5th Test - England v Australia

[mighty_west]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

To me the whole series hinged on England's ability to stave off defeat at Cardiff in the first test, when Anderson & Panesar held out for a draw.

Agree 100%.

We simply didn't have the firepower to bowl them out, Johnson was a shell of himself, Hilf bowled well, Siddle tried hard but bowling North late when Hilf & Siddle should have been pounding the tale, Punter made some bad decisions imo.

For those blaming the pitch, nothing too much wrong with it imo, and had it been an Indian road with us trying to bowl them out, we would have been all up in arms, our poorest batsman all tour showed that nutting out a decent innings could have been done, it's all up above the shoulders.

Katich leaving that ball was his mistake, not from the pitch, Punter coasting to make a run then realise...SHITE, i'm in trouble here, Clarke getting out of his crease with players all around him, North trying to belt the hell out of it, all bad calls from the batsmen and nothing to do with the pitch.

[mighty_west]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

I think the series really showed that we are simply nowhere near where we once were as a side, we can still play some very good cricket as a team, but just not on a consistant level.

The 90's & early 2000's when we were dominant, winning 16 tests in a row etc etc, we played teams like that, they could match it with us for a session here or a session there, but just couldn't keep up, thats where we are right now.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

I think the series really showed that we are simply nowhere near where we once were as a side, we can still play some very good cricket as a team, but just not on a consistant level.

The 90's & early 2000's when we were dominant, winning 16 tests in a row etc etc, we played teams like that, they could match it with us for a session here or a session there, but just couldn't keep up, thats where we are right now.

Sure we're no longer as good as we were since McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Hayden and Langer retired, but a lot of the problems aren't with the personnel at hand -- you can't tell me that Australia A still doesn't have better players than 90% of the other test nations, or that 75% of the current Australian team won't walk into any other test side.

We are definitely better, player to player, than anything the Poms can throw up (Bopara at 3?? Only Strauss, maybe Broad and a fully fit Flintoff would make the Australian Test team), and there are better players running around at Shield level than some of the pie chuckers they've selected, but where we've gone wrong isn't at the development or Shield level, but that the principles of selection of the Test side are all out of whack.

This of course started way back when Ponting became captain and suddenly the principles for selection no longer rested primarily on Shield and Test form, but on very esoteric and subjective views on 'potential' and an abstract principle of 'dressing room chemistry'. To this end, players of questionable quality were selected for the team, based on such fluffy adjectives as 'explosiveness' and 'ability to turn a match' (no matter that these qualities were rarely seen).

Proven performers over a long period with solid figures to back it up were overlooked in the desperation for a magic silver bullet for 'exciting' young talent, which of course ensured inconsistency and the calcification of wonky, underdeveloped techniques. This led to a shortage of mature, consistent players in the Test side, which increased the pressure on the few that were left (Ponting & Hussey), and made it impossible to drop any of the experienced players despite being horribly out of form. If the team had 4 or 5 more experienced types, Micheal Hussey could have been given a spell to regain form without the team becoming too inexperienced.

I believe that basically after the spate of retirements of legends of the game, the ACB (and their handpicked buffoonery of a selection committee) has essentially panicked and tried to replace them pre-maturely by elevating kids who are not quite ready, and flashy players in the hope that style will mask the lack of substance, and prop up an incompetent captain by surrounding him with unthreatening mates and youngsters too intimidated and inexperienced to ask difficult questions in the dressing room.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

I think the series really showed that we are simply nowhere near where we once were as a side, we can still play some very good cricket as a team, but just not on a consistant level.

The 90's & early 2000's when we were dominant, winning 16 tests in a row etc etc, we played teams like that, they could match it with us for a session here or a session there, but just couldn't keep up, thats where we are right now.

Sure we're no longer as good as we were since McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Hayden and Langer retired, but a lot of the problems aren't with the personnel at hand -- you can't tell me that Australia A still doesn't have better players than 90% of the other test nations, or that 75% of the current Australian team won't walk into any other test side.

