GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
The Australian selectors could just throw a dart at the domestic players and hit gold then.
It's different now.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
The Australian Selectors
- Thread starter Bloody Hell
- Start date
It's different now.
They still made some very good calls in the early 90's with regards to identifying unproven young talent and then persevering with it. Warne was plucked from obscurity after a few first class matches in which his results were pretty ordinary. Healy was very similar. McGrath was persisted with despite a very ordinary start to his test career and the presence of plenty of good alternatives.
Contrast that with the way the Poms handled someone like Hick. I don't believe Hick was significantly less talented than any of the three players mentioned above, yet under the volatile selectors of the time he was always a game or two away from being dumped, and he knew it.
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
That's because the poms were continually scraping the bottom of the barrel (still are, except it's from other countries too now). It's much easier to persevere with young talent when you can mould them around an experienced team.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
On the talk of:
- Katich being dropped in SRI 2004 for Symonds
- Innes not being selected @ home vs IND 03/04
Looking back i'm not sure if they where the worst decisions.
Firstly on Katich it was harsh yea. But the logic behind Symonds being selected was that AUS wanted a 5th bowler for the tests in SRI & Symonds really bowled well in the ODIs on those turners. He was having such a fantastic return year in international cricket after his 143 vs PAK ATT, everything he touched was turning to gold. So given the overall strenght of the AUS batting, it was a risk worth trying IMO. It failed intially & Katich came back for the 3rd tests, but i wouldn't call it a selection howler of any sort.
Of course they then struggled, with Bracken failing to reproduce that big swing with the red ball, that he was getting with the white ball (which had Sehwag in all sorts of trouble in those ODIs in India). In the summer of the flattest pitches seen in AUS in my lifetime of watching cricket, but i dont fault the selectors for fast-tracking into tests one bit.
On Inness. Well i never saw Innes bowl, but i was aware of his FC performances during the 03/04 season. But given the way Bracken/Williams lead the attack in the TVS Cup ODI series in India, in the absense of McGrath/Gillespie/Lee. They sort of deserved the right to have a crack @ those Indian batsmen in the test series, since what the did in that ODI series was pretty special.
- Katich being dropped in SRI 2004 for Symonds
- Innes not being selected @ home vs IND 03/04
Looking back i'm not sure if they where the worst decisions.
Firstly on Katich it was harsh yea. But the logic behind Symonds being selected was that AUS wanted a 5th bowler for the tests in SRI & Symonds really bowled well in the ODIs on those turners. He was having such a fantastic return year in international cricket after his 143 vs PAK ATT, everything he touched was turning to gold. So given the overall strenght of the AUS batting, it was a risk worth trying IMO. It failed intially & Katich came back for the 3rd tests, but i wouldn't call it a selection howler of any sort.
Of course they then struggled, with Bracken failing to reproduce that big swing with the red ball, that he was getting with the white ball (which had Sehwag in all sorts of trouble in those ODIs in India). In the summer of the flattest pitches seen in AUS in my lifetime of watching cricket, but i dont fault the selectors for fast-tracking into tests one bit.
On Inness. Well i never saw Innes bowl, but i was aware of his FC performances during the 03/04 season. But given the way Bracken/Williams lead the attack in the TVS Cup ODI series in India, in the absense of McGrath/Gillespie/Lee. They sort of deserved the right to have a crack @ those Indian batsmen in the test series, since what the did in that ODI series was pretty special.
Last edited:
Jarquis
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
So basically.. you support picking inferior First Class performers based on ODI performances (even when the alternatives aren't in the ODI setup) and then get surprised when bowlers can't get the same movement with the red ball and batsmen struggle against attacking fields early in their innings.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
No i dont support such selections in general. Good FC form is always preferable before selection.
But as i said above, i understood why the AUS selectors made those decisions ATT. With Bracken i doubt many teams wouldn't have been seriously tempted to fast track you into tests after you owned the much vaunted IND batting line-up in their own conditions, regardless if its ODIs.
It was basically de ja vu to what happend with Johnson's debut test selection in 07. After he came of age in the ODI series 07 in India, but he had no serious FC form. Just like Bracks before TVS Cup 03, they both got swing with the white ball. Bracken didn't step up in tests due to conditions, but Johnson did after a slow start (in SA 08/09), although of course we acept that series as one-of & Johnson is not a swing bowler.
Plus i'm sure Bracks had to have seen him swing the red ball in FC cricket at times between 2001-2003. Before he played those test in 03/04. He did afterwards with these two big FC performances:
New South Wales v South Australia at Sydney, Dec 2-4, 2004 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
Final: Queensland v New South Wales at Brisbane, Mar 18-20, 2005 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
So ive always put his struggles down to in that 03/04 test series down to the conditions in none of those tests (except the 2nd day of the 1st test @ Brisbane when Khan got seaming conditions & swung out AUS). Seaming conditions weren't present in the summer of flattest pitches in AUS i've seen & Bracken became useless.
On Symonds i wasn't really surprised @ his failures, since ATT i wasn't convinced he was ready for test either. But i understand why the risk was taken ATT, since he was having such a fantastic year he could have stepped up. The strenght of the AUS team also meant if he struggled others could pick up the slack, which they did (although they had to fight superrrr hard) in those 1st two test in SRI & won.
