Do you want to see the Aussies lose the series in India ?

[Richard]

I agree with that, get rid of all limited overs cricket from Ashes tours.

If there's one Twenty20 game I actually watched with some interest, it was the one at the start of that tour - purely because it was a prelude to The Ashes.

I think, as long as it's not overdone (5 ODIs and even a Twenty20 if they insist), ODI cricket played before an Ashes kinda drums-up even more excitement. It's the slow build, the "here's a taste of something with some resemblence but not the thing everyone's really been waiting for". As well, clearly, as its main purpose of building for whenever the next WC is.

 

[GIMH]

Reckon the ODI's beforehand helps us to be honest. Lots of players get used to England and the conditions before the real stuff starts.

The ODIs will be after the Ashes next year, just as they were in the Ashes down under. What's the saying - after the Lord Mayor's show?

Didn't mind having ODIs before the Ashes, mate of mine summed it well during the 2005 ODI series - "these ODIs are decent enough but it's a bit like the warm-ups the footy team play before the World Cup isn't it?"

 

[Richard]

I think post-Ashes ODIs worked OK when it was the tri-series in Australia (especially given England usually lost the Test series), but over here there has never been an England-Australia ODI series (bilateral or tri) played after an Ashes before, and for good reason. It's a terrible idea and I hope it's not repeated after 2009.

 

[Redbacks]

Or rather, it was presumed they couldn't with little to no real hard evidence to suggest such a thing.

Well that's a question of whether selectors believe that one day form, and repsonse under difficult circumstances, tell us anything about a player as a test batsman. Life unfortunately is not fair, it has been like a cocoon in Australia, we are winning our fair share of games, there is no need to question (or no papers to sell) having a shot at the Australian selection policy.

 

[Richard]

Well that's a question of whether selectors believe that one day form, and repsonse under difficult circumstances, tell us anything about a player as a test batsman.

Well Love didn't even play any ODIs, and barely any proper Tests either (in those he did he did a decent job and didn't exactly bat under the pump so much as once). Hodge is clearly more accomplished in the longer game than the shorter (not that his ODI performances have been woeful) and to judge someone apparently on their "response under difficult circumstances" which can in reality be nothing of the sort, is always dangerous.

Life unfortunately is not fair, it has been like a cocoon in Australia, we are winning our fair share of games, there is no need to question (or no papers to sell) having a shot at the Australian selection policy.

AFAIC, poor selection should be criticised. Selection is about doing the best job you can do, and you should not get away with poor selection simply because there are a large number of outstanding players who are keeping results good.

 

[Redbacks]

Well Hodge just hit 102 off 106 against the Redbacks, so I wish he was with the Aus team
I am purely speculating as to the reason why Hodge may have lost his place in the test team, without full knowledge of the selection process I am only able to give a best approximation of the possible reason. Other factors that we might not be privy to are: attitude, fielding, professionalism, teamwork which I think should have some say in player selection. Not playign for NSW doesn't do you any favours either.

 

[GIMH]

I think post-Ashes ODIs worked OK when it was the tri-series in Australia (especially given England usually lost the Test series), but over here there has never been an England-Australia ODI series (bilateral or tri) played after an Ashes before, and for good reason. It's a terrible idea and I hope it's not repeated after 2009.

Yeah, I think it's because of the packed calendar next year, they've figured that it's better to have a bunch of ODIs in September rather than two Tests

 

[Julian87]

I'd happily see England beat India.

 

[tooextracool]

The ODIs will be after the Ashes next year, just as they were in the Ashes down under. What's the saying - after the Lord Mayor's show?

Didn't mind having ODIs before the Ashes, mate of mine summed it well during the 2005 ODI series - "these ODIs are decent enough but it's a bit like the warm-ups the footy team play before the World Cup isn't it?"

Playing ODIs after the test series is almost always a bad idea IMO as there is always the inevitable excuse of "the lads are no longer motivated" or "its been a long tour" (as was the case in the SA-England series). This is obviously going to be the case for all series except India-Pakistan series because quite frankly most other teams put a greater emphasis on tests rather than ODIs (and rightly so) and therefore from a spectators standpoint this is always a bit of a let down.