We are definitely better, player to player, than anything the Poms can throw up (Bopara at 3?? Only Strauss, maybe Broad and a fully fit Flintoff would make the Australian Test team), and there are better players running around at Shield level than some of the pie chuckers they've selected, but where we've gone wrong isn't at the development or Shield level, but that the principles of selection of the Test side are all out of whack.

This of course started way back when Ponting became captain and suddenly the principles for selection no longer rested primarily on Shield and Test form, but on very esoteric and subjective views on 'potential' and an abstract principle of 'dressing room chemistry'. To this end, players of questionable quality were selected for the team, based on such fluffy adjectives as 'explosiveness' and 'ability to turn a match' (no matter that these qualities were rarely seen).

Proven performers over a long period with solid figures to back it up were overlooked in the desperation for a magic silver bullet for 'exciting' young talent, which of course ensured inconsistency and the calcification of wonky, underdeveloped techniques. This led to a shortage of mature, consistent players in the Test side, which increased the pressure on the few that were left (Ponting & Hussey), and made it impossible to drop any of the experienced players despite being horribly out of form. If the team had 4 or 5 more experienced types, Micheal Hussey could have been given a spell to regain form without the team becoming too inexperienced.

I believe that basically after the spate of retirements of legends of the game, the ACB (and their handpicked buffoonery of a selection committee) has essentially panicked and tried to replace them pre-maturely by elevating kids who are not quite ready, and flashy players in the hope that style will mask the lack of substance, and prop up an insecure captain by surrounding him with unthreatening mates and youngsters too intimidated and inexperienced to ask difficult questions.

[mighty_west]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

Sure we're no longer as good as we were since McGrath, Warne, Gilchrist, Hayden and Langer retired, but a lot of the problems aren't with the personnel at hand -- you can't tell me that Australia A still doesn't have better players than 90% of the other test nations, or that 75% of the current Australian team won't walk into any other test side.

We are definitely better, player to player, than anything the Poms can throw up (Bopara at 3?? Only Strauss, maybe Broad and a fully fit Flintoff would make the Australian Test team), and there are better players running around at Shield level than some of the pie chuckers they've selected, but where we've gone wrong isn't at the development or Shield level, but that the principles of selection of the Test side are all out of whack.

This of course started way back when Ponting became captain and suddenly the principles for selection no longer rested primarily on Shield and Test form, but on very esoteric and subjective views on 'potential' and an abstract principle of 'dressing room chemistry'. To this end, players of questionable quality were selected for the team, based on such fluffy adjectives as 'explosiveness' and 'ability to turn a match' (no matter that these qualities were rarely seen).

Proven performers over a long period with solid figures to back it up were overlooked in the desperation for a magic silver bullet for 'exciting' young talent, which of course ensured inconsistency and the calcification of wonky, underdeveloped techniques. This led to a shortage of mature, consistent players in the Test side, which increased the pressure on the few that were left (Ponting & Hussey), and made it impossible to drop any of the experienced players despite being horribly out of form. If the team had 4 or 5 more experienced types, Micheal Hussey could have been given a spell to regain form without the team becoming too inexperienced.

I believe that basically after the spate of retirements of legends of the game, the ACB (and their handpicked buffoonery of a selection committee) has essentially panicked and tried to replace them pre-maturely by elevating kids who are not quite ready, and flashy players in the hope that style will mask the lack of substance, and prop up an incompetent captain by surrounding him with unthreatening mates and youngsters too intimidated and inexperienced to ask difficult questions in the dressing room.

It's all very good & well to have better players, but it's a team game, a team game & series they won, we didn't, end of story.

The way i saw it, we arguably have a better batting line up, and they have a better bowling line up, Bopara is a hack, i agree, but did he do any worse than Hussey? Is Watson a better opening bat than Cook? Watson performed better, but is not really an opening bat, Hughes didn't fire a shot.

If you compare the two teams to West Coast & Sydney in the mid 2000's, the Coasters arguably had better players yet Sydney could scrap as much as the best of them, you couldn't split the two teams as a team and not personal.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

It's all very good & well to have better players, but it's a team game, a team game & series they won, we didn't, end of story.

The way i saw it, we arguably have a better batting line up, and they have a better bowling line up, Bopara is a hack, i agree, but did he do any worse than Hussey? Is Watson a better opening bat than Cook? Watson performed better, but is not really an opening bat, Hughes didn't fire a shot.

