Australia: Who Is To Blame For This Farce

[BengaliPagol]

Gotta feel sorry for Simon Katich

[Gowza]

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
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]

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]

Originally Posted by jeesh
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]

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]

Originally Posted by jeesh
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]

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]

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
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]

Originally Posted by Gowza
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]

Originally Posted by BengaliPagol
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]

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]

Originally Posted by jeesh
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]

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]

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]

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]

Warner failed Against Zim xi match scored just 6 & 11 for AUS A

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (Opera Mobile)

[BengaliPagol]

Originally Posted by Gowza
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]

Originally Posted by Gowza
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]

Originally Posted by jeesh
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]

Tahir to me seemed like a talent but he has no control in his line and length whatsoever.

[Zeeshan]

The blog heard round the world. Haha Indian Pakistani fans are tearing apart one another..

http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/co...ry/655717.html

[NoName]

I too would be embarrassed to be called that, skilled wise, if I were an Aussie.

[Gowza]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by jeesh
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.