Yet again

[GVGjr]

Yet again we were in a strong position but lost a few wickets quickly which changed everything around.
Whilst we are batting poorly in most games I still believe that we are playing one batsman too many. We need 4 front line bowlers plus Hopes not 3 plus Hopes.

Botha once again put the skids on us and got a couple of wickets.

[bulldogtragic]

I think you use the term 'batsmen' quite loosely. Horrible summer with the bat.

[GVGjr]

I think you use the term 'batsmen' quite loosely. Horrible summer with the bat.


Fair point but clearly playing more hasn't worked.

[hujsh]

One solution is to move Hussey down the order for me. I think he does an awesome damage control job and he seems to be unable to maintain a decent strike rate at the top of the order.

Apart from that i guess we either hope someone regains form or make some hard decisions

[azabob]

Yet again we were in a strong position but lost a few wickets quickly which changed everything around.
Whilst we are batting poorly in most games I still believe that we are playing one batsman too many. We need 4 front line bowlers plus Hopes not 3 plus Hopes.

Botha once again put the skids on us and got a couple of wickets.

I think it is becoming quite clear that D Hussey and White are not up to ODI or test cricket or 20/20 for that matter. What wins ODI batting or bowling? I think big scores and capable bowlers defending a target. Which leads to your arguement of four front line bowlers. BUT if you make the runs you dont need to bowl the opposition out just defend you target. seriously why is Tait playing?
Who would you drop and bring in?
ODI are irrelvant but the batting still is a major issue in Test Match Cricket.

[GVGjr]

I think it is becoming quite clear that D Hussey and White are not up to ODI or test cricket or 20/20 for that matter. What wins ODI batting or bowling? I think big scores and capable bowlers defending a target. Which leads to your arguement of four front line bowlers. BUT if you make the runs you dont need to bowl the opposition out just defend you target. seriously why is Tait playing?
Who would you drop and bring in?
ODI are irrelvant but the batting still is a major issue in Test Match Cricket.

I think I would look at the following type of side (assuming Clark and Bracken were available)

Haddin
Marsh
Ponting
Clarke
MHussey
DHussey
Hopes
Johnson
Harris
Bracken
Tait

I'd love to see Siddle and or Harwood in this side probably at the expense of Johnson. Noffke would have been a good one for us as well.

[hujsh]

I think it is becoming quite clear that D Hussey and White are not up to ODI or test cricket or 20/20 for that matter. What wins ODI batting or bowling? I think big scores and capable bowlers defending a target. Which leads to your arguement of four front line bowlers. BUT if you make the runs you dont need to bowl the opposition out just defend you target. seriously why is Tait playing?
Who would you drop and bring in?
ODI are irrelvant but the batting still is a major issue in Test Match Cricket.

I think they asked Ian Chappel this question in the first world cup regarding Lillee and Thompson. He said the best way to slow the opposition down is to take wickets. Tait can win a match on his own (almost did it against NSW in a FRC final)

[Chops]

I think they asked Ian Chappel this question in the first world cup regarding Lillee and Thompson. He said the best way to slow the opposition down is to take wickets. Tait can win a match on his own (almost did it against NSW in a FRC final)

Then play him at state level not test or ODI level. He isn't in Jeff Thomson's league let alone Lillee's.

[hujsh]

Then play him at state level not test or ODI level. He isn't in Jeff Thomson's league let alone Lillee's.

Not my point.

[Chops]

Not my point.

They why mention it?
I assume Ian Chappell is good enough judge not to compare Tait with Thomson and Lillee.
You can play an express fast fast blower in ODI but only the good ones.

[hujsh]

They why mention it?

I compared them not for quality but for being attacking bowlers in a limited over format.

They why mention it?
I assume Ian Chappell is good enough judge not to compare Tait with Thomson and Lillee.

What an odd statement. I never said "They pick Tait because he is as good as Jeff Thompson"
I just put the view forward that they tolerate him for potentially giving up runs in exchange for wickets.


You can play an express fast fast blower in ODI but only the good ones.