If you compare the two teams to West Coast & Sydney in the mid 2000's, the Coasters arguably had better players yet Sydney could scrap as much as the best of them, you couldn't split the two teams as a team and not personal.

I am in furious and complete agreement with everything you say here -- absolutely right! -- my point is that it's our selection policy that has gotten us into trouble.. no way should Watson be an opening batsmen, no way should Hussey have been left in the team or exposed as the only experienced bat other than Ponting in the line-up etc. (I think the lack of support batting support around him has actually contributed to Hussey's woes.)

I absolutely agree that we didn't have a team, but what did we expect when the selectors chopped and changed in the past two years with no logic when it came to some players (Krejza, McGain, Hughes, Hodge etc.) but kept some players on past common sense in others (Hussey, Symonds etc.)

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

Proven performers over a long period with solid figures to back it up were overlooked in the desperation for a magic silver bullet for 'exciting' young talent, which of course ensured inconsistency and the calcification of wonky, underdeveloped techniques. This led to a shortage of mature, consistent players in the Test side, which increased the pressure on the few that were left (Ponting & Hussey), and made it impossible to drop any of the experienced players despite being horribly out of form. If the team had 4 or 5 more experienced types, Micheal Hussey could have been given a spell to regain form without the team becoming too inexperienced.

I believe that basically after the spate of retirements of legends of the game, the ACB (and their handpicked buffoonery of a selection committee) has essentially panicked and tried to replace them pre-maturely by elevating kids who are not quite ready, and flashy players in the hope that style will mask the lack of substance, and prop up an incompetent captain by surrounding him with unthreatening mates and youngsters too intimidated and inexperienced to ask difficult questions in the dressing room.

Who of Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, or North fits this category? None

There have been major issues with selection but not those to which you refer.

The failure to fixture lead-up games, the failure to send a back-up opener and a back-up middle-order batsman and the failure of the bowling coach to correct Johnson's wayward ways, topped off by the doozie to end all doozies of playing four quicks on a dust-bowl are the reasons for the loss of the Ashes.

In a nutshell - a failure to plan

And what's most galling about that is - we lost the last time we went there. One would have expected the planning to go to extremes to avoid a repetition of 2005.

But no, despite having more money than they have ever had, Cricket Australia saves money by keeping back-up players at home.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

Who of Katich, Ponting, Hussey, Clarke, or North fits this category? None

There have been major issues with selection but not those to which you refer.

The failure to fixture lead-up games, the failure to send a back-up opener and a back-up middle-order batsman and the failure of the bowling coach to correct Johnson's wayward ways, topped off by the doozie to end all doozies of playing four quicks on a dust-bowl are the reasons for the loss of the Ashes.

In a nutshell - a failure to plan

And what's most galling about that is - we lost the last time we went there. One would have expected the planning to go to extremes to avoid a repetition of 2005.

But no, despite having more money than they have ever had, Cricket Australia saves money by keeping back-up players at home.

Totally agree about the failure to plan and that the back-up players they did take were pointless, but I'm not just talking about this tour -- I'm also refering to the last two to three years of confused, haphazard selections. Katich forced his way back in off the back of crazy incredible Shield seasons; his selection was a year overdue, yet others get back in at the drop of a hat (Watson gets picked whenever he can walk, forget if he's actually scoring runs or taking wickets, Symonds until his most recent f*** up never had to earn his spot). North got added as a poor man's Symonds, essentially (when all indicators are that it should have been the other way round), McDonald gets dropped after doing all that's asked of him, while Johnson can't lose his spot despite not being able to hit the pitch, Huss's form woes already started before this side was settled, but a dozen other performing batsmen can't get a look in because they decide, out of nowhere, to take a back-up keeper who barely has any runs on the board in terms of domestic form.

My point is that these confused and opaque selection policies do not a harmonious or high-performing team make. When selection policy is based purely on merit -- ie. form and track record -- everyone is happy because they know that performances speak for themselves, and everyone has to earn their spot.