However, from the perspective of winning a series, I can somewhat understand the logic behind playing ODIs after tests. Inevitably, most teams are raw and undercooked at the start of the first test of an away tour, especially with the number of practice games that teams play these days. South Africa and India last year both performed worse in their first game than they did for the rest of the series, similarly England performed worse in their first test in NZ than they did for the rest of the series and I believe that this will always give the home side the upper hand in such circumstances.

I have stated many times before, that I am a firm believer of abolishing ODIs, as I believe that they have run their course. There is little logic in continuing the game when 20-20 generates far more interest in the game around the world.

 

[tooextracool]

I'd happily see England beat India.

AFAIC, England has a better chance of beating India in India and *thats* saying something.

 

[tooextracool]

BJ did a job in the WI. He was the best bowler in the first innings of the first Test and was solid throughout the rest of the series. When he was on song, was one of he few genuinely quick swing bowlers in the country at the time.

If Brendan Julian could bowl 2 balls on the same spot in the course of a spell, that might be an accurate statement. However, Julian was far and away the most wayward bowler to have played for Australia since I have started watching cricket. He was the equivalent of VRV Singh for India. He was definetly hyped up (for whatever reason) by Australians at the time, but it just goes to show that Australians going ga-ga over someone who can hold a bat and send a ball down at a decent pace isnt exactly something associated with just this decade.

 

[DaRick]

Good god, no - even though I admittedly wouldn't be surprised if that eventuated.

 

[tooextracool]

Australia's next test was three months later and he was replaced by Martyn. I don't see how that is a poor selection - Love made a ton in an innings of 556 against Bangladesh and has since been unable to hit form when a spot opened up. Bad luck - yes. Poor selection - no.

Yeah Australia have made some ordinary decisions, but a hell of a lot less than any other test team going around. Most of those you've listed aren't even bad selections.

This would be true, except that Katich was selected ahead of Martin Love for the 2nd test against Zimbabwe after Lehmann was injured. The reason being? Well Katich's all round abilities were far more important to the Australian selectors and they felt he would be a like for like replacement for Lehmann's lollipops. Whatever way you look at that, that selection was a joke, but as always with Australian selectors this past decade, poor selections could not override the quality of their back up players. Border may have been a great player, but some of the selections that were made while he was on the panel were baffling to say the least, something that was never likely to change when a clown like Merv hughes succeeded him.

 

[aussie]

I have stated many times before, that I am a firm believer of abolishing ODIs, as I believe that they have run their course. There is little logic in continuing the game when 20-20 generates far more interest in the game around the world.

Don't think see why that should be the case especially when most of the major nations except for AUS, ENG & SA, whose FC structures are very poor who still use the 50 over game as basis to pick players for their test side.

I'm sure you would agree excellent 20/20 form, would be a wise gauge in picking a player for a test side.

 

[tooextracool]

Picking players based on the 50 overs format is a recipe for disaster anyways and hardly merits having ODI cricket going. I can understand that in some countries, especially India ODI cricket is still lucrative but I believe that t20s are far more popular and on the basis of what we've seen so far it certainly appears that t20s are here to stay. I am not saying that ODIs should be abolished right now, but i think there will definetly be the case for it within the next couple of years or so as t20s get even more popular.

 

[Precambrian]

The logic for ODIs being huge generator is not based on popularity. But the fact that there will be 100 over-breaks for ads to be aired, while in 20-20s case it's just 40% of that. I don't think 20-20s are that popular to be priced more than double the slot amounts for ODIs,

 

[aussie]

