By Spiro Zavos
October 20th 2009 @ 1:32am
Related coverage
Two more years for chairman Hilditch? Amazing!
Australian cricket team captain Ricky Ponting, left, talks with the chief selector Andrew Hilditch right, during a team training session at the Gabba Cricket Ground in Brisbane, Australia, Tuesday, Nov. 21, 2006. AP Photo/Mark Baker
Last week, Cricket Australia issued a brief statement confirming that the chairman of the selection panel for Australia’s national cricket teams, Andrew Hilditch, has been re-appointed for two more years.
This means that Hilditch will preside over the selection policies and processes involved in trying to regain the Ashes in 2010/2011 after a series this year when they were lost in part due to selection blunders.
He will also be in charge of preparing to defend the World Cup 2011, won so splendidly in South Africa recently.
It’s been said that, as far as cricket is concerned and, crucially, on the matter of who is selected to represent Australia, that this is “a nation of 20 million selectors.”
There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of this nation of selectors will be opposed and aghast at the news that chairman Andrew Hilditch has been given two more years in charge.
But Hilditch the person and Hilditch the selector should be separated.
He is an intelligent, well-spoken, if somewhat reclusive person, a successful Adelaide lawyer, and someone who behaves in a way that fits the description of a ‘nice guy.’
About the only historically significant moment in his Test match career (as a journeyman opening batsman) came in a Test against Pakistan when he obligingly picked up a ball that had been blocked by his partner, handed it back to the bowler and on appeal was given out.
This is the first and only time in Test cricket a non-striker has been given out handled ball.
This gesture of helping an opposition bowler suggests a person of amiable, helpful temperament. You could never imagine any of the tough men of Australian cricket, Ian Chappell or Steve Waugh, as it were, stooping to such generosity.
This raises the issue of whether Hilditch is actually tough enough or ruthless enough, psychologically, to be a great selector.
Peter Young, the public affairs chief of Cricket Australia, made the point in announcing the two more years that cricket supporters “don’t see or appreciate” how much Hilditch does in carrying out his duty.
One reason for this may well the fact that Cricket Australia is notably uninformative when it comes to dealing with the media and the public.
Hilditch himself is on record as saying that as far as selection and the processes involved were concerned, “We had a really good Ashes series, generally speaking.”
This is a bit like the captain of the Titanic saying that up to the time the ship hit an iceberg, it had had a really good voyage.
The fact is that Australia lost the Ashes series with England’s two best players, Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff, each playing (in only some of the Tests) on one leg.
There were selection blunders made in the composition of Australia’s Ashes series squad and during the Tests themselves. There were mistakes of captaincy made, even though there was a selector present for all the Tests.
What were the duty selectors were providing to the team aside from fronting up on television, as Merv Hughes did frequently, and spouting out his inconsequential nonsense?
Where was the selection and Cricket Australia soul-searching after the wrenching Ashes defeat?
Where is the presentation of a plan to bring the Australian Test team back to its former status and glory?
The 20 million selectors have been kept fully in the dark about the things they don’t get to see. Why?
Surely the selectors owe it to the public to give them the sort of insight on selection matters and policies that other major sports provide.
Am I the only cricket supporter in Australia who believes that it is amazing that Hilditch has been given two more years as the chairman of the selection panel?
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(33)
Freud of Football said | October 20th 2009 @ 4:44am | Report comment
No Spiro, you’re certainly not the only one but I can’t help but feel that you’ve misplaced some of the blame. The Ashes were 5 tests, in theory, 25 days of cricket and the selectors had 5 chances to get it right or wrong. In my eyes they made a mistake in dropping Hughes even though Watson did extremely well in his stead and of course not picking a spinner in the final test.
It’s pointless to speculate on the (non) selection of Brett Lee and Stuart Clarke, their form and fitness are unknown to the other 20 million selectors but there is only one way of winning a test match and that is taking 20 wickets, I think Australia’s bowling lacked direction at times but as I say, we shouldn’t judge them for this.
