By Freud of Football -
October 27th 2009 @ 12:57am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Answers for the Aussie cricket selectors
The end of a beautiful thing need not be a time of mourning. Indeed, Australia’s cricketing future is looking so bright that it’s causing some headaches at the selection table.
It’s been well noted that Australia is a country with 20 million selectors – 21 million by now. But the selectors – Hilditch, Hughes, Cox and Boon – are facing choices unlike any panel before them in recent memory.
Australian cricket has always prided itself on being a solid unit, a team of professional, experienced players, a team notoriously difficult to get into and even more difficult to remain in, with talented players in every position banging on the selectors’ door.
The Australian mentality has long been to give players a chance to establish themselves, as evidenced by the huge gap in capped players between England (645) and Australia (411).
But this is a period unlike no other.
Previous teams were filled with old-heads and a few up-and-comers. Selecting a First XI was child’s play: you could rattle the names off with little doubt as to who the best openers were, who should get the new ball, and how to man the middle order.
But with the exit of Warne and McGrath, the same talent that was always waiting in the wings remains, only it lacks experience and it seems the selectors – all 21 million of them – cannot settle on who the First XI should be.
It would also seem there are so many players coming through that a few have even fallen off the radar.
Shaun Marsh, anyone remember this name? Twelve months ago he was the next big thing, the answer to our problems at the top of the order with the retirements of Hayden and Langer.
He gets injured and players like Haddin, Paine, Watson and Michael Clarke go and do a fine job in his place and the young duo of Warner and Hughes couldn’t do a lot more than they have to push their respective cases for selection.
Katich and Hodge could also easily fill the void, and the other forgotten opener – who too was to be the next best thing – Phil Jacques, is a relative spring chicken in cricketing terms at 30.
Shaun Tait, come again? The tearaway whom many crowned the successor to the Australian fast bowling throne?
Still drawing a blank? The one who was bowling nasty 160 km/h thunderbolts before deciding to take a “break from the game” only for CA to leave him out of their initial 2009 contracted player list.
Tait has played just four ODIs and two T20s since his decision to step away from cricket and we’ve seen the likes of Bracken, Johnson, Lee, Clark, Hilfenhaus, Siddle, Bollinger, Nannes, Harwood, Laughlin and Geeves all get in the team for their fast-bowling prowess since then.
I’d like to see a throwback to the good old days where an Australian cap wasn’t so easy to get, where the selectors made decisions like men, players got a chance to establish themselves in the Australian XI, and players were given consecutive series to prove themselves.
To do that we must select a core squad, players to be the nucleus of the team, and afford them the opportunities to play together.
So here is my interpretation:
Test squad
1) P. Hughes
2) S. Katich
3) R. Ponting
4) M. Clarke
5) C. Ferguson
6) S. Watson
7) B. Haddin
M. Johnson
9) B. Lee
10) J. Krejza
11) P. Siddle
12) P. Jaques, M. North, T. Paine, S. Tait, B. Hilfenhaus
ODI Squad
1) P. Hughes
2) B. Haddin
3) S. Marsh
4) M. Clarke
5) S. Watson
6) C. Ferguson
7) M. Hussey
M. Johnson
9) S. Tait
10) N. Bracken
11) P. Siddle
12) D. Warner, S. Katich, T. Paine, B. Hilfenhaus
T20 Squad – if we have to play at international level, I better select a squad.
1) P. Hughes
2) D. Warner
3) S. Marsh
4) T. Paine
5) D. Hussey
6) J. Hopes
7) M. Hussey
B. Lee
9) B. Hilfenhaus
10) N. Bracken
11) P. Siddle
12) B. Haddin, S. Katich, M. Henriques
A core squad of 16 for Tests and 15 for ODIs, with a balance of young and old. “Always one eye on the future” must become the motto of our selectors, and from this pool, the selectors must pick based on form and conditions.
Injuries will need to be covered and that’s when fringe players can come in and get their chance.
Further, the team must be rotated amongst this nucleus so that the second choice players continue to gain experience. Once fringe players become regulars, they will already have the experience at the highest level.
There is no need for Brad Haddin, for example, to play all the ODIs when we have someone as talented as Tim Paine on the sidelines. Keep Haddin fresh for the games he is needed and let Paine gather some Test caps against the West Indies for example.
