Does anyone think Australia's situation is not actually that dire?

[Riggins]

clarke aint doing any bowling. and nor should he.

 

[Red]

I'm of the opinion that if we have Twatto bowling at full capacity, or someone like Henriques/McDonald in the team, Smith can be our spinner.

Others will disagree.

 

[Ruckus]

The biggest issue IMO for Australia is the lack of matches down the line against weak opposition which could boost confidence and let players feel their way in. Their last six tests have been in India and England and their next eight will also be against England. Then, if I'm right, they go straight to South Africa for three tests in early 2014. There's talent and potential in the Australian batting line up, but giving them an extended run could actually badly damage confidence because for the foreseeable future, Australia are playing nothing but high standard opposition. By the end of the South African tour, Australia will have played 20 of their last 23 tests against top three opposition. There's just never been time to let people find their feet in a winning side where runs weren't really hard to accumulate. It's why Hussey's retirement was such terrible timing as one of Khawaja or Smith could've played that series and got confidence and runs, instead of getting another birth in India or the middle of an Ashes series.

I think there is too much emphasis being put on stuff like confidence which is a fairly temporary state of mind. For me, the main problems facing these players are much more deep-seated mental frailties, and the only way I can see them resolving those problems in the longer term is the same way anyone resolves anything - with a lot of hard work. I think if anything playing high standard opposition should be a good thing. They need to really hit rock bottom and somehow find it within themselves to learn how to graft in tough conditions. The problem I see with a lot of them is that they seemingly don't value their wicket as individuals, and are influenced far too much by what's going on around them - hence the frequent batting collapses. You look at great players and they all have a massive amount of self-respect for their own batting. They might equally value what's important to the team, but nevertheless they put a high premium on their own batting in and of itself; i.e. they want to be the best they can be, irrespective of what team environment they are part of.

 

[Ruckus]

What's far more relevant is what they've averaged in the last 6 months.

I think it's far more important picking players based on overall class, or perhaps potential, rather than form. Form is temporary, so if you're picking a player solely on good form, you often end up with good initial performances inevitably followed by a reversion back to their true 'standard' somewhere down the track. Shaun Marsh was a pretty good recent example of that happening. If you're picking someone on class, it's far more likely it will work out for the better in the long term. Obv it's better if you can pick someone based off both class and form, if you have the luxury of choice, but yeah if it's one or the other...

 

[hendrix]

Yeah but the only good measure of class is a test career longer than >20 games, so you're back at square one.

 

[Goughy]

Not a perfect comparison by any means but outside of Clarke, the Aus top 6 in the last Test has played a combined 88 Tests with approx 5000 runs at 32 and 5 centuries. That is comparable to Alan Knott's batting career. As a top order line-up it isnt close, yet, to being competitive.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Ok. We've lost two tests. The first could have easily gone either way. We were righteously smashed up the date in the second test, but we were also shafted by not breaking a significant partnership when Smith's catch was disallowed, and Twatto shafted all his team mates with his self indulgent reviews.

No doubt our main problem is our batting. We are particularly prone to collapses, and obviously because of that we are not creating significant partnerships.

The main issue I see is at the selection table. We are selecting batsmen for a couple of tests, then dropping them after low scores. I think the selectors need to be definite here. They need to select players, particularly batsmen, with two attributes. Technique and temperament.

I think there selectors really need to decide who is our best top six (technique and temperament) for the next 2 and basically stick with them. I think we need to stop playing openers at six, and mediocre allrounders as openers, and openers at 3, and Clarke anywhere but 5 etc etc.

Here are my thoughts on Australia's batsmen...

Watson- time to be dropped for good. Has had enough chances. Cannot convert starts, and has a massive technical flaw.

Rogers- will be a series by series proposition at his age. I rate him as an opener, shows some grit. I've been pleasantly surprised by his fielding considering he's a ranga with glasses.

Khawaja- I feel Australia owe this guy an extended run in the test team. And I think he has the goods to make it.

Hughes- I like him as a guy, but he has massive flaws for an elite batsman. I think he either opens or doesn't play.

Clarke- good etc etc

Smith- has grown on me in these two tests. Seems to want "it" more than some others. Nice player of spin, and good in the field.

Warner- should figure prominently based on raw ability. Far more than just a slogger, has a nice compact technique. Needs to be in the right headspace.

Cowan- seems like a champ but lacks the killer instinct. I'd love to see him carve a test career as a reliable opener averaging 40 plus, but I'm not sure he can do it.

Haddin- makes runs sometimes but has brain diahorrea sometimes too.



I'd love to hear who else people rate. Doolan, Burns, Maddinson and Henriques have all made runs for Aust A.


In all honesty, if you were Australian selector right, who would you pick right now if all players are available? A top seven to lock in for the next 12-24 months.