For me the big problem was Ponting’s lack of awareness of the game situations. Australia have been blessed with Border, Taylor and S Waugh as captains but Ponting just isn’t cut out to lead Australia, he’d be suited to lead England maybe but he doesn’t seem to have that edge of his predecessors. Too often did I sit, shaking my head in disbelief that he continued to try with pace bowlers who were being ineffective or with part-timers when we needed but one wicket to snatch a win.
For 25 days of cricket, Ponting was in charge, the coach should have been in charge of Ponting and at the end of the day, Australia were good enough to win, the selectors, even with their mistakes picked good enough sides to win a series and the captain and coach as well as the players didn’t bring in the results.
However that Hilditch has been reappointed, well I think my qualms with him lie elsewhere. A certain Cameron White for example, for mine a rubbish player barely talented enough to get a run at state level and yet he holds a place in T20 and 50 over cricket while SA’s Shaun Tait and the extremely talented second-coming of Boof Lehmann, Mark Cosgrove can’t get a look in.
Also and more importantly, the inexperience of Australia’s bowling lineup. You’ve got a part-time spinner who has admitedly improved but is already 28 and has played 7 tests, the next best solution is apparently a 37 year old or another leg-spinner who for some reason, cannot get a run.
Without Brett Lee who I fear will remain injury prone for the rest of his career, you’ve got M Johnson, S Clarke, B Hilfenhaus and P Siddle currently in the selectors minds with an average of 17.5 tests between them at an average age of 27.75 years.
The selectors have left Ponting with a new team with experience at first class but not at international level, there are too many players coming through at once and this is what Hilditch should be responsible for, ensuring that captains have a few young players that come through gradually rather than a mass exodus leaving Australia with a team with barely any Ashes experience going on a trip to England.
We need full-time selectors (the money is there so USE IT) and we need people with a genuine idea about the game. Hilditch may be a thinker but I get the feeling he steers clear of the South Australian’s and picks Victorians so as not to appear biased. We need a panel that picks the best players for each and every game in all three formats, always with one eye on the future.
Rob said | October 20th 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
I think you should stick to football. Ponting’s record as captain is better than those Waugh, Taylor and Border and, as you’ve suggested, he was given a very green bowling attack to work with which really wasn’t good enough. Exactly what is a captain supposed to do when his main strike weapon can’t even hit the pitch? I disagree entirely that ponting had a “lack of awareness of game situations”, and believe that he did the best job possible with an attack that just wasn’t up to the job.
Freud of Football said | October 20th 2009 @ 3:10pm | Report comment
Rob,Ponting’s record (and this has been much discussed in the press) is that he will be remembered for losing the Ashes twice, something none of Border, Taylor or Waugh managed.
“Exactly what is a captain supposed to do when his main strike weapon can’t even hit the pitch?” – Ponting should have ensured via the selectors that he wasn’t taking a totally inexpierenced squad to England for one, secondly when England’s tail wagged (which they did pretty regularly) he had no idea how to get them out, like a bull to a rag he just kept going and going expecting something to happen and not trying something different even for an over or two. How can that be anything other than a “lack of awareness of game situations”?
The same when he couldn’t get Monty Panesar out, I’m sorry but when you’ve got two part-timers trying to take an absolute bunny’s wicket then your captain is doing something wrong, yes it was getting dark but 10 years ago the Aussies would have bounced him out.
Ponting’s record speaks nothing of his captaincy. He was given the greatest team of all time, a well oiled machine and anyone could have lead them to victory. Don’t think it was Ponting telling McGrath to bowl line and length or Ponting setting Warne’s fields, this was done for him.
Rob said | October 20th 2009 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Ponting’s record has, as you say, been discussed at length. Here’s something that I think is worth reading:
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/08/30/ponting-for-the-record/
For those who like to look no deeper than the surface, ignoring things like the rare form of the 2005 england bowling attack (simon jones swinging the ball at will, harmisson in career best form, ditto flintoff), McGrath’s injury, brett lee smashing a ball to deep cover at edgebaston when we needed 4 to win – had he hit 5 yards either side the match was over, warnie dropping KP in the last test, some shocking umpire decisions; and the woeful performance of the australian attack in 2009, they _will_ see that ponting lost two ashes series as you suggest. Hopefully such people will inclined to look a little deeper. I’m aware that Border, Waugh and Taylor didn’t lose two ashes series. I’m also aware that none of them won an ashes series 5-0, nor did they go through a world cup campaign undefeated – something ricky did twice.