Don’t bowl Brett Lee for an entire test series, give Ponting a break, make sure we aren’t faced with the problem that half the team retires and the replacements are all fresh faces.
The lineup is debatable, but surely we must go back to what has made Australian cricket successful for so long: a core group of the most talented players, regardless of their age, race or state of origin.
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...
(29)
vinay verma said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:58am | Report comment
FOF..Henrique,Paine,Jacques,Krezja and Warner are not in the list of 25 contracted players and I would agree with the list. You have a preference for Krezja but this is counter to your argument that players should be given an extended run. I had my doubts about Hauritz and have expressed them before. However on the evidence of the last six months Haurtitz has improved out of sight. In fact Katich went so far as to say the ball he bowled in the CL final was the “gutsiest” he had ever seen. His bowling in the first ODI on Sunday was exceptional. Were it not for Shaun Marsh flooring a sitter his figures would have been better. Ravi shastri and Gavaskar both commented on Hauritz’s exceptional bowling. So credit where it is due. The selectors have got this right and Hauritz for mine is a shoo in for all three games. Now we need a leggie and both Stephen Smith and Bailey would be my fringe players. I dont agree with Jenner saying these guys are too young. If you are good enough age shouldn’t come into it. You only get better by playing with the big boys.
You omit Ponting from the ODI squad. Do you have a rational explanation for this? Before I damn you with the scant praise I reserve for administrators.
Shaun Tait is an enigma. Physically and mentally frail is my opinion. Why should he get special treatment? He performed poorly in his only Test and like Shoaib Akhtar can be a liability. Guys like Mark Waugh had to score 5000 or so Shield runs before they got a look in. I dont believe in mollycoddling young players. They have enough opputunities if they are good enough. It is rare that anyone with talent escapes the talent trawling net.
If anything the current process is less parochial and a sight more equitable than the situation 50 years ago.
By and large what you are advocating has been in place for quite some time. What has changed though in the last two years is the money now available through IPL and CL. The player’s expectations have changed and I suspect Ponting is looking for players that are focussed on playing for Australia rather than chasing the big bucks. I would suggest that if players focus on playing their best for Australia the money will look after itself. Young men suddenly showered with millions will be encouraged by their “10%” Managers to take the money. Young cricketers in Australia,and all over the world,should be given a refresher course in the traditions and values of the games.We have a lot of cricketing “nobodies” currently swanning around with designer sunnies and gold chains and they are no more than parodies.
Freud of Football said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:07pm | Report comment
Vinay, as you’ll see my piece was too long already but I would have liked to defend my selections, just couldn’t fit it all in. I too agree that Hauritz has improved a lot but I don’t think he is the attacking weapon a spin bowler should be.
He is solid but non-threatening. In ODI’s you only have 10 overs, if the pressure is on the other team he will be an effective weapon because he can keep it tight and maybe force a few batsmen to throw their wickets away but if the batsmen are set, they’ll either see him off or belt him around the park, just depending on conditions.
If Aus want to play two spinners he is the ideal muse for a leggie but he can’t be the only spin bowler in the side.
Ponting’s omission is simple. He is the best test batsman we have and that by far, his best fielding days are behind him and while he’s still got great hands, he’s not as nimble as he was even 5 years ago. Save him for the tests, that’s where Aus need him the most. He is still an excellent ODI players but he has had an enormous workload for far too long, I’d like to see him play another 4-5 years of test cricket and I don’t think he’ll manage that unless he gives up ODI’s sooner rather than later.
“He performed poorly in his only Test and like Shoaib Akhtar can be a liability.”
Your analysis of Tait is incorrect and he has played 3 tests. Mentally frail is over-simplifying matters. I’m not sure if you’ve ever been seriously injured but having done my knee a few times I know the frustration of it all, sitting around wishing you could play, even wishing you could walk to the letter box, it’s the mental aspect of injuries that is the hardest to overcome, the rehab at least feels like you’re getting somewhere.
While he may not have the scorn of a Dennis Lillee he is certainly every bit as talented as any fast bowler Australia has produced over the last generation, with the exception of McGrath.
