner
3. Chris Rogers
4. Michael Clarke
5. Dave Hussey
6. Steve Smith
7. Matthew Wade
8. Peter Siddle
9. James Pattinson
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Nathan Lyon/Fawad Ahmed

Gowza
June 15, 2013, 02:56 AM
Dave Hussey would always have been one of the first picked in my books. But sadly i dont think selectors consider him for tests at all. If the team get rid off Faulkner then the batting gets strengthened immensely imo. Australia should look to strengthening the batting as much as possible because that is where our problem will lie imo. Bowling will be fine.

But i do accredit the selectors for picking Chris Rogers. He finally gets what he deserves. He has been consistent in domestics for many many years now. He has played in England and Australia and still maintains a fantastic average. Same goes to Dave Hussey. Dave Hussey is a much better test cricketer then he is a limited overs cricketer.

1. Shane Watson
2. Dave Warner
3. Chris Rogers
4. Michael Clarke
5. Dave Hussey
6. Steve Smith
7. Matthew Wade
8. Peter Siddle
9. James Pattinson
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Nathan Lyon/Fawad Ahmed

Faulkner should only be picked as a bowler, let his batting be a bonus imo.

BD_TigerZ
June 15, 2013, 03:08 AM
My XI would have been..

1. Shane Watson
2. Mark Cosgrove
3. Chris Rogers
4. Michael Clarke
5. Callum Ferguson/Adam Voges
6. Tim Paine
7. Steve Smith/Faulkner/Henriques
8. Peter Siddle
9. James Pattinson
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Fawad Ahmed

Gowza
June 16, 2013, 07:14 PM
Dave Hussey would always have been one of the first picked in my books. But sadly i dont think selectors consider him for tests at all. If the team get rid off Faulkner then the batting gets strengthened immensely imo. Australia should look to strengthening the batting as much as possible because that is where our problem will lie imo. Bowling will be fine.

But i do accredit the selectors for picking Chris Rogers. He finally gets what he deserves. He has been consistent in domestics for many many years now. He has played in England and Australia and still maintains a fantastic average. Same goes to Dave Hussey. Dave Hussey is a much better test cricketer then he is a limited overs cricketer.

1. Shane Watson
2. Dave Warner
3. Chris Rogers
4. Michael Clarke
5. Dave Hussey
6. Steve Smith
7. Matthew Wade
8. Peter Siddle
9. James Pattinson
10. Mitchell Starc
11. Nathan Lyon/Fawad Ahmed

also, keep starc away from the test team. we have much better FC bowlers than him currently, he's a gun shorter format bowler but nothing special in the longer format and certainly not up to standard of other aussie pacers atm. actually would easily pick faulkner over starc in tests if it was my choice, plenty of others also.

BengaliPagol
June 17, 2013, 03:33 AM
also, keep starc away from the test team. we have much better FC bowlers than him currently, he's a gun shorter format bowler but nothing special in the longer format and certainly not up to standard of other aussie pacers atm. actually would easily pick faulkner over starc in tests if it was my choice, plenty of others also.

Fair enough. Would definitely have tried out Jackson Bird. He is a gun bowler who has been tearing up the domestic team. He also bowled very well in the limited opportunity he got in international cricket.

Ryan Harris would probably be the more obvious pick. A wicket taking bowler which we need since we are coming up against the likes of Cook and Trott.

jeesh
June 17, 2013, 05:31 AM
I dont think it's possible for a bowler to average 21 in ODIs when he is "more of an unforced error wicket bowler". And there are other bowlers like Mitch Johnson, Pattinson, Cummins, Starc, Siddle, Ryan Harris, Jackson Bird, Faulkner, Hilfenhaus who are all good bowlers and would walk into any other team in world cricket (except SA). So frankly there are "some bodies".

BTW in ODIs Clint McKay averages better than Dale Steyn and Jimmy Anderson. McKay is a specialist ODI bowler.
Dont always look at the average. Ajit Agarkar averages 27. And that by playing 191 matches and picking 288 wickets mostly in the flat tracks of India. You consider him a world class bowler?

You are defending 180 runs in a 50 over match who do you prefer to have in your team McKay? Anderson? Finn? Steyn? Malinga? Philander? Morkel? Ishant Sharma poses more threat than Clint McKay. McKay is no more than a Stuart Clark who simply relies on bowling line and length and waits for the batsman to make a mistake. For pacer number 3 thats ok, but as your strike bowler no. Especially when you are Australia. Like i said perhaps thats where the issue lies.

Starc, Pattinson, Johnson, Cummins are all very good, but confidence is not there. Honestly i d prefer Bangladesh facing Australia than India now atm. Its hard to imagine, but India's Zaheer Khan, Ishant, Kumar, Yadav will probably cause more problems than the current Aussie lineup.

Dont get me wrong, i am being very objective, Australia's probably my number 3 team, at one it was even number 1 (In the days of Steve Waugh). Pains to see where they stand today. And i see another Ashes battering coming up. Lot of work to do, but is Cricket Australia up for it.

jeesh
June 17, 2013, 05:33 AM
Another point i forgot to mention. Australian quicks were much more driven and potent under McDermott. Not sure i see the same under Ali De Winter. Maybe they should bring McDermott back or even Troy Cooley.