Regarding your comment “ponting should have ensured he wasn’t taking a totally inexperienced squad”, where exactly was he supposed to find these experienced front line bowlers? At this point, our stocks are bare, about which Ricky can do nothing. Agreed he stuck with Johnson when he was bowling poorly; I think he did so because when he hits his rhythm he’s a matchwinner. The only way he was going to get that rhythm was to keep bowling him. Maybe it’s worth re-igniting the debate about warm up matches.
As you say, ponting was given the greatest team of all time. He used that team to equal waugh’s record of consectutive test wins, go through world cups undefeated, and win an ashes series 5-0. We should be asking why Border, Waugh and Taylor didn’t measure up to Ricky.
Freud of Football said | October 20th 2009 @ 6:06pm | Report comment
“where exactly was he supposed to find these experienced front line bowlers? ” – Well thats the entire point Rob. Ponting stuck with the familiar faces and didn’t push for someone like Mitchel Johnson to get in the side earlier, or Stuart Clark who at 34 has played 20-odd tests. The responsibility for having such an inexpierenced squad has to lay both with the selectors and Ponting but I feel Ponting stuck with the older players to mask his ordinary captaincy.
As I said, he didn’t have to captain the side he inherited from Steve Waugh, god I could have done it and Australia could have played with 10 men and still clean-swept the Ashes. McGrath was the most consistent bowler probably of all time, Brett Lee with his pace you didn’t need to do a lot but put some catching men in place, Warne and MacGill had all of their fields determined in advance. The “backup” bowlers of Gillespie, Bichel and Kasprowicz would have been first choice for any other country in any other era. All Ponting had to do was stand at second slip and watch the old-heads win matches for him, he didn’t even have to throw anyone the ball, they more-or-less sorted it out themselves.
It’s easy to captain a great team, it’s not easy to captain a team going through a transition phase and I think Ponting has been found out.
As for the World Cup’s, well the first he had an amazingly good side. I mean look at the scorecard for the final, 4 players had a bat (including Ponting) and India were NEVER going to make 359. The last WC they won by default, there was no-one else who was even really competitive.
Regardless of bad decisions and key moments that perhaps lost the Ashes in both the last English series, Steve Waugh was the type of captain who would have done something about it. His best innings were when Australia were on the ropes, indeed one of his 3 ODI tons was against SAF in the WC, he came in at 3-48 and SAF were all-over the Aussies, he ground out 120* and Australia won with two balls remaining and won the WC.
Thats what a great captain does, they take wickets when they need them most, they make runs when nobody else does. Warne took 40 wickets in the 2005 series and Ponting still lost the Ashes. In the last series he had Australia in a winning position in two tests that he didn’t win.
I’m a big fan of Ponting’s batting and I’m not a big fan of Steve Waugh (I was a Mark Waugh fan) but I don’t believe Ponting is of the right calibre to be Australian captain, it should have been given to Warne upon S Waugh’s retirement, regardless of his off-field idiocy as we’ve seen in the IPL and with Victoria on a few occasions, he was also excellent.
mushi said | October 21st 2009 @ 8:49am | Report comment
Didn’t push for Johnson to get in earlier? Could you imagine what would of happened had he dismantled the pace attack of our halcyon years and Johnson struggled. Pundits such as your self would have crucified him.
Dropping one of the most feared bowling attacks of all time to put in a pace bowler who had ups and downs early in his career would have been met with a colossal backlash.
Also you say it si easy to captain with a quality side and yet refer to Waugh as a captain we were spoilt to have? Either one or the other is incorrect.
Waugh’s legacy as captain is one of the most overstated pieces of cricket history. He had a side which was littered with all time greats and yet ponting, with the same side yet with many players past their prime, got better results.
