***Official*** South Africa In Australia

[Uppercut]

It's not just this Test, in India we had the White debacle, dropping Clark, not playing Bollinger when he should have debuted months ago, playing Casson before McGain etc etc.

Fair point. I love how you've subtly slipped your Bollinger-love in with a lot of significantly worse decisions

 

[Ikki]

It's not just this Test, in India we had the White debacle, dropping Clark, not playing Bollinger when he should have debuted months ago, playing Casson before McGain etc etc.

Spot on.

 

[silentstriker]

Is half a season really enough of a sample size to base your entire selection criteria on?

For me, not it's not.

Regardless of what he's done this season, Dave Hussey should be in serious consideration as he's one of the best batsmen in the country. He hasn't been stellar this season but he's hardly having a shocker either and the rest of his career did indeed happen.

I don't think you're doing anyone any favors by picking someone who is out of form, unless you really have no other choice. If it doesn't work, you hurt the team, and the player.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I don't think you're doing anyone any favors by picking someone who is out of form, unless you really have no other choice. If it doesn't work, you hurt the team, and the player.

He's hardly out of form though, Victoria have played significantly less Shield games than every other state, so he has a much smaller amount of chances than everyone else. He's also played half of his games on the MCG which has been a fast bowlers deck all season.

He also just hit 100*(46) in the first macth of the T20 series.

 

[Prince EWS]

He's hardly out of form though, Victoria have played significantly less Shield games than every other state, so he has a much smaller amount of chances than everyone else. He's also played half of his games on the MCG which has been a fast bowlers deck all season.

He also just hit 100*(46) in the first macth of the T20 series.

Yeah, spot on.

Calling up or recalling someone when they're out of form is never a particularly good idea, but there's a big difference from being out of form and just being slightly down on your usual output. The Twenty20 game showed, if nothing else, that he's hardly scratching around at the crease struggling for touch.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

It's not just this Test, in India we had the White debacle, dropping Clark, not playing Bollinger when he should have debuted months ago, playing Casson before McGain etc etc.

That I'll agree with. There were selection blunders in India, mainly with White, and dropping Clark was the worst selection decision Australia has ever made in my time following cricket, even worse than picking Symonds in Sri Lanka in '04.

Other than Symonds I don't think anything terrible was done this time around. Keep in mind that while it's easy to criticise the policy of sticking with previously successful players, it has worked pretty well in the past. This isn't the first time Hayden has been under pressure in a test series and out of form, and come out of it with some runs. None of us would have been that surprised if he made a century on Boxing Day.

Symonds has defied expectations in the past as well, though his bowling should always have been a requirement for his selection, and the two major punts with the bowling (Siddle and Hauritz) paid off pretty well. There's obviously some room for disagreement but I don't think this loss was caused by selection blunders, certainly not in the way some of the results in India may have been influenced by them.

 

[susudear]

Wear Pink to SCG

http://www.scgt.nsw.gov.au/News.aspx?PageID=7&id=1772

The cricket Test between Australia and South Africa at the SCG, commencing on January 3, will turn pink in aid of the McGrath Foundation.

Glenn McGrath and Michael Clarke were at the SCG training nets to launch Cricket Australia and the McGrath Foundation’s bid to turn the Test pink.

Cricket Cares, 3 Mobile and the SCG Trust with the assistance of adidas and Ford, have joined forces so that the SCG will be awash in pink from the first ball on January 3 as the stumps, playing field, giveaways and player’s shirts will feature the McGrath Foundation’s signature hot pink colour.

Fans at the SCG on day one will be able to get involved in supporting the McGrath Foundation by picking up a pink McGrath Foundation bandana when they donate to the roaming 3 Mobile staff volunteers at the game.

Fans at home will also be able to get involved by donating to the McGrath Foundation with a chance to win the unique pink memorabilia from the match thanks to adidas and 3 Mobile.

The SCG Trust will be further supporting the McGrath Foundation during the match, with the Trust’s traditional Day 3 ‘Ladies Day’ being renamed Jane McGrath Day from this year onwards. .......

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

**** I miss the Pidg.

 

[Redbacks]

Symonds has defied expectations in the past as well, though his bowling should always have been a requirement for his selection

His fielding also adds to the package, not only was he unable to bowl, he looked very restricted in the field.

