Overrated, over-indulged and overpaid

[fredfertang]

Overrated, over-indulged and overpaid

Sounds a bit harsh - I hope this isn't going to be Australia's "can't bat, can't bowl, can't field" moment

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Lets face it most sportsmen are these days no matter how good they actually are.

 

[Prince EWS]

Decent article. Thought it was going to be about poor old North and Hussey again but it was a lot more than just a bandwagon jump. Some great points.

 

[iamdavid]

I hate giving the Telegraph credit for anything, but I think parts of that were right on the money. Especially the points re Marsh, White, Ferguson & Hauritz.

 

[Jono]

Yes, the point about Ferguson I thought was very good. Almost no journalists or commentators speak with such depth.

Normally you see these articles saying "get rid of the old guys and bring in the young blood" but ****, is Ferguson the right one? Has he done enough?

 

[Uppercut]

It makes some interesting points but I think the true reason for their decline is predominantly just that Australia don't have as good players as they had before.

 

[Athlai]

Yeah rubbish article IMO.

 

[Furball]

It makes some interesting points but I think the true reason for their decline is predominantly just that Australia don't have as good players as they had before.

There's not having players as good as Warne/McGrath/Ponting 2002-06, and there's bull**** selection policy which has tolerated failures within the side for the past 18 months.

Both reasons for decline, but one of them is fixable to a degree.

 

[Daemon]

It makes some interesting points but I think the true reason for their decline is predominantly just that Australia don't have as good players as they had before.

Yeah. The best possible selection atm is never going to match the insanely talented side they once had.

 

[Uppercut]

There's not having players as good as Warne/McGrath/Ponting 2002-06, and there's bull**** selection policy which has tolerated failures within the side for the past 18 months.

Both reasons for decline, but one of them is fixable to a degree.

Tolerating failure? They've used about 153 players in the last two years...

I dunno why people are so much more willing to blame selectors than players. Unless they do something REALLY stupid (commonly known as a "Pakistani selection"), bad selectors can never make much of an impact. Replacing, say, North with Khawaja is just making a slight improvement to the team's eleventh best player. It's ridiculous that people can discuss Australia's decline and mention selectorial mistakes in the same breath as losing Warne, McGrath and Ponting.

 

[Furball]

Tolerating failure? They've used about 153 players in the last two years...

Referring specifically to the batting.

Phil Hughes got bombed out after 2 bad Tests in England, having had an excellent debut series in South Africa. Marcus North and Michael Hussey have been atrocious for ages, yet have been persisted with.

 

[Uppercut]

Referring specifically to the batting.

Phil Hughes got bombed out after 2 bad Tests in England, having had an excellent debut series in South Africa. Marcus North and Michael Hussey have been atrocious for ages, yet have been persisted with.

There aren't any other Shane Watsons to replace North and Hussey with, though. Unfortunately for f_o_s.

 

[Blog it for six]

I don't think the payment/coaching situation in Australia is much different to the other leading International sides. It isn't that different from when they had the unbeatable team just a few seasons back.

When England were picking anyone and everyone a few years back, all the supporters of it always quoted the Aussie mantra of, "If you're good enough, then you're old enough".

To say that players are wrongly being picked after just a few good state performances may be true. However, it may just be a sign of shallow talent pool the selectors have to pick from these days. Yes, Hussey, Hayden and North had to wait a long time to earn their spot, but they were competing against a much stronger set of players that had already paid their dues. That level of competition for places just doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Replacing, say, North with Khawaja is just making a slight improvement to the team's eleventh best player.

Don't think you can say that with any certainty though. Khawaja might come in and be sensational at Test level. or he might not. I think at the moment we need a few inspired selections along with the selectors sticking with players they think will make it at this level. That's what we had in the early 90's when McGrath and Warne were unearthed as very good players at test level. And S.Waugh was persisted with in the mid to late 80's and we all know how he turned out.

I don't think the selectors need to panic and start making massive changes, but the willingness needs to be there to make some decisions that will possibly benefit the team in the long run. I don't see the point in sticking with blokes who are in their mid-30's hoping they come good, you're simply not going to get the service out of them if they do anyway. It's a lot different to S.Waugh, who was persisted with for 3-4 years and then went on to play very well for another 10.

 

[social]

There aren't any other Shane Watsons to replace North and Hussey with, though. Unfortunately for f_o_s.

Simply not true as both Rogers and D Hussey have scored more than 10,000 fc runs at an average well above 50

These guys have belted the current Eng attack day in, day out for friggin' years and it would be like old home week for either of them making their test debut this summer

All things being equal, both these guys would've had lengthy test careers with any other country and it's well known that one of them (Rogers) wasnt picked for reasons other than performance

Then you have Hughes who is undoubtedly the best young player in the world (he murdered Steyn in SA ffs) but was dropped after 2 bad tests and hasnt played since murdering the Kiwis

He averages nearly 60 in both fc and tests yet we cant find a place for him in any form of the game - it's ****ing tragic

Oz has lots of talent but no brains at the selection table

 

[Jarquis]

Personally I definitely feel that Rogers or Hughes in at the top with Watson moving to 3 and everyone else down one would improve the current side.

 

[Prince EWS]

Personally I definitely feel that Rogers or Hughes in at the top with Watson moving to 3 and everyone else down one would improve the current side.

Dropping Bollinger would be harsh, and would leave the side light on bowling.

 

[Jarquis]

Touche

 

[fredfertang]

They should pick Cosgrove to open

 

[BoyBrumby]

I personally think a lot of the Aussie brow-furrowing comes from success breeding a feeling of entitlment to further success and the habits of successful teams being held up as models for others to aspire to, when in reality it's largely a cyclical thing.

Australia have been very good for a very long time and are now coming back to the pack and everyone with a vested interest, be they fan, coach, player or national selector wants to know why. But look at the team they replaced as the unquestioned number one, the West Indies; did Australia seek to ape the Windies model? No. They did things largely as they always have and a golden generation (or two) saw them sweep all in their wake. Now the same blueprint is being adhered to without the same success (the article's talk of promotion of players without them having paid their Sheffield Shield dues ignores the inconvenient truth that McGrath, Warne, Ponting and Clarke made their test debuts after a handful of FC games and it didn't exactly harm them, etc) and naturally people want to know what's wrong with the system. Not too much I would say but, as Ian McCulloch observes, nothing ever lasts forever.

Did chuckle at this from nugget Craddock tho:

"Nathan Hauritz has done splendidly to resurrect his career and his earnings now push $1 million a year.

That's around three times as much as the Prime Minister, who might claim she puts more spin on her deliveries."