I fail to see what evidence there is to suggest Waugh would have done something about it? What would eh have done – jump in a time machine and reassemble his team of all time greats.
Yes Warne was a better option for captaincy, but he was also a better option than Steve Waugh. (who he didn’t rate as a captain)
Rob said | October 21st 2009 @ 9:45am | Report comment
I’m going to stop here. It seems we just plain disagree; witnessed by the fact that the I disagree wholeheartedly regarding the “shane warne for captain” bandwagon. Before I close, I’d like to say three things:
1) I’m sorry for starting my original post with ‘you should stick to football’; that was unnecessary.
2) The reason I got my back up is I’m sick of people bagging Ricky Ponting. He inherited a great side and did great things with it. As you say, anyone could have captained the side Steve Waugh had, which demonstrates that Steve Waugh is essentially an unproven skipper (same goes for Mark Taylor). As you say, it would have been simple to captain Waugh’s team: try the world’s best fast bowler, if he doesn’t work, try the best spinner of all time. There is no evidence to suggest that Waugh would have had the faintest idea if his bowlers weren’t doing their job.
3) Great skippers don’t take wickets when they need to, great _sides_ do; it’s a team game. The skipper creates a plan, the bowlers bowl to that plan and the fielders do their job. Ricky has been stuck with bowlers that can’t hit the pitch – there is no strategy for such poor bowling.
Chris said | October 20th 2009 @ 6:25am | Report comment
Spiro ( and as a Brumbies fan I can’t believe I am saying this): You are absolutely spot on. His treatment of Stuart Clark says it all.
Brett McKay said | October 20th 2009 @ 7:26am | Report comment
this was one of those stories that I had every intention of going back to and then completely forgot about. This is an unbeleivable development. Two more years?!? Which means the promised full and open review amounted to nothing, or that nothing was found to be defective. Huullllooooo??!? The Ashes are – literally – still at Lord’s!!
Can we also assume that Hilditch will remain part-time in this role??
fox said | October 20th 2009 @ 7:48am | Report comment
Mediocrity has its rewards, apparently.
Whiteline said | October 20th 2009 @ 8:04am | Report comment
Sutherland is the softest touch of all and he has been there without question it seems for the best part of a decade. I can’t recall James making many tough calls except when he’s gone back on his word to players after consultation or direction from his Board.
Fox said it all in 5 words – what really needs to be said after that?
Rickety Knees said | October 20th 2009 @ 8:36am | Report comment
Spiro – like you I am gobsmacked. It has now become apparent that the ACB have become an old boys club. Ponting is a great one day captain but unfortunately tries to play test cricket the same way. As a direct result he has now lost the Ashes twice but remains as captain – where is his accountability. Hilditch has been there with Ponting during this period. The fact that both are still there beggars belief.
drewster said | October 20th 2009 @ 8:39am | Report comment
First Coach Neilson gets an extended Contract after a bad series, Then Selector Hilditch get an extension after a bad series.
WTF! is going on in the boardroom of Cricket Australia? And Spiro myself and nearly every other Aussie Cricket Fan is with you on this. Well written by the way Spiro, To not use one expletive in describing the incompotent, incontinence of the board and it’s decision is truly an act of great journalism.
Timmuh said | October 20th 2009 @ 9:27am | Report comment
To take a quote completely out of context (somewhat like political coverage in a Murdoch newspaper); “This gesture of helping an opposition” could equally be employed as an explanation as to why Johnson played every Test despite barely being able to determine which pitch was being played on in numerous spells.
FIsher Price said | October 20th 2009 @ 10:28am | Report comment
It’s an ‘in club’.
Australia could lose its next two Test series against decent opponents and neither Hilditch nor Ponting will vacate their roles unless they choose to.
Greg Russell said | October 20th 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
1. “Peter Young, the public affairs chief of Cricket Australia, made the point in announcing the two more years that cricket supporters “don’t see or appreciate” how much Hilditch does in carrying out his duty.”
Someone famous once said “I don’t care if the President of the United States only works four hours a day, as long as he does his job well.” The same goes for Hilditch: I don’t care how hard he works – all that counts is that he carries out his job well. We all know his record in this respect.