 

[Matt79]

Well done SA - better team won the series no doubt - apart from Ponting at the 'G and Johnson for a couple of hours at Perth they've been by far the better team this series.

Australia no longer #1 now - for what its worth I think there is no longer a clear number one, instead we're in a situation where SA, India, and maybe Australia are all jockeying around thereabouts, although at the moment Aust is a clear number 3. Track records don't mean much when the guys who established those records aren't there, and we have no members of our glory days attack left now.

SA are a pretty damn good team - Steyn has reinforced his reputation on this tour, and Ntini, Morkel and Kallis, and even Harris are fine back up for him. Kallis remains pure class with the bat, and Smith has finally delivered on his potential against Australia. Add in the young guys who look to be the makings of the dominant batting line up in the coming decade in Amla, De Villiers and Duminy and its a very well rounded team.

Absolutely shattered that Watson is injured again - he was to be one of the pillars we were going to rebuild around.

 

[tooextracool]

If Symonds really doesn't play and they do pick McDonald, it would be a pretty amazing selection. I guess I can see why they are doing it, but there really isn't a reason why Johnson, Siddle, Bollinger and Hauritz can't take 10 wickets. I doubt McDonald's doing to do much more than Symonds has in the past with the ball, which is handy but not exactly game-changing, and I'd back a large numbers of batsmen to do more with the bat.

The problem with those 4 is that 2 of them are by all definitions, 'holding' bowlers rather than wicket-taking ones. Unless they offered something with the bat, there is simply no place in test cricket for one of your 4 bowlers to be in the side just to keep it tight and the decision to play Hauritz at Melbourne when he cant get a batsman out to save his life has to rank up there with the most atrocious ones I have seen in a long time. You dont play a spinner just for the sake of having one and you dont play an all rounder just for the sake of having 5 bowling options either, this seriously needs to be embedded into the heads of the Australian selectors who seem to think picking 2 rubbish bowlers just to have the composition of the side that is supposed to be ideal will help them take 20 wickets. Taking 20 wickets is and always has been the only way to win test matches and the fact of the matter is that 2 of those 4 simply do not contribute to that cause.

Heck, even if you wanted a holding bowler, why on earth would you pick Hauritz?! Im convinced, the SAs just blocked him around so that he retains his place in the side for the next test, because I cannot see what exactly he does with the ball that enables him to keep things tight. Wow so he can land the ball on a dime bowling at 50 mph and get the ball to go straight on, give him a medal. If Australia need a bowler to keep things tight then pick Bracken for gods sake, not because I think hes likely to have a successful career but because he just doesnt stink as much as Hauritz and in the right conditions is actually quite a capable bowler.

As far as the Symonds selection is concerned, I guess Aussies are finally coming to the realization that he wasnt the best selection to begin with. I have said before and I will continue to say again that the logic behind picking Symonds over someone like David Hussey because of the fact that Symonds can twirl a few off spinners down is illogical. Hussey averages over 10 runs more with the bat in domestic cricket and would offer more to any side than Symonds ever could.

Mitchell Johnson summarizes the attitude of the Australian selectors tbh- bowl tight and hope that batsmen will play stupid shots. Well this isnt NZ or the WI and thats not going to happen. My advice is to pick bowlers who have the potential to take 20 wickets, even if it means picking someone along the lines of Shaun Tait.

 

[pasag]

That I'll agree with. There were selection blunders in India, mainly with White, and dropping Clark was the worst selection decision Australia has ever made in my time following cricket, even worse than picking Symonds in Sri Lanka in '04.

Other than Symonds I don't think anything terrible was done this time around. Keep in mind that while it's easy to criticise the policy of sticking with previously successful players, it has worked pretty well in the past. This isn't the first time Hayden has been under pressure in a test series and out of form, and come out of it with some runs. None of us would have been that surprised if he made a century on Boxing Day.

Symonds has defied expectations in the past as well, though his bowling should always have been a requirement for his selection, and the two major punts with the bowling (Siddle and Hauritz) paid off pretty well. There's obviously some room for disagreement but I don't think this loss was caused by selection blunders, certainly not in the way some of the results in India may have been influenced by them.

I didn't advocate the dropping of Hayden and I still don't.

