What should Australia do now?

[Chimpdaddy]

Well, we have all been expecting it for a while, and now it has happened. Australia no longer the great team they once were. Their winning ways is nothing more than a memory with their champions (McGrath, Warne, Langer and Gilchrist) having departed. Their series loss to South Africa, and now facing a 3 - 0 whitewash has crystalised the major problems now facing Australia.

My questions to you all is where does Australia go from here to regain its former glory?
Here are some important points, that I hope you guys can answer:

1. Matthew Hayden - what do we do about him? He has been out of form, had bad luck and is now a dead weight for the Australian team. Do we keep him on, hoping that he can regain his form, or should he be dropped?

2. The bowling attack (or should I say "lack" of attack). What to do? The only bowler who has really proved himself is Mitchell Johnson. What is your opinion of Siddle? And what on earth is Australia going to do in the spin department?

3. Andrew Symonds - like Matthew Hayden he appears to be another dead weight. Has not really contributed with the bat or ball. But with Shane Watson injured again (poor fellow), should he be given another go? Or is it time to try another all-rounder out?

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Smudge]

What is it with all these new members signing their names at the end of their posts?

It'd be like me ending every spoken conversation I had by saying "Matt".

We can read, you know.

 

[susudear]

Multi

What is it with all these new members signing their names at the end of their posts?

It'd be like me ending every spoken conversation I had by saying "Matt".

We can read, you know.

Perhaps he is emphasising the point.

- susudear

 

[Zinzan]

What is it with all these new members signing their names at the end of their posts?

It'd be like me ending every spoken conversation I had by saying "Matt".

We can read, you know.

Add to that this new craze of unnecessary & irrelevant smilies. Not by the above posters, but other recent new members

 

[susudear]

As to the original topic

1. Matthew Hayden - what do we do about him? He has been out of form, had bad luck and is now a dead weight for the Australian team. Do we keep him on, hoping that he can regain his form, or should he be dropped?

It's best if Hayden is dropped now. However I think Hayden might have struck a deal with the selectors to retire at the end of Sydney Test, or it confirms the Aussie selectors have completely gone insane.

2. The bowling attack (or should I say "lack" of attack). What to do? The only bowler who has really proved himself is Mitchell Johnson. What is your opinion of Siddle? And what on earth is Australia going to do in the spin department?

Even Mitchell Johnson benefited from some atrocious batting at Perth. But that said, he looked the best bowler on show for the baggy-greens. Siddle is still raw, although he is improving with each game. Chappell (I think) emphasised on his excellent wrist position and seam position at the time of pitch impact. Brett Lee had a woeful series and his absence really will hurt. It remains to be seen what Bollinger can do at Sydney (not the best place for pacers), that Lee couldn't do on much better surfaces.

3. Andrew Symonds - like Matthew Hayden he appears to be another dead weight. Has not really contributed with the bat or ball. But with Shane Watson injured again (poor fellow), should he be given another go? Or is it time to try another all-rounder out?

Australia needs to prioritise. Does it need an allrounder in the team? I think yes. And Symonds with his injury is not simply one. And with Watson sidelined due to the injury, there is an imperative need to go for an inexperienced allrounder. I support the selection of McDonald in that case. Symonds had his share of opportunities, and should be asked to prove his worth by doing the hard rounds in Sheffield cricket.

 

[Chimpdaddy]

What is it with all these new members signing their names at the end of their posts?

It'd be like me ending every spoken conversation I had by saying "Matt".

We can read, you know.

Does it really matter? It is a personal preference. I like doing it, and in my opinion it looks better.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Smudge]

Does it really matter? It is a personal preference. I like doing it, and in my opinion it looks better.

-Chimpdaddy-

In my opinion it looks idiotic.

-Voltman-

 

[JimmyGS]

In my opinion it looks idiotic.

-Voltman-

AWTA

 

[_Ed_]

Australia no longer the great team they once were. Their winning ways is nothing more than a memory

I think this is a bit of an overreaction. South Africa has an amazing team at the moment, IMO not far off being the strongest team that country has ever had, and it's not like Australia hasn't been competitive. They had periods of dominance in Perth and were absolutely in control after the first two days in Melbourne.

Imagine how it might have been had Hussey been in form with the bat (and not a victim of umpire error), and had a fully-fit Lee and Clark been available with the ball.

 

[pup11]

1. Matthew Hayden - what do we do about him? He has been out of form, had bad luck and is now a dead weight for the Australian team. Do we keep him on, hoping that he can regain his form, or should he be dropped?

I am pretty sure Hayden has probably already made up his mind that he is going to play in the Ashes next year, so he won't be retiring before that, so unless he can't find some runs soon enough he would obviously be dropped for an in-form Hughes or Jaques.

2. The bowling attack (or should I say "lack" of attack). What to do? The only bowler who has really proved himself is Mitchell Johnson. What is your opinion of Siddle? And what on earth is Australia going to do in the spin department?

I think in the absence of Lee and Clark, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus and Johnson should be the three quicks and Hauritz should be the spinner, Siddle has proved to be pretty unpredictable so far, one day he bowls well and the other he goes off the boil, he has potential but obviously the lack of much FC cricket is hampering his consistency atm.