2. “About the only historically significant moment in his Test match career (as a journeyman opening batsman) came in a Test against Pakistan when he obligingly picked up a ball that had been blocked by his partner, handed it back to the bowler and on appeal was given out. … This raises the issue of whether Hilditch is actually tough enough or ruthless enough, psychologically, to be a great selector.”
I’m actually debating with myself whether this is more significant than the other well-known thing about Hilditch as a test player, which is that he was a compulsive hooker even though it kept getting him out. While I agree fully with Spiro’s point about Hilditch not being tough enough (cf. Trevor Hohns, who made many hard but correct calls), it seems to me that the compulsive hooking is also very significant: Hilditch had a fatal flaw that either he could not see or else he could see but was incapable of remedying. Whichever it was it does not matter. I would suggest that he has fatal flaws as a selector too.
That said, one could argue that it’s more the responsibility of his employer, Cricket Australia, to see these flaws and take action.
Chris said | October 20th 2009 @ 2:42pm | Report comment
What they should do is select the following players:
The players with the six highest batting averages.
The players with the four lowest bowling averages.
and Brad Haddin.
Obviously such a method is heavily reliant on statistics – and as such has a few problems. But it could certainly not produce a worse team than that which Hildich usually selects.
Bruce Rankin said | October 20th 2009 @ 4:54pm | Report comment
Spiro, You’re spot on in my book. Australia lost the Ashes aginst a mediocre English team, for all the reasons enunciated here – and obvious to 20 million Aussie selectors. Based on results – the bottom line – Hilditch should have been sacked. So called hard work behind the scenes doesn’t count.
For the same reason – results – and obvious to 4 million NZ selectors – Henry and co should have got their marching orders after the All Blacks lost in the 2007 Rugby World Cup, because of their selection blunders and poor (conditioning and rotation) strategies. Results to date in 2009 confirm that. There is little to suggest they’re building a 2011 World Cup winning team either.
In both cases failure has been rewarded.
Hansie said | October 20th 2009 @ 6:17pm | Report comment
You’re welcome to take back Deans!
Hansie said | October 20th 2009 @ 6:15pm | Report comment
Isn’t the old saying that it’s harder to get out of the Australian cricket team than to get into it? Apparently it’s even harder to get off the national selection panel. How bad does Hilditch have to perform to get the sack?
whiteline said | October 20th 2009 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
Hey Chris and why have you picked Haddin? Did he get the spot reserved for the player with the most dropped catches or was it most byes?
Alec Swann said | October 20th 2009 @ 7:01pm | Report comment
At the Oval in August, Someone failed to notice that a spinner should be included on a pitch that resembled a sandpit.
If anything indicated that a regime had run its course then this was it.
As with everything, someone has to carry the can yet everything has stayed the same.
Andrew Hilditch’s resignation letter should’ve been written for him.
He must think Christmas has come early.
Greg Russell said | October 21st 2009 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Alec, as far as I am aware, Merv Hughes was the selector on tour at the time of The Oval test, and Hilditch was 10,000 miles away at his lawyer’s desk in Adelaide. Assuming this is true, the misreading of the pitch at The Oval should not at all be pinned on Hilditch. Rather, it’s the fault of Ponting, Nielsen and Hughes (or whoever the on-tour selector was at the time).
Of course I’m just playing devil’s advocate here. I believe as strongly as anyone that Hilditch should get the sack, and I’ve been arguing this for at least a year now. This makes the point that it’s not one catastrophic error (as at The Oval) that is the problem with Hilditch, but rather his whole body of work: he makes mistake after mistake.
What The Oval serves to illustrate is that it’s not Hilditch alone that is the problem: there need to be multiple sackings on the panel, possibly the whole lot of them.