MohammedShamim
June 17, 2013, 08:20 AM
Pretty much a selection issue, I think Shaun Marsh and Steve Smith deserved to be in the national team and backed up well. I don't understand the reason behind Australia not including players like David Hussey or even Brad Hodge to install some experience. My ODI Team:

1) Shane Watson
2) David Warner
3) Shaun Marsh
4) Brad Hodge/Wade
5) Micheal Clarke
6) George Bailey
7) David Hussey
8) James Faulkner
9) Mitchel Johnson
10) Clint Mckay
11) Xavier Doherty

Gowza
June 17, 2013, 07:44 PM
Pretty much a selection issue, I think Shaun Marsh and Steve Smith deserved to be in the national team and backed up well. I don't understand the reason behind Australia not including players like David Hussey or even Brad Hodge to install some experience. My ODI Team:

1) Shane Watson
2) David Warner
3) Shaun Marsh
4) Brad Hodge/Wade
5) Micheal Clarke
6) George Bailey
7) David Hussey
8) James Faulkner
9) Mitchel Johnson
10) Clint Mckay
11) Xavier Doherty

hodge is retired from that level. doherty isn't very good so i get him out. agree that shaun marsh and steven smith should be given more chances in all formats.

Gowza
June 17, 2013, 10:29 PM
cosgrove and mcdonald should be in consideration more often to.

jeesh
June 17, 2013, 10:46 PM
Mitchell Johnson really tried last evening. Bowled his heart out. But had no support from other Aussie bowlers.

BengaliPagol
June 18, 2013, 03:27 AM
Jeesh bhai there is a difference between having an average of 21 and having an average of 27. Main point is McKay has been getting the job done for Australia. He might not be as threatening as the likes of Dale Steyn but you don't have to be a Steyn or a Malinga to either have a good bowling average or to bag wickets. Just ask Glenn McGrath.

jeesh
June 18, 2013, 04:15 AM
Lol. Also a big difference between 288 and 79 wickets ;-)

Good that you brought up the example of Glen McGrath. Because he is perfect proof of the point i am trying to make. McGrath isnt just about accuracy. Most of his dismissals are forced. He bowls such a length you dont know where to go on the front or backfoot. His technique is the best ever i have seen-goes close to the stumps, high arm action, and also hits the deck to generate extra bounce or any lateral movement. Many of the dismissals will be caught behind or at the slips. He beats the batsmen with his bounce and movement. A captain is always assured McGrath will give a wicket or two in his first spell. And on top of this technique and skill add his fiery, competitive character. How many times have we seen him knock a batsman down with a sharp bouncer. He ll put fear in any batsman.

Now compare with McKay you ll know what i mean. No ones scared of McKay, he has a basic technique. All he tries to do is just bowl stump to stump. The type of bowler he is, he will wait for a batsman to play a bad slog, or loose shot and then dismiss. Australia can do far better than this.

Last nights match again showed you how easily the Sri Lankans milked him. Anyway no issues buddy, i was just expressing what Australia is missing out on. I respect your views.

Just for fun. Leaving some clips from the good old days. Thats what Australia could do with now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyQ1mjcwKFw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48KTNSKBuos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtyKFHvVLG0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJmgK3W5Eco
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF9eGp_bGe0

jeesh
June 23, 2013, 10:36 PM
Was Mickey Arthur one of the reasons behind spineless Australia? We are about to find out

Jadukor
June 24, 2013, 01:12 AM
Well the drama continues... Mickey Arthur got sacked!
I think it's a good decision to replace him with Lehman but have to question the timing though. Too close to the Ashes to do this kind of change imo

BengaliPagol
June 24, 2013, 03:42 AM
Was Mickey Arthur one of the reasons behind spineless Australia? We are about to find out

Your dreams are coming true jeesh bhai !

Lehmann is a very good replacement as coach. He is very suited to the role.

jeesh
June 24, 2013, 06:28 AM
I just hope the Aussies climb back to number 1. Getting fedup of "India Victorious" highlights and the endless tv commercials praising the heroes.

Lehmanns probably the best option. Supposed to be a great motivator, man manager, shrewd tactician.

Too bad Tom Moody doesnt coach these days. Otherwise he too could have done a good job.

BD_TigerZ
June 24, 2013, 07:16 AM
Getting fedup of "India Victorious" highlights and the endless tv commercials praising the heroes.


Any team other than India would be good..

BengaliPagol
June 24, 2013, 05:42 PM
Any team other than India would be good..

It will be Bangladesh soon dont you worry

BengaliPagol
June 24, 2013, 05:51 PM
Hearing Mickey Arthur couldn't really unify the team. Lehmann should fix that up. The team as a whole looks really disjointed at the moment.

jeesh
June 25, 2013, 10:09 PM
A South African coaching Australian national team. It was doomed for failure even before Arthur started the job.