Yes he didn’t flatter in his first test, but here are some other match figures from debuts for you:
Alan Thomson – Golden Duck + 4* & 1/156
Shane Warne – 21 runs (batted behind McDermott!) & 1/150
Glenn McGrath – Golden duck & 3/142
Jason Gillespie – 16* & 2/89
Shaun Tait – 3* + 4 & 3/121
We all know how well the other names there did for Aus so why doesn’t Tait get his chance?
Mark Waugh also played in a different age, his pile of runs was the norm in those days, look at some of the other guys who were in the same boat, Lehmann, Katich, Hodge, to get a place in the team they didn’t have one good summer, they had a good career before they were regulars for Aus and even then, one slip and they were out the door.
You’re correct about the attitude towards the game from some of the players. Many of them I feel are only in it for the money but at the same time, I certainly don’t begrudge them that. Cricket isn’t a sport were players can constantly move clubs and seek new horizons, you’ve only got one team you can play for at the highest level and that team only has 11 spots. To make it you have to be extremely dedicated, the pressures on players private lives are immense, they are hounded by journo’s in the papers for their “poor” performances, by photographers, they are away from their loved one’s for months on end etc etc. While it may be a lot of young boys dream to wear the baggy green, it comes with a lot of baggage for which exceptional financial compensation is deserved.
vinay verma said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:03pm | Report comment
Hello Sigmund: I admire you sticking to your opinions and stand corrected on Tait’s 3 tests. However I dont have to be a paraplegic to appreciate the extent of the mental agony a sportsman suffers. It is irrelevant if I have had three or four knee operations..but to satisfy your “got to suffer to appreciate” I have had as many as you if not more.
Hauritz can do the job at Test level better than any of the other spinners in Australia. And this is not about me being right or you wrong or vice versa. This is my considered opinion.
Lehman and Hodge were never regulars and it is unfortunate they had to contend with Matk Waugh and now Clarke. But there is more to Hodge’s ommission than meets the eye. I dont know the inside story but I would hazard his attitude has something to do with it.
As far as the pressures from journos or photographers is concerned if you play for big bucks it goes with the territory. Some handle it better than others and no one is forcing them to be away from their mummies or WAGS.
Ponting is an exceptional batsman and it would be shortchanging the paying viewer for him to take the money and not play. He would want to play every game he could.
Freud of Football said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:14pm | Report comment
There is more to Lehmann than meets the eye too. He was not liked by the selectors for some of his comments, he was talented enough to play more than 27 tests and were it not for his mouth he probably would have played 100+. Just look at his first-class stats, 25975 runs at 57.83 and his bowling average was just under 28 in tests, 34.92 in First-Class cricket.
Ponting may want to play every game he can, Watson and Lee too but they cannot cope with it. Ponting isn’t a spring chicken Vinay, he’ll be 35 in December, he’s been playing at international level for pushing 15 years, he can’t keep it up forever so keep him for the tests, that’s where his true worth to the Australian cause is shown.
vinay verma said | October 28th 2009 @ 6:33am | Report comment
I agree with your summation of Lehman..great hands..he learnt to play on the subcontinental wickets where the wrists are so integral to good batting. On hard bouncy pitches it is sufficient to bat with forearms and weight transfer…however on low.slow turners to play late and with soft hands is imperative…Ponting is learning this now and his results in India are improving..great batsmen make the adjustments. Dean Jones epic double in the Chennai Tied Test was monumental..the pity is it was not televised. Ponting is in the same boat as Tendulkar..broadcasters and spectators will want these marquee players…I suspect all three,Ponting Watson and Lee will want to play every 7 of the current games to increase their visibility in the greatest flesh market in the world.
FIsher Price said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
Ponting operates a boys club of which Hodge is not a part.
Further reason why he should not be captain.
Jameswm said | October 27th 2009 @ 9:22am | Report comment
FOF
I’ll just address your one-day squad for now
Here it is
ODI Squad
M. Johnson
1) P. Hughes
2) B. Haddin
3) S. Marsh
4) M. Clarke
5) S. Watson
6) C. Ferguson
7) M. Hussey
9) S. Tait
10) N. Bracken
11) P. Siddle
12) D. Warner, S. Katich, T. Paine, B. Hilfenhaus
Firstly, you’re kidding about Marsh, right? At his best he was slow and went through stages of not being able to hit it off the square. he struggled to keep his wicket, let alone score, against top quality new ball bowling.