Whether he's good enough or not i didn't mention.


Lille and Thompson isn't the point. His philosophy of aiming taking wickets even in the shortened format was the point which is the answer to. "you dont need to bowl the opposition out just defend you target. seriously why is Tait playing? "

[lemmon]

Cant drop Hopes, without his batting we would have struggled to make 180. Terrible display by the batsmen, throwing their wickets away at a crucial stage and how Haddin got out tonight is simply unnacceptable, the coach has to get it into his head that he had a role to play. What was he thinking, at a time we needed to rebuild he tried to slog sweep Botha for 6 and gets caught by the man in the deep, worst dissmisal of the summer for mine.

[Chops]

I compared them not for quality but for being attacking bowlers in a limited over format.
Thomson and Lillee were already good prior the 75 world cup, what has Tait done? Its apples and oranges here for attacking bowlers.

What an odd statement. I never said "They pick Tait because he is as good as Jeff Thompson"
I just put the view forward that they tolerate him for potentially giving up runs in exchange for wickets.
Read over your own statement, you mentioned Thompson not me! Its a stupid comparison because Tait isn't in their league.

Whether he's good enough or not i didn't mention.
What are you trying saying then? The question was asked why Tait is playing? Your wicket taking theory doesn't have the figures to back it up.

Lille and Thompson isn't the point. His philosophy of aiming taking wickets even in the shortened format was the point which is the answer to. "you dont need to bowl the opposition out just defend you target. seriously why is Tait playing? "
Your 'philosophy' works well we the bowler is good but Tait isn't taking many wickets at ODI level. State level isn't international level.

[Sedat]

One solution is to move Hussey down the order for me. I think he does an awesome damage control job and he seems to be unable to maintain a decent strike rate at the top of the order.

Apart from that i guess we either hope someone regains form or make some hard decisions
There is a bloke who is perfectly suited to no.4 for Australia in the ODI's, and would address the desperate needs of the team for some stability, class and composure in the batting line-up, but somehow I don't think Brad Hodge will be picking up the phone any time soon with Hilditch on the other end of the line. Apparently he's too old to play for Australia, yet a piss-head flake like Symonds, who is a similar age, is considered crucial to the national team.

[lemmon]

There is a bloke who is perfectly suited to no.4 for Australia in the ODI's, and would address the desperate needs of the team for some stability, class and composure in the batting line-up, but somehow I don't think Brad Hodge will be picking up the phone any time soon with Hilditch on the other end of the line. Apparently he's too old to play for Australia, yet a piss-head flake like Symonds, who is a similar age, is considered crucial to the national team.

I doubt he'll get a look in with Clarke coming back in.

[hujsh]

Thomson and Lillee were already good prior the 75 world cup, what has Tait done? Its apples and oranges here for attacking bowlers.


Read over your own statement, you mentioned Thompson not me! Its a stupid comparison because Tait isn't in their league.


What are you trying saying then? The question was asked why Tait is playing? Your wicket taking theory doesn't have the figures to back it up.


Your 'philosophy' works well we the bowler is good but Tait isn't taking many wickets at ODI level. State level isn't international level.

You either don't get my point at all or your just being annoying.

I'm not saying he should be in the team just pointing out why he was picked and using a similar situation from the past that yes, had superior bowlers.

[Griffen#16]

Thankfully it was very hot yesterday, so I only went in for a few hours.

Almost every aspect of our game isn't going well. Batting has been poor, bowlers can't take wickets, and can't bowl economically, our fielding has been average, even our running between the wickets has been poor.

Not sure there is an easy answer against SA, as they are a very strong side at the moment.

[Lantern]

There is a bloke who is perfectly suited to no.4 for Australia in the ODI's, and would address the desperate needs of the team for some stability, class and composure in the batting line-up, but somehow I don't think Brad Hodge will be picking up the phone any time soon with Hilditch on the other end of the line. Apparently he's too old to play for Australia, yet a piss-head flake like Symonds, who is a similar age, is considered crucial to the national team.

Amen.

