***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[Spark]

In any case, even whilst Hussey was having his horror run, he still managed to play some decent knocks here and there (Oval 09, Sydney 10 - if Ponting's double counts, then so does that).

Ponting has some fifties in India.

That is literally it.

I'm aware of the Hussey thing and it's that logic which was my rationale for retaining Clarke post-Ashes, but at what point does push come to shove?

 

[Spikey]

Is an illogical selection that works a good selection? Is an logical selection that doesn't work a bad selection?

Going just on logic - Ponting has to go. 2 years with one ton. It's not good enough. Simple as. It's illogical to keep him on. He could fire up again, but he's showing no signs of that. He's throwing his wicket away, time and time again.

 

[Furball]

You've ignored my point. The reasons above also go for him not being in this Test. Yet people were willing to give him this and possibly the NZ series. Why has that changed because of this freak Test?

Because it's not a freak Test. That's now the third time Australia have been rolled for less than 100 in the last 18 months. If you're not going to take steps to remove those most responsible for the batting lineup underperforming after a performance like that, just when are you going to do it?

 

[hang on]

You've ignored my point. The reasons above also go for him not being in this Test. Yet people were willing to give him this and possibly the NZ series. Why has that changed because of this freak Test?

agree with u. but, at the same time, he did get out to some pretty innocuous - relatively speaking - deliveries. the same playing around his pads technique problem.

 

[Spark]

Ugh. Can't believe I'm saying this either. Actually calling for the dropping of a player who I idolised whilst growing up.

 

[Furball]

Where was Michael Husseys??? Michael Hussey's indication was when he made runs in a Shield game (after failing before that) just before the Ashes. Guess what Ponting did just before the tour to South Africa?

Hussey had at least retained a semblance of form in limited overs cricket and tonned up to rescue the Sydney Test vs Pakistan after the batting lineup crumbled in the first innings.

 

[pup11]

A realistic XI for the next test should be:

1.Hughes
2.Usman
3.Ponting
4.Watto
5.Clarke
6.Hussey
7.Haddin
8.Harris
9.Copeland
10.Cummins
11.Lyon

The whole focus is on the batting line-up but the fact that on this pitch Johnson and Siddle despite being front line bowlers only managed two wickets between them is simply atrocious and should ensure that they play no part in the next test.

 

[Spark]

Hussey had at least retained a semblance of form in limited overs cricket and tonned up to rescue the Sydney Test vs Pakistan after the batting lineup crumbled in the first innings.

Not particularly relevant IMO

 

[Prince EWS]

Ponting is still in our best six batsmen, no doubt in my mind. Hughes I wouldn't be so sure of...

Yeah I'm inclined to agree. It's a bit like how North scored that ton in India which cemented his place for the first Ashes Test and put pressure on Hussey; I still had more faith in Hussey but the selectors had backed a guy (North) under pressure and watched him score a ton so it'd make no sense to drop him from the next Test side. Hughes scored a ton two Tests back so his place is safe for now, while Ponting's continued poor performance puts him under quite justified pressure for his place.

All that said, we know how the Hussey/North thing panned out in the Ashes.

 

[Scaly piscine]

No you don't. You cannot ignore a year of pathetic form from a batsman in serious decline.

Australia's woes stem from ignoring pretty much all of their batting woes in the last 2-3 years. Almost to a man, this is the same line up that collapsed at Lord's, The Oval, Perth vs the West Indies, Sydney vs Pakistan, Leeds vs Pakistan and every single first innings in the last Ashes. The only batsman since losing the Ashes in 2009 who's actually been dropped is Marcuss North - for a lineup that's underperformed and collapsed as much as Australia have in the last 2 years that's simply incredible.

Yep. It's a similar story with the bowling. Picking Johnson and Siddle in the same side is a recipe for days of rank awfulness. Yet Australia keep doing it. The spinner and other seamer are the only one going through a revolving door selection policy. Australia find a guy who has a bit of consistency and performed well in Copeland and he's the one that gets dropped for Harris. It's madness.

Australia treated Clark like crap when he was one of their better bowlers. Now they've moved onto treating Bollinger like crap.

Ponting was finished 18 months ago. He's not the sort of batsman who could turn it round. Guys like Tendulkar and Dravid have the fundamentals to fall back on. Ponting doesn't, he's more of an eye/hand genius type player.

Australia are going beyond the joke stage. It's only funny when the sap's got dignity.

 

[Ikki]

Because it's not a freak Test. That's now the third time Australia have been rolled for less than 100 in the last 18 months. If you're not going to take steps to remove those most responsible for the batting lineup underperforming after a performance like that, just when are you going to do it?