Next I don’t rate Clarke as a one-day player, and he shouldn’t be let near the T20 team. He is a very good test player now though.
Next – no Hauritz? His one-day bowling has been exceptional for 6 months.
And no Ponting? Was that an oversight?
And no Lee in the one day team? He’s an excellent one day bowler
This would be mine
1) P. Hughes – I agree with having a genuine opener there
M. Johnson – also as a floating batsman. Heck of a strike force coming in at 8
2) B. Haddin
3) R Ponting (you had Marsh)
4) C Ferguson up the order (you had M. Clarke). He has done very well since he came into the side. Put Mitch to 4 if we’re 2 for 160 after 28 overs.
5) S. Watson
6) M. Hussey – going better for one-dayers now but I wouldn’t pick him for the tests. I’d put watson to 5-6 and Hughes back tot he top
7) Warner or Katich. Katich can do anything anywhere and Warner would do better at this level without facing the new ball. A Symonds would have been nice if his head was in the right spot. Or else James Hopes here, who remains a solid contributor with bat and ball. Keep him until another all rounder cries out to be picked, whether it be Steve Smith, Henriques or someone else.
9) B Lee (you had S. Tait) – heck of a batting force to have at 9
10) N Hauritz – our standout one-day spinner
11) N. Bracken or Siddle – can only keep one of them
That’s 14.
Tough on Cam White after how well he’s done lately. Hilfy and Nannes are the other bowlers to consider. Tait if he gets his mojo back, but only then.
Can Magoffin really bat that well? He’d be an interesting option, as I always thought he was a specialist bowler.
Noffke’s another if he gets his mojo back out west.
Freud of Football said | October 27th 2009 @ 5:42pm | Report comment
James, Ponting’s exclusion was not an oversight in the shorter forms, I value him much more as a test player and his best fielding days are behind him, I’d much rather he play all the tests than 75% of tests and 50% of ODI’s. Marsh I included as I think he is solid, he isn’t there to score a hundred every match but I think three attacking players at the top of the order is a tactic Australia hasn’t really tried (Ponting isn’t that aggressive) and should do so, we must make better use of the opening 10-15 overs than we have been and be aiming at having at least 100 on the board inside 15 overs.
Lee is in the same boat. A fine bowler and I think underrated since he made his debut (couldn’t get a run for a while) but he is injury prone and I’d rather him in my test line up. You’ve got to think about the work loads of these players. 20 or 30 ODI games in 12 months is a lot of strain on a player, particulary a fast bowler as they have to prepare for these games etc., it’s a lot of work they put on their bodies and it’s been beginning to show over the last few years with the number of injured players Australia has had.
M. Clarke I rate as an excellent accumulator, you can’t have a team of sloggers in a 50 over game, you’ll be found out too often and Clarke along with Hussey and Ferguson will hold the innings together, Hussey to play the role Bevan did so well towards the end of the innings.
I’d also use Johnson as a “floating batsmen”. Captains (Ponting in particular) have become accustomed to not taking risks and just letting the game run. There is no reason to not elevate Johnson to 4 when Australia are cruising, give him the extra time and he might just make 50 off 25 balls and boost a 280 total toward 350.
I don’t rate Hauritz, he doesn’t pose enough of a threat in ODI’s and is only capable of frustrating batsmen into giving their wicket away, that might work in a test match but in a 50 over game that time is too precious for mine.
Cameron White I wouldn’t include in a state team. He is the worst player to represent Aus for the last decade, perhaps even longer.
Brett McKay said | October 27th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
“T20 Squad – if we have to play at international level, I better select a squad” – Freud, I’m winning you over on this, aren’t I?!?!!
I won’t go as far as adding new squads here (you’ll get plenty anyway), but I too wondered why you left Ponting out of the ODI side, especially while ever he’s been going so well after we lost Watson early. Like has happened how many times now?? And still he plays across straight balls…
No doubt we’re entering another transition phase in the next few seasons, but thankfully, there’s plenty of talent to go around..