Australia have been better than most the last 20 years because they've had better players. Their selectors have still made any number of basic errors. A few pertaining purely to Tests (as with other countries, the ODI list is too long to even start on) in the last decade or so:
Jaques apparantly being about to be dropped after averaging 50.37 in his last 16 innings';
Beau Casson and Jason Krejza getting anywhere near Test squads never mind teams (if there is just 1 spinner of First-Class standard in the country, only 1 spinner should even be in Test contention);
Daniel Cullen playing for Australia, even if it was only against Bangladesh;
The whole Damien Martyn affair in 2005/06 (dropped when he shouldn't have been, recalled when he shouldn't have been);
Tait touring England in 2005 to gain experience and ending-up in the Test team when patently not good enough;
Brad Hodge's treatment;
Hauritz playing ahead of MacGill in India in 2004/05;
Watson replacing Lehmann in 2004/05 (Watson's subsequent selection in 2005/06 was fair enough);
Symonds' unjustifiable preference to Katich in 2003/04;
Bracken, Williams and Lee playing ahead of Kasprowicz at home in 2003/04;
Martin Love scoring a century in his last Test innings in 2003 and never playing again;
Gavin Robertson and Peter McIntyre playing Test cricket at all;
Adam Dale and Paul Wilson being preferred to Damien Fleming in 1997/98;
Simon Cook playing Test cricket when he was barely able to get into his state team;
Brendon Julien playing Test cricket at all.

Australia's selectors may have got some basic things right - but then again so has any set of selectors, even Pakistan's. For a side that has had such a wealth of quality in recent years, some of the selectorial errors have been very poor indeed.

The only legimate selection shocker was Martyn being dropped, MacGill not being picked in 04 & probably Scott Mueler playing test cricket at all (but you didn't mentioned that).

- Casson/Hauritz/Cullen playing test aren't as bad as you make it sound given the circumstances, geez

- Don't know much about the Fleming situation circa 97/98, with Dale n Wilson. So can't say much about that.

- Julian & Cook were quick replacements for injuries and did decent jobs even if they shouldn't have played tests.

- Robertson from what i remember wasn't the worst offie i'd seen.


The one's in bold makes me wonder if you are on crack.

Overall though, i think you scratching a bit too hard to find serious faults with some of Australia's selection during the glory days.

 

[Richard]

The only legimate selection shocker was Martyn being dropped, MacGill not being picked in 04 & probably Scott Mueler playing test cricket at all (but you didn't mentioned that).

Muller was a less poor selection than several others. He probably shouldn't have played but he at least had some element of a case to do so.

- Casson/Hauritz/Cullen playing test aren't as bad as you make it sound given the circumstances, geez

None of them are even close to Test-standard and that's patently obvious from their domestic records. None of them should have been in Test squads, under any circumstances. Not with MacGill, Hogg and McGain in the picture as at least one was when each of the above were picked.

- Don't know much about the Fleming situation circa 97/98, with Dale n Wilson. So can't say much about that.

Fleming was always patently a better bowler than either Dale or Wilson, who were no more than decent state bowlers (in the FC game - in OD cricket Dale was outstanding). Fleming had also made a good start to his Test career before injury got in the way.

- Julian & Cook were quick replacements for injuries and did decent jobs even if they shouldn't have played tests.

The fact they did decent jobs doesn't stop a selection being poor. There were more deserving players about who were overlooked.

- Robertson from what i remember wasn't the worst offie i'd seen.

That's as maybe, but Stuart MacGill had made his Test debut the game before Robertson was picked for the first time. What was the point playing MacGill against SA if you were going to change your minds for the very next game?

The one's in bold makes me wonder if you are on crack.

Not really, they were patently obvious bad selections.

Overall though, i think you scratching a bit too hard to find serious faults with some of Australia's selection during the glory days.

No I'm not, I couldn't care less about trying to find faults in successful teams. However I don't like it when success obscures poor quality, be it poor-quality play or poor-quality selection.

 

[aussie]

Muller was a less poor selection than several others. He probably shouldn't have played but he at least had some element of a case to do so.

Don't quite remember the exact circumstances, nor do i have the time to research cricinfo news of the 99/00 summer. But along with Cook vs NZ in 97/98 just saw a name i wasn't too familiar with.

I guessing it was down to injuries & probably something good the selectors saw in them with a few good performances at the time, since during those days Fleming & Dizzy (who had that major injury in SRI) were in and out with injury, Reifel wasn't the same test bowler of previous years & Kasper was inconsistent.

