What should Australia do now?

[Chimpdaddy]

past couple of weeks should have broken all records for new members joining.....but all seems to be related in some mannerisms

I think it has to do with Australia's fall in dominance. It really is a talking point. I mean before, Australia would win every match, and most people would just shrug and say "just another normal day", but now there is some real competition.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Uppercut]

Forget Bracken for 5 day, Hilfenhaus should of got call up months ago.

This despite the fact that Bracken has a better FC record, fairly comfortably, than any bowler Australia played in 2008?

 

[Richard]

I think it has to do with Australia's fall in dominance. It really is a talking point. I mean before, Australia would win every match, and most people would just shrug and say "just another normal day", but now there is some real competition.

It's certainly very probably a factor at the current time, but we've had these surges of large numbers of signups before now. It just happens from time to time.

Many burn out and some poor-quality types are removed, of course, but the best usually stick around.

 

[howardj]

Say what you like about Ian Chappell, but for an old dude, he knows his stuff. As he argues here, Australia need to go for youth, and needs to put more of an emphasis in its system, on young players. Just look back to the start of the golden era that just ended. Guys like Ponting, Slater, Martyn, Hayden McGrath, Gillespie Warne, Langer etc were all exposed to international cricket at a young age, and a few of those guys were plucked from relative obscurity. That is how you build a great team, and help develop a young player - expose them early. And just when this boofhead selection panel gets a chance to do just that (with Phil Hughes for Matt Hayden in a dead Test), what do they do? They cling to the past. Exposing young players early helps their development, it doesn't hinder it.

 

[Zinzan]

This isn't even the strongest SA team since readmission IMO, I think there's several that were better and would probably beat this team.

Agreed

And the side of '69/70, well, it'd wipe the floor, same way it'd wipe the floor with all bar 4 or 5 other teams that've ever been assembled in history..

Amazing side that 69/70 squad. I've always found it odd its not mentioned more often in the "Strongest Test Team" debates. Arguably the 'toughest' bunch of cricketers to take field in a test match.

 

[Zinzan]

For god sake, it really is the harbinger of doom for a message board when users with more than 1000 posts get so full of their own importance that they think they can dictate internet etiquette to new members. Give him a break, he's new to the forum and is actually literate, which is a start. If you keep being so prissy about the least notable aspect of his post then he'll rightly leave and not come back, which would be a shame as he seems to have half a brain cell unlike many others who have registered recently.

We're all here to discuss cricket. So let's stick to what we're good at.

Chill-out dude, Everyone who knows him on this forum will know that comment was made 'tongue & cheek'. Don't make something out of nothing.

 

[Richard]

Say what you like about Ian Chappell, but for an old dude, he knows his stuff. As he argues here, Australia need to go for youth, and needs to put more of an emphasis in its system, on young players. Just look back to the start of the golden era that just ended. Guys like Ponting, Slater, Martyn, Hayden McGrath, Gillespie Warne, Langer etc were all exposed to international cricket at a young age, and a few of those guys were plucked from relative obscurity. That is how you build a great team, and help develop a young player - expose them early. And just when this boofhead selection panel gets a chance to do just that (with Phil Hughes for Matt Hayden in a dead Test), what do they do? They cling to the past. Exposing young players early helps their development, it doesn't hinder it.

Not neccessarily. I see no evidence to suggest it really helped Stephen Waugh, Merv Hughes, Ian Healy, Craig McDermott, Shane Warne, Damien Martyn, Justin Langer, Glenn McGrath, Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Michael Kasprowcz, Simon Katich or Michael Clarke to have been thrown in early when they didn't succeed, as pretty all were before coming back later and having success. Mark Waugh, Michael Slater, Jason Gillespie and Adam Gilchrist all had success from the moment they debuted, as later did Michael Hussey. If the aforementioned hadn't played their early games (most of them were as injury replacements anyway) I still think they'd have been every bit as successful as they were once they finally established themselves.

I don't think Australia would be well-served to pick Phillip Hughes now, at all. Jaques to return and Rogers to get another chance would be far, far more adviseable if Hayden is to be dropped. Hughes looks very likely to be one hell of a player - leave him be for a little while and give him his best chance of coming and and taking to Test cricket immediately.

 

[Son Of Coco]

To reduce the present SA team to being not the best in the world is debatable.

Note that this team has not lost a series since Sri Lanka in 2006.

That's an Australian-esque run and should be appreciated. The obvious changes in this period is that the top order, esp McKenzie and Amla showed they can be good players of spin bowling, an area where traditionally they struggled.

Add to that mix a deadly Steyn and a reliable Ntini and they have a world class core.

Morkel is still an unfinished article, however valuable experience in Australia, India, England etc is only going to help him.

If they could somehow unearth a good wrist spinner, the mix would make them virtually the Australia of the early 2000s. What about Imran Tahir?