Freud of Football said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:13pm | Report comment
Brett, see above for Ponting’s omission and yes, I’m convinced we should entirely scrap International T20’s. If you start a petition, let me know and I’ll sign up straight away.
FIsher Price said | October 27th 2009 @ 12:33pm | Report comment
Jameswm: I really like your one day squad, as well as your nominations of White, Nannes and Hilfenhaus as further options. I’d also throw Bollinger and McKay into that mix.
I tend to agree with you on Clarke, but he’s the golden boy… I’d go for D Hussey over him (neither Marsh nor Voges should be part of the international set up).
On the Test team: I wouldn’t have Lee or Tait anywhere near it; Hauritz is better than Krejza; Jaques and Hughes are the best opening pair; Bollinger should be recalled for the West Indies series, so we can see if he can rival the three incumbents for a regular place.
My Test squad: Jaques, Hughes, Katich(c), Clarke, Ponting, North, Haddin, Johnson, Hauritz, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Watson (middle order reserve).
Freud of Football said | October 27th 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
FP, you have gone for the old heads again, Australia is in transition and doesn’t need someone like Nannes (33-and-a-half) to come in for 2 seasons, we need someone like Tait or Hilfenhaus to step up, 26 years olds who should play 200+ ODI’s and 75+ tests.
David Hussey is the same, he’s 32 already, hasn’t got a test cap and only 23 ODI’s. Bring in someone (like Ferguson) who has their entire career ahead of them and give them the opportunity at the highest level to gain experience in their mid-20’s rather than in the twilight of their career.
Bollinger I haven’t seen that much of but he hasn’t impressed me so far but I don’t mind your test squad, with the exception of Haurity I could like with it.
vinay verma said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:08pm | Report comment
Ferguson is out for the season…so he has time to look at the mental agony side of things,Freud.
Freud of Football said | October 27th 2009 @ 8:23pm | Report comment
Ferguson may be out for the season but he can’t be forgotten, he is young and talented enough to hold down a spot for Aus for a long time.
I’d hate for him to get himself fit again and be stuck behind someone like Katich or Hodge, old blokes who’ll milk all the time they can out of playing for Aus.
vinay verma said | October 28th 2009 @ 6:36am | Report comment
Redback bias..Katich is good for Australia and is a great team man. I too hope Ferguson makes it back..with the new contracts players still get paid the retainer even when injured..so that is good in a way.
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:49pm | Report comment
No Vinay, Katich is 34 years old and that’s why I’d much rather see Ferguson who has 12-15 years ahead of him in the game get his chances than Katich who will want to hang on for dear life having taken so long to get his chance.
FIsher Price said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:48pm | Report comment
Old heads? What. like your Test pick of the overrated nice guy Brett Lee over Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Johnson and Bollinger?
And you actually think Tait is going to sort out his mental difficulties and that horrible action sufficiently to be a stand-out performer at Test level?
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Tait has sorted himself out to a degree and he is 26, he has plenty of time to get it right.
Lee definately over Hilfenhaus and Bollinger (I included Siddle and Johnson so I don’t see why you’re listing them). He is an excellent bowler and will take wickets when we need them, his batting is also very useful down the order while Hilfenhaus doesn’t take enough wickets in my opinion and I haven’t seen enough of Bollinger to rule him out for the future but what I have seen hasn’t impressed me.
Lee is a proven fast bowler with experience on grounds around the world, you can’t JUST have young guys in the team.
Greg Russell said | October 28th 2009 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Freud: it’s ironic that your article omitting Hauritz appears back to back with one “Nathan Hauritz our spin weapon of choice: Yardley”. Sorry mate, but I believe the evidence before my own eyes (i.e., Hauritz’s increasingly influential contributions in all forms of the game) and Yardley, with all his coaching and playing experience, above you. I would love for Australia to have a better spinner for TEST cricket (Haury will do fine for the other two forms), but such a player does not currently exist. You and lot of other Australians need to get over your fixation with Krejza. Nagpur was an illusion and was not the real Krejza, just as Lord’s 1972 was not the real Bob Massey. One swallow does not make a summer. Cricket is about consistency of performance.