Gowza
June 26, 2013, 08:16 PM
Reckon Clarke stepping down as selector is a good move, always thought it was a bad idea.

Tigers_eye
June 27, 2013, 12:47 AM
We are doomed. Aren't er following the aussie recipe?

sum_1
June 27, 2013, 04:00 AM
Reckon Clarke stepping down as selector is a good move, always thought it was a bad idea.

Exactly. Why was he on the selection panel in the first place. Isn't that conflict of interest? The mind boggles. :-/

Gowza
June 27, 2013, 04:18 AM
Exactly. Why was he on the selection panel in the first place. Isn't that conflict of interest? The mind boggles. :-/

just asking for trouble when they did that imo. think about it, if you and your mate are both in the squad but one gets picked in the XI and the other doesn't and you know the captain helped select the team then you're going to know he probably didn't want you in the team and that's going to cause all sorts of issues.

BengaliPagol
June 27, 2013, 04:57 AM
The only reason Phil Hughes has been in the national team is because his best friend Michael Clarke kept picking him.

Gowza
June 27, 2013, 06:09 AM
yeah, hughes had a great start but he's doing nothing now, time for him to go work his stuff out in domestic cricket. interested to see how watson goes opening again, he did well there depite having trouble scoring tons, possible opening pair of watson/warner could work, though warner/cowan wasn't that bad. shane watson should give up bowling and focus on batting, he use to be a much better FC batsman than he currently is.

jeesh
June 27, 2013, 07:00 AM
There was a time Australia used to only pick battle hardened very experienced batsmen.

Hayden, Langer, Hussey, Katich probably had 10,000+ runs, 50+ average and stints with 2-3 counties before they got a permanent place in the Aussie team. And that too in their late 20's.

Ponting, Clarke got earlier debuts because of their prodigious talent, but that too at 24-25.

A spot in the Aussie top 7 was so tough. All of them were consistent, and each had different strengths. Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Lehmann, Law, Steve Waugh, Mark Waugh, Michael Hussey, Simon Katich, Ponting.

Just see how brittle the current lineup is. No character.

Gowza
June 27, 2013, 07:26 AM
watson given a chance to open in the warm-up and of course he makes a swashbuckling innings of 90 with s/r 95. should have got the ton, but for me it seems pretty obvious that he does better opening even if he struggles to convert tons.

BengaliPagol
June 27, 2013, 07:45 AM
watson given a chance to open in the warm-up and of course he makes a swashbuckling innings of 90 with s/r 95. should have got the ton, but for me it seems pretty obvious that he does better opening even if he struggles to convert tons.

Exactly. He is a destructive and one of Australia's best batsmen when opening the batting even though he never converts. Lehmann straight away makes the right call.

Him and Warner opening together in tests will be fierce.

BengaliPagol
July 2, 2013, 05:30 PM
Lehmann must have rubbed off on the boys because they put up a strong batting performance today. Shane Watson finally scored a century. He barely converts his starts so i'm glad he could finally do so. Watson and Rogers had a 170 run stand which is great. Hopefully Australia take some of this confidence into the Ashes series.

Gowza
July 2, 2013, 05:39 PM
lehmann has had tremendous support from everyone, a lot of former players backing him and also saying he'll bring the team together and bring a calm over them. clearly his presence has so far been very good for the team and it's just been days, makes the future look brighter.

BengaliPagol
July 2, 2013, 05:45 PM
Top order looking strong. But the #5 position looks weak.

jeesh
July 4, 2013, 11:39 PM
I have a feeling we ll soon see an Aussie resurgence back to the top. Darren Lehmann is really the key. Already his impact is visible.

When you had so much of superstars and top performers someone like Buchanan was ok. But since they are in transition with younger, unproven players they need a strong personality to guide them. Somebody with a lot of influence, man management ability. Geoff Marsh did brilliantly in the late 90's. Now i reckon Lehmann will continue in Marsh's footsteps.

BengaliPagol
July 5, 2013, 03:10 AM
I knew Boof would make an impact because the first thing he announced when he became cpach was that Shane Watson would be opening. It shows the sense he has as he is aware what Watson can do unlike Cowan. He has a strategy in place and looks like it might pull off it. If Australia do somehow win the Ashes if will be the back of Boof's coaching and nothing else.

sum_1
July 5, 2013, 05:16 AM
I have a feeling we might be having turning pitches for at least part of the series, with Swann and Panesar both in the playing XI. Too far fetched? :)

jeesh
July 5, 2013, 06:32 AM
I wonder how Lyon will do under Lehmann. Obviously the guy is far ahead of their other spinners. But he lacks the confidence to perform at a higher level.

BengaliPagol
July 5, 2013, 10:27 PM
Ashton Agar is closing in on Lyon.

Gowza
July 6, 2013, 02:12 AM
Ashton Agar is closing in on Lyon.

Agar is a better bat as well so I'd say with this way he's been performing with the ball that they'd be seriously considering him as of now.

jeesh
July 7, 2013, 10:28 PM
Havent seen him bowl. What type of an SLA is he? The accurate type or a more attacking type?

