Australia - the aftermath of the Ashes

[_Ed_]

Hasn't won a single match as captain; has lost several.

 

[Ruckus]

Should check out this article.....

ALP, and cricket, must mine talent | The Australian

So hilarious. Isn't the love for NSWman in the Australian lineup down to the fact that they have the better cricketers? Try again, ****.

Be right up there for the ****test article of the year award.

 

[Prince EWS]

Be right up there for the ****test article of the year award.

Pretty sure it's a piss-take tbh.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hasn't won a single match as captain; has lost several.

Yeah I'd even prefer Clarke to Hussey.

 

[Ruckus]

Pretty sure it's a piss-take tbh.

It's in a satirical style, but he is still making some ridiculous points.

 

[Blaze 18]

England scored over 500 3 times in 4 tests, bowlers are to blame equally for that. Look at the Durban test in SA, India failed with the bat both innings but their bowlers got the job done regardless of how many runs their batsman made.

Yeah, but it is hard to do anything when you only have ninety-eight runs to bowl with. There is no pressure whatsoever on the opposition.

 

[Uppercut]

Interestingly, I feel the opposite. Clarke and Ponting had horrendous series but should come good again, assuming Ponting is relieved of the captaincy. I've had the impression that Watto would make a good captain but people don't seem to consider him a good choice. The number six position is a worry, but if they can blood Khawaja there and he takes to Test cricket quickly, their batting will look very good again.

Huge if, regarding Khawaja. He's nothing more than a prospect and most prospects don't make it.

I agree that Clarke's not the pressing concern. Regarding Ponting, I don't think it makes much difference. He might have a little bit more to give and he might not, but he's no long-term solution anyway. It's like the Indian team with Rahul Dravid- even if you stick with him and he comes good, which might be the right thing to do, you'll only end up with exactly the same problem in a year or two. Katich is 36 and Hussey is 35, it's hard to see where the next generation is coming from.

The bowling however, looks like a long-term worry.. the lack of even a remotely competent spinner is a big problem, given Clarke doesn't bowl these days. Johnson winning you one match in ten isn't good enough when he is liable to lose you two or three for every one of those. Harris doesn't look like he can stay fit.

Yuck, you're completely just making up numbers here. If that was even close to the truth he certainly wouldn't still be averaging below 30. He's inconsistent and frustrating but on the whole is still reasonably good and I haven't even the slightest doubt that without him Australia would have gone to Melbourne 2-0 down.

Anyway, Australia have a ton of reasonable pace options- Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Siddle, Harris, Copeland, Bollinger, Cameron, George. There's a pretty good chance that at least one of them will come good, or at the very least get the job done sufficiently for the next few years.

It's fair enough to say that their spin bowling's a mess, but they do actually have a pretty decent spinner with a good bit of test experience who's taking wickets in the Sheffield Shield this year (which no spinner ever manages) and has also scored two centuries in nine innings batting down the order. They just inexplicably won't pick him.

 

[andyc]

Reckon the coaching staff need to take a good long look at themselves and ponder their immediate future. I'm not really sure what Langer has been doing since Clarke and Ponting's techniques seem to have regressed if anything and Troy Cooley has really done **** all too.

Agree completely. Was pretty shocking that JL managed to go pretty much straight from player to batting coach despite having little experience in it.

 

[GotSpin]

Indeed. From his autobiography and generally cricketing personality, I hardly think he's the one to lay the hard truths down either.

 

[Jono]

Isn't Langer looking to go into politics anyway? Just hope he goes and joins the Libs campaign and frees up the spot for an actual coach.

 

[vcs]

Huge if, regarding Khawaja. He's nothing more than a prospect and most prospects don't make it.

I agree that Clarke's not the pressing concern. Regarding Ponting, I don't think it makes much difference. He might have a little bit more to give and he might not, but he's no long-term solution anyway. It's like the Indian team with Rahul Dravid- even if you stick with him and he comes good, which might be the right thing to do, you'll only end up with exactly the same problem in a year or two. Katich is 36 and Hussey is 35, it's hard to see where the next generation is coming from.



