***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[benchmark00]

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.

So we hung our hats on a knock Hussey did a year earlier and on the basis of some ok ODI form? Well how about Ponting's hundred in the world cup semi?

The cases are almost exactly the same, except I'd back Ponting over Hussey because Ponting is an ATG.

 

[Spark]

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.

Nine for Twenty one.

 

[Ikki]

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

Yes? That's why I said Test and not inning.

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.

If a line-up collapses then the problem is not just Ponting. I am not talking about the line-up. Different batsmen are in for different reasons. We know what we get with Ponting once he is in form. So if the decision is to give him a few series then let that happen.

As bad as he has been in the past year, and very average the few before it, I think Ponting is worth that risk for the next Test. Based on that, I'd say open the debate again whether he should play the series after.

 

[weldone]

Nine for Twenty one.

Yeah, but 9 for 21 doesn't in itself indicate selection issues. It might indicate that your best batting lineup isn't good enough, also. Just a possibility...

 

[Furball]

So we hung our hats on a knock Hussey did a year earlier and on the basis of some ok ODI form? Well how about Ponting's hundred in the world cup semi?

The cases are almost exactly the same, except I'd back Ponting over Hussey because Ponting is an ATG.

So your case can summed up thus:

Hussey came good again after 2 years of dog**** form
Ponting was a better batsman in the past than Hussey, therefore Ponting will definitely do the same.

I'm genuinely lost for words.

 

[Ruckus]

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.

Yep. You've gotta ask as well, even if (and a big if at that) he does regain form, what would that mean to the team anyway? He is 37 years old. He could score 4 or 5 centuries or whatever and win us a few matches, but given his recent form (predominantly concentration issues imo, which don't just go away) I think it is sooo unlikely he would peak much more than that. Also, if he did hit form again, he would inevitably be retained for a lengthy period of time (Ashes 2013 ambitions etc.) and I could quite feasibly see him going through another down period before retirement. Sure it would be amazing to see him in full flight again, but is the balance of risk and reward really worth it, considering how improbable his return to form actually is? I don't think so...

 

[Spikey]

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.

Don't think they'll be able to say no to Cummins tbh. Just got the feeling

 

[keeper]

Australia know what they need to do to rebuild as they did it 25 years ago.

The questions is - have they got the raw talent to make it work?

 

[benchmark00]

So your case can summed up thus:

Hussey came good again after 2 years of dog**** form
Ponting was a better batsman in the past than Hussey, therefore Ponting will definitely do the same.

I'm genuinely lost for words.

Let's sum up your argument then:

You can't ignore **** form no matter who.
You can ignore **** form if it's Hussey.

Solid stuff once again from you

 

[Ikki]

Yep. You've gotta ask as well, even if (and a big if at that) he does regain form, what would that mean to the team anyway? He is 37 years old. He could score 4 or 5 centuries or whatever and win us a few matches, but given his recent form (predominantly concentration issues imo, which don't just go away) I think it is sooo unlikely he would peak much more than that. Also, if he did hit form again, he would inevitably be retained for a lengthy period of time (Ashes 2013 ambitions etc.) and I could quite feasibly see him going through another down period before retirement. Sure it would be amazing to see him in full flight again, but is the balance of risk and reward really worth it, considering how improbable his return to form actually is? I don't think so...

For some reason, I reckon if Ponting hit form he'd play on till at least 40. Just a feeling. Otherwise, I'd agree with you.

 

[robelinda]

Just get rid of Johnson forever.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

Haha yeah I've noted this many times. It seems to be particularly true with Australian fans and the media here; there's a deluded arrogance at times over an almost inherent right to always be better than the opposition.

That said, to deny that there are significant problems with how the Australian team has been selected over the last year or two would be equally deluded. That Katich and Bollinger are not part of the squad is nigh on disgraceful and I only had to have one look at the wicket on a computer monitor on the morning of Day 1 to tell you that Copeland should've been playing this match. Those are three examples of obviously poor selection that 90% of fans on this board could've pointed out to you before the match even began. Whether or not they would've made a difference is of course debatable but when you lose and you know you were hindered by selection - and knew it before the match, too - then it's hard not to get frustrated with it and blame it for some of your woes.

 

[Pothas]

I love Corky but he's a hilariously bad commenter. Keeps calling Amla "Hamish" atm.

My favourite bit was when he just repeated exactly what Rob Key (who is actually pretty good) just said pretty much word for word.

There are worse though (Steve Harmison)

 

[benchmark00]

My favourite bit was when he just repeated exactly what Rob Key (who is actually pretty good) just said pretty much word for word.

There are worse though (Steve Harmison)

Surely Steve Harmison doesn't have a media gig?

 

[Spark]

Australia know what they need to do to rebuild as they did it 25 years ago.

The questions is - have they got the raw talent to make it work?

Bowling - yes.

Batting - not at this stage. That Callum Ferguson is being touted as a possible short-term Test player proves it.

 

[pup11]

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.

Certainly not defending our batting line-up but there is no shying away from the fact that we were playing with a two man bowling attack right through this game, despite our horrific batting display in the 2nd innings we still would have had a chance of winning this game had all our bowlers been contributing something to the attack.

This was totally a bowler's pitch and if guys like Siddle and Johnson can't perform in these conditions, then considering their past performances as well they have very little merit of holding onto their places in the side.

 

[keeper]

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?

Oh yes - but not only after Ashes defeats.

Endless permutations of selection interspaced with reviews of the fundamental structure of cricket in this country. In hindsight not that many of our players should have been on the international stage or had the raw talent to do so. Too many players selected.

Oh, and add a bit of gallows humour of the 'we're **** and we know we are'. Remember the barmy army stuff all started when we were crap.

A lot of the conversation was about raw talent that wasn't delivering on the Test stage - notably Ramprakash and Hick (maybe Lewis). Too much time spent attempted identifying the new Botham.

 

[NUFAN]

Yeah, but 9 for 21 doesn't in itself indicate selection issues. It might indicate that your best batting lineup isn't good enough, also. Just a possibility...

The thing is we've picked probably one of the best lineups for facing an average team and getting runs quickly.

Where would people actually rank Australia in terms of batting time?

India, South Africa, England, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and even New Zealand have shown that they are better at it compared to Australia.

I realize we were in a commanding position with a 188 run lead, but once we got to say 3/13, it was time to be composed, that's why I can't comprehend some of the shot selections from the middle order. Honestly, if we had a suitable replacement I would never pick Haddin again after that shot and his age.

Of course Marsh's injury stuffed us up heaps as he'd be in great form recently and it meant that dire number 4 Clarke had to bat 1 spot ahead of where gun number 5 Clarke should have batted.

Honestly, if you wanted to pick a team to last 150 overs you would be picking a few more batsman like Khawaja, Rogers, Katich, Klinger in your top 6 - Who knows what the new selectors will do though..

 

[keeper]

My favourite bit was when he just repeated exactly what Rob Key (who is actually pretty good) just said pretty much word for word.

There are worse though (Steve Harmison)

Who's Harmy with? Can't see how anyone would think that a good idea...

 

[Pothas]

Surely Steve Harmison doesn't have a media gig?

Oh I am afraid he does, currently in Sky's Z list of county cricketers who do the occasional domestic one day game but only a matter of time before he moves onto greater things, the crappy studio job covering a Bangladesh test with Shaun Udal.