BengaliPagol
July 7, 2013, 10:39 PM
Tall guy. Likes flighting the ball. Fairly accurate and is a wicket taker. Can be attacking when he needs to be

BengaliPagol
July 10, 2013, 04:13 AM
Ashton Agar is closing in on Lyon.

Agar is a better bat as well so I'd say with this way he's been performing with the ball that they'd be seriously considering him as of now.

Havent seen him bowl. What type of an SLA is he? The accurate type or a more attacking type?

Bhais lets all set down on our couches and gear up for a ride because Ashton Agar is set to debut for Australia !!! I'm really excited for this young kid. Good luck to him.

I think Boof went with him over Lyon so there could be some batting depth in the team.

Gowza
July 10, 2013, 04:24 AM
Bhais lets all set down on our couches and gear up for a ride because Ashton Agar is set to debut for Australia !!! I'm really excited for this young kid. Good luck to him.

I think Boof went with him over Lyon so there could be some batting depth in the team.

exciting to have such a young spinner doing so well, hopefully he prospers.

BengaliPagol
July 10, 2013, 04:35 AM
exciting to have such a young spinner doing so well, hopefully he prospers.

What a way to make his debut... in an Ashes series.

jeesh
July 11, 2013, 01:08 AM
What a start to Ashes. Very first match could go down the wire. Hope Australia doesnt get bundled out for a paltry score. Batting last chasing under pressure wont be easy

BengaliPagol
July 11, 2013, 01:59 AM
Australia are lucky in that their whole team can bat all the way down to #11. The tail will score very valuable runs to get Australia past 250 imo.

Batting Averages of Aussie Tail
Starc - 33
Agar - 34
Pattinson - 29
Siddle - 16

Not saying we should rely on them but i'm saying their contribution will be crucial to Australia's total. Before all this it is all down to Smith, Hughes and Haddin but i don't have any faith in Hughes or Haddin so i'm putting my faith on the tail. :L

Alien
July 14, 2013, 10:36 AM
Australia are lucky in that their whole team can bat all the way down to #11.

They have to, given top and middle order are good for nothing.

Someone has to make the runs.

BengaliPagol
July 14, 2013, 04:40 PM
Hey look my assumption was right. The tail made majority of the runs. :)

jeesh
July 14, 2013, 10:45 PM
Michael Clarke will probably retire from the game as a great batsman, but not a legend like Steve Waugh. The 4th innings was tailor made for him to step up and demonstrate his leadership, but as always he does let the team down. In contrast Steve Waugh retired as a legend because of his ability to step up for the team in difficult circumstances.

In so many countless occasions Waugh struck dogged, brave partnerships with the tail taking the team to victory. Thats what Australia needed. It hurts that it was 15 runs, wouldnt have mattered if it was a 50-60 run defeat.

Gowza
July 14, 2013, 11:27 PM
Yeah with such a young inconsistent team it's clarkes job to see through the innings with the tail guiding the team. Don't like his attitude about the ashes not like making or breaking him as captain etc that's negative thinking, always think positive.

No offence to haddin, he is a good batsman but clarke is just better so if haddin did what he did then clarke could have done it and better.

Jadukor
July 14, 2013, 11:42 PM
Clarke is no Michael Hussey no matter how many double ton he scores. I kept thinking what would have happened had Hussey been there in the batting lineup

Rifat
July 15, 2013, 02:47 AM
Who is to blame? when your superstar players retire, to maintain status quo, you must replace your aging superstars with new superstars...after Adam Gilchrist, Warne retired only very few superstars remained on the team.

BengaliPagol
July 15, 2013, 03:29 AM
Hussey would have won them the game without a doubt.

Gowza
July 15, 2013, 03:38 AM
Who is to blame? when your superstar players retire, to maintain status quo, you must replace your aging superstars with new superstars...after Adam Gilchrist, Warne retired only very few superstars remained on the team.

That's when the senior players still there need to step up, take more responsibility and take over the mantle. Michael Clarke is the only 50+ average batsman atm, he's very experienced as well, not only that but he's the captain, needs to not just make lots of runs and play big innings but needs to make lots of runs and play big innings when it counts and when it's needed. Watson also needs to shoulder this responsibility as does rogers (even though he's inexperienced in tests he's mature and an extremely experienced FC player).

jeesh
July 15, 2013, 06:59 AM
Who is to blame? when your superstar players retire, to maintain status quo, you must replace your aging superstars with new superstars...after Adam Gilchrist, Warne retired only very few superstars remained on the team.
One of their core problems. Many of their superstars retired around the same time leaving a huge vacuum to fill. Selectors were too stubborn to expose the youngsters alongside these big name players.

Indian selectors in contrast must be given credit. They have replaced one generation with another masterfully. Likes of Kohli, Raina, Rohit Sharma all got playing time with Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar etc. And now they have brought in Murali Vijay, Pujara, Dhawan, Jadeja.

sum_1
July 15, 2013, 02:25 PM
Rogers has shown good character and is likely to retain the opening position for some time. The no. 3 position remains a worry, with Cowan not performing. At some point they might have to consider Warner for that position, he's a dangerous batsman and can turn the course of the match. Unfortunately, he's also out of form and match practice.