Yuck, you're completely just making up numbers here. If that was even close to the truth he certainly wouldn't still be averaging below 30. He's inconsistent and frustrating but on the whole is still reasonably good and I haven't even the slightest doubt that without him Australia would have gone to Melbourne 2-0 down.

Anyway, Australia have a ton of reasonable pace options- Hilfenhaus, Johnson, Siddle, Harris, Copeland, Bollinger, Cameron, George. There's a pretty good chance that at least one of them will come good, or at the very least get the job done sufficiently for the next few years.

It's fair enough to say that their spin bowling's a mess, but they do actually have a pretty decent spinner with a good bit of test experience who's taking wickets in the Sheffield Shield this year (which no spinner ever manages) and has also scored two centuries in nine innings batting down the order. They just inexplicably won't pick him.

Dunno about Johnson. It just feels like that watching him. Probably a lot like Sreesanth for India right now, only a bit better.

 

[Jono]

Mitch is a lot better than Sree.

 

[vcs]

I might have pitched it a bit strongly against Johnson there but I still don't think you can just look at his average and outright dismiss the notion that he loses his team more matches than he wins. It's not such an outrageous thought, IMO.

 

[Uppercut]

I'm not sure what you mean when you talk of someone "losing" their own team a match at all, can you clarify? Sounds a little silly to me.

Maybe you can give an example of a match Johnson has lost for Australia?

 

[Prince EWS]

So now that Australia has officially not regained the Ashes, we have to take a long hard look at our side and envision where it will be in four years time.

Why? If you're continually picking for the future you'll always miss out on the present. What happens in four years - do the players we've picked specifically for their ability to still be playing in four years get dropped in their prime because they won't be playing in another four years?

Australian cricket needs to get rid of its Ashes-centric attitude and pick the best team to win each Test match regardless of the age of the players and regardless of the position Australia are on the Ashes cycle. People are trying to get far too funky with all this succession planning discussion - selection should be a lot simpler than that. Pick the best team for each game and the rest will sort itself out. Having young players exposed while older, better players are left out not only cheapens the baggy green and Test cricket as a whole but does more harm than good to the players in question and the system as a whole. Eventually the idea that the best way to get into the team is to look like you might be able to do something rather than actually doing it sets in and you end up with a whole team full of Callum Fergusons.

Australia should avoid a long term youth policy building for 2012 or 2014 or whenevr. That's how you get stuck in ruts, with kids who aren't used to winning.

Indeed.

As somebody was saying in the commentary (i think warney or chappelli), we should persist with the youngsters we have and build for the future.

Which means enough with selecting 30 year old men for the bowling spots. We need to feed in Hazlewood, Pattison, Starc, George etc

No, that's ridiculous. Hazelwood and Starc aren't even among the best five bowlers from their state at the moment and having them exposed in humiliating defeats at Test level is not going to do anyone any good. Australian fans need to give themselves their best chance to win every Test in front of them and stop the obsession with a) the Ashes and b) accepting nothing less than being the best team in the world and taking stupid risks which are ridiculously unlikely to come off in desperate attempts to get there.

I agree that Cameron isn't too old to debut. But I don't think that we can realistically expect more than 4-5 years out of him. Which means that if the choice is between him and someone five years younger, you pick the younger bloke.

If the choice is between him and someone five years younger, pick the better player.

As soon as they are available imo, irrespective of their domestic performances. About time we let some bowlers develop in the biggest stage for once, like erm almost every other country is doing atm (Anderson, Broad, Finn, Roach, Ishant, Morkel etc etc)

No.

I guarantee every country that is doing it would much rather not be.

Yes.

I've never seen Copeland bowl, but I have seen Cameron and if the former's good enough to keep the latter out of the NSW team he must have something because I was impressed with Cameron.

The wickets at Sheffield Shield level, particularly this season, are a lot more lively than Test wickets around the world. Copeland's more accurate and patient, and gets more off the surface, so he's the better Shield bowler than Cameron at this stage, but I'd back Cameron to be more successful at Test level at the moment. An extreme optimist would compare Copeland to Asif, while Cameron more of a Steyn-type bowler (obviously nowhere near as good, but works to a similar plan and has similar tools).

Im not a massive fan of building for a long way in the future. You can end up pushing young guys who turn out to be not good enough, casting aside experienced players and when the future arrives you can end up with nothing.

