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

[aussie]

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

Oh yes my mistake. But it was by no means a selection blunder it was to the Windies who Australia where always expected to win despite the fight they put up. McGain was picked for India which was important.

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

Geez, it was a tour to BANGLADESH RICHARD, Cullen had a good season for SA what in god's name was wrong with picking him?

Yea sure Hogg is a better bowler but at the time, he was clearly still seen as an ODI option a test recall for Hogg wasn't in anyone's thinking. Back then people where reckoning Warne could play until he was 40 & MacGill was thought he could gone past this season as well.

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

.

Again I aint able check cricinfo news to this. But you are saying before the start of the 98 tour to India Fleming was fit?

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

93? thats out of bounds, we are discussing the so called Australian selection blunders in the glory years so that would be from WI 95 to ENG 06/07...

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.

Robertson & Haurtiz had woeful records but certainly didn't perform woefully (although you can argue the Mumbai pitch aided Haurtiz in 04).

The thing is with MacGill although he was always the second best spinner in Australia since 98/99 at least since i don't feel Robertson being picked over him for sub-continental tours wasn't poor.

Him missing out in 04 is understandable for me given the quicks where as i said THE MAIN WICKET-TAKING OPTIONS in that series, his form in SRI & vs IND a few months earlier where he looked a bit woeful on some turning decks againts some very good players of spin.

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.

Its all about team balance really especially in the bowling attack. If all where fit & Symonds was being treated stupidly this would have been my best XI for the series:

Hayden
Hussey
Ponting
Watson
Clarke
Symonds
Haddin
Lee
Johnson
Clark
McGain

No dount Jaques has done nothing wrong, but with Katich no doubt a better all-round package in Indian conditions than Jaques & with no 2004 type bowling attack, the bowling attack needed to be maximised. So no issue for me.

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.

This 22 average is since being dropped was his FC average or something?.

Dropping was poor yes, but they corrected that mistake (although harsh on Hodge) by recalling him in SA, he clearly hadn't lost anything.

In which case Martyn shouldn't have been dropped.

Good, so whats the issue here then?

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.

Even if he was officially rested, he was playing poorly at the time & with his age with young pup stepping up, Kaitch's place safe & Hodge the main outsider, Boof's time was clearly up. Its not as if he would have made a difference in the Ashes.

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.

The SERIES WAS ALREADY WON, i see no reason if Watto's batting hadn't been as good as it is no why giving him a test could be deemed a selection blunder sir...

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.

As i just mentioned the strenght of the Australian team at the time allowed that selection, if he had fired it would have only strenghted the dynamics of the side. By no means a selection blunder again.

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.

Kapser who carrer FC performances is irrelevant since post 2004 he was always an inconsistent seamer on the test stage seen as some what of a sub-continental specialist. Kapser was having a good FC season during the test series & was rightly picked again during the VB ODI series.

I know ODI form isn't the best guide to test success but no one in Australia at the time given McGrath/Dizzy/Lee where out or injured had an issue with Bracken & Williams playing intially in that series given how fantastic they bowled in India to those batsmen.

Ridiculing them is pure hindsight on your part.

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 that was just an unfortunate for Love, the selectors probably preffered The Kat to him, plus i'd say Love may have been a bit wasted @ 6 anyway.

He could have pushed for a place even as recent as the 05 Ashes when Martyn was dropped but he didn't.

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.

It certainly can be but in the glory days of 95 to 06/07 only real blunders:

- Martyn being dropped after the 05 Ashes

- MacGill being left out in 04 (although i have explained why i can live with it)

- MacGill not playing in the 2005 Ashes

Are the only one's that stand out for me as selection blunders, the rest are very picky on your part.


Also i missed your bashing of Tait in 05. Well no that was a poor selection, yes he may have toured for the experience nor was he expected to play (given that no one saw Australia's attack have such traumatic issues on tour), but he also was the best bowler in Australia the previous season i.e BREAKING THE DOMESTIC RECORD.

 

[Richard]

Oh yes my mistake. But it was by no means a selection blunder it was to the Windies who Australia where always expected to win despite the fight they put up. McGain was picked for India which was important.

It's Test cricket! It doesn't matter whether you're expected to win or not, you pick the best side! Test caps aren't something that should be thrown your way because someone thinks you might earn them one day - if you're the best candidate NOW you should play NOW and not otherwise, and to use different thinking is bad selection.

Geez, it was a tour to BANGLADESH RICHARD, Cullen had a good season for SA what in god's name was wrong with picking him?

