Australia - where to from here

[Burgey]

Yeah he definitely shouldn't be at 8, he would be a great number 10 or decent number 9. The question is though, apart from Johnson or O'Keefe who could do a decent job at 8 for Australia from the players currently under consideration?

Any combination is going to look a bit weak if we drop Johnson, keep Cummins (obv) and keep Lyon.

Unless there's only a struck match between options from a bowling POV, I don't think it should matter mate.

Your number eight should be there to take wickets. That should be the first consideration. If he happens to be a better batsman than a bloke who's no more likely to take wickets, then run with him. But only if they are of a similar bowling standard.

 

[howardj]

but yeah, particularly the first reason! lol

 

[Prince EWS]

- Cricket is our national sport. We're a proud cricketing nation who has just won on the subcontinent, and drawn with the 2nd best team in the world in their own backyard. we hardly need a foreigner to come in and save us from ourselves. And these things do matter in sport. It's like with the Big Bash - you want Queenslanders playing for the Heat, not guys moving around into the team who have no connection with Queensland. Following sport is about emotion, and identifying with the personnel in and around the team

Look, I agree when it comes to players, but it's not like fans cheer on a coach and take joy out of his performances. His role should be in the background, getting the best out of the players that the fans identify with and have passion for; not to be face of the team or the sport.

 

[Spikey]

god i hate nationalism

 

[howardj]

like with soccer I have absolutely no problem with it, as the standard of coaching overseas dwarfs anything served up by most aussie coaches - no problem with that at all, as the chasm is so wide.

but with cricket, don't CA tell me that arthur is so far ahead of other candidates like Rixon that we have to go with him.

It's a question of degree. To my mind, when it's neck and neck, what's wrong with going for the local.

 

[howardj]

god i hate nationalism

It's more nuanced that that

seriously

read the abovve post

 

[uvelocity]

Does Inverarity (does this guy have a nickname!?)

hen's teeth?

 

[NUFAN]

Unless there's only a struck match between options from a bowling POV, I don't think it should matter mate.

Your number eight should be there to take wickets. That should be the first consideration. If he happens to be a better batsman than a bloke who's no more likely to take wickets, then run with him. But only if they are of a similar bowling standard.

Yeah I agree that primarily 8 is there to take wickets, that's why I'm not going to forget about Johnson's bowling. Having someone at 8 who has some ability with the bat really does help our chances of posting a decent total.

The issue at the moment is that I think we have so many bowlers who are of similar bowling standard.

Cummins and Harris should always play if both are fit, neither should be batting above 9. but I've seen cases made for Copeland, Bollinger, Siddle, Johnson, McKay, Hilfenhaus, Starc, Pattinson, Cutting, Hazlewood and George (okay perhaps not George). So assuming that we have Cummins, Harris and Lyon, the other bowler is going to have to be able to bat to a reasonable standard, which rules out Bollinger, Hazlewood and George.

I guess it's not that earth shattering what I'm saying as obviously someone who offers the team more is the best option.

 

[Ruckus]

I look forward to the days when our top 6 are competent enough that we shouldn't have to worry about the strength of our tail. Not holding my breath though...

 

[Spikey]

It's more nuanced that that

seriously

read the abovve post

i've read it. It makes no sense. "Sorry we only hire locals. Don't care if you're better and willing to move here" ****

I take it you were opposed to that South Australian Lehmann taking over at Queensland? Queensland recruiting New South Welshmen Forrest? It makes no ****ing sense. For Australia I want the best support stuff possible. If that means our coach is from Kenya and our head selector is from England and our medico is from Canada so ****ing be it. For the Shield I want the best 66 players playing. If that means the SA team is made up of 8 Victorians so be it. If NSW decide that our batting line-up is so weak it'd be better for both us and the other teams if we brought in an overseas player instead of weakening the comp by playing some 18yo kid so be it. I want the best.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah I agree that primarily 8 is there to take wickets, that's why I'm not going to forget about Johnson's bowling. Having someone at 8 who has some ability with the bat really does help our chances of posting a decent total.

The issue at the moment is that I think we have so many bowlers who are of similar bowling standard.

Cummins and Harris should always play if both are fit, neither should be batting above 9. but I've seen cases made for Copeland, Bollinger, Siddle, Johnson, McKay, Hilfenhaus, Starc, Pattinson, Cutting, Hazlewood and George (okay perhaps not George). So assuming that we have Cummins, Harris and Lyon, the other bowler is going to have to be able to bat to a reasonable standard, which rules out Bollinger, Hazlewood and George.

I guess it's not that earth shattering what I'm saying as obviously someone who offers the team more is the best option.

Yeah true.

 

[howardj]

i've read it. It makes no sense. "Sorry we only hire locals. Don't care if you're better and willing to move here" ****

.

haha stopped reading after that

 

[uvelocity]

so if the 11 best cricketers are saffers poms etc, should we just poach em all and give em baggy's spikey?

 

[Ruckus]

I agree with it all except for the part about Canadians

 

[Spikey]

so if the 11 best cricketers are saffers poms etc, should we just poach em all and give em baggy's spikey?

yeah why not

the country the coach comes from matters as much as the eye colour of the players we pick

 

[Spark]

I look forward to the days when our top 6 are competent enough that we shouldn't have to worry about the strength of our tail. Not holding my breath though...

Even when your top six is awesome, having a good tail really helps though.

 

[adub]

My argument with Arthur is the same as the argument about bowlers batting at No.8.

First thing first - get the best bowler/coach.
When you have to split two equals then batting/nationality comes into play.

So on Arthur he did ok at with SA. How much he had to do though when you consider he had pretty fair cattle is a fair question? It must be pretty complicated to coach Kallis and Steyn. But fair's fair he was the guy and they challenged us and poked their nose in front for a short time.

But what would he have done with NZ? Rixon had them about as good a side as they've ever been. His work with NSW is also superb with 4 Shield wins and One Day championships (including 2 doubles). It wasn't just his wins but also his important development work bringing along Michael Slater, Mark Waugh, Steve Waugh, Mark Taylor, Michael Bevan, Glen McGrath, and Michael Clarke.

I find it hard to believe Arthur is really that outstanding that he must have the job over Rixon. His comments blowing wind up WA nuffies, whilst understandable don't fill me with any confidence. At best Arthur is no better than Rixon to my mind and so if it has to come to a tie breaker the local guy with 40 years of involvement in the game in Australia should get the gig. And frankly that's being kind to Arthur - Rixon is the better candidate I reckon.

 

[Ruckus]

Even when your top six is awesome, having a good tail really helps though.

Yeah true, but having to worry about whether we can replace Johnson with another bowler who can bat as well is kind of annoying and, in better circumstances, would be pretty insignificant. It definately is a problem though. As mediocre as Johnson is with the bat overall, I'm not sure whether a direct swap of him for e.g. Bollinger would be that much better for the team in the long run.

 

[robelinda]

Well I don't mind the arthur appointment, but surely it highlights what a dire interview Roxon must have done, for Arthur to beat him, you would think deep down the board would want to hire an Aussie, but Arthur must have obviously presented an irresistible case, and Rixon didn't. Its probably that simple aint it? Rixon will still be there when Arthur is fired in 2 years anyway when the back to back Ashes in 2013/14 are lost to England AGAIN......and Johnson is still throwing pies.

 

[Top_Cat]

hen's teeth?

Dunno but he's the invers of Arthur in terms of coaching ability.

z