The fallout

[Uppercut]

Agree.

There is a major acceptance of crapiness these days. I'm a firm believer that if they didn't take it so lightly and they selected the right people, we'd still be the number one team in the world and would've certainly won everywhere except probably in India.

Being the world's number one team isn't about simply selecting "the right people" and not taking defeat lightly, there's a lot of other countries who are also trying to be the world's number one team and at the moment they've got better players than you do. England's not an easy place to tour- despite how you made it look when you had an all-time great side. You can't overhaul a long-term plan just because you narrowly lost one series 9,000 miles away from home.

There's a time to stick and a time to twist. I think with the promising young players Australia have now is the time to stick.

 

[inbox24]

FFS it's not JUST ONE series, it's a bunch of problems over an 18 month period. Get that into you.

 

[Redbacks]

^^ Exactly, dwelling on past series for 4 years is pointless!

Facts are if the people within CA are still satisfied with the past results then it's time to move on.

When we had ...... and .......

Back when................

The past .... years..........

Decadence, time to **** off.

 

[Jamee999]

You realise if you make major changes because of losing this series, you're basically making huge changes because you couldn't take one tail-end wicket?

 

[Redbacks]

Change of selectors is required. Soon enough the honeymoon from the press is winding up, people will be demanding results/high standards of performance and competent selection very soon.

 

[Bravo]

Just **** the jokers called selectors... and Aussie cricket will soon be back to where it belongs.

 

[Uppercut]

FFS it's not JUST ONE series, it's a bunch of problems over an 18 month period. Get that into you.

Haha, some Aussies think they have a God-given right to be the world's best side and if they're not it can only be because of an administrative ****-up.

 

[tooextracool]

Haha, some Aussies think they have a God-given right to be the world's best side and if they're not it can only be because of an administrative ****-up.

Whilst Australia have played some pretty tough sides off late (India in India, South Africa home and away) etc, there still have to be question marks asked about losing to a side that hasn't beaten a top 4 test team (SA, India, Australia, Sri Lanka) home or away since they beat Australia in the Ashes in 2005.

 

[GIMH]

Whilst Australia have played some pretty tough sides off late (India in India, South Africa home and away) etc, there still have to be question marks asked about losing to a side that hadn't beaten a top 4 test team (SA, India, Australia, Sri Lanka) home or away since they beat Australia in the Ashes in 2005.

Corrected

edit - that being said, Pakistan were ranked 2nd when we beat them in 2006 so it's a slightly misleading stat

 

[tooextracool]

Corrected

edit - that being said, Pakistan were ranked 2nd when we beat them in 2006 so it's a slightly misleading stat

Well perhaps, but the side that showed up was missing its first string set of bowlers. That series really was never a contest until Asif landed.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, true, we were short of a few players as well mind you. We had Mahmood and Plunkett playing as I remember it.

 

[Redbacks]

Haha, some Aussies think they have a God-given right to be the world's best side and if they're not it can only be because of an administrative ****-up.

your writing the story here.......

 

[social]

This "anonymous" source of yours, who is probably nothing but a pencil pusher, wouldnt have many people care/cry if Clarke was made captain over his dead body.

Funny how this anonymous CA source seems to be in 100% agreement with you on everything,

How many WAGs are not bimbos? Just because Bingle has a career outside of Clarke shouldnt be held against them.

I dont like tatts ... but lots of people do. Wouldnt hold it against them.

Is Clarke a bit of a tosser? No doubt. But hey, thats professional sport. Imagine if every player in the Premier League or NBA were dropped or held back for being tossers - you wouldnt have enough to field 3 teams in either.

The board of CA (includes 3 former test cricketers btw) has to approve the appointment of the Oz captain - if they dont want him, then he wont get it

BTW, "my source" is hardly in 100% agreement wih me - IMO, Ponting should definitely be given the axe, Symonds should never have been sacked, and I couldnt give a toss who Clarke jumps on (that's 0/3 and given that I disagree with most decisions of CA, the final figure would probably be closer to 0/100)

 

[Uppercut]

Whilst Australia have played some pretty tough sides off late (India in India, South Africa home and away) etc, there still have to be question marks asked about losing to a side that hasn't beaten a top 4 test team (SA, India, Australia, Sri Lanka) home or away since they beat Australia in the Ashes in 2005.

Tbf, it's comfortably the best England team to exist in that time. They're really rather good at home, and a lot of things went their way. The loss at home to South Africa would concern me more were I an Aus supporter.

 

[slippyslip]

The board of CA (includes 3 former test cricketers btw) has to approve the appointment of the Oz captain - if they dont want him, then he wont get it

BTW, "my source" is hardly in 100% agreement wih me - IMO, Ponting should definitely be given the axe, Symonds should never have been sacked, and I couldnt give a toss who Clarke jumps on (that's 0/3 and given that I disagree with most decisions of CA, the final figure would probably be closer to 0/100)

CA rubber stamp the captain. Technically the Governor General is the one who signs things into law in Australia. Not for the last 34 years has a GG got involved in any day to day matter of Australian politics. Once a law passes through parliament the GG gets out the old rubber stamp and automatically gives it the seal of approval.

If you took a poll most people would pick Clarke as the next captain. The Australian team would have him as next captain. He's been groomed for the job. The bean counters in CA will follow what the public, selectors and players want.

Your "source" might think he/she/it is the God of cricket in Australia but I remember a time when administrators thought they were Lords and Masters of all things cricket. We ended up having Kerry Packer come in and scoop up all the disgruntled players.