FIsher Price said | October 21st 2009 @ 10:29am | Report comment
Nielsen and Ponting should go too.
vinay verma said | October 21st 2009 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Nobody in the posts argues that Ponting is a dud batsman. It is acknowledged that he has been the premier batsman in World Cricket (over the last decade and more alongwith Tendulkar and Lara) and is arguably one of the five best batsmen of all time. You cannot sack him as Captain because that would mean him not playing in the team. Australian Cricket philosophy does not permit a sacked Captain to be part of the playing XI. Exceptional circumastances saw Greg Chappell play under Hughes. Lawry did not play more than a few Tests when ian Chappell took over. Can any of you have seen Border,Taylor or Waugh sacked as Captain and still playing?
Australia’s best player is usually the Captain. Thats how it should be. So Ponting has lost two Ashes. I am sure it hurts him but thats cricket. He could have done some things better in hindsight but it is all conjecture as to the result. He went with what he had and on occassions it was not good enough. Hilditch,except for the Hodge non selection and the White Test selection has not done much wrong. He also has Boon,Cox and Hughes on the panel.
Forget the blame game. Australia is not the side it was and it is upto the current lot to forge their own destiny..good or bad.
Finding excuses and apportioning blame hints at a weak national pysche. Having said that,as suggested by myself and reiterated by Freud,selectors should be paid more and should be full time and then we can hold them accountable. Pay them $250000 at least(that is each) and you will see the professionalism come in.
whiteline said | October 21st 2009 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Not sure what you are getting paid Vinay but do you think Australian Cricket Selector is more important than your fulltime job?
I think you are over playing what is a pretty simple gig. Merv Hughes doesn’t come across as a Rhodes Scholar to me.
Freud of Football said | October 21st 2009 @ 5:11pm | Report comment
YOu have to watch a lot of cricket to be a selector, you have to know your stuff, travel a lot etc. It might sound like fun but its more-or-less an extension of what these guys had as players, not necessarily something guys with families want.
Greg Russell said | October 22nd 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
Here is a true story. In October 1997 I found myself with a free day in Sydney. NSW was playing Victoria at the North Sydney Oval, and all the Australian stars (Warne, Waughs, McGrath, Bevan, Reiffel, etc.) were participating (those were the days!). So I headed out to the ground. I found myself sharing a grandstand with Steve Bernard, who at the time was an Australian selector. At tea-time he got out his mobile phone, and proceeded to talk to “Hohnsy”, who was watching Qld thrash the visiting Kiwis in Cairns. Thus was I privy to an impromptu selection meeting. I can honestly say that not one observation was made that was not totally obvious to any objective, cricket-knowledgeable spectator.
(The word objective here is important. There was a lot of emotion at the time about Mark Taylor, who only debatably had come out of his dreadful form slump on the 1997 tour of England. But Bernard correctly reported that although Tubby had only made 30, he had batted well against a useful Victorian attack and was worth his place in the Australian side. Taylor backed this up over the following two years.)
I can go even further than this. Judging by Bernard’s comments in response to Hohns, one did not even need to be present to watch the cricket in order to be a selector. Qld were something like 1-400 against NZ, with Love and Hayden to the fore. So Hohns’s report to his fellow selector that Love and Hayden were batting well was hardly rocket science – one glance at a scorecard was enough to know that!
That’s the point of this comment: that most good selection work in cricket is not rocket science. I believe this shone through in the exemplary work of Hohns over many seasons: almost without exception he picked the guys who scored runs heavily year after year. In other words, these correct decisions could have been made just by looking at scorebooks.
In many ways the problem of the current panel is that they have tried to get pretty, and they have selected quite a lot of players on the basis of limited visual impression rather than on weight of statistics. In rare cases like Callum Ferguson this has worked. In a case like Jason Krejza it worked for 1 test, then it failed for 1 test (and only the selectors know why they chose to do 2 tests rather than 0 or a lot). In a case like Adam Voges we still have no idea why he gets selected.
Fly on the Wall said | October 21st 2009 @ 2:54pm | Report comment
Stat: Ian Chappell stepped down to allow Greg to captain in the 75-76 home series v West Indies.
I have long been a critic of Ponting as a Test captain because he just lets things drift when the bowlers are struggling.
1st Ashes Test – on a slow pitch and struggling to take the last cpla wickets – he refused to bowl a wrist spinner (Katich) or a quick. I know he was trying to get in more overs but all we needed was one wicket.