3. Andrew Symonds - like Matthew Hayden he appears to be another dead weight. Has not really contributed with the bat or ball. But with Shane Watson injured again (poor fellow), should he be given another go? Or is it time to try another all-rounder out?

Symonds' career is being ****ed by the Aussie selectors, he was dropped from the squad to India when he should have been there, and now they didn't rest him despite him having a knee problem, which might have caused him to aggravate the injury as a result of which a surgery on his knee is required now, ideally Watson would have proved to be quite a good replacement, but sadly he is injured too, which has ensured MacDonald would make his debut in the SCG test.

 

[pasag]

The most important thing for mine is to get rid of the selectors. The only thing Australia can do now is select the best XI. Everything else is in place, we have a great domestic system and if talent isn't there, it isn't there, there's not much you can do. But you can select the best XI and quite clearly that's not always happening.

 

[Bees]

Imagine how it might have been had Hussey been in form with the bat (and not a victim of umpire error), and had a fully-fit Lee and Clark been available with the ball.

This.

The reason why I'm so elated by this South African win, is because Clark and Lee will be back - and the Saffies will no longer have a chance.

So many knife edge moments in this series, which wouldn't have been if Australia were fully fit.

 

[Uppercut]

This.

The reason why I'm so elated by this South African win, is because Clark and Lee will be back - and the Saffies will no longer have a chance.

So many knife edge moments in this series, which wouldn't have been if Australia were fully fit.

I struggle to think of a series that didn't involve knife-edge moments where matches turned. They certainly happened during the previous Aus-SA series that Australia won. The difference now is that, for whatever reason, SA win the key moments and Australia don't.

That, and for all the ifs and buts you can come out with after a match, it's not often you can say the better team didn't win.

 

[Harry Harrison]

Aussies are still a good side. Just give rest/break to a few senior players and try some youngsters like Shaun Marsh. Its just a bad patch that comes someday on any team. I don't agree that its the downfall of Aussies. They are still capable of retaining their number one spot for at least a couple of years.

 

[Chimpdaddy]

In my opinion it looks idiotic.

-Voltman-

Fair enough. But I like it, I'm going to keep doing it, so your going to have to live with it. It is no more "idiotic" than having a signature at the bottom of every post. Anyway, I want to keep this discussion on cricket.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Chimpdaddy]

I think this is a bit of an overreaction. South Africa has an amazing team at the moment, IMO not far off being the strongest team that country has ever had, and it's not like Australia hasn't been competitive. They had periods of dominance in Perth and were absolutely in control after the first two days in Melbourne.

Imagine how it might have been had Hussey been in form with the bat (and not a victim of umpire error), and had a fully-fit Lee and Clark been available with the ball.

Well, by that I meant that they no longer have champions like McGrath, Warne and Gilchrist. While Haddin is doing a great job in filling those big shoes, the bowling attack lacks potency. However, I think you outlined a great point. When Australia did have those great players, they would often get on top of a match, and *stay* on top. They knew how to put teams away. In order to beat them, you had to play 5 days of great cricket, not 1 or 2. I think we've noticed the difference now. While South Africa throughly deserve to win, they should not have been able to chase down 414 runs in a final innings, nor come from 187 runs behind with 3 wickets remaining to have a 60 run lead. This is where Australia's major problem lies, their bowling. I suppose when Lee returns to form and when Clark is back in the side, there will be a major boost.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Ikki]

They should harden the **** up.

 

[Woodster]

Australia have certainly lacked the instinct to close games off the way they used to, and I don't think even with Stuart Clark that would have changed much, although his absence does show his worth in the side. On occasions both in India and this home series they have failed to seize the initiative when a crucial passage of play has presented itself.

With regards to Hayden, his form is an obvious worry for Australia, but with the Ashes coming up pretty soon I'll be surprised if he disappears into the background before then. It is probably not an ideal time for an inexperienced international opener to be blooded with an away series to SA and a tour to England. Having said that, a fit Jaques will put pressure on Hayden and Rogers resurgence since his state move offers options.

There is not a great deal wrong with this Australian side and they will not want to lose all that experience in the side by dropping Hayden and Symonds. The confusion surrounding the bowling attack is obvious, there is obviously no defining spinner in Australia and perhaps too much is being expected of Peter Siddle so early into his career. Mitchell Johnson offers hope, and alongside a fit Brett Lee and Stuart Clark, things ain't all that bad.

It's tough for Asutralians to accept I'm sure, but currently South Africa are gaining the kind of momentum and belief that Australia were famed for. The depth in quality for SA may be their problem, and not falling into the trap England did, in believing they had achieved everything following Ashes 05.

 

[NZTailender]

Fair enough. But I like it, I'm going to keep doing it, so your going to have to live with it. It is no more "idiotic" than having a signature at the bottom of every post. Anyway, I want to keep this discussion on cricket.

-Chimpdaddy-

Then please, put that in your signature. It'll save you time and it will achieve the same thing, and those who don't want to see it can ignore it by turning signatures off in their forum options.

 

[Smudge]

Fair enough. But I like it, I'm going to keep doing it, so your going to have to live with it. It is no more "idiotic" than having a signature at the bottom of every post. Anyway, I want to keep this discussion on cricket.

-Chimpdaddy-

Post reported due to the incorrect use of "your".


-Voltman-