I haven't reduced them to 'not the best in the world' at all...but I don't think they're 'awesome'...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Sort out a core to your side and stick with it. Obviously that will be tough with players coming back from injury in the near future. However, for mine...

x
Katich
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
x
Haddin
Johnson
x
Siddle
x

If we stick with that base for a while, we should be OK. Bollinger should play now until Lee/Clark come back. For mine, we still need a spinner, especially so if we are to maintain an all-rounder at 6.

 

[Hoggy31]

Mark Divin the all-rounder imo

 

[Chimpdaddy]

Sort out a core to your side and stick with it. Obviously that will be tough with players coming back from injury in the near future. However, for mine...

x
Katich
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
x
Haddin
Johnson
x
Siddle
x

If we stick with that base for a while, we should be OK. Bollinger should play now until Lee/Clark come back. For mine, we still need a spinner, especially so if we are to maintain an all-rounder at 6.

Yeah, fairly solid base there. Siddle has impressed me on and off. I still want him to bowl a little more consistently, but he looks like a good prospect. I believe that if we can get Bollinger and Hilfenhaus some practice while Lee & Clark are away, will be good to have more options availible for the international side. I would like to see Jaques or Hughes in aswell to open with Katich. I don't know about this obsession with finding an all-rounder. I would like another specialist bowling option. There is enough of a batting line-up there to put good totals on the board. I think Hauritz is an alrite spin option. He got some good drift, threw he ball up a bit (which I love), and got a little purchase off the pitch. He is young, and with some experience could be a useful bowler (a little version of Daniel Vettori maybe?)

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Richard]

Hauritz has somewhere fractionally above zero chance of turning into a bowler as good as Daniel Vettori. Even then, Vettori is hardly a brilliant bowler. On most surfaces (that both Australia and New Zealand tend to encounter) Vettori doesn't offer a great deal.

Vettori is also a much better batsman than Hauritz of course.

 

[RhyZa]

It's doubly funny when a name like Chimpdaddy signs off instead of a real one

Just seems like the alias is taken a little too seriously.

 

[Simon]

Mark Divin the all-rounder imo

Is batting too low for Tasmania imo, should be 6 or 7 and playing FC cricket.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Is batting too low for Tasmania imo, should be 6 or 7 and playing FC cricket.

Despite the whole "being good enough" thing.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Despite the whole "being good enough" thing.

With Dane Anderson coming in at 3 for Tassie, nothing is sacred.

 

[James90]

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
M Hussey
Clarke
D Hussey
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Bollinger
Hilfenhaus/Krejza

That's the best XI available at the moment, for mine.

 

[Easto241091]

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
M Hussey
Clarke
D Hussey
Haddin
Johnson
Siddle
Bollinger
Hilfenhaus/Krejza

That's the best XI available at the moment, for mine.

Change Krezja with Aaron Heal and youve got yourself a team.

 

[Richard]

Patt0 on the d00plicates?

 

[pup11]

Say what you like about Ian Chappell, but for an old dude, he knows his stuff. As he argues here, Australia need to go for youth, and needs to put more of an emphasis in its system, on young players. Just look back to the start of the golden era that just ended. Guys like Ponting, Slater, Martyn, Hayden McGrath, Gillespie Warne, Langer etc were all exposed to international cricket at a young age, and a few of those guys were plucked from relative obscurity. That is how you build a great team, and help develop a young player - expose them early. And just when this boofhead selection panel gets a chance to do just that (with Phil Hughes for Matt Hayden in a dead Test), what do they do? They cling to the past. Exposing young players early helps their development, it doesn't hinder it.

Yup, i am not a huge fan of too many 28-30 year old' making their debuts, because they might do well for some period of time but after some time they start to wane and then the re-building process is required once all over again, i think this is perfect time for investing in youth and showing faith in them, expecting instant results from them would be unrealistic, but if the selectors think that a certain youngster has that caliber to become a good international player, then they should back him to the hilt an give him international exposure.

I think the South African selectors did this very well, guys like Amla, Smith, Duminy, Steyn, Prince, Morkel, De Villiers, are very good players and are the core of a very successful side now and that's because their selectors showed faith in them and developed the side around them, in Australia' case Andrew Hilditch comes out after the loss at Melbourne and says chopping and changing isn't going to help and we don't believe in it, when the truth is Australia haven't picked the same XI for as many as the last 15 tests now, so obviously they have failed to implement what they are saying.

The more disappointing thing is that Aussie selectors knew all along that most Aussie players who have retired recently all fall in the same age-group, so they were bound to know it, that they may all retire in pretty close span of time, and therefore they should have had their prospective replacements ready to come in and replace their predecessors, but there too there has been a clear lack of planning which is clearly evident now.