None of them are even close to Test-standard and that's patently obvious from their domestic records. None of them should have been in Test squads, under any circumstances. Not with MacGill, Hogg and McGain in the picture as at least one was when each of the above were picked.

McGain hahaha, son McGain clearly only last season came into the reckoning for Australia selection. So bringing him up is pretty silly.

I agree MacGill should have been picked for India 04, but given how he bowled vs IND the previous summer n in SRI early that year, i guess i see why the selectors probably felt they could have done without him given that the pace attack was always going to MAIN WICKET-TACKING OPTION IN 2004.

Circa 2004 people White bowling hadn't totally gone backwards as yet & Hauritz had looked ok in ODI's he had played in too.

Cullen i had no issue with him getting a chance againts the lowly Bangladesh over Hogg who at the time hadn't convinced much after his exploits in WI 03 that he could transford his ODI success on the test stage.

Afte 07 WC after when Hogg perfected his wrong un, claims for a test comeback where serious of course, but he didn't really step in his second chance. But damn i wouldn't mind having him around ATM.

Fleming was always patently a better bowler than either Dale or Wilson, who were no more than decent state bowlers (in the FC game - in OD cricket Dale was outstanding). Fleming had also made a good start to his Test career before injury got in the way.

I'm not debating whether Fleming was a better bowler than the two of course he was. I am saying though you bashing the Australian selectors for picking Dale & Wilson over him crica 97/98 is very debatable given the strong chance that Fleming could have been injured then.

Which i think he was since i know for a fact during the IND tour in 98 with McGrath, Dizzy also out those selections where probably based on some sort of form i guess. Don't see it by no means as a selection blunder.

The fact they did decent jobs doesn't stop a selection being poor. There were more deserving players about who were overlooked.

Very picky indeed.

On knowledge of the 95 series, given that Fleming & McDermott out injured leaving only Reifel as the senior bowler along with Warne i'd be interested to know which other Australian bowler you think was more deserving of a place than Julian in 95?

That's as maybe, but Stuart MacGill had made his Test debut the game before Robertson was picked for the first time. What was the point playing MacGill against SA if you were going to change your minds for the very next game?.

I'm guessing the Aussie selectors wanted an offie for India to back-up Warne & the fact they realised that MacGill in India probably would have been smashed even at his best so looking back i'd say him missing out in 98, 01 & 04 wasn't that shocking. Especialy given the servicable work Robertson, Miller & Hauritz did as back-ups.

Not really, they were patently obvious bad selections.

LOL:

Firstly Jaques being axed just because he avergaes 50.37 isn't bad at all. Picking Katich in front of him is basically as horses for courses selection with Australia looking to get the best balance out of there team for India.

Tait yes was definately picked for the 05 Ashes for the experience, no one really expected the Big 4 to encounter such worries, but it was pretty clear behind the Big 4 he was the best bowler in Australia at the time, so by no means a poor selection.

The poor 2005 selection of course was not picking MacGill for a test.

How was Martyn recalled when he shouldn't have?. He shouldn't have been dropped in the first place.

I agree Hodge after being picked post 2005 was definately poorly handled, he was just a victim of the Martyn selection blunder, since the selectors clearly wanted Martyn back in time for the 06/07 series.

Watson over Lehmann in 04, haha, Did you even look at that series

Lehmann since Ind 04 throughout that Australian summer was losing it damn, plus the series againts PAK was already won, it was a SCG test where MacGill usually got a test, so what was wrong with Watson a test?

Symonds over Katich in SRI 04, i believe i argued this with you before. It was harsh on Katich at the time after his heroics at the SCG, but Symonds batting had come along so brilliantly in ODI's, the selectors took a risk with the top 5 batting slots in good order, to see how useful he could be as a potentially attacking bat @ 6 along with providing some potential effective overs with his off-spin.

It didn't work and the Kat was back in the 3rd test. I see that selection down the basic fact with the Australia overall so strong at the time, such risk could have been taken, geez its not as if it back-fired anyway.


On Lee, Williams & Bracken being picked ahead of Kasper vs IND in 03/04. I think you have read that situation wrong to be honest.

