The fallout

[Top_Cat]

Johnson seemed to alternate between being pretty damn fast and then hovering around the 86/87mph mark, whereas Siddle seemed to be more consistent.

Repeatable action, etc. If his shoulder holds together, reckon he'll string together some good years.

 

[andyc]

Reckon he'd have played in the first test but for his side-strain.

The selectors said as much UIMM.

 

[tooextracool]

Would love to see Lee back, but in order for him to play they would need to drop Johnson or play 4 pacers. I simply cannot see them do either, especially after the disaster at the Oval, Hauritz will play until they realize that he's not going to be very useful on Australian pitches.

 

[aussie tragic]

Who would you drop?

Here is the incumbent Team with their form over the last 12 months

1. Watson – 8 Tests, 416 runs @ 29.71 and 12 wkts @ 35.33
2. Katich – 17 Tests, 1411 runs @ 48.65 and 6 wkts @ 25.66
3. Ponting – 17 Tests, 1246 runs @ 41.53
4. Hussey – 17 Tests, 992 runs @ 34.20
5. Clarke – 17 Tests, 1440 runs @ 53.33
6. North – 7 Tests, 527 runs @ 47.90 and 6 wkts @ 50.33
7. Haddin – 16 Tests, 1028 runs @ 41.12 and 55 dismissals (54c/1st)
8. Johnson – 17 Tests, 632 runs @ 30.09 and 80 wkts @ 27.07
9. Siddle – 12 Tests, 49 wkts @ 28.93
10. Clark – 6 Tests, 13 wkts @ 38.75
11. Hilfenhaus – 8 Tests, 29 wkts @ 33.44
12. Hauritz – 4 Tests, 11 wkts @ 39.63

Personally I would bring Lee in for Clark and leave the rest alone for the first 2 Tests vs the West Indies. I would have brought back Hughes and put Watson at 4 until Hussey hit 121 in his last bat, so he deserves a few more Tests to see if he has actually turned it around.

Guys who have also played over the last 12 months

Lee – 8 Tests, 21 wkts @ 47.80
Hughes – 5 Tests, 472 runs @ 52.44
McDonald – 4 Tests, 107 runs @ 21.40 and 9 wkts @ 33.33
White – 4 Tests, 146 runs @ 29.20 and 5 wkts @ 68.40
Krejza – 2 Tests, 13 wkts @ 43.23
Bollinger – 1 Test, 2 wkts @ 65.50
McGain – 1 Test, 0 wkts

 

[social]

The fall-out will be relatively minimal

I arrived in London mid-way through the first days play at Lords which was an absolutely disgraceful perfomance from Oz.

That night, I spent in the company of very senior people from CA who made it absolutely clear that:

a. Oz's performance in SA was held in very high regard;

b. Youth was the key to our future;

c. Ponting is there for as long as he chooses to be (2011 minimum, 2013 if they lost the current series);

d. Clarke is hated at the highest level

Bottom line is that Clark has played his last test, Hussey maybe, Nielsen safe for the time being

 

[Son Of Coco]

Siddle was making his debut in India, I said at the time that he didn't look very good, but he's come on leaps and bounds since then and its important to remember that hes only played 4 series, and hes not yet 25. Hes leap years ahead of Johnson at the same point of his career, and I would say he is a better bowler than Johnson period.

Regarding what he does with the ball, you are right, his strength is moving the ball off the seam, although he does get the ball to swing in towards the batter and he bowls fairly close to 90mph. Over time he will build on those attributes, which is why it is important to give him the confidence to do so, because he has a decent action and has the foundations to be a very good bowler in the future.

Yeah I agree, I think Johnson has to improve quite a bit on his current form otherwise I'd be in favour of dropping him and bringing Lee/Bollinger in to replace him. Would keep Siddle in the team with Hilfenhaus.

 

[Son Of Coco]

The fall-out will be relatively minimal

I arrived in London mid-way through the first days play at Lords which was an absolutely disgraceful perfomance from Oz.