Agree with you on most points.
I don't think the situation is as dire as the journalists and media and fans are making it out to be in Australia.
What they are going through is a cycle, you cannot have the great team of the 00s all the time, England were an average side for most part of the 90s, same with India who used to beat most teams at home quite comfortably. They will struggle against the South Africa and England (although last year I thought they played quite well against South Africa) but if you're only struggling against the top 2 teams in the world, I don't think you're that bad.
I think Australia can still beat the bottom 5 teams 3-0 at home quite comfortably which would include (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, West Indies, New Zealand and Bangladesh)
Just last year they made mince meat of Sri Lanka.

Now the performances this year, I don't want to get too much into the India series because I did not follow it.

Even now I believe that were India to tour Australia, it would be quite a comfortable series win for Australia if not another whitewash.


As far as the Ashes is concerned, the hole Australia find themselves in is largely their own doing, and no I am not blaming Big Bash and T20 like Coverdale and Gooch. But I am blaming strategic flaws and lack of a long term vision.

Chris Rogers should have been playing in the team the day Justin Langer retired back in 2006.
Today he would have been a totally different player. I still believe he is very good and if given a longer run can be a solid batsman at the top for the few years he has left but its extremely difficult to start blasting hundreds in such a pressure situation against a pretty good seam attack in foreign conditions. He still did pretty well and got two bad decisions out of 4 innings so far. I hope the selectors dont get impatient under pressure fromt the media and start chopping and changing.

Shane Watson - should not be opening period. Someone who is a walking lbw against the swinging ball should be batting in the middle. I don't know how much truth there is in Arthur's leaked documents but if its true that Clarke wants him in the middle, he is absolutely correct.

Cowan - another decent solid player who has demonstrated the ability to be patient, see of the new ball which is what he is meant to do. He has not flourished the way he should have but I would give him a few more opportunities.

Hughes - Should not be in the team. I think the selectors are still thinking about his 160 in South Africa on debut and hoping he does that.

Warner - Should be in the team, his indiscipline and incident that led to his ouster is part of a bigger problem of indiscipline in Australian cricket starting from the grass root level and sending him to South Africa is not going to solve that problem. He should be fined heavily and disciplined but he should be in the team.


The batting order should be

Warner
Rogers
Cowan
Clarke
Khwaja
Watson
Haddin
4 bowlers

 

[Flametree]

t.

Even now I believe that were India to tour Australia, it would be quite a comfortable series win for Australia if not another whitewash.

I am no Indian fanboy, but I think this is being wildly optimistic. They are a far better side than the one that toured last year, and minus Hussey, Australia are considerably worse.

Plus the 3-0 prediction against the lower-ranked teams... remember Hobart?

I think Australian fans have lots of reasons to be seriously worried. It isn't just the lack of top quality batsmen, it's the inability of the members of the side to get the best out of themselves. Whether that's down to individual attitudes, lack of coaching, atmosphere in the camp, the weird and wonderful world the selectors live in, or what else I don't know. But in India and now in these tests, too many players have failed to perform their basic jobs. Look at someone like Cowan - how is it possible that someone whose basic job was to blunt the new ball and bat as long as possible has persisted in getting out to attacking strokes before he's got to 30? You could make similar points about most of their batsmen.

I also have serious doubts about the selectors. Since Warne retired there have been two decently performed spinners - Hauritz and Lyon. Not world-beaters by a long way, but decent. And both have been absolutely shafted by the selectors, who would rather pick the likes of Doherty, Beer and now Agar in the hope of unearthing something magical without any real evidence to support them. They picked a squad for this series overloaded with opening batsmen. They can't seem to find a keeper who can catch. They got rid of Katich without having anyone better coming through to take his place. They chose Starc ahead of Harris for Trent Bridge (that decision attracted little comment around the match, but it was not clever). They (or the touring selectors) have already mucked around with the batting order in two tests. I just don't see any evidence that they have a clue what they're doing. So even if Australia could potentially put together a good side, I very much doubt the selectors would be able to find them...

 

[Dan]

Chris Rogers should have been playing in the team the day Justin Langer retired back in 2006.
Today he would have been a totally different player. I still believe he is very good and if given a longer run can be a solid batsman at the top for the few years he has left but its extremely difficult to start blasting hundreds in such a pressure situation against a pretty good seam attack in foreign conditions. He still did pretty well and got two bad decisions out of 4 innings so far. I hope the selectors dont get impatient under pressure fromt the media and start chopping and changing.

Nah, at the time the selection of Phil Jaques was the right call - just a damn shame he had all his back issues and was never the same player.

 

[morgieb]

I am no Indian fanboy, but I think this is being wildly optimistic. They are a far better side than the one that toured last year, and minus Hussey, Australia are considerably worse.