Yea sure Hogg is a better bowler but at the time, he was clearly still seen as an ODI option a test recall for Hogg wasn't in anyone's thinking. Back then people where reckoning Warne could play until he was 40 & MacGill was thought he could gone past this season as well..

You must always pick your best players. Picking an inferior player ahead of a better player, whatever the reason or circumstances, is bad selection. There is never ANY excuse for it.

Again I aint able check cricinfo news to this. But you are saying before the start of the 98 tour to India Fleming was fit?

Yes. He was. Check the Wisden. Dale was called-up, then Wilson, then Fleming. Totally in the wrong order.

93? thats out of bounds, we are discussing the so called Australian selection blunders in the glory years so that would be from WI 95 to ENG 06/07...

No, '89 to '06/07, that was the glory years. Though it's not entirely accurate as the selectors did not remain the same throughout - several of those who were playing at the start were selecting later.

Robertson & Haurtiz had woeful records but certainly didn't perform woefully (although you can argue the Mumbai pitch aided Haurtiz in 04).

Robertson was conventionally poor; Hauritz dismissed 3 tailenders and STILL managed to play a huge part in costing his team the game. His figures in the context of that pitch and looking at who he got out were utterly shocking.

The thing is with MacGill although he was always the second best spinner in Australia since 98/99 at least since i don't feel Robertson being picked over him for sub-continental tours wasn't poor.

Him missing out in 04 is understandable for me given the quicks where as i said THE MAIN WICKET-TAKING OPTIONS in that series, his form in SRI & vs IND a few months earlier where he looked a bit woeful on some turning decks againts some very good players of spin.

You still seem to mistakenly believe that Hauritz had the potential to look better than MacGill. If MacGill was poor, Hauritz under the same circumstances could be expected to be woeful.

Its all about team balance really especially in the bowling attack. If all where fit & Symonds was being treated stupidly this would have been my best XI for the series:

Hayden
Hussey
Ponting
Watson
Clarke
Symonds
Haddin
Lee
Johnson
Clark
McGain

No dount Jaques has done nothing wrong, but with Katich no doubt a better all-round package in Indian conditions than Jaques & with no 2004 type bowling attack, the bowling attack needed to be maximised. So no issue for me.

Whatever the bowling requirements, no part-time bowling should impact on batsmen being dropped.

This 22 average is since being dropped was his FC average or something?

Yep.

Dropping was poor yes, but they corrected that mistake (although harsh on Hodge) by recalling him in SA, he clearly hadn't lost anything.

Good, so whats the issue here then?

Martyn should only have been recalled if he'd earnt it. He hadn't. Nor had his performances in the last 4 Tests in 2005 justified dropping him.

What you're saying is that if Umpire gives Batsman out in the first-innings wrongly and not-out in the second-innings, wrongly, then he's made 0 errors, when in fact he's made 2. You can't correct a mistake with another mistake.

Even if he was officially rested, he was playing poorly at the time & with his age with young pup stepping up, Kaitch's place safe & Hodge the main outsider, Boof's time was clearly up. Its not as if he would have made a difference in the Ashes.

The SERIES WAS ALREADY WON, i see no reason if Watto's batting hadn't been as good as it is no why giving him a test could be deemed a selection blunder sir...[/QUOTE]
Katich's place was far from safe - Katich had just been dropped for Lehmann and Clarke, despite the fact he had a stronger case than either to play. Watson then playing ahead of him was just too much. So what if the series is won??!! This is Test cricket! You don't just go throwing caps to whoever because the series is won. You should always pick the best team for the next game and to not do so is poor selection.

As i just mentioned the strenght of the Australian team at the time allowed that selection, if he had fired it would have only strenghted the dynamics of the side. By no means a selection blunder again.

If you're playing something that's likely to be a weakness in the hope that it might end-up a strength, that's poor selection. You can't keep using the "but Australia were so strong they could afford a passenger" one - if you've the choice between a passenger and a proven player, not going for the proven player is poor selection.

Kapser who carrer FC performances is irrelevant since post 2004 he was always an inconsistent seamer on the test stage seen as some what of a sub-continental specialist. Kapser was having a good FC season during the test series & was rightly picked again during the VB ODI series.

I know ODI form isn't the best guide to test success but no one in Australia at the time given McGrath/Dizzy/Lee where out or injured had an issue with Bracken & Williams playing intially in that series given how fantastic they bowled in India to those batsmen.

Ridiculing them is pure hindsight on your part.