That night, I spent in the company of very senior people from CA who made it absolutely clear that:

a. Oz's performance in SA was held in very high regard;

b. Youth was the key to our future;

c. Ponting is there for as long as he chooses to be (2011 minimum, 2013 if they lost the current series);

d. Clarke is hated at the highest level

Bottom line is that Clark has played his last test, Hussey maybe, Nielsen safe for the time being

This last point is interesting, any idea why?

They do realise the SA series is over don't they? I can see why they might hold it in high regard as it highlights the potential some of our young players have. But there must be a limit to the leeway it gives them for future series surely.

 

[inbox24]

The fall-out will be relatively minimal

I arrived in London mid-way through the first days play at Lords which was an absolutely disgraceful perfomance from Oz.

That night, I spent in the company of very senior people from CA who made it absolutely clear that:

a. Oz's performance in SA was held in very high regard;

b. Youth was the key to our future;

c. Ponting is there for as long as he chooses to be (2011 minimum, 2013 if they lost the current series);

d. Clarke is hated at the highest level

Bottom line is that Clark has played his last test, Hussey maybe, Nielsen safe for the time being

So basically the message is that Australian cricket has no future.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Had heard similar rusings about Clark too.

 

[slippyslip]

The fall-out will be relatively minimal

I arrived in London mid-way through the first days play at Lords which was an absolutely disgraceful perfomance from Oz.

That night, I spent in the company of very senior people from CA who made it absolutely clear that:

a. Oz's performance in SA was held in very high regard;

b. Youth was the key to our future;

c. Ponting is there for as long as he chooses to be (2011 minimum, 2013 if they lost the current series);

d. Clarke is hated at the highest level

Bottom line is that Clark has played his last test, Hussey maybe, Nielsen safe for the time being

Who cares about CA? Their job is to administer the game. To market it and grow it.

Doesn't surprise CA hate M. Clarke. If he wasnt such a good bat he would fall into the Chris Rogers/Brad Hodge category of "not fitting in with the team". Suppose he's not bland or boring enough to be held in high regard by CA.

 

[social]

This last point is interesting, any idea why?

They do realise the SA series is over don't they? I can see why they might hold it in high regard as it highlights the potential some of our young players have. But there must be a limit to the leeway it gives them for future series surely.

Problems with Clarke are image (tatts, bimbo fiancee etc), not a team man (threw a hissy fit when forced to travel to training team bus rather than in his Lamborghini with girlfriend) and a couple of former greats claimed that team wouldnt follow him

Possibly the most senior person in CA stated that Clarke would be captain "over his dead body."

 

[Son Of Coco]

Problems with Clarke are image (tatts, bimbo fiancee etc), not a team man (threw a hissy fit when forced to travel to training team bus rather than in his Lamborghini with girlfriend) and a couple of former greats claimed that team wouldnt follow him

Possibly the most senior person in CA stated that Clarke would be captain "over his dead body."

So how long do we have to wait for that to happen?

 

[Uppercut]

Who cares about CA? Their job is to administer the game. To market it and grow it.

Doesn't surprise CA hate M. Clarke. If he wasnt such a good bat he would fall into the Chris Rogers/Brad Hodge category of "not fitting in with the team". Suppose he's not bland or boring enough to be held in high regard by CA.

It surprises me tbh. I always got the impression that he was a bit of a selectors' darling. Him having an extended run of exceptionally poor form in ODIs then being given the captaincy being a case in point.

 

[tooextracool]

It surprises me tbh. I always got the impression that he was a bit of a selectors' darling. Him having an extended run of exceptionally poor form in ODIs then being given the captaincy being a case in point.

Yeah that would be my impression of him as well, given that he was hand picked at a young age and a modest domestic record. Seems strange that he would be made vice captain if they are completely against the idea of him captaining Australia as well.