Kapser for one really was an inconsistent test bowler for most of his career excpet for his brilliant 2004. Kasper was having a brilliant season for Queensland during the 03/04 domestic season. So was justifiably picked during the VB ODI series then for the tour to SRI.

Bracken & Williams fully deserved a go especially given how superbly they proved in the TVS ODI series with no McGrath/Dizzy/Lee againts the Indians.

On Martin Love haha, what about Stuart Law vs a better SRI attack in 95/96 then.

Seriously though with Australia's settled batting line-up during that time of:

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Waugh
Lehmann
Gilchrist

Love as you may have remember was a replacement for Lehmann for the MCG test in 02/03 vs ENG & continued the job in the WI after Martyn hadn't recoved from a finger injury i beileve he suffered while batting during the WC Final. So Love was always going to be back-up player at the time which coincidentally was his peak years.

He probably could have pushed for a place again, after Waugh retired but Katich, Hodge, Clark, Symonds & Hussey the freak have stepped up ahead of him.

No I'm not, I couldn't care less about trying to find faults in successful teams. However I don't like it when success obscures poor quality, be it poor-quality play or poor-quality selection.

Well as i just proved. poor selection was hardly the case with the Australian side.

 

[Richard]

Don't quite remember the exact circumstances, nor do i have the time to research cricinfo news of the 99/00 summer. But along with Cook vs NZ in 97/98 just saw a name i wasn't too familiar with.

I guessing it was down to injuries & probably something good the selectors saw in them with a few good performances at the time, since during those days Fleming & Dizzy (who had that major injury in SRI) were in and out with injury, Reifel wasn't the same test bowler of previous years & Kasper was inconsistent.

Muller only played because Gillespie was injured true, but otherwise he was at the top of the pecking-order.

McGain hahaha, son McGain clearly only last season came into the reckoning for Australia selection. So bringing him up is pretty silly.

No it's not. Casson was preferred to him, and should never, ever have been.

I agree MacGill should have been picked for India 04, but given how he bowled vs IND the previous summer n in SRI early that year, i guess i see why the selectors probably felt they could have done without him given that the pace attack was always going to MAIN WICKET-TACKING OPTION IN 2004.

Circa 2004 people White bowling hadn't totally gone backwards as yet & Hauritz had looked ok in ODI's he had played in too.

Cullen i had no issue with him getting a chance againts the lowly Bangladesh over Hogg who at the time hadn't convinced much after his exploits in WI 03 that he could transford his ODI success on the test stage.

Afte 07 WC after when Hogg perfected his wrong un, claims for a test comeback where serious of course, but he didn't really step in his second chance. But damn i wouldn't mind having him around ATM.

Hogg was always superior to Cullen. Cullen was never good enough to play for Australia. MacGill likewise was superior to Hauritz regardless of anything.

I'm not debating whether Fleming was a better bowler than the two of course he was. I am saying though you bashing the Australian selectors for picking Dale & Wilson over him crica 97/98 is very debatable given the strong chance that Fleming could have been injured then.

Which i think he was since i know for a fact during the IND tour in 98 with McGrath, Dizzy also out those selections where probably based on some sort of form i guess. Don't see it by no means as a selection blunder.

He wasn't injured. Fleming was called-up after Dale and Wilson. This was terrible, terrible selection.

Very picky indeed.

On knowledge of the 95 series, given that Fleming & McDermott out injured leaving only Reifel as the senior bowler along with Warne i'd be interested to know which other Australian bowler you think was more deserving of a place than Julian in 95?

Julian may have had a fair case in 1995, but he certainly didn't in 1993.

I'm guessing the Aussie selectors wanted an offie for India to back-up Warne & the fact they realised that MacGill in India probably would have been smashed even at his best so looking back i'd say him missing out in 98, 01 & 04 wasn't that shocking. Especialy given the servicable work Robertson, Miller & Hauritz did as back-ups.

Robertson and Hauritz were both woeful. If you want a fingerspinner instead of a decent wristspinner, this is poor selection. You pick your best bowlers, and if you don't pick your best bowlers, preferring "variety" of whatever sort, this is poor selection.