It isn't. I said at the time that both were very poor, based on their First-Class records, and I've never altered that viewpoint. Kasprowicz had a far better case to play and he showed why when he did.

Well that was just an unfortunate for Love, the selectors probably preffered The Kat to him, plus i'd say Love may have been a bit wasted @ 6 anyway.

He could have pushed for a place even as recent as the 05 Ashes when Martyn was dropped but he didn't.

He did, but he wasn't given the recognition he deserved. Neither Love nor Katich would have been or were wasted at six, but both were messed around by the fact the selectors repeatedly went back and forth between the two of them.

It certainly can be but in the glory days of 95 to 06/07 only real blunders:

- Martyn being dropped after the 05 Ashes

- MacGill being left out in 04 (although i have explained why i can live with it)

- MacGill not playing in the 2005 Ashes

Are the only one's that stand out for me as selection blunders, the rest are very picky on your part.

And the rest...

Also i missed your bashing of Tait in 05. Well no that was a poor selection, yes he may have toured for the experience nor was he expected to play (given that no one saw Australia's attack have such traumatic issues on tour), but he also was the best bowler in Australia the previous season i.e BREAKING THE DOMESTIC RECORD.

If someone's touring for "experience" (which isn't the wisest idea ITFP, for this precise reason - they can get pitched into the fray when that was never the intention) then they should be the last member of the party picked. Why didn't MacGill play instead of him? I thought even you admitted this was an error?

 

[aussie]

It's Test cricket! It doesn't matter whether you're expected to win or not, you pick the best side! Test caps aren't something that should be thrown your way because someone thinks you might earn them one day - if you're the best candidate NOW you should play NOW and not otherwise, and to use different thinking is bad selection.

This is where your definition of a "Selection Blunder" is flawed. This is a selection that could effect the course of a test match or series.

With Casson it never was, the Aussie selectors obviously had already singled out McGain as there pick for the India tour (although i do agree they should have picked McGain in WI), they obviously just wanted to look at other options, since WI were never going to beat them regardless of the fight they put up.

You talk about "you must always pick your best player" ye dawg word out son, but ALL SELCTORS don't do it. Look at our own English selections in the 80s & the 90s we have shelled some awfull test caps that make some Australia's selections look pretty solid hahaha...

You must always pick your best players. Picking an inferior player ahead of a better player, whatever the reason or circumstances, is bad selection. There is never ANY excuse for it.

But Brad Hogg was BY NO MEANS CONSIDERED A TEST MATCH CANDIDATE AT THE TIME RICHARD........

You already had Warne/MacGill, what was wrong with picking at young off-spinner on TOUR TO LOWLY BANGLADESH who at the time had showed good promise by taking good wickets in the pura cup for SA?, HMMMMMMMMMM

Yes. He was. Check the Wisden. Dale was called-up, then Wilson, then Fleming. Totally in the wrong order.

I aint able check again, so before i give you this one put this hold for now ok son??

No, '89 to '06/07, that was the glory years. Though it's not entirely accurate as the selectors did not remain the same throughout - several of those who were playing at the start were selecting later.

It has to be from 95 since that was when AUS finally defeated the WI. 89 is when Border finally got Australia's test fortuneds back on track really, if they wehre the best team in the world before 95 they would have beaten the WI at home in 92/93...

Robertson was conventionally poor; Hauritz dismissed 3 tailenders and STILL managed to play a huge part in costing his team the game. His figures in the context of that pitch and looking at who he got out were utterly shocking.

Hauritz costed Australia the Mumbai test???, hahaha i think the wheels have come off here surely...

Don't know how much you saw of Robertson but he wasn't a poor off-spinner, comparable with Swann AFAIC...

You still seem to mistakenly believe that Hauritz had the potential to look better than MacGill. If MacGill was poor, Hauritz under the same circumstances could be expected to be woeful.

Yes i am not disputing that not picking MacGill for IND 04 wasn't poor. Just explaining why i see why the selectors felt they didn't need to pick him.

Although for all the talk of how poor he may have been , it was a a harsh one by the Aussie selectors surely even MacGill could have gotten a big haul on that Mumbai pitch

Whatever the bowling requirements, no part-time bowling should impact on batsmen being dropped.

I don't know what you mean by that. Sorry me and you again are locked in this enclosed debate, since if any of the Australian posters saw this specific point, its was a pretty unanimous pre-series talk that once all where fit Jaques may have been dropped for the sake of balance.

Yep.