When some spots are given out like candy to the selectors' favourites while others can't get in no matter how well they are playing it creates a culture of under-performance: the favourites don't have the spur of pressure, and the non-favourites become disinterested and chase other opportunities like country cricket or the IPL. This is not rocket science -- basic merit based performance management is entrenched in the culture of all high-performing teams. The moment you have 'protected species' or favourites, or give incentives like promotions or selections based on criteria OTHER than performance, that's the beginning of the end.

-- You can't deny that essentially the selectors have lost sight of what it is Australian Cricket needs: 11 of the best players in the country performing at their potential on a regular basis. If we do that we'll be winning more than losing anyway. Instead, they are almost trying to artificially recreate another 'golden age', and in the process are losing sight of year in, year out excellence that, in toto, add up to another successful era, in any case.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

The failure to fixture lead-up games, the failure to send a back-up opener and a back-up middle-order batsman and the failure of the bowling coach to correct Johnson's wayward ways, topped off by the doozie to end all doozies of playing four quicks on a dust-bowl are the reasons for the loss of the Ashes.

The lost the last game because they batted terribly in the 1st innings and not because didn't play a spinner who is not that good anyway.

[mighty_west]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

I'm pretty sure i heard right, but we have dropped!

Sth Africa being the number one test side, followed by Sri Lanka & India.

It's official, we are now middle of the road.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

I'm pretty sure i heard right, but we have dropped!

Sth Africa being the number one test side, followed by Sri Lanka & India.

It's official, we are now middle of the road.

Hopefully now the 'selectors' may wake up to themselves

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

The lost the last game because they batted terribly in the 1st innings and not because didn't play a spinner who is not that good anyway.

And that's the same sort of attitude displayed by the selectors. No, he is no champion but neither is Swan who took 8 wickets. In fact I would have Hauritz over Swan everyday of the week as a bowler.

Yes, the batting was the problem but so was the bowling by leaking runs when no pressure was applied with the turning ball.

You can sit there and slam Hauritz all day long, the fact remains he still got 10 wickets at 32 including Cardiff where plenty of runs were scored.

With the exception of Clark's mum, you must be the only person in existence who still agrees that Hauritz ought not have played

Even the slectors finally acknowledge they got it wrong

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

And that's the same sort of attitude displayed by the selectors. No, he is no champion but neither is Swan who took 8 wickets. In fact I would have Hauritz over Swan everyday of the week as a bowler.

Yes, the batting was the problem but so was the bowling by leaking runs when no pressure was applied with the turning ball.

You can sit there and slam Hauritz all day long, the fact remains he still got 10 wickets at 32 including Cardiff where plenty of runs were scored.

With the exception of Clark's mum, you must be the only person in existence who still agrees that Hauritz ought not have played

Even the slectors finally acknowledge they got it wrong

Hauritz shouldn't have played -- McGain or Krezja should have: they are the attacking spinners that would have made a difference that have been frozen out of the Test scene. A defensive type spinner like Hauritz wouldn't have achieved a whole lot more than what North, Clarke and Katich served up. Marginally better, sure (seeing as he is a specialist), but I don't think it would have been anywhere near enough to save or win the Test.

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

Hauritz shouldn't have played -- McGain or Krezja should have: they are the attacking spinners that would have made a difference that have been frozen out of the Test scene. A defensive type spinner like Hauritz wouldn't have achieved a whole lot more than what North, Clarke and Katich served up. Marginally better, sure (seeing as he is a specialist), but I don't think it would have been anywhere near enough to save or win the Test.

Mc Gain and Kreza were not even in the same hemisphere

[LostDoggy]

Re: 5th Test - England v Australia

Mc Gain and Kreza were not even in the same hemisphere

Correct. Thus the criticism.

Selection isn't just a test-to-test proposition, especially on an overseas tour. Having said that, this IS the 21st century, where we have these marvelous contraptions that ferry people across the world (across hemispheres, even!) in very short amounts of time.

If we can pay the clowns on the selection committee hundreds of thousands of dollars to come up with lame excuses after we lose the urn, we can certainly pay Flight Centre the $1995 + taxes to send another, more attacking, spinner over when it was clear we needed one. The whole idea of a 'touring party' is a bit of an anachronism anyway, even for a notably tradition-bound sport as cricket.