[timbo]

Cant drop Hopes, without his batting we would have struggled to make 180. Terrible display by the batsmen, throwing their wickets away at a crucial stage and how Haddin got out tonight is simply unnacceptable, the coach has to get it into his head that he had a role to play. What was he thinking, at a time we needed to rebuild he tried to slog sweep Botha for 6 and gets caught by the man in the deep, worst dissmisal of the summer for mine.

Got to say I don't think his keeping is too flash either.....
South Africa much too good- both on paper and on the field- an attack with Steyn, Ntini, Morkel, Kallis (best all-rounder in the world by a mile, cf Symonds)
Batting- Smith, de Villiers, Amla, Duminy, Kallis- Boucher as keeper.
Australia- Ponting, Hussey (when in form), maybe Clarke- bowling....no-one- Johnson still not there...We are definitely right in at the bottom of our rebuilding phase- and should start to blood young promising players- Hughes, etc. Both one-day and tests. ASAP

[hujsh]

We are definitely right in at the bottom of our rebuilding phase- and should start to blood young promising players- Hughes, etc. Both one-day and tests. ASAP

Do you have anyone in mind as the ect? There aren't too many 24yr old and below players close to being selected.

[Chops]

You either don't get my point at all or your just being annoying.

I'm not saying he should be in the team just pointing out why he was picked and using a similar situation from the past that yes, had superior bowlers.

I get your point and its BS.
The 'similar' situation in the past isn't similar at all.

[hujsh]

I get your point and its BS.
The 'similar' situation in the past isn't similar at all.

You don't think media asking why Thompson (a very attacking bowler) plays instead of a tight medium pacer is in any way similar to someone asking why Tait (widely considered a very attacking bowler) is played instead of someone who would give up less runs?

Bearing in mind whether you think he'd good or not means nothing and I am not making a case for Tait to be in the team or stating he is as good as any bowler in the history of world cricket or the future of world cricket.

[Chops]

You don't think media asking why Thompson (a very attacking bowler) plays instead of a tight medium pacer is in any way similar to someone asking why Tait (widely considered a very attacking bowler) is played instead of someone who would give up less runs?

Bearing in mind whether you think he'd good or not means nothing and I am not making a case for Tait to be in the team or stating he is as good as any bowler in the history of world cricket or the future of world cricket.

Well if you bother looking up Jeff Thomson's ODI figures you'll notice he wasn't very attacking in 1 day cricket. 50 games for 55 wickets. Thomson got picked because they thought he would be good at the game not necessarily because he was attacking. If Tait's getting picked becuase he is suppose to take wickets then he should be dropped cos he ain't whilst conceding runs.

[hujsh]

Well if you bother looking up Jeff Thomson's ODI figures you'll notice he wasn't very attacking in 1 day cricket. 50 games for 55 wickets. Thomson got picked because they thought he would be good at the game not necessarily because he was attacking.

But they backed him to take wickets as the best way to slow the team just like the selectors are backing Tait. Thompson may not have worked and Tait may not either (though his WC was good) but I consider it to be a similar situation.

If Tait's getting picked becuase he is suppose to take wickets then he should be dropped cos he ain't whilst conceding runs.

Lee conceded runs and took wickets and that's the type of performance they'd be hoping for from Tait.

[Chops]

But they backed him to take wickets as the best way to slow the team just like the selectors are backing Tait. Thompson may not have worked and Tait may not either (though his WC was good) but I consider it to be a similar situation.
They backed him to bowl well and not concede many runs as well, not just take wickets.
Thomson was a superstar at the time possibly the best in the world at the time, he was picked for that reason.
Tait is way more gamble.

Lee conceded runs and took wickets and that's the type of performance they'd be hoping for from Tait.
Again Lee proved himself in both forms of the game(international level), Tait hasn't after retirement.

[hujsh]

Again Lee proved himself in both forms of the game(international level), Tait hasn't after retirement.

So you think it can't be similar because Tait has proven nothing at the highest level. Ok.

I guess we just disagree in how things are similar