Martyn should only have been recalled if he'd earnt it. He hadn't. Nor had his performances in the last 4 Tests in 2005 justified dropping him.

What you're saying is that if Umpire gives Batsman out in the first-innings wrongly and not-out in the second-innings, wrongly, then he's made 0 errors, when in fact he's made 2. You can't correct a mistake with another mistake.]

Fact is Martyn shouldn't have bee dropped & they should good enough balls to recall him as soon as they did although it was harsh on Hodge. Simple.

The SERIES WAS ALREADY WON, i see no reason if Watto's batting hadn't been as good as it is no why giving him a test could be deemed a selection blunder sir...
Katich's place was far from safe - Katich had just been dropped for Lehmann and Clarke, despite the fact he had a stronger case than either to play. Watson then playing ahead of him was just too much. So what if the series is won??!! This is Test cricket! You don't just go throwing caps to whoever because the series is won. You should always pick the best team for the next game and to not do so is poor selection.]

LOL, if this is not picky then i don't know what is. I saw absolutely no issue with Watson being picked at the time, nor did anyone around the Australian cricket community, nor i'm sure on this board (although i wasn't a member yet).

If you're playing something that's likely to be a weakness in the hope that it might end-up a strength, that's poor selection. You can't keep using the "but Australia were so strong they could afford a passenger" one - if you've the choice between a passenger and a proven player, not going for the proven player is poor selection.

But that was clearly the case.

You could say in WI 03 when Bichel was picked to bat @ 7, is another case of due to the strenght of the side, Australia could made such a selection risk.

It isn't. I said at the time that both were very poor, based on their First-Class records, and I've never altered that viewpoint. Kasprowicz had a far better case to play and he showed why when he did.

Yes there FC records may have been poor, but with their performances in the TVS Cup so brilliant with the Big Trio out & Kasper not yet stating his case based on FC form that season (his previous test of FC exploits where irrelevant due to his past inconsistencies).

Bracken & Williams playing intially was the only option the selectors could have taken. I personally had big hopes in Bracken at the time & i'm sure many did..

He did, but he wasn't given the recognition he deserved. Neither Love nor Katich would have been or were wasted at six, but both were messed around by the fact the selectors repeatedly went back and forth between the two of them.

I don't know about that, i don't think Love for Queensland has ever batted lowe than 3/4 & based on what i saw of him i don't think he would have been well suited to # 6 at all.

Katich has always showed versatility in domestic cricket.

Love has i said could have pushed for a place post Ashes when Martyn was intially dropped along with Hodge & Hussey but didn't just another unforunate aussie. NOT A SELECTION BLUNDER, by any stretch of the imagination.

And the rest...

booo..

If someone's touring for "experience" (which isn't the wisest idea ITFP, for this precise reason - they can get pitched into the fray when that was never the intention) then they should be the last member of the party picked. Why didn't MacGill play instead of him? I thought even you admitted this was an error?

I had no issue with him played at TB. But after seeing the effective Warne was having, i was all for MacGilla playin @ the Oval given its history of helping spinners. (i remember calling for MacGill to play at the Oval in the 05 Ashes series thread in case u want to play dig up).

Along with Hayden's head for Hussey & Watson to play instead of Katich too..

 

[Richard]

This is where your definition of a "Selection Blunder" is flawed. This is a selection that could effect the course of a test match or series.

With Casson it never was, the Aussie selectors obviously had already singled out McGain as there pick for the India tour (although i do agree they should have picked McGain in WI), they obviously just wanted to look at other options, since WI were never going to beat them regardless of the fight they put up.

You talk about "you must always pick your best player" ye dawg word out son, but ALL SELCTORS don't do it. Look at our own English selections in the 80s & the 90s we have shelled some awfull test caps that make some Australia's selections look pretty solid hahaha...

As I've said before - that one set of selectors may have been woeful does not stop another set from being poor. Any selectors picking an inferior player ahead of a superior player has made an error. There really is no more to it than that. No excuses, no "well it paid-off so it wasn't poor". Those with the most convincing cases should play, end of story.

But Brad Hogg was BY NO MEANS CONSIDERED A TEST MATCH CANDIDATE AT THE TIME RICHARD........

You already had Warne/MacGill, what was wrong with picking at young off-spinner on TOUR TO LOWLY BANGLADESH who at the time had showed good promise by taking good wickets in the pura cup for SA?, HMMMMMMMMMM

As above.

