Andrew Hilditch Re-Appointed

[Richard]

What Hohns did well was move on the older guys. There was no loyalty shown to the Waugh brothers, Healy, they even dropped the great Shane Warne when he was below par. It is that sort of ruthlessness that we need at this time of transition.

Mark Waugh was kept in the side for over a year after he'd ceased to perform; Healy the same; Stephen Waugh remained in the picture and recovered despite a year of wretchedness that coincided exactly with his twin's; Warne was dropped once during a 3-year period in which he did next to nothing.

This myth of players being shown no mercy is something of a red-herring. By-and-large, the only time Hohns (and his predecessors) dropped someone was when they had had a lengthy period which made it clear they weren't up to it any more.

Though they did sometimes drop players for absolutely no good reason - eg Simon Katich in 2003/04, Damien Martyn in 2005/06, Darren Lehmann regularly.

 

[inbox24]

Even more reason to get selectors that will make the right call the majority of the time. Back then we could rely on selectors that were competent since the side basically picked itself.

What Hohns did well was move on the older guys. There was no loyalty shown to the Waugh brothers, Healy, they even dropped the great Shane Warne when he was below par. It is that sort of ruthlessness that we need at this time of transition.

Totally agree.

It's simply a case of dropping players when they needed to be dropped and dropping players when they needed more opportunity.

 

[Sylvester]

Mark Waugh was kept in the side for over a year after he'd ceased to perform; Healy the same; Stephen Waugh remained in the picture and recovered despite a year of wretchedness that coincided exactly with his twin's; Warne was dropped once during a 3-year period in which he did next to nothing.

This myth of players being shown no mercy is something of a red-herring. By-and-large, the only time Hohns (and his predecessors) dropped someone was when they had had a lengthy period which made it clear they weren't up to it any more.

Though they did sometimes drop players for absolutely no good reason - eg Simon Katich in 2003/04, Damien Martyn in 2005/06, Darren Lehmann regularly.

Mark Waugh averaged 45 in Test and 80 in ODI in 2001. In 2002 he was given 7 matches in both formats before being dropped. He averaged 86 in the Ashes so you aren't going to drop him for at least 2 series. That brings us to the return leg in SA where he averaged 34. Could have been dropped here, but they stuck with him with the 50 he made in the 1st test not to mention we didn't lose the series. Selectors had enough after his poor series in Pakistan. ODI wise he averaged 108 in the Tri series and 138 against India. 2 series later he was dropped, so I don't see how he was carried any longer in the ODI form, Test they carried him 1 series too many.

Onto Ian Healy, he averaged 49 and 31 against Pakistan and during the Ashes. Remembering that Gilchrist hadn't yet changed the way we pick our keepers. He was basically dropped 2 series later the Zimbabwe game was pretty much a nothing game. So again I don't see Healy being carried any longer than he should have been and the selectors didn't let a fairy tale farewell get in the way.

Steve Waugh averaged 80 against SA in 2000, next series averaged 20. Then in 2001 he averaged 48 in the Carlton Series, 23 against India, 100 in the Natwest series before being dropped after the VB Series averaging 31. He was the captain of the side, averaged 100 the series before and the selectors sacked him. That was the ruthlessness I was referring to. As for him staying in the setup, well why shouldn't he have been kept in the setup when he averaged 107 in the Ashes 01. Yes he was given more leeway than Mark but that always happens with the captain. He repaid the faith in the series against Pakistan and from there on the rest is history.

As for Shane Warne 3 years of period of doing nothing, I'm assuming you mean his period between 1998 and 2001. He had 3 shockers in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy but other than that he performed like his normal self with 8 wickets at 14 against SL in 98 after being dropped, 12 wickets at 30 against Pakistan in 99, 15 wickets at 27 against NZ in 2000, and 31 wickets at 18 in the Ashes. So if that is a period of doing nothing then every bowler should be dropped. Yes he could have gone better against India but that was him only blimp in that period (having already been dropped for his poor showing in West Indies).

 

[Richard]

Mark Waugh averaged 45 in Test and 80 in ODI in 2001. In 2002 he was given 7 matches in both formats before being dropped. He averaged 86 in the Ashes so you aren't going to drop him for at least 2 series. That brings us to the return leg in SA where he averaged 34. Could have been dropped here, but they stuck with him with the 50 he made in the 1st test not to mention we didn't lose the series. Selectors had enough after his poor series in Pakistan. ODI wise he averaged 108 in the Tri series and 138 against India. 2 series later he was dropped, so I don't see how he was carried any longer in the ODI form, Test they carried him 1 series too many.

Mark Waugh being axed from ODIs was indeed a dreadful decision but I'm purely talking about Test selections here.

The last time Mark Waugh batted well in Tests was The Ashes. I'm not suggesting anyone kept him too long, because someone who's been a good, solid Test batsman for 11 years as Mark Waugh was deserves some grace. But truly ruthless selectors would've dropped him before they did. Instead they acted as most selectors do, and waited for quite a while.

Onto Ian Healy, he averaged 49 and 31 against Pakistan and during the Ashes. Remembering that Gilchrist hadn't yet changed the way we pick our keepers. He was basically dropped 2 series later the Zimbabwe game was pretty much a nothing game. So again I don't see Healy being carried any longer than he should have been and the selectors didn't let a fairy tale farewell get in the way.

Healy batted terribly in The Ashes 1998/99 (forget his series average, the only score of note he made was in the opening innings where he was dropped 3 times), terribly in West Indies in 1999 and terribly in the 1999/2000 tour to Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. He too had been a fine wicketkeeper-batsman for a fair while (1993 to the Pakistan tour of 1998/99 in fact - he averaged 35 with the bat in that time) so he deserved some grace, but ruthless selectors would've ditched him for Gilchrist long before.