 

[Uppercut]

the decision to play Hauritz at Melbourne when he cant get a batsman out to save his life has to rank up there with the most atrocious ones I have seen in a long time.

Last i checked, he got four.

 

[Uppercut]

I didn't advocate the dropping of Hayden and I still don't.

What if he fails at the SCG?

 

[Matt79]

^^ Has a test bowling average in the mid-20s as well, after three matches, taking 4.33333 wickets per match.

 

[inbox24]

The problem with those 4 is that 2 of them are by all definitions, 'holding' bowlers rather than wicket-taking ones. Unless they offered something with the bat, there is simply no place in test cricket for one of your 4 bowlers to be in the side just to keep it tight and the decision to play Hauritz at Melbourne when he cant get a batsman out to save his life has to rank up there with the most atrocious ones I have seen in a long time. You dont play a spinner just for the sake of having one and you dont play an all rounder just for the sake of having 5 bowling options either, this seriously needs to be embedded into the heads of the Australian selectors who seem to think picking 2 rubbish bowlers just to have the composition of the side that is supposed to be ideal will help them take 20 wickets. Taking 20 wickets is and always has been the only way to win test matches and the fact of the matter is that 2 of those 4 simply do not contribute to that cause.

Heck, even if you wanted a holding bowler, why on earth would you pick Hauritz?! Im convinced, the SAs just blocked him around so that he retains his place in the side for the next test, because I cannot see what exactly he does with the ball that enables him to keep things tight. Wow so he can land the ball on a dime bowling at 50 mph and get the ball to go straight on, give him a medal. If Australia need a bowler to keep things tight then pick Bracken for gods sake, not because I think hes likely to have a successful career but because he just doesnt stink as much as Hauritz and in the right conditions is actually quite a capable bowler.

As far as the Symonds selection is concerned, I guess Aussies are finally coming to the realization that he wasnt the best selection to begin with. I have said before and I will continue to say again that the logic behind picking Symonds over someone like David Hussey because of the fact that Symonds can twirl a few off spinners down is illogical. Hussey averages over 10 runs more with the bat in domestic cricket and would offer more to any side than Symonds ever could.

Mitchell Johnson summarizes the attitude of the Australian selectors tbh- bowl tight and hope that batsmen will play stupid shots. Well this isnt NZ or the WI and thats not going to happen. My advice is to pick bowlers who have the potential to take 20 wickets, even if it means picking someone along the lines of Shaun Tait.

I think the selectors should get their asses over to CricketWeb and read this post before picking any more squads or final XIs.

 

[tooextracool]

Switching to Hauritz- I think this one's been justified pretty well too, Krezja just went for too many runs to be an option on non-turning pitches. Hauritz had put in a good performance against New Zealand and kept it pretty tight, which was the role they were looking for their spinner to play. Picked up some key top-order wickets and as with Siddle, if Ponting or Hussey had taken their chances off Steyn, this could currently be looked like a great decision.

Is there some sort of unwritten rule that the Australian team must have a spinner? Ok, its understandable when you have bowlers averaging in the 30s or so, but 2 spin bowlers averaging nearly 50 are fighting it out for one of the top four bowling spots in the country. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I might even let it slide if it happened at Sydney but at Perth and Melbourne?!

 

[pasag]

What if he fails at the SCG?

Then I wouldn't have a huge issue if the selectors dropped him. But if it was up to me I'd back a guy that was our best batsmen not a year ago and show some faith. One would expect that if the axing is on the agenda he would be announcing his 'retirement' some time this week.

 

[Jono]

I just watched day 5's highlights on Foxtel.

Siddle bowled a good spell with the old ball didn't he? Didn't notice when I was at the ground, but he bowled with a good bit of shape. Bit too little too late, and not necessarily that threatening (though McKenzie was set and Amla's a machine), but there's something there for sure.

 

[Uppercut]

Is there some sort of unwritten rule that the Australian team must have a spinner? Ok, its understandable when you have bowlers averaging in the 30s or so, but 2 spin bowlers averaging nearly 50 are fighting it out for one of the top four bowling spots in the country. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I might even let it slide if it happened at Sydney but at Perth and Melbourne?!

I'd go four-man pace attack with Symonds and Clarke making up the slow bowling, but Ponting wants a spinner in there and Hauritz has done enough to justify his selection for sure.