It is a freak Test. If Ponting was S.African he'd be their 3rd highest scorer. If only Australia had collapsed yesterday I'd grant you your point...but it was utterly ridiculous. If you're going to give him a series or two to find form, then let that play out. I wouldn't drop him based on this Test.

 

[Furball]

A realistic XI for the next test should be:

1.Hughes
2.Usman
3.Ponting
4.Watto
5.Clarke
6.Hussey
7.Haddin
8.Harris
9.Copeland
10.Cummins
11.Lyon

The whole focus is on the batting line-up but the fact that on this pitch Johnson and Siddle despite being front line bowlers only managed two wickets between them is simply atrocious and should ensure that they play no part in the next test.

The focus is on the batting lineup because they were dismissed for 47 (and they owed 26 of those runs to the numbers 10 and 11 in the lineup.) Changing bowlers whilst completely ignoring the cluster**** of a batting lineup is ridiculous. Blaming the bowlers for an admittedly poor showing in the 4th innings is incredible. The bottom line is that when you roll a side for 96 in the middle of the 2nd day, the bowlers should under no circumstances be bowling again come the end of that day. Keeping the bowling lineup unchanged might just be a case of delaying the inevitable, but dropping 2 of the 4 bowlers and retaining every single batsman is just insanity.

 

[Spikey]

Now they've moved onto treating Bollinger like crap.

I'm half/half about that. If they don't think he's fit for tests he can't be picked.....at all. They can't drag him out of NSW pre-season where fitness work would be done to play in ODers in SL. And he missed 2 FC games to play in T20's OD's in SA. I wouldn't say he's been treated crap, just absurdly.

 

[Howe_zat]

Lol'n at Scaly. Don't think I'll bother with the number of things that are demonstrably wrong in there.

 

[Spark]

It is a freak Test. If Ponting was S.African he'd be their 3rd highest scorer. If only Australia had collapsed yesterday I'd grant you your point...but it was utterly ridiculous. If you're going to give him a series or two to find form, then let that play out. I wouldn't drop him based on this Test.

Umm. The first innings was pretty bad from batsmen not named Michael Clarke too, you know.

 

[Furball]

It is a freak Test. If Ponting was S.African he'd be their 3rd highest scorer. If only Australia had collapsed yesterday I'd grant you your point...but it was utterly ridiculous. If you're going to give him a series or two to find form, then let that play out. I wouldn't drop him based on this Test.

If that's the way you're looking at it then don't bitch and moan when the same lineup collapses again in the future and wonder just how on earth that's happened.

 

[robelinda]

Is this how England fans reacted during the 89, 90/91, 93, 94/95, 97, 98/99, 01, and 02/03 Ashes after every loss?

 

[Spark]

The focus is on the batting lineup because they were dismissed for 47 (and they owed 26 of those runs to the numbers 10 and 11 in the lineup.) Changing bowlers whilst completely ignoring the cluster**** of a batting lineup is ridiculous. Blaming the bowlers for an admittedly poor showing in the 4th innings is incredible. The bottom line is that when you roll a side for 96 in the middle of the 2nd day, the bowlers should under no circumstances be bowling again come the end of that day. Keeping the bowling lineup unchanged might just be a case of delaying the inevitable, but dropping 2 of the 4 bowlers and retaining every single batsman is just insanity.

Precisely. They were rattled, confused, and being asked to win a Test by cheaply skittling a world-class batting lineup on a deck that was quickly turning into a quite nice batting strip with no atmospheric assistance.

Yes, they should have picked up more than 2 wickets (and if people could catch that may have happened), but...

 

[NUFAN]

A realistic XI for the next test should be:

1.Hughes
2.Usman
3.Ponting
4.Watto
5.Clarke
6.Hussey
7.Haddin
8.Harris
9.Copeland
10.Cummins
11.Lyon

The whole focus is on the batting line-up but the fact that on this pitch Johnson and Siddle despite being front line bowlers only managed two wickets between them is simply atrocious and should ensure that they play no part in the next test.

That bowling attack isn't anything special apart from Harris and it's a scary thought having Harris at 8!

The only unforced change I would make for the second match is Johnson out and probably Copeland in.

1. Hughes 2. Watson 3. Khawaja 4 Ponting 5. Clarke 6. Hussey 7. Haddin 8. Copeland 9. Siddle 10. Lyon 11. Harris.

 

[weldone]

I find it strange that after winning we always say that 'we played well', and after losing we blame 'selection issues'. I'm pretty sure I myself have been guilty of it many times. But there is a natural tendency within us to not believe that we had the best possible XI for the game and yet lost to a better XI, perhaps.