On the plus side, they've found two good players in Rogers and Agar, and Phil Hughes have found some kind of a form. The middle order needs to step up though.

I've a hunch that this series is far from over yet. :)

BengaliPagol
July 16, 2013, 03:51 AM
Uzzie Khawaja to come in!

jeesh
July 16, 2013, 05:45 AM
According to Mickey "Michael Clarke described Shane Watson and his faction as "a cancer" on the national squad."

It's the job of a coach to unite the players, get them to play as a team. Any differences, factions, a coach must destroy, get everyone in the right direction. Mickey Arthur wasnt tough enough for the role.

BengaliPagol
July 16, 2013, 06:14 AM
The Aussie dressing room is a strange one

Gowza
July 16, 2013, 06:16 AM
Warner no longer being considered up the order only got the #6 spot, that's a mistake imo, averages about 40, that's better than a lot of others currently in the team and he did that opening.

MohammedShamim
July 16, 2013, 07:30 AM
Micheal Clarke culprit! does not like other's getting fame or name... e.g. early retirement of Micheal Hussey, Simon Katich and now Shane Watson.

Gowza
July 16, 2013, 05:15 PM
Micheal Clarke culprit! does not like other's getting fame or name... e.g. early retirement of Micheal Hussey, Simon Katich and now Shane Watson.

yeah seems to be an issue there, problem is clarke is the only experienced campaigner that performs to a quality consistent standard and he therefore is not only unable to be dropped but he's really the only player currently in the team who warrants the captaincy. i'd put haddin up as a candidate but his position in the team isn't fixed. even if the main problem is clarke and not watson the fact is, in tests at least, watson is much much more replaceable than clarke so if push comes to shove and this rift really can't be resolved and has a major impact on the teams performance then dropping watson might have to be looked at.

if that was to happen it might seem harsh to drop someone not based on performance, but like i said he is replaceable, he's not performing to a standard where his position is fixed in the team anyway.

BengaliPagol
July 17, 2013, 03:11 AM
Gotta feel sorry for Simon Katich :(

Gowza
July 17, 2013, 11:28 PM
Gotta feel sorry for Simon Katich :(

simon katich became an awesome test match batsman, i put him in the same sort of category as lehmann, martyn (and to an extent hayden but hayden had much more time on his return to put his name up as an ATG), they didn't do so well in their earlier opportunities but upon return were pure class and matched up with the best. at one point katich's average was down around 35 possibly lower and he pulled it all the way up to 45 and it was still on the rise when he retired. btw mcgrath has been with the boys for practice so lehmann's appointment of coach is continuing to improve the aussie team environment and he's still only been there a few weeks.

jeesh
July 18, 2013, 01:58 AM
Simon Katich, Michael Hussey, Langer, Hayden, Slater, Martyn, Law, Lehmann all were masters. They had scored 10,000 plus first class runs played for at least 2 English counties, had an average close to 50 when they started to break into the team. Big difference. They joined the team as very very capable, experienced, battle hardened/tested batsmen. And even when they joined the team they continued to evolve and develop. Hayden for example wasnt great against spin, so he spent a lot of time working on his sweep shot which was very useful in the Indian tours. Langer became a more aggressive batsman.

In Australia's peak, they had 7 solid batsmen. Each of them could change the game by themselves. Imagine picking 5 wickets and then Gilchrist comes to bat.

Michael Clarke is probably the only batsman who would make it into Australia in its peak. All the are no comparison to the likes of Husseys and Katich's. Take Ed Cowan for instance. He averages less than 40 in First Class. Such a player wouldnt even make it to Australia A in the early 2000's. Shane Watson in his 42 tests only averages 35. Steven Smith has talent, but he too is no more than 35 average batsman. Pretty much same story with all the other batsmen.

Compare the stats of Australia with Indian, South African and English batsmen. Aussies are just not there. Cant pit all the blame on the batsmen. Selectors must be held accountable for allowing such a vacuum to develop.

Gowza
July 18, 2013, 02:18 AM
Simon Katich, Michael Hussey, Langer, Hayden, Slater, Martyn, Law, Lehmann all were masters. They had scored 10,000 plus first class runs played for at least 2 English counties, had an average close to 50 when they started to break into the team. Big difference. They joined the team as very very capable, experienced, battle hardened/tested batsmen. And even when they joined the team they continued to evolve and develop. Hayden for example wasnt great against spin, so he spent a lot of time working on his sweep shot which was very useful in the Indian tours. Langer became a more aggressive batsman.

In Australia's peak, they had 7 solid batsmen. Each of them could change the game by themselves. Imagine picking 5 wickets and then Gilchrist comes to bat.

Michael Clarke is probably the only batsman who would make it into Australia in its peak. All the are no comparison to the likes of Husseys and Katich's. Take Ed Cowan for instance. He averages less than 40 in First Class. Such a player wouldnt even make it to Australia A in the early 2000's. Shane Watson in his 42 tests only averages 35. Steven Smith has talent, but he too is no more than 35 average batsman. Pretty much same story with all the other batsmen.

