Australia - the aftermath of the Ashes

[Uppercut]

Hauritz>Ponting.

As a batsman .

Seriously though, it's unlikely that it would have won Australia the Ashes but definitely would've improved their chances. If it was within my power I'd have fired everyone involved in his non-selection after the first test. Their job is to pick the best team and for some reason they're deliberately not doing it- I refuse to believe they could seriously have thought Doherty or Beer were better than Hauritz. It's akin to spot-fixing, tbh, except they're not getting paid extra for not doing their job properly.

 

[Spark]

An interesting article, this

Gideon Haigh: Cricket Australia, look at yourself | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Midwinter]

A good article.

Says what needs to be said.

But there needs to be more focus on the team and the selection of it.

Who took wickets and made runs and who didn't.

 

[stephen]

Hauritz>Ponting.

As a batsman .

Seriously though, it's unlikely that it would have won Australia the Ashes but definitely would've improved their chances. If it was within my power I'd have fired everyone involved in his non-selection after the first test. Their job is to pick the best team and for some reason they're deliberately not doing it- I refuse to believe they could seriously have thought Doherty or Beer were better than Hauritz. It's akin to spot-fixing, tbh, except they're not getting paid extra for not doing their job properly.

Am I being too cynical if I think that the reason Hauritz has been picked for India is both so that if he fails (which given Indian conditions is quite possible) there they can point and say "see, we told you he was crap" and also so he won't get as many first class games to make his case for Sri Lanka?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I never watch the thing, but it's a huge tradition in AFL football: do you ever see Grand Finalists at the North Melbourne Grand Final breakfast? Even though, mind you, you still have a number of hours till the 2:30pm start; rather than having to get into your warm-up about an hour later if you are beginning a match at 10:30am like Hughes and Clarke were to be doing.

EDIT: couldn't really give a flying about the supposed drinking incident, couple of pots over dinner when you're probably not going to be involved in the rest of the match isn't a hanging incident. What it does confirm is what my "spies" have suggested, with Clarke and Hughes being a little bit of a separate cartel to the rest of the group.

 

[TumTum]

Am I being too cynical if I think that the reason Hauritz has been picked for India is both so that if he fails (which given Indian conditions is quite possible) there they can point and say "see, we told you he was crap" and also so he won't get as many first class games to make his case for Sri Lanka?

They didn't need to do that, we already knew he was crap.

 

[stephen]

They didn't need to do that, we already knew he was crap.

But he's not. He's certainly the most qualified man for the Australian spinner's position at the moment.

CA are setting up a no-win situation for him. Perform well and they'll say that LO cricket is not test cricket and so you can't judge his form based on LO success. Perform badly and they'll say that he just isn't good enough.

 

[Spark]

Don't mind TumTum, sometimes his opinions seem to form without and hence be completely immune to logic or evidence.

 

[Oscillatingmind]

But he's not. He's certainly the most qualified man for the Australian spinner's position at the moment.

CA are setting up a no-win situation for him. Perform well and they'll say that LO cricket is not test cricket and so you can't judge his form based on LO success. Perform badly and they'll say that he just isn't good enough.

Yeah but by their own ****ed up logic Doherty got a test on the strength of a ODI...

 

[morgieb]

Yeah but by their own ****ed up logic Doherty got a test on the strength of a ODI...

Yeah, but it's well know that the people in power don't really like Hauritz. I don't really mind if it means O'Keefe gets a game, but him being behind Doherty and Beer is dire tstl.

I do think that if we aren't playing England the selectors think that Hauritz is the best option - they didn't pick him because of the KP factor.

 

[TumTum]

But he's not. He's certainly the most qualified man for the Australian spinner's position at the moment.

Ok so let's settle something: He's the best qualified spinner in Australia, but he's also crap.

Worth a go CA to drop him in order to find a spinner that could end up better, I definitely like the look of Beer.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Talk is that England like the look of him, too.

When he's on the opposition team-sheet.

 

[andyc]

Don't mind TumTum, sometimes his opinions seem to form without and hence be completely immune to logic or evidence.

Not necessary Spark.

 

[marc71178]

I do think that if we aren't playing England the selectors think that Hauritz is the best option - they didn't pick him because of the KP factor.

By that logic how the hell did Hughes get selected?

 

[TumTum]

By that logic how the hell did Hughes get selected?

One has potential and the other doesn't. It's not as if Hauritz had a bag of tricks in his armory and just needed control (where Hughes all the strokes but just needs to find a consistent way of scoring).

Although I do think Hauritz's favorite opponent after Pakistan would have been England. Didn't he also get that wicket of KP attempting an ambitious sweep shot?

 

[morgieb]

By that logic how the hell did Hughes get selected?

The fact that he was seen as the reserve opener and no-one else was better?

I actually have NFI why he wasn't picked, I'm just making assumptions.

 

[Spikey]

Yeah, but it's well know that the people in power don't really like Hauritz. I don't really mind if it means O'Keefe gets a game, but him being behind Doherty and Beer is dire tstl.

I do think that if we aren't playing England the selectors think that Hauritz is the best option - they didn't pick him because of the KP factor.

The more I think about the more I'm convinced KP got out to SOK on purpose in that tour match...

 

[andyc]

The more I think about the more I'm convinced KP got out to SOK on purpose in that tour match...

The whole 'they picked an SLA thing for KP' is so much more confusing for the fact that, if you're going to be picking one because you think they'll get KP out, surely you'd pick the bloke who actually got him out, let alone for the whole under-30 with the ball, over 40 with the bat thing. FMD, selectors.

 

[Debris]

The more I think about the more I'm convinced KP got out to SOK on purpose in that tour match...

The weird part about that is that Steven O'Keefe wasn't the one picked.

 

[Andre]

One has potential and the other doesn't. It's not as if Hauritz had a bag of tricks in his armory and just needed control (where Hughes all the strokes but just needs to find a consistent way of scoring).

Hauritz has improved, Hughes has gone backwards. I know I'd want the bloke who is consistently improving, and, more importantly, being open minded enough to try and improve.

Plus, Hughes ain't got all the shots. In fact, the opposite. He's got a cut, a swipe, a slop sweep and a pull. He can't drive, he can barely play on the on side. He is seriously limited as a batsman at this stage, and hasn't seemed like he wants to improve.