CA knows it place (bent over in front of the BCCI with its pants around its ankles)

James Sutherland played a whopping 4 first class games. Well, that 4 more than me but he's still a pencil pusher. Jack Clarke never played first class cricket.

Yes, a lot of the Directors on the board are former first class players but only AB and Mark Taylor have somewhat recent international experience. (Were you talking to AB?)

And if people are comparing Clarke to Warnie (not saying you are, social) it isnt right. Clarke hasnt been involved in anywhere near the scandals. And when it comes to the Katich thing the more I hear about it the more I think Katich was just as much at fault.

Just because myself (and a lot of other people) dont want to be BFF's with Clarke doesnt mean he wont get the captaincy. Popularity is only one small factor.

p.s. Symonds was sacked because hes an idiot who appealed to VB drinking, rugby league watching bogan crowd. In both his two test centuries from 26 matches he was claerly out. He couldnt make runs without the umpires help. Oh, wait, he did well against the powerhouse that is the West Indies. He was great limited overs player but he was given a thousand chances. Again, he was only kept around as long as he was because of his marketing appeal to the piss heads.

p.p.s If Ponitng should be axed, and Clarke passed over then who should get captaincy of the ODI teams? (assuming Katich got tests)

 

[social]

CA rubber stamp the captain. Technically the Governor General is the one who signs things into law in Australia. Not for the last 34 years has a GG got involved in any day to day matter of Australian politics. Once a law passes through parliament the GG gets out the old rubber stamp and automatically gives it the seal of approval.

If you took a poll most people would pick Clarke as the next captain. The Australian team would have him as next captain. He's been groomed for the job. The bean counters in CA will follow what the public, selectors and players want.

Your "source" might think he/she/it is the God of cricket in Australia but I remember a time when administrators thought they were Lords and Masters of all things cricket. We ended up having Kerry Packer come in and scoop up all the disgruntled players.

CA knows it place (bent over in front of the BCCI with its pants around its ankles)

James Sutherland played a whopping 4 first class games. Well, that 4 more than me but he's still a pencil pusher. Jack Clarke never played first class cricket.

Yes, a lot of the Directors on the board are former first class players but only AB and Mark Taylor have somewhat recent international experience. (Were you talking to AB?)

And if people are comparing Clarke to Warnie (not saying you are, social) it isnt right. Clarke hasnt been involved in anywhere near the scandals. And when it comes to the Katich thing the more I hear about it the more I think Katich was just as much at fault.

Just because myself (and a lot of other people) dont want to be BFF's with Clarke doesnt mean he wont get the captaincy. Popularity is only one small factor.

p.s. Symonds was sacked because hes an idiot who appealed to VB drinking, rugby league watching bogan crowd. In both his two test centuries from 26 matches he was claerly out. He couldnt make runs without the umpires help. Oh, wait, he did well against the powerhouse that is the West Indies. He was great limited overs player but he was given a thousand chances. Again, he was only kept around as long as he was because of his marketing appeal to the piss heads.

p.p.s If Ponitng should be axed, and Clarke passed over then who should get captaincy of the ODI teams? (assuming Katich got tests)

CA Board want Ponting to continue so that's basically the end of the story (contrary to what you think, they have the power in this regard not the selectors)

I'd pick Katich for tests and make Clarke captain of everything else

Simply wont happen though

 

[Son Of Coco]

Tbf, it's comfortably the best England team to exist in that time. They're really rather good at home, and a lot of things went their way. The loss at home to South Africa would concern me more were I an Aus supporter.

Not for me, SA are a solid to very good team no matter where they play. Australia should have beaten England in the series just finished and didn't because they played extremely poorly in large patches. That's of greater concern to me than losing against a team that has some very, very good cricketers in it.

 

[Uppercut]

Not for me, SA are a solid to very good team no matter where they play. Australia should have beaten England in the series just finished and didn't because they played extremely poorly in large patches. That's of greater concern to me than losing against a team that has some very, very good cricketers in it.

At least you lost to some good cricket though. You have to hold your hands up to Freddie's spell at Lord's and Broad's at the Oval, bowling like that would beaten anyone at any given time. Losing at home to South Africa was borne of letting them chase 414 at Perth and then failing to dismiss Dale Steyn and Paul Harris in the second test.

 

[Son Of Coco]

At least you lost to some good cricket though. You have to hold your hands up to Freddie's spell at Lord's and Broad's at the Oval, bowling like that would beaten anyone at any given time. Losing at home to South Africa was borne of letting them chase 414 at Perth and then failing to dismiss Dale Steyn and Paul Harris in the second test.

Very small patches of good cricket over the course of a game. Could argue that SA's effort to chase 414 was an effort of equal value. Failing to dismiss Anderson and Panesar saw us lose the Ashes.

The quality of cricket we played was well down in The Ashes compared to SA at home and (obviously) away. We could have quite easily won in England, and the fact we didn't is more disappointing than losing to SA at home, at least for me anyway. Thought our last effort was the worst I've seen us play since Warne, McGrath etc went.

 

[Uppercut]

Very small patches of good cricket over the course of a game. Could argue that SA's effort to chase 414 was an effort of equal value. Failing to dismiss Anderson and Panesar saw us lose the Ashes.

The quality of cricket we played was well down in The Ashes compared to SA at home and (obviously) away. We could have quite easily won in England, and the fact we didn't is more disappointing than losing to SA at home, at least for me anyway. Thought our last effort was the worst I've seen us play since Warne, McGrath etc went.

Hmm, dunno. I think England's a pretty tough place to tour at the moment, especially for Australia because they put so much towards success in this particular series.

Fair point on Monty and Jimmy, but you could also say there's no need to get too hung up over a series you were one wicket away from taking.