It has to be from 95 since that was when AUS finally defeated the WI. 89 is when Border finally got Australia's test fortuneds back on track really, if they wehre the best team in the world before 95 they would have beaten the WI at home in 92/93...

They very nearly did. I don't see any enormous difference between Australia of 1989 and 1997, for instance.

Hauritz costed Australia the Mumbai test???, hahaha i think the wheels have come off here surely...

No, he did. His terrible bowling, when he was supposed to be the front-line spinner, was the time India snatched it from Australia's grasp.

Don't know how much you saw of Robertson but he wasn't a poor off-spinner, comparable with Swann AFAIC...

Robertson did little of note in First-Class cricket. Simple as. Swann isn't that good either but at least he has.

Yes i am not disputing that not picking MacGill for IND 04 wasn't poor. Just explaining why i see why the selectors felt they didn't need to pick him.

Although for all the talk of how poor he may have been , it was a a harsh one by the Aussie selectors surely even MacGill could have gotten a big haul on that Mumbai pitch

I'm aware of these reasons - however, they're not good enough to me, and do not stop MacGill's non-selection from being an error.

I don't know what you mean by that. Sorry me and you again are locked in this enclosed debate, since if any of the Australian posters saw this specific point, its was a pretty unanimous pre-series talk that once all where fit Jaques may have been dropped for the sake of balance.

Batsmen are batsmen. Bowlers are bowlers. While a bowler who can bat and a batsman who can bowl are a bonus, they're no more than that.

Fact is Martyn shouldn't have bee dropped & they should good enough balls to recall him as soon as they did although it was harsh on Hodge. Simple.

Unless Martyn had a case for a recall, he shouldn't have been recalled. That his axing was an error is not a case for a recall.

LOL, if this is not picky then i don't know what is. I saw absolutely no issue with Watson being picked at the time, nor did anyone around the Australian cricket community, nor i'm sure on this board (although i wasn't a member yet).

If Lehmann was going to be left-out, Katich should have played, not Watson. Watson was still not all that good at that point.

But that was clearly the case.

You could say in WI 03 when Bichel was picked to bat @ 7, is another case of due to the strenght of the side, Australia could made such a selection risk.

Not sure it was, Bichel was the best candidate. Anyway, as I've said, you can't justify the inclusion of an inferior player ahead of a superior player because it won't make any difference - else picking you or me for a Test for Australia could correctly be called a good decision.

Yes there FC records may have been poor, but with their performances in the TVS Cup so brilliant with the Big Trio out & Kasper not yet stating his case based on FC form that season (his previous test of FC exploits where irrelevant due to his past inconsistencies).

Bracken & Williams playing intially was the only option the selectors could have taken. I personally had big hopes in Bracken at the time & i'm sure many did..

In First-Class cricket, Williams was always extremely poor and Bracken was always poor, and only became good the year after he was picked for Tests.

And in case you haven't noticed, Tests are played under First-Class rules, not OD rules. ODIs are played under OD rules. Thus ODIs are irrelevant to Test selection.

There was every option to leave both Williams and Bracken out of the Test team and it SHOULD have been taken.

I don't know about that, i don't think Love for Queensland has ever batted lowe than 3/4 & based on what i saw of him i don't think he would have been well suited to # 6 at all.

Katich has always showed versatility in domestic cricket.

Love has i said could have pushed for a place post Ashes when Martyn was intially dropped along with Hodge & Hussey but didn't just another unforunate aussie. NOT A SELECTION BLUNDER, by any stretch of the imagination.

Whoever was given first gig out of Katich, Love and Hodge should have maintained that. All three played for Durham yet all three yo-yoed in and out of Australian selectors' minds, without any failing significantly. This is poor.

I had no issue with him played at TB. But after seeing the effective Warne was having, i was all for MacGilla playin @ the Oval given its history of helping spinners. (i remember calling for MacGill to play at the Oval in the 05 Ashes series thread in case u want to play dig up).

MacGill should've played at Trent Bridge IMO - Tait was only taken on the tour to "gain experience". He was clearly far from a finished article.

 

[SJS]

Stop it you too

 

[Precambrian]

Battle of the essayists.

 

[andruid]

Need some comic relief up in this...

 

[SJS]

Need some comic relief up in this...

 

[andmark]

hhaha dont fool yourself mate. you played one test under your new captain and new team and lost the series against a below par protea team. maybe win a few matches before talking bout an ashes clean sweep? and also lets see england do well in india first and then we can gauge them for the ashes.

For god's sake, don't be so passionate.