Gagf

[morgieb]

North
Johnson in the UK
Hussey starting to less than impress too....

 

[Daemon]

R. Jadeja

+ Yuvraj from tests
+ Yusuf from ODIs(Stick to T20 thanks)

 

[GotSpin]

its incredible when Aussie were all conquering any comer they introduced turned in to real starts from getgo Hussey,Clarke,Martyn etc but as they have weakened the players that come in are either mediocre (North,Krejza) or are taking too longer too settle inn (Smith,Paine).

Remember similar stuff happening to us with W's around we got Shoaib,Zahid but when they left all the new comers were Rao,Rana and co.

Australian selectors have always been fairly poor, except all their mistakes have been covered up by an abundance of talent in the last 20 years. This is why blokes like Marcus North keep getting picked

 

[Uppercut]

Most selectors make lots of mistakes. Like, 95% of selecting bodies are poor.

England have a pretty good current bunch though. I don't always agree with them but there's generally sound logic to whatever decisions they make.

 

[vic_orthdox]

its incredible when Aussie were all conquering any comer they introduced turned in to real stars from getgo Hussey,Clarke,Martyn etc but as they have weakened the players that come in are either mediocre (North,Krejza) or are taking too long too settle inn (Smith,Paine).

Remember similar stuff happening to us with W's around we got Shoaib,Zahid but when they left all the new comers were Rao,Rana and co.

TBF, Smith and Paine have five Tests between them...

The big issue for me with the treatment of North is that they are giving him the sort of faith that you'd give someone like a Khawaja, who will justify the faith in the long term and may benefit from it. North won't. He is at the peak of his powers at this stage. And when you transpose his treatment with that of Hughes, it seems even more unreasonable.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Most selectors make lots of mistakes. Like, 95% of selecting bodies are poor.

England have a pretty good current bunch though. I don't always agree with them but there's generally sound logic to whatever decisions they make.

I dunno about 95% & ours aren't perfect (the Rashid debacle a case in point), but it does seem as if Dusty & co have more clue than Australia's currently. It appears, as a outsider looking in, as if the tail wags the dog a lot of the time. As an example, there's a pretty good case for recalling Hughes at North's expense (ref thread starter's orig post), but if this does come to pass pennies to pounds that'll it'll probably involve Watson being moved down to 5 or 6, which doesn't look the best fit for him. The logical solution would be to move Watson to #3 and shift Ponting, Clarke and Hussey down a place (Hussey has played some of his best innings with the tail after all), but this would be regarded as demotions for the skipper and his dauphin so will never happen.

 

[UncleTheOne]

luke wright. ****.

 

[Langeveldt]

Albie Morkel

 

[four_or_six]

luke wright. ****.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Actually, from the recentish past, nice bloke tho he obviously was, we probably persisted with IDK Salisbury for at least a couple of recalls too many. Think there was more than a touch of the Warne envy about his selection.

 

[Uppercut]

TBF, Smith and Paine have five Tests between them...

The big issue for me with the treatment of North is that they are giving him the sort of faith that you'd give someone like a Khawaja, who will justify the faith in the long term and may benefit from it. North won't. He is at the peak of his powers at this stage. And when you transpose his treatment with that of Hughes, it seems even more unreasonable.

The justification is that Hughes had such an able replacement. I'd much rather they did give someone like Khawaja a go but it's not the same as playing North ahead of Katich or Watson.

Also, to be fair to the Aussie selectors, opening with Watto was far from a popular option at the time but it's been more than justified. (Or was it just Richard who insisted that hitting a bat with a ball becomes an entirely different skill if you're the second rather than the third person to get a go at it?)

 

[BoyBrumby]

The justification is that Hughes had such an able replacement. I'd much rather they did give someone like Khawaja a go but it's not the same as playing North ahead of Katich or Watson.

Also, to be fair to the Aussie selectors, opening with Watto was far from a popular option at the time but it's been more than justified. (Or was it just Richard who insisted that hitting a bat with a ball becomes an entirely different skill if you're the second rather than the third person to get a go at it?)

It was Hobson's choice with the squad they'd picked once they'd determined to punt Hughes.

 

[ankitj]

R. Jadeja

Totally agree. He's been such a curse.

 

[vcs]

its incredible when Aussie were all conquering any comer they introduced turned in to real stars from getgo Hussey,Clarke,Martyn etc but as they have weakened the players that come in are either mediocre (North,Krejza) or are taking too long too settle inn (Smith,Paine).

Remember similar stuff happening to us with W's around we got Shoaib,Zahid but when they left all the new comers were Rao,Rana and co.

I was thinking the exact same thing a few days back. Also Hussey's slide exactly coinciding with Australia's weakening has been inexplicable.

 

[turnstyle]

Andrew Poynter, and Botha is starting to grind my gears.

 

[Furball]

I was thinking the exact same thing a few days back. Also Hussey's slide exactly coinciding with Australia's weakening has been inexplicable.

IMO it wasn't so much Hussey's slide, it was the sacking of Andrew Symonds which exacerbated things. Symonds pulled Australia out of a fair few holes in his Test career.

edit: Symonds' 3 best Test innings all came when Australia were in massive holes.

 

[Xuhaib]

IMO it wasn't so much Hussey's slide, it was the sacking of Andrew Symonds which exacerbated things. Symonds pulled Australia out of a fair few holes in his Test career.

edit: Symonds' 3 best Test innings all came when Australia were in massive holes.

yes Aus is missing that agressive batsman that gets them out of the hole since Gilly and to an extend Symonds went.Once Ponting goes they have 4 batsman who all bat at a very samey rate.

 

[GotSpin]

yes Aus is missing that agressive batsman that gets them out of the hole since Gilly and to an extend Symonds went.Once Ponting goes they have 4 batsman who all bat at a very samey rate.

Think we're just missing the lower order stability and success of the past more than anything.

 

[GIMH]

The justification is that Hughes had such an able replacement. I'd much rather they did give someone like Khawaja a go but it's not the same as playing North ahead of Katich or Watson.

Also, to be fair to the Aussie selectors, opening with Watto was far from a popular option at the time but it's been more than justified. (Or was it just Richard who insisted that hitting a bat with a ball becomes an entirely different skill if you're the second rather than the third person to get a go at it?)

My recollection is that some were spitting that Hughes were dropped, and others didn't think Watto should be in the team. Richard, meanwhile, stated that even if Watto went on to score 291* then it would still be a bad decision.

 

[NUFAN]

If khawaja or George Bailey don't get an opportunity in place of north soon I'll eat my iPhone