You are also going to have to bury the hatchet with regard to North. I don’t know what you have against him as a test cricketer, but it’s irrational. He deserved his chance, and he has taken it with both hands.
As I made clear with a vignette beneath one of your postings last week (did you see my story about North Sydney Oval?), the primary criterion in cricket selection is common sense. The next most important criterion after that is also common sense. Don’t forget this.
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 6:08pm | Report comment
I have nothing against North, he’s a fine batsmen and I’d select him any day over Katich, Hodge or Hussey for a middle order berth but I think Ferguson is every bit as talented and has a longer career in the game. North has the advantage that his bowling is more than handy but I don’t see where I was against North in my piece that you felt the need to tell me I’m being irrational?
Re Hauritz. Greg, he is the one guy really splitting opinion in Aus right now. I won’t deny he has improved out of sight but he isn’t the weapon that we need for a spin bowler. Australian spinners are used to take wickets, they might be a tad expensive but that is their role in the team.
Warne was exceptional in that he was able to both defend and attack with equal verve, MacGill was just an excellent attacking bowler (hence Warne has the better average, Macgill the better SR). Hauritz on the other hand is a defensive spinner, he holds one end down and will look to frustrate batsmen into giving away their wickets rathen than bowling unplayable deliveries.
This style can work, Swann has had success and he is of a similar ilk but they get found out when their team isn’t dominating. Hauritz isn’t going to turn a game for you, he isn’t highly likely to break a partnership (I’d say M Clarke is a better option when Ponting REALLY needs a wicket) and if the batsmen are on top, Hauritz is more-or-less useless.
At this moment he is probably the best spinner in Aus, but he isn’t the kind of spinner we should accept and get used to, he doesn’t play the way Australia need him to play and that is nothing against Hauritz, that’s just not his style.
His stats back up my theory here Greg, both Warne and his successor in ODI’s Hogg have better average’s (more to do with the extra wickets than tighter bowling) and SR’s than Hauritz while his economy rate of 4.46 is better than Hogg’s and exceptional for this day and age it tells you everything – he is a defensive bowler.
Greg Russell said | October 29th 2009 @ 1:44pm | Report comment
Freud,
Your irrationality with North is that you don’t include him in your test XI. On all evidence to date he has to be in the XI. I agree that Callum F looks to be very talented, but he has only 4 first-class centuries to his name, versus North’s 27 (+ 3 test centuries!). Ferguson needs to go away and score 10+ centuries in Shield cricket before he should be considered for test cricket. Australian batting is not so weak – far from it – that, a la New Zealand, batsmen get chosen on talent alone. There are hundreds of batsmen as talented as Ferguson in the world, in fact there are hundreds in India alone. What discriminates between these players is their ability to use their talent, something that is only established by making lots of first-class runs and centuries.
As for Hauritz, I do not disagree with anything you write. However the point here is that one doesn’t drop a solid player to replace him with someone worse. When the wicket-taking spinner for whom we all crave arrives on the scene, then Hauritz will make way for that person. Until then, we have to accept that Hauritz is the best we have. I stress that this last sentence is based purely on the last two years of evidence – it is certainly not the view I started out with, and I stress that is a view that I only hold with reluctance.
Freud of Football said | October 29th 2009 @ 11:17pm | Report comment
Ok Greg, I’ll have to agree with you here.
I am one who would prefer to let Ferguson develop at the highest level rather than Shield but your arguments are well founded.
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 10:45pm | Report comment
Greg, I just finished watching some of India’s huge innings of 7/354 – India’s highest ODI score against Aus.
Hauritz was probably the “pick of the bowlers” (although Siddle was pretty good too) – only because he was so economical. He didn’t look to pose a single threat in his 10 overs, 0/54 was a good return considering the total but look at the overall score and what his contribution was and it’s obvious what he lacks – wickets.
Yes he made a good run-out but we expect out batsmen to be the contributors in the field, Hauritz is there as our spin-bowler and if he can’t take wickets he shouldn’t be in the team.
Dhoni just waited it out, saw him off without a problem and belted the snot out of the quicker bowlers whereas a proper spinner would have attacked the batsmen, one wicket in the middle of the innings would have changed the game, Hauritz failed to deliver but will undoubtedly be praised for being so tidy.