Last edited:
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
Some mod should change the thread title and make it a official selectors discussion thread.. About time we had one and it will be interesting to see what the posters of each country think of the selectors of their team. 
tooextracool
International Coach
Think there has only really been any real stability and logic behind their selections since Andy Flower has taken over. The rest of the time it has been pretty poor, some decisions have paid off over time but likewise there have been plenty of others that have proved to be pretty expensive.
G.I.Joe
International Coach
Nah, keep it the way it is. Thread will be bumped every Australia v India series so I don't have to scroll down past multiple posts blaming every defeat on the selectors.Some mod should change the thread title and make it a official selectors discussion thread.. About time we had one and it will be interesting to see what the posters of each country think of the selectors of their team.
SirBloody Idiot
Cricketer Of The Year
Inness would still get a game for WA these days. Very fine bowler.
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Dear Australian Selectors,
Xavier Doherty is the best ODI spinner in the country and should be in our national team in front of Nathan Hauritz. Also Dave Warner needs to make some runs in the domestic OD comp (if he can make the NSW team that is) before going away on tours with the Australian team and saying he wants to be the next Gilchrist.
That is all, for now...
Xavier Doherty is the best ODI spinner in the country and should be in our national team in front of Nathan Hauritz. Also Dave Warner needs to make some runs in the domestic OD comp (if he can make the NSW team that is) before going away on tours with the Australian team and saying he wants to be the next Gilchrist.
That is all, for now...
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Bracken's bowling in that game against SA was both an indicator of what he could and couldn't do depending on whether there was swing around. Damp pitch in the first dig, cloudy day, wrecked the SA top-order (not hard to do in those days). SA dead and buried after their first dig, bright sunny day and he couldn't trouble Tom Plant or Callum Ferguson at all, exactly the same as the Indians the season before.
Anyway, what's relevant is what happened before the India series and in terms of performance against strong opposition, Inness had it all over Bracken hands down. Considering wickets on the board alone, there's absolutely no defending the selection of Bracken over Inness in 03/04.
Anyway, what's relevant is what happened before the India series and in terms of performance against strong opposition, Inness had it all over Bracken hands down. Considering wickets on the board alone, there's absolutely no defending the selection of Bracken over Inness in 03/04.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Another Anderson & Hoggard (pre IND 2006) then.
Yea i'm not doubting Innes had the better FC form before the 03/04 series. But so did Ashley Noffke before Johnson was selected in 07/08. You could argue based on FC Noffke should definately have been the 3rd seamer behind Lee/Clark for that summer like Innnes in 03/04. But as i said before those two young bowlers in different years bowling superbly to that much vaunted IND batting line-up in international cricket, made it very tempting to select them.
The hunch failed with Bracken but succeeded with Johnson (although it took Johnson a while).
Tom 1972
School Boy/Girl Captain
The bottom line is that Australia is putting their eggs in the "old school" batting basket.
M. Hussey 35 y.o. and looking scratchy
Haddin 33 y.o. and will walk straight back into the side
Ponting will turn 36 y.o. during the Ashes
Katich 35 y.o. and form has been good
"Pup" Clarke turning 30 y.o. shortly and form has been good recent India series aside
North 31 y.o. and only makes runs on the eve of being dropped
Watson turning 30 y.o. shortly and form has been good
Where's the succession planning? Hayden, Gilly, Martyn were mid-late 30s when they retired. Same for McGrath & Warnie. All greats or very good performers.
I understand that a golden era for Australia is over, but the way to get work back up the world rankings (IMHO) is to put some 22-26 year olds into the Test XI so they have 30+ Tests experience when they peak at 27-30 (bowlers), 28-32 (batters). Rebuilding will take some time - why not start asap?
While the sub-continent theory of blooding teenagers doesn't always pay off, guys with 4-5 years FC experience should be ready instead of making blokes wait until they're 30 y.o. They seldom have THAT much improvement in them at that age.
M. Hussey 35 y.o. and looking scratchy
Haddin 33 y.o. and will walk straight back into the side
Ponting will turn 36 y.o. during the Ashes
Katich 35 y.o. and form has been good
"Pup" Clarke turning 30 y.o. shortly and form has been good recent India series aside
North 31 y.o. and only makes runs on the eve of being dropped
Watson turning 30 y.o. shortly and form has been good
Where's the succession planning? Hayden, Gilly, Martyn were mid-late 30s when they retired. Same for McGrath & Warnie. All greats or very good performers.
I understand that a golden era for Australia is over, but the way to get work back up the world rankings (IMHO) is to put some 22-26 year olds into the Test XI so they have 30+ Tests experience when they peak at 27-30 (bowlers), 28-32 (batters). Rebuilding will take some time - why not start asap?
While the sub-continent theory of blooding teenagers doesn't always pay off, guys with 4-5 years FC experience should be ready instead of making blokes wait until they're 30 y.o. They seldom have THAT much improvement in them at that age.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Nah I give up tbh.