Compare the stats of Australia with Indian, South African and English batsmen. Aussies are just not there. Cant pit all the blame on the batsmen. Selectors must be held accountable for allowing such a vacuum to develop.

yes, and then you had the martin love's, brad hodge's, michael bevan's etc all who are better than anyone currently in the team bar clarke. cricket australia have clearly messed up somewhere in their development process. sure it was a golden generation but you can't go from producing that many great batsmen in one generation to basically producing none in the next without some serious developmental issues.

jeesh
July 18, 2013, 04:18 AM
Yeah how can i forget about Hodge. Guy averages 55 in tests close to 50 in first class. Unfortunate he was born in Australia, could walk into any team of the world.

Gowza
July 18, 2013, 04:27 AM
Yeah how can i forget about Hodge. Guy averages 55 in tests close to 50 in first class. Unfortunate he was born in Australia, could walk into any team of the world.

bevan averaged 57 in FC cricket, martin love almost 50. matthew elliott was another good one though FC average was only 47. also phil jacques was a gun player in his prime who was averaging around 55 in FC cricket before his back injury.

BengaliPagol
July 18, 2013, 08:25 AM
Jaques scored a century in his last test match. Australia had gun players at their disposal during the dominant era of Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting etc. I think the main mistake the selectors made was to not blood a youngster alongside the dominant era (other than Clarke).

Gowza
July 18, 2013, 08:28 AM
Jaques scored a century in his last test match. Australia had gun players at their disposal during the dominant era of Warne, McGrath, Gilchrist, Ponting etc. I think the main mistake the selectors made was to not blood a youngster alongside the dominant era (other than Clarke).

were there that many putting their hand up at that time? other than clarke, watson and maybe cosgrove no names come to mind. btw jacques just scored a ton in county but his FC average has dropped form the mid 55s to under 50 now, he's never been the same since he had the back surgery.

BengaliPagol
July 18, 2013, 09:11 AM
were there that many putting their hand up at that time? other than clarke, watson and maybe cosgrove no names come to mind. btw jacques just scored a ton in county but his FC average has dropped form the mid 55s to under 50 now, he's never been the same since he had the back surgery.

Langer and Hayden were Australia's openers during the time when Australia had these batsmen at their disposal...

Brad Hodge, Dave Hussey, Chris Rogers, Simon Katich, Phil Jaques

This batting lineup would very much give the Australian team at that time a run for its money

Gowza
July 18, 2013, 10:00 AM
Langer and Hayden were Australia's openers during the time when Australia had these batsmen at their disposal...

Brad Hodge, Dave Hussey, Chris Rogers, Simon Katich, Phil Jaques

This batting lineup would very much give the Australian team at that time a run for its money

except those guys weren't young guys at that time and that's why they aren't in the team today, because they're either already retired from international cricket or don't have that many years left in them so selectors have opted for younger players. hodge is 38, dave hussey 36, chris rogers 35, katich 37, jaques 34.

they did try to blood jaques while hayden was around and he did great but then he got that back injury and couldn't get himself back to that level, hughes was then picked over rogers because of age (plus hughes averaged 60 in domestic FC at the time), then hughes began to fail and that's how we got here. though i reckon warner has done a decent job opening, i'd be happy with him and rogers opening or possibly watson, middle order is the bigger issue.

and as much as i like dave hussey he hasn't done well in the last year or 2 in FC cricket i don't think.

jeesh
July 19, 2013, 11:03 PM
Sounds funny but i see Ashtons Agar selection synonymous with that of Abul Hasans in the Sri Lanka tour. We selected him because of his century and perceived talent rather than what he brings to the pitch in his main role-as a bowler.

From what i saw so far, current ability wise he is very raw, very average. No real venom in his bowling. Australia had Enamul Jnr or Elias Sunny they would have offered more. I think they should select Lyon for the third test onwards. You cant beat the English with tidy spin bowling. You have to go on the attack. Steven Smith proved it. Time to give Lyon a go.

Gowza
July 19, 2013, 11:08 PM
Sounds funny but i see Ashtons Agar selection synonymous with that of Abul Hasans in the Sri Lanka tour. We selected him because of his century and perceived talent rather than what he brings to the pitch in his main role-as a bowler.

From what i saw so far, current ability wise he is very raw, very average. No real venom in his bowling. Australia had Enamul Jnr or Elias Sunny they would have offered more. I think they should select Lyon for the third test onwards. You cant beat the English with tidy spin bowling. You have to go on the attack. Steven Smith proved it. Time to give Lyon a go.

desperation, aussies have tried many spinners since warne in the longer format and none have worked out great, the options have been exhausted so now we're starting to go with the ones that look like they have potential. nathan lyon is also very raw and was doing well but his average has dropped to 33 now. also the pacers are quite raw but doing well so i guess that is encouraging when picking a raw spinner.