As soon as the pressure is on Aus, Hauritz doesn’t look so good and we don’t have McGrath’s and Gillespies to cover his weaknesses any more, we need a front line spinner and Hauritz ain’t it.
FIsher Price said | October 28th 2009 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Well said Greg.
Krejza is distinctly average, as evidenced by his inability to make headway at NSW and his run-of-the-mill showings for Tasmania.
He’s all Adam Voges-style hype.
Freud of Football said | October 28th 2009 @ 6:11pm | Report comment
And Jon Holland isn’t? Nor is C. White? Both are players that one SK Warne, a fellow Victorian has talked up in the past as being the “next big thing”, haven’t heard him say that about players from other states.
White is mediocre at best and doesn’t have the talent to play international cricket for Australia, Holland I haven’t seen enough of so I’ll give him a chance to prove himself but White, I cannot believe he actually gets picked for Aus.
If we didn’t have a Vic and 3 Tasmanians (quasi-Vics) selecting the side White would never get a match.
thevoiceofreason said | October 29th 2009 @ 9:55am | Report comment
I’m with you on Hauritz, Freud. He has exceeded expectations, but I’d prefer an attacking spinner who takes wickets by bowling aggressively, not just waiting for the batsmen to mishit. Krejza is definitely more in this mould, and dropping him after being a little expensive in Perth was absurd. Warne’s stats were terrible at the WACA compared to all other grounds, and that never counted against his selection for other matches. Perhaps the selectors need to take a punt on Cullen Bailey if they don’t want Krejza. After all, Warne hadn’t done much at state level before picked being for the national side.
marees said | October 29th 2009 @ 11:36pm | Report comment
why do you all guys agree that Phil Hughes is a proper opener? His technique is ridiculous for an opener. he might be very useful as a pinch hitter, but my verdict is that he will struggle big time on wickets were the ball doesn’t come on to the bat like Sri Lanka, NZ etc.
I agree that Katich is a decent opener, although he tends to score more in the X and his shuffle reminds me of Chanderpaul and Gambhir (another player who scores in the X).
With the fitness concerns behind ‘pup’ Clarke, he should be induced to retire from T20 and ODIs, so that the OZ can settle as a team. But with the stakes involved I doubt this will be allowed to happen.
Regarding the spinners, there is really nobody in the class of Warne now, although making Katich as the captain might ensure more aggressive usage of spinners.
I think Watson has the potential to be a good test batsmen, but like somebody said his cricket is very robotic. He probably needs guidance/backing from his Captains/senior players. If he is able to reverse the ball at pace, then he would be an useful pick for test matches.
I think Tait will struggle in the slow pitches in the sub-continent.
Warner and Marsh should be backed all the way. They are the most talented young cricketers of the current lot.
Ponting is currently the best ODI player in the world. period. he reminds me very much of the athletic Mohammed Azharuddin.
Unable to make a judgement on Johnson. His batting is very valuable in tests and his wicket taking ability is valuable in ODIs, but he doesn’t give the impression of finished package yet.
Going by the just concluded CLT20, the pace attack can be lead by Siddle with NSW contributing the rest of the pack. But nobody in the class of McGrath or McDermott definitely.
marees said | October 29th 2009 @ 11:51pm | Report comment
Hilfenhaus can come in to the test squad in place of bits and pieces cricketers like White/McDonald.
I suggest North open in test matches(in tandem with Warner), since Lee/Johnson et al are capable batsmen down the order.
Freud of Football said | October 29th 2009 @ 11:59pm | Report comment
Hughes may have some flaws but even Ponting, the best Australian batsmen of his generation is prone to walking across his stumps, doesn’t mean he possesses a weak technique. I would certainly suggest he is the most talented young cricketer of the lost and Ferguson would be in second, well ahead of both Marsh and Warner in my opinion.
Tait won’t struggle on the sub-continent, I’d imagine he’ll be more successful than Siddle and probably Hilfenhaus and similar to Johnson. They are both erratic and that’s the only real question for mine – can Australia’s batting afford to carry two somewhat erratic fast bowlers or only the one? They are the two most talented quickies (Siddle is up there but of a different kind, more in the McDermott mould) but if Aus isn’t extremely strong in the batting then only one of them can play.