Gilchrist didn't change the way wicketkeepers were picked BTW, for Australia or anyone else - Australia had picked Rodney Marsh and Wayne Phillips (not to mention Tim Zoehrer) based on batting in the 1970s and 1980s. It's always been the way - it's basic sensible selection that a good-to-decent wicketkeeper who bats well adds infinitely more to a side than an outstanding wicketkeeper who doesn't bat or isn't much of a batsman.

Steve Waugh averaged 80 against SA in 2000, next series averaged 20. Then in 2001 he averaged 48 in the Carlton Series, 23 against India, 100 in the Natwest series before being dropped after the VB Series averaging 31. He was the captain of the side, averaged 100 the series before and the selectors sacked him. That was the ruthlessness I was referring to. As for him staying in the setup, well why shouldn't he have been kept in the setup when he averaged 107 in the Ashes 01. Yes he was given more leeway than Mark but that always happens with the captain. He repaid the faith in the series against Pakistan and from there on the rest is history.

I'm not saying Stephen Waugh didn't deserve the faith shown in him in the Test team, just that some ruthless selection would've seen him ditched. Instead leniency was shown and Waugh repaid it.

As for his being axed from ODIs, like his twin that wasn't ruthless, it was plain stupid. But not what I was referring to here.

As for Shane Warne 3 years of period of doing nothing, I'm assuming you mean his period between 1998 and 2001. He had 3 shockers in the Border-Gavaskar Trophy but other than that he performed like his normal self with 8 wickets at 14 against SL in 98 after being dropped, 12 wickets at 30 against Pakistan in 99, 15 wickets at 27 against NZ in 2000, and 31 wickets at 18 in the Ashes. So if that is a period of doing nothing then every bowler should be dropped. Yes he could have gone better against India but that was him only blimp in that period (having already been dropped for his poor showing in West Indies).

I realise the overall figures against teams other than India look decent (obviously still far below his standards of 1993-1998 and 2001-2005, in both periods in which he averaged 22). But the reality is the only time he bowled well between the Border-Gavaskar Trophies of 1997/98 and 2000/01 was in Sri Lanka in 1999/2000. I CBA going through every Test but I'll say that if you look at what happened in each game individually you'll struggle to find a single instance of his bowling well outside said Sri Lanka tour. And I don't mean getting good figures - I mean bowling well.

Fortunately the selectors realised that even despite this sustained paucity (so bad that there was genuine, well-founded speculation he intended to retire after the 2001 Ashes) he retained the potential to come out the other side, so instead of being harsh they were very, very lenient. And Warne (like Stephen Waugh) rewarded their leniency.

 

[Sylvester]

Of course Hohns wasn't ruthless all the time there has to be a balance between the two. In Test they were winning so the Waugh brothers and Healy's poor showings were over looked for a longer period. Had they lost in that period I'm sure Mark and Healy would have been gone and possibly Steve. They of course did this when they lost their first tri series where they didn't like the direction the team was heading for the 03 world cup so changes were made. Same happened after the Ashes 05 with Gillespie and Martyn getting the boot. I agree it was harsh dropping Martyn but he was their usual fall guy and they needed a scape goat. So during this time he showed leniency when needed but also was ruthless enough to drop players when it wasn't working. Yes it may have been harsh on some of them but the results after those changes speak for themselves.

Moving on from Hohns and to the issue at hand. Someone should be made accountable for some of the poor selections were have made. I can understand the odd mistake here and there but they have been coming in a bunch starting with selecting White as a specialist spinner in India, to not bringing in the only specialist spinner in the side in Krejza. Then you have the poor selection of the T20 side picking guys based on ODI and Test performances rather than picking players that have been outstanding in T20. And most recently the Ashes where they failed to pick Clark at Lords where McGrath has always performed well in to not picking Hauritz for the last match.

I don't see how you can keep selectors that have made that many mistakes within the space of a year to go with the poor record of the team. Yes in part this is due to the transistion but it would help if the right 11 was being picked. We don't have the great players to make up for the mistakes of the selectors these days.

 

[Richard]

FTR, I'm not disagreeing that Hilditch and co. have done a poor job. I'm merely stating that the rosy-eyed nostalgia about how selection was so good in the days of success are a long way from the truth. Selection has been no better or worse now than it was 1989-2006/07, both were very poor indeed.

Whether someone else would've done a better job I don't know - it is, obviously, possible - but selectorial misfaith is very common in all countries.

 

[NUFAN]

FTR, I'm not disagreeing that Hilditch and co. have done a poor job. I'm merely stating that the rosy-eyed nostalgia about how selection was so good in the days of success are a long way from the truth. Selection has been no better or worse now than it was 1989-2006/07, both were very poor indeed.

Whether someone else would've done a better job I don't know - it is, obviously, possible - but selectorial misfaith is very common in all countries.

So the selection now is exactly the same as it was previously in your eyes.

This article ties in nicely with this discussion. Days of blind hope | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

 

[Richard]

So the selection now is exactly the same as it was previously in your eyes.

Well obviously selection can't be exactly the same because no set of selectors is faced with the same circumstances as another, same way as was recently said "no two batsmen have ever come out to bat in exactly the same circumstances".

The point is that in general Australian selection was poor during the time in which the team was enjoying success, and that it's been poor too in the last 24 months. There were so many good players, who even the most brainless selectors could never omit, in the period of success that bad selection was not of all that much relevance to the success of the side. At the current time, however, it's potentially costly. Though only potentially. However much of a mistake may have been made, anyone who takes it as read that results in India and England would've been different had Krejza and Hauritz played when it's claimed they should have is taking a considerable leap of faith.