Plus the 3-0 prediction against the lower-ranked teams... remember Hobart?

I think Australian fans have lots of reasons to be seriously worried. It isn't just the lack of top quality batsmen, it's the inability of the members of the side to get the best out of themselves. Whether that's down to individual attitudes, lack of coaching, atmosphere in the camp, the weird and wonderful world the selectors live in, or what else I don't know. But in India and now in these tests, too many players have failed to perform their basic jobs. Look at someone like Cowan - how is it possible that someone whose basic job was to blunt the new ball and bat as long as possible has persisted in getting out to attacking strokes before he's got to 30? You could make similar points about most of their batsmen.

I also have serious doubts about the selectors. Since Warne retired there have been two decently performed spinners - Hauritz and Lyon. Not world-beaters by a long way, but decent. And both have been absolutely shafted by the selectors, who would rather pick the likes of Doherty, Beer and now Agar in the hope of unearthing something magical without any real evidence to support them. They picked a squad for this series overloaded with opening batsmen. They can't seem to find a keeper who can catch. They got rid of Katich without having anyone better coming through to take his place. They chose Starc ahead of Harris for Trent Bridge (that decision attracted little comment around the match, but it was not clever). They (or the touring selectors) have already mucked around with the batting order in two tests. I just don't see any evidence that they have a clue what they're doing. So even if Australia could potentially put together a good side, I very much doubt the selectors would be able to find them...

Hmm there's a lot of valid points here, but....

A lot of the evidence that you use about the selectors is old news. Dumping Hauritz for Doherty and Beer (though this is sorta emulated as you say in replacing Lyon with Agar - but that is somewhat better as at least he went OK in Shield cricket) and dumping Katich were decisions of the old selectors. And the lack of keeping skills isn't the problem of selection. Some of the other stuff yeah has been poor.

What Australia needs for our batsmen are Clarke-style boot camps. I'm pretty sure he said he credits that to turning him into the run beast that he's been since he became captain. I don't know how well these would work for everyone, but it could for those with good techniques but poor application/attitude (Warner, Watson).

We're yet to see the seeds of the Lehmann regime blossom. His coaching could be better for the team than Arthur's.

 

[morgieb]

Nah, at the time the selection of Phil Jaques was the right call - just a damn shame he had all his back issues and was never the same player.

Yeah, he should be in the side today in theory, but unfortunately chance has hurt him.

 

[Tangles]

We don't have to win but I want us to be competitive and fight. That only happened in TB because of our no 11 runs. Our best 11 may not win but injuries and wierd selections make it even harder. I can see us losing 5 zip right now which would put us at 9 in a row heading to Brisbane. If this isn't dire that would be.

 

[Adders]

Apologies as I haven't read much of this thread, just wondering what the conclusion is after 7 pages??.........Is Australian cricket ****ed or is everything Hunky Dory

 

[Justo]

We've decided to begin recruiting South Africans. This will not only bolster our own faltering batting stocks but decimate English stocks in the process.

You'll have this decade but we'll take the next.

 

[the big bambino]

Says the man from the country who have a new spin hope from Pakistan.

This from an Englishman?

The elephant in the room is also from South Africa.

 

[91Jmay]

You started it really by picking English blokes like Roy Symonds to be fair.

 

[Spark]

Cribb to comment.

 

[burr]

It's fairly dire. The breeding ground for test cricketers in Aus is not healthy. England didn't just happen on their current team. They - to their enormous credit - made fundamental changes to their set-up at domestic level. This idea our problems stem from picking too many openers is absurd. Root has (thus far) succeeded in two positions at test cricket because he's a talented and patient young cricketer.

This isn't a cycle. We shouldn't be this bad. We shouldn't be as good as early 2000s, but we shouldn't be this bad either. Excusing it as a cycle is just lazy. Anyway, I do agree we need to persevere with some of these underperformers. Constantly making changes isn't going to instill confidence in anyone.

All I ask for the remainder of this series is some fight, and I think at this stage it's all most Australian fans are asking for. If we lose 5-0 but can rack together some hundreds, some winning sessions and some gritty performances then, frankly, I'll be thrilled.

 

[Cooky Monster]

We've decided to begin recruiting South Africans. This will not only bolster our own faltering batting stocks but decimate English stocks in the process.

You'll have this decade but we'll take the next.

Seeing the amount of south sea islanders that have played/play for your rugby teams it must be a bit of a shame for Oz (and NZ) that the south sea islanders don't play cricket to the level that they play rugby.

 

[the big bambino]

You started it really by picking English blokes like Roy Symonds to be fair.

Really? How many guys would you have to hand back who weren't born in England? As to the point, if players like Lamb, the Smiths, Dolly and debuted before Symonds then you don't really have one. Atleast Symonds came here at 3. Months not years. Best career move he ever made.