LOL:

Firstly Jaques being axed just because he avergaes 50.37 isn't bad at all. Picking Katich in front of him is basically as horses for courses selection with Australia looking to get the best balance out of there team for India.

Someone who averages 50 and has been playing as a first-choice has no case, ever, to be dropped.

Horses for courses does not apply. Katich played only as a fill-in - never should a fill-in replace a player who has been playing as a first-choice if both have performed well.

How was Martyn recalled when he shouldn't have?. He shouldn't have been dropped in the first place.

Because he'd done woefully since being dropped - averaged 22 or something. Dropping him was poor and recalling him was poor - that's 2 mistakes with 1 player the same season.

I agree Hodge after being picked post 2005 was definately poorly handled, he was just a victim of the Martyn selection blunder, since the selectors clearly wanted Martyn back in time for the 06/07 series.

In which case Martyn shouldn't have been dropped.

Watson over Lehmann in 04, haha, Did you even look at that series

Lehmann since Ind 04 throughout that Australian summer was losing it damn, plus the series againts PAK was already won, it was a SCG test where MacGill usually got a test, so what was wrong with Watson a test?

Lehmann was officially "rested" for the SCG game. He should have played the full series, then been dropped for good if he was going to be dropped. His woeful play that season was nothing short of inexplicable, he's never played that badly before or after.

Watson in those days wasn't that good a batsman, clearly not yet ready to debut in Tests ahead of high-calibre players like Lehmann.

Symonds over Katich in SRI 04, i believe i argued this with you before. It was harsh on Katich at the time after his heroics at the SCG, but Symonds batting had come along so brilliantly in ODI's, the selectors took a risk with the top 5 batting slots in good order, to see how useful he could be as a potentially attacking bat @ 6 along with providing some potential effective overs with his off-spin.

It didn't work and the Kat was back in the 3rd test. I see that selection down the basic fact with the Australia overall so strong at the time, such risk could have been taken, geez its not as if it back-fired anyway.

It certainly did backfire, as Symonds failed miserably and Katich performed when given the chance he should have been given 2 Tests previously. There is no case, ever, under any circumstances, for dropping someone who played as well as Katich did in his previous Test.

BTW, Symonds' bowling is little better than Katich's and certainly not enough to give his vastly inferior batting preference.

On Lee, Williams & Bracken being picked ahead of Kasper vs IND in 03/04. I think you have read that situation wrong to be honest.

Kapser for one really was an inconsistent test bowler for most of his career excpet for his brilliant 2004. Kasper was having a brilliant season for Queensland during the 03/04 domestic season. So was justifiably picked during the VB ODI series then for the tour to SRI.

Bracken & Williams fully deserved a go especially given how superbly they proved in the TVS ODI series with no McGrath/Dizzy/Lee againts the Indians.

Kasprowicz's First-Class performances, all career, were infinitely superior to either Bracken's or Williams'. He should NEVER have played Tests ahead of them. If you allow ODIs to impact on that, this is poor selection. It's by no means confined to Australia, it's a mistake all selectors make with alarming regularity, but that others make the same mistake does not change a mistake to a good decision.

On Martin Love haha, what about Stuart Law vs a better SRI attack in 95/96 then.

Seriously though with Australia's settled batting line-up during that time of:

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Waugh
Lehmann
Gilchrist

Love as you may have remember was a replacement for Lehmann for the MCG test in 02/03 vs ENG & continued the job in the WI after Martyn hadn't recoved from a finger injury i beileve he suffered while batting during the WC Final. So Love was always going to be back-up player at the time which coincidentally was his peak years.

He probably could have pushed for a place again, after Waugh retired but Katich, Hodge, Clark, Symonds & Hussey the freak have stepped up ahead of him.

Love should've been first cab off the rank, not Katich. Quality player though Katich is, Love is the same, and he had his foot in the door and should have played in 2003/04.

Well as i just proved. poor selection was hardly the case with the Australian side.

Even if that were true, which it isn't IMO, that doesn't mean that Australia being successful means their selection can't be poor.