BengaliPagol
July 20, 2013, 02:54 AM
It's blasphemy how Aussie selectors have ignored Steve O'Keefe for so long. Has performed well in Shield cricket for such a long time. He is Australia's best spinner but selectors just don't pick him. Does he have beef with Clarkey i have no idea.

Besides his bowling he is a solid batsmen as well. In terms of FC stats O'Keefe owns Lyon and has always looked the better bowler.

Gowza
July 20, 2013, 03:05 AM
ben rohrer should get more of a look imo to, talented, stats are pretty much as anyone else going aussie domestic cricket right now, but at his age they probably just reckon he's not worth it.

Gowza
July 20, 2013, 04:47 AM
btw fawad ahmed doing well against zimbabwe select. not the best opposition but he sure is making the selectors think with the timing of this haul and agar not being particularly effective. though reckon they'll back agar for a bit.

koushik
July 20, 2013, 05:33 AM
Warner failed Against Zim xi match scored just 6 & 11 for AUS A
<br />Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

BengaliPagol
July 20, 2013, 07:28 AM
ben rohrer should get more of a look imo to, talented, stats are pretty much as anyone else going aussie domestic cricket right now, but at his age they probably just reckon he's not worth it.

I met Ben Rohrer once :-)

He is a gun T20 batsmen.

jeesh
July 23, 2013, 12:18 AM
btw fawad ahmed doing well against zimbabwe select. not the best opposition but he sure is making the selectors think with the timing of this haul and agar not being particularly effective. though reckon they'll back agar for a bit.
Is Fawad Alam any good? Or is this out of desperation?

South Africa tried a similar trick with Imran Tahir who has a more credible track record. He was nothing compared to the hype that was created abt him. Quite average. And mind you he is someone with a lot of first class wickets playing in Pakistan, County etc.

Gowza
July 23, 2013, 12:50 AM
Is Fawad Alam any good? Or is this out of desperation?

South Africa tried a similar trick with Imran Tahir who has a more credible track record. He was nothing compared to the hype that was created abt him. Quite average. And mind you he is someone with a lot of first class wickets playing in Pakistan, County etc.

fawad ahmed, i haven't seen him bowl myself so honestly couldn't even tell you whether he's any good. all i know is he's on the A tour and got 2 4fers at time when the aussie 1st XI are still searching for a long term spin option.

btw i know tahir hasn't done that well in international cricket but when i saw him bowl i actually thought he was quite decent, though my viewings of him are limited.

BengaliPagol
July 23, 2013, 04:41 AM
Tahir to me seemed like a talent but he has no control in his line and length whatsoever.

Zeeshan
July 28, 2013, 01:09 PM
The blog heard round the world. Haha Indian Pakistani fans are tearing apart one another.. :lol:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/655717.html

NoName
July 28, 2013, 02:17 PM
I too would be embarrassed to be called that, skilled wise, if I were an Aussie.

Gowza
July 29, 2013, 09:03 PM
when all the greats retired from aussie cricket the selectors had to make a decision, go with youth or go with the slightly older more ready ones but can't give them as many years. they probably should have gone with the older group, they should have got guys like rogers and dussey into the team and filter in the young guys. what they did is they pushed a whole bunch of young guys all at once and there wasn't enough quality experience in there. part of the reason the aussie team dominated so well for so long imo was because when they went to fill in gaps they did it slowly, allowing the new guy to learn in a winning and a confident environment.

think about this, if michael clarke was up and coming right now, and stepped into this team as opposed to the one he did, would he become the player he has? i reckon not.

but it's not completely the selectors fault, the young guys that looked ready failed, so that's made things harder. hughes was set to be our main long term opener for the next 15 years, he was averaging 60 in FC cricket after a good amount of matches.

the question now, is it worth bringing in some older guys? there really aren't many options now anyway because most of the quality ones are gone. i think bringing in rogers was good but he needs to start performing, if dussey is willing to play for another 3 years then he'd be worth bringing in. other than that they need to look at someone like cosgrove and they need to be looking at guys like rohrer while guys like hughes, smith, warner, khawaja wade need to get opportunities to solidify there spot.

warner is clearly our best bat after clarke atm so it's a no brainer he should be fixed in the team. hughes and smith should get there chances when spots become available. wade i think has done enough in his 12 tests to get a batting gig in this aussie team. haddin can stay as keeper, wade can bat in the middle order, he's got 2 tons in 12 matches and 3 half tons playing as keeper, he averages just under 40 in nearly 70 FC matches so he's got domestic results backing him and he's made a decent (better than others) start to his test career, if he's not keeping he can focus more on batting and should hopefully bring a better output as a batsman.

so team should be looking like this:

1 rogers
2 warner
3 cosgrove (averages 43 after 120 FC matches)
4 dussey
5 clarke
6 wade
7 haddin
8-11 bowlers

give this batting line-up 3 series, keep them in there spots, don't jostle them around adn then see how they go. whoever hasn't performed gets tagged out and one of hughes, smith, khawaja, s.marsh, ferguson, roherer, mcdonald etc gets tagged in.

jeesh
August 12, 2013, 11:55 PM
If i was Michael Clarke i would seriously reconsider my position as captain.