Pick your best XI regardless of reputation and potential. Have some young guys who can be blooded if there is a long term spot available due to injury or loss of form, have some experinced guys who can fill in for injury as short term replacements when a game needs to be won and, when it is close to a tossup, give the young player the spot.

Most importantly, know who your best players are. I keep seeing 10s of names thown forward for this Australia team. Its like fans and the selectors have no real idea who their best group of 20 or so players are. That will lead to a lot of chopping, changes, chances being given, people being dropped and a whole lot of drama.

:

I'd need to know how good the alternatives are to really say what the right course of action is, particularly Copeland and Cameron, who I've never seen bowl. But I wouldn't be panicking as far as the bowling is concerned, Johnson, Hilf, Siddle, Harris and Bollinger might not be good enough to win back the Ashes from a side I've been very, very impressed with, but they're all test-class. If there are better bowlers around to replace them with then that's fantastic.

One of the biggest problems that exist in Australian cricket at the moment is the complete uncertainty that exists around the fast bowling. I'm actually very happy with Australia's fast bowling depth at the moment - there are eight or nine bowlers who are Test standard or potentially Test standard. The problem though is that the pecking order is completely unknown; they're all of a similar standard but none of them are particularly consistent at this point and they all have their own strengths or weaknesses. It means that's no real excuse to carry under-performing bowlers for long periods as there are a host of other potentially good options, but it also means that the bowlers are really unsure of their places which never creates a good team environment. No-one really knows who Australia's best four bowlers are and a couple of performances either way can change things drastically.

 

[vcs]

I'm not sure what you mean when you talk of someone "losing" their own team a match at all, can you clarify? Sounds a little silly to me.

Maybe you can give an example of a match Johnson has lost for Australia?

Well, Johnson's efforts in/against England (bar Perth) probably come as close as a bowler could to lose his team a game. Hasn't he bowled some utter rubbish in conditions suiting bowlers.. Pakistan at Leeds from earlier this year comes to mind. The thing about bowlers is.. they can be terrible and still end up averaging 30 or thereabouts by picking up some cheap wickets/tailenders when they've already done a lot of damage to their team's cause.

 

[Prince EWS]

I feel better now.

 

[Uppercut]

Well, Johnson's efforts in/against England (bar Perth) probably come as close as a bowler could to lose his team a game. Hasn't he bowled some utter rubbish in conditions suiting bowlers.. Pakistan at Leeds from earlier this year comes to mind. The thing about bowlers is.. they can be terrible and still end up averaging 30 or thereabouts by picking up some cheap wickets/tailenders when they've already done a lot of damage to their team's cause.

I guess you must just mean the game at Lord's. Can't think you would try to crack that Johnson had lost Australia matches in which they'd already been bowled out for under 100 on the first morning, and he bowled well in the game at the Oval.

The idea that he loses Australia more games than he wins would appear less ridiculous if you could find more than one fairly dubious example.

 

[vcs]

His numbers seem to give the eternal impression of flattering him. I'm aware that I'm sounding pretty irrational here, but I get the feeling many people are a bit dubious of whether the pluses outweigh the minuses with him. As good as the recent Perth spell was (it was ATG quality), it just leaves you with even more questions.. why does a Test class bowler find it so hard to understand and control what he is capable of, and atleast produce it on a semi-regular basis?

 

[Hit Wicket]

Haven't read through the entire thread, but am honestly nothing short of surprised at the backing Steve Smith has received in this and some other related threads.

He is the classical bits and pieces player and is an utter waste of space in a test match. Sure, he might develop one of his traits to test level and then selecting him would make sense. But how can he develop them being in the test side is beyond me. 3 of the next 4 series Australia are playing are against Sri Lanka, South Africa, and India. They will absolutely pummel the kind of mediocrity that Smith brings to test match cricket. Can you imagine the glee Sangakkara or Sehwag will feel when Smith is twirling the ball in his hand trying to appear like Warne. Steyn just might burst out in laughter when he sees Smith bringing his bat down from 3rd slip at Durban.

Like any self respecting test side, the focus should be on specialists with good fundamentals, rather than on medicority in the name of 'talent'.