Acrimonious SCG Test v India – he only gave Clarke the ball because he thought the game was over and a draw – again a bowler taking the ball away from the batsman, something out of left field.
You rarely ever saw Taylor letting a game slip due to low intelligence or NFI.
And the reason Border, Taylor and Waugh had inferior win-loss records is that the opposition were much better in those days compared to us.
Go back to the mid 80s, 90s and compare the West Indies and Pakistan sides with their great fast bowlers.
Our lineup of the naughties would have struggled to make 300 v Ambrose, Holding, Marshall in their prime or for that matter Wasim, Waqar, Abdul Qadir in their prime.
Yes, Australia has been blessed with 15 years of great Test cricket under Taylor, Waugh and Ponting but I rate them very clearly in that order for captaincy and on-field intelligence – and I toured with the team a few times.
Freud of Football said | October 21st 2009 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
Very well put, perhaps not the greatest english of all time but some very good points.
rob said | October 22nd 2009 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Very good points?? Hmmm. I think otherwise
1) We never saw Taylor let a game slip because he had the best spinner of all time at his disposal. Waugh had the same, though for the latter part of his captaincy, said spinner was on the decline whose flipper and wrong-un were things of the past (whereas Ponting got the dregs left at the bottom of Warne’s leg spin barrell). Recall that waugh kept throwing the ball to warnie hoping to get Lara out when he amassed 150-odd and led a 4th wicket chase of 320-ish to win in 1999. No innovation there, no insight, just “keep giving the ball to warnie”. I’m aware we retained the trophy, but it wasn’t due to cleverness or innovation.
2) Has ricky pointing ever _said_ that he threw the ball to clarke because he thought the game was over? I’ve certainly never heard him say it. You say it was luck, I say it was ‘innovation’.
3) There were some better sides in the early nineties, some were worse, some roughly the same. England were no better then than they are now, and australia had no 5-0 ashes wins. Most importanly, Australia were much, much better then. McGrath was at his best, ditto warnie. Warne had drift and flight, and had flippers and wrong-uns. The back up bowling was better who, most importantly, could maintain the pressure whilst adding variety. Gillespie was fierce, Kaspa was solid. Then there’s the much more reliable batting; if by some fluke the bowling didn’t do the job, they had Slater, Langer, Ponting, Waugh, Waugh to fall back on (I’ve left Taylor out because in the latter part of his career, Taylor’s batting was rubbish; it was lucky the rest of the batting was good enough that they could afford to carry him ).
4) You toured with the teams a few times? Big deal. Unless you were on the pitch then your _opinion_ is no more qualified than that of any other fan. I’ve played the game at grade level, I’m a member of the Adelaide Oval and I’ve spent time with the side in England and Australia; which makes me just another cricket fan (like you).
mushi said | October 23rd 2009 @ 9:36am | Report comment
If you think during the Waugh era that the opposition was better we must be referring to the “war” era because I can’t remember any fearsome teams during Steve Waughs reign that rival the current Indian or SA sides.
I agree with Border but Waugh and Taylor had sides at their disposal with a massive disparity between them and the opposition talent wise.
Neither won in India either.
Dave1 said | October 22nd 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
this in today’s paper was interesting
http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/cricket/turn-for-the-worse/2009/10/21/1255891860594.html
“……THE extent of the decline of slow bowling in Australia has been revealed, with figures showing the percentage of deliveries sent down by spinners in the Sheffield Shield competition has almost halved in the past four decades.
The figures were prepared for Cricket Australia and presented to the board’s annual general meeting last week, at which chairman of selectors Andrew Hilditch was reappointed for two years, despite the recent Ashes defeat.
Hilditch and his panel have been criticised for sending five spinners through a revolving door to the Test team since Stuart MacGill retired in June last year. But in his report to the AGM, Hilditch said the selectors were placed in the impossible position of having to pluck a spinner, Nathan Hauritz, out of grade ranks for last summer’s Adelaide Test because of the dearth of slow bowlers in first-class cricket……..”