The fact that people are actually admitting these are the reasons they want him dropped leaves me bashing my head against the wall. I know that's the case, but that's a long way from actually being a good reason to drop someone.
Assuming that the team needs to be changed after you lose a series is really the height of arrogance - sometimes the other team is just better. Whilst I'll admit the selectors have made some shocking decisions recently, sticking with Hayden is one thing they've got spot on.
I still think Hayden's one of the best two (fit) Test openers in the country. You could make a case for dropping him for Jaques given his record, but Jaques isn't fit and people want Hughes picked. Now Hughes is obviously a good young player, but picking someone after they've only played sixteen First Class games is something you should only do when you're desperate (unless they average 100 with the bat or 15 with the ball - neither of which Hughes has done) and that's far from the case with Australia at the moment.
Yup spot on, but it could get hot under the collar for the selectors if Hayden doesn't comeback into some sort of form soon.
Anyways what i don't like about the current crop of selectors is that they seem to be very mechanical in their decision making, its almost like they have decided we will have 5 batsmen, 1 all-rounder and keeper, 3 quicks (and only one of them can be a left armer), and 1 spinner.
Now that's a very good combination to have given you have the right guys to fill those slots, but Aussie selectors atm just aren't willing to adapt with the given circumstances, just because Symonds and Watson got injured and you have the all-rounder slot vacant, you need not necessarily need to draft in another all-rounder into the side, Australia would have done really well picking David Hussey or North to replace Symonds, because somewhere down the line the Aussie selectors have failed to realise, that even though the lack of consistent penetrative bowling has been the main issue, the Aussie batsmen too have let down the team at crucial times in both the games.
There has been a lot of talk also regarding whether Australia need to play with an all-out pace attack, but imo they should first look at the fact whether the three quicks they are playing are good enough or not in the first place, rather than thinking about adding another quickie into the attack, because given the fact Aussies pick the right fast bowlers, three quicks would be good enough to do the job most of the times, but if there isn't any help from the track for the seamers then having an extra seamer won't help much either, Hauritz has done a decent job and what' been done to Krejza or Casson or Noffke shouldn't be done to him, he needs be given the buffer of a few games as he has shown ample proof that given the fast bowlers can do their job efficiently he can prove handy too.
Its going to be tough period for Australia and some patience on part of the selectors would be required, they need to flexible enough to cope with the present situation,and show faith in core group of players who they think are good enough to get the job done.