 

[age_master]

Problems with Clarke are image (tatts, bimbo fiancee etc), not a team man (threw a hissy fit when forced to travel to training team bus rather than in his Lamborghini with girlfriend) and a couple of former greats claimed that team wouldnt follow him

Possibly the most senior person in CA stated that Clarke would be captain "over his dead body."

Thought he used to drive a Ferrari tbh, and he sold that a couple of years back.

I agree that he wouldn't be VC if he wasn't likely to captain in the future.

 

[slippyslip]

Problems with Clarke are image (tatts, bimbo fiancee etc), not a team man (threw a hissy fit when forced to travel to training team bus rather than in his Lamborghini with girlfriend) and a couple of former greats claimed that team wouldnt follow him

Possibly the most senior person in CA stated that Clarke would be captain "over his dead body."

This "anonymous" source of yours, who is probably nothing but a pencil pusher, wouldnt have many people care/cry if Clarke was made captain over his dead body.

Funny how this anonymous CA source seems to be in 100% agreement with you on everything,

How many WAGs are not bimbos? Just because Bingle has a career outside of Clarke shouldnt be held against them.

I dont like tatts ... but lots of people do. Wouldnt hold it against them.

Is Clarke a bit of a tosser? No doubt. But hey, thats professional sport. Imagine if every player in the Premier League or NBA were dropped or held back for being tossers - you wouldnt have enough to field 3 teams in either.

 

[slippyslip]

It surprises me tbh. I always got the impression that he was a bit of a selectors' darling. Him having an extended run of exceptionally poor form in ODIs then being given the captaincy being a case in point.

Depends on what we mean by CA. Do you count the selectors as part of CA? The selectors have always loved M. Clarke. When he made his debut his first class average was well under 40. He was fast tracked into the Australian team.

Maybe some administrator types, who never played above grade cricket, hate his guts. Theres still lots of very very conservative cricket types in Australia.

I didnt mean to imply that everyone is against Clarke. He obviously has his supporters and his detractors.

 

[howardj]

I think the fallout should be huge.

With due respect to England, who were the better team it must be said, we lost to a pretty so-so side.

- Cook, Bell, Collingwood all had a very quiet time of it, and all have pretty standard career records
- But for Flintoff's brilliance at Lords, their two best players were either missing (KP) or hobbling.
- Their bowling attack all have fairly standard career records, but for Flintoff who is world class.

The reality is that, just before the Ashes, we rolled who I consider to be the best Test team in the world, in their own backyard.

Yet, with all of the above in our favour, we still lost.

It worries me that the team and hierarchy just seem to shrug losses off nowadays. The good thing to see in the aftermath to 2005, was how much the Aussies (and the whole Aussie cricket community including the public) hurt. There was national outrage at the loss! I loved that - it shows you care, and that you reject mediocrity. These days our reaction to losing is that "oh the team is in transition". How long can you be in transition for? We just beat SA in SA.

I really think CA need to take back control and:

- Conduct a thorough review as to why we lost, given the above points in our favour
- Follow up any recommendations out of that review
- Only allow small windows for wives on tour
- Schedule more 4 day tour games, and tell the players that if that means more time away from home, then too bad
- Make the selectors accountable

Losing the Ashes, in cricket terms, was disasterous and should not have happened. A serious review needs to be conducted and action taken.

 

[inbox24]

Agree.

There is a major acceptance of crapiness these days. I'm a firm believer that if they didn't take it so lightly and they selected the right people, we'd still be the number one team in the world and would've certainly won everywhere except probably in India.

 

[Uppercut]

I think the fallout should be huge.

With due respect to England, who were the better team it must be said, we lost to a pretty so-so side.

- Cook, Bell, Collingwood all had a very quiet time of it, and all have pretty standard career records
- But for Flintoff's brilliance at Lords, their two best players were either missing (KP) or hobbling.
- Their bowling attack all have fairly standard career records, but for Flintoff who is world class.

Tbf, it's a pretty exceptional attack in home conditions. We were telling you before the series started to be wary of looking at their career figures, and so it proved. These are good bowlers.