I finally thought Australia would win a test, particularly with 120 odd without any loss of wicket. Boy was i wrong.

Spineless, backboneless Australia. Will the heads roll?

Gowza
August 14, 2013, 05:11 AM
If i was Michael Clarke i would seriously reconsider my position as captain.

I finally thought Australia would win a test, particularly with 120 odd without any loss of wicket. Boy was i wrong.

Spineless, backboneless Australia. Will the heads roll?

send the youngsters back to domestic cricket, they need to work hard, if they don't select the next prospects. in the meantime bring in dussey (as long as he'll stay on for a couple of years) and bring in cosgrove for the #3 spot. we're doing well with rogers and warner opening, cosgrove and dussey should bring some good experience into the #3/4 positions and clarke obviously great at #5, i guess watson could stay at #6 as long as he scores some runs down there because he adds some depth to the bowling otherwise give someone like wade or smith more of a run (or play another all rounder like henriques or mcdonald etc). haddin can stay at #7.

it's not just the experience of these players that would probably help the team, but as it is the batting positions keep changing. these guys should be able to easily settle in their given role (assuming they're given the correct one) and not have to be shuffled around as they're doing now. why? because rogers and warner are the clear openers in that bunch, cosgrove is the most experienced #3 out of that lot, dussey is a great #4 and clarke a great #5, haddin is a good test #7 (considering he's also keeper) so the only position left to fill is the #6 spot and being that all other positions are taken it would mean no shuffling.

jeesh
August 15, 2013, 12:11 AM
Frustrating. Lost 2 two test matches which were winnable. What probably differentiates the two teams is character. English players want to win, they want to fight. The grit is there. See how well Ian Bell has played throughout the series.

Time to question positions of a few players. Smith might have talent but should he be in the test XI? Has an average just a touch over 40 in first class and less than 30 in eleven tests. Hard to imagine someone of Watsons calibre only averages 34 in tests.

Rogers has done well. Perhaps he should have been brought in a few years back. Not impressed with Khawaja at all. But then again Australia picking a batsman who only averages 40 in FC shows the lack of depth they have.

In the days of Waugh, even an average of 50-55 wasnt enough to be guaranteed a spot

Gowza
August 15, 2013, 01:44 AM
Frustrating. Lost 2 two test matches which were winnable. What probably differentiates the two teams is character. English players want to win, they want to fight. The grit is there. See how well Ian Bell has played throughout the series.

Time to question positions of a few players. Smith might have talent but should he be in the test XI? Has an average just a touch over 40 in first class and less than 30 in eleven tests. Hard to imagine someone of Watsons calibre only averages 34 in tests.

Rogers has done well. Perhaps he should have been brought in a few years back. Not impressed with Khawaja at all. But then again Australia picking a batsman who only averages 40 in FC shows the lack of depth they have.

In the days of Waugh, even an average of 50-55 wasnt enough to be guaranteed a spot

we don't have any batsmen who average 50 that's why, these are the most consistent batsmen we have atm. smith is actually one aussie player who i think has more fight than others. as far as bringing in rogers a few years back, well at the time hughes was averaging 60 in FC cricket so he was understandably transitioned straight into that opener spot, unfortunately he hasn't worked out but when hughes failed that's when rogers should have come in and they never did that.

i'm leaning more and more towards cosgrove being brought in for the #3 spot, i think we have good openers in rogers and warner, we have a good #5 in clarke, the #3, #4 and #6 spots are the ones up for grabs. cosgrove has been a good #3 for many years i think a big reason he's not been selected is because of his weight problem which obviously affects running between the wickets and fielding, he doesn't average much more than others (if any) but he's been doing it for longer.

i keep saying bring dussey in for #4 spot but i'm always hesitant when saying that to because i think he's past it a little bit which is a bit unfortunate for him as if he were to come in now his test record at the end of his career probably wouldn't truly reflect his class but i still think he'd be better than anyone else we've got atm.

Jadukor
August 15, 2013, 05:05 AM
Nannes wrote a good article explaining Australia's current situation. He basically blamed Greg Chappel for altering the system of FC cricket putting more emphasis on youth over experience. He said that while there were plenty of reserves during the golden era who could come and fill in if somebody like Hayden got injured... this over glorification of youth made clubs phase out older and more experienced cricketers from the FC cricket system. Hence now somebody like Steven Smith can walk into an Aussie Test team instead of an experienced bloke who has made thousands of runs in FC cricket

Gowza
August 15, 2013, 05:12 AM
Nannes wrote a good article explaining Australia's current situation. He basically blamed Greg Chappel for altering the system of FC cricket putting more emphasis on youth over experience. He said that while there were plenty of reserves during the golden era who could come and fill in if somebody like Hayden got injured... this over glorification of youth made clubs phase out older and more experienced cricketers from the FC cricket system. Hence now somebody like Steven Smith can walk into an Aussie Test team instead of an experienced bloke who has made thousands of runs in FC cricket

this is true!