Anyone for cricket?

[titan_uranus 25,013]

As stirring as the Perth win was, it was obviously wallpaper over the cracks. If we kept relying on Watson and Hussey, eventually we would be exposed - and we were.

I supported their selection to begin with, but the inclusion of two youngsters in Hughes and Smith into our top six was a mistake, and made our batting lineup far weaker than it had been in Brisbane.

With a faltering top order, we needed cool heads and players in form with the bat. With a Shield average of just 16.8, Hughes really shouldn't have been played (especially not against a side which knew how to target his weaknesses). As for Smith, at this stage he's just not strong enough with the bat or ball, as Titan had warned.

In hindsight, I think two of D.Hussey, White, Marsh or Khawaja should have come in and Haurtiz should have kept his place at the expense of Hilfenhaus.

Good post, I agree with that. Hughes and Smith were picked because they are young. If they were 4-5 years older, with the same form and the same record, they wouldn't have even been on the radar. But this misguided notion that we need to play youngsters to inject youth into the side has let us down. What we needed to do was play our best XI. Anyone who thinks Hughes or Smith, in their current form, are a part of Australia's best XI, right now, aren't thinking clearly, because they're not. And consequently, we were let down.

This is going to sound a lot like a WYL proposition, but I honestly feel that what needs to happen now is a full review of the entire Australian cricket industry. People say this isn't a time to panic, which of course it isn't, but if there ever was a time to be worried or to question what is going on with Australian cricket, it is right now. There's a much too strong focus on limited overs stuff, the selection process is unclear and has caused us problems, scheduling is a worry as well. There are problems all over the place.

Also, why aren't Tim Nielsen, Justin Langer, and the other coaches, with Troy Cooley excepted, copping any criticism? Our batting has been woeful all summer, but no one seems to think that might be bpoor coaching? Plenty of people took to Josh Mahoney in 2009 when we weren't scoring, but when our cricket side fails both to make runs or to occupy the crease, Langer apparently had nothing to do with it.

Final comment: moving Haddin to 6 is just another wallpaper-over-the-crack move.

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

Good post, I agree with that. Hughes and Smith were picked because they are young. If they were 4-5 years older, with the same form and the same record, they wouldn't have even been on the radar. But this misguided notion that we need to play youngsters to inject youth into the side has let us down. What we needed to do was play our best XI. Anyone who thinks Hughes or Smith, in their current form, are a part of Australia's best XI, right now, aren't thinking clearly, because they're not. And consequently, we were let down.

This is going to sound a lot like a WYL proposition, but I honestly feel that what needs to happen now is a full review of the entire Australian cricket industry. People say this isn't a time to panic, which of course it isn't, but if there ever was a time to be worried or to question what is going on with Australian cricket, it is right now. There's a much too strong focus on limited overs stuff, the selection process is unclear and has caused us problems, scheduling is a worry as well. There are problems all over the place.

Also, why aren't Tim Nielsen, Justin Langer, and the other coaches, with Troy Cooley excepted, copping any criticism? Our batting has been woeful all summer, but no one seems to think that might be bpoor coaching? Plenty of people took to Josh Mahoney in 2009 when we weren't scoring, but when our cricket side fails both to make runs or to occupy the crease, Langer apparently had nothing to do with it.

Final comment: moving Haddin to 6 is just another wallpaper-over-the-crack move.

I don't think it would be a bad idea to get in some proven players with maturity, experience and form. Professional cricketers play a lot older than most sports. Some one in their late 20's can still have 10 good years in them. Gilchrist is a recent example. Hauritz is a player who's been around and still appears to be getting better. This youth stuff seems to be getting too PC. The Australian team has serious problems that appear long term. Leadership is one. Ponting has had it. Clark appears to be flaky and backsliding fast. As for other current team members who could lead? Hussey I'm not sure. Best bring in someone like Cameron White who is a proven performer and leader IMO. Perhaps a poison chalice for him but the team could not be any worse with him leading..

Edited December 29, 2010 by america de cali

[45HG 1,539]

Nightmare decision by Asad Rauf as he gives AB out LB and may have handed India the match.

Arguably he hit it, but hawk eye also showed it was missing by at least 5 inches. Need the UDRS!

[John Crow Batty 8,863]

Nightmare decision by Asad Rauf as he gives AB out LB and may have handed India the match.

Arguably he hit it, but hawk eye also showed it was missing by at least 5 inches. Need the UDRS!

It amazes me why India will still not agree to 3rd umpire reviews. Supreme arrogance or something more sinister?

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Good post, I agree with that. Hughes and Smith were picked because they are young. If they were 4-5 years older, with the same form and the same record, they wouldn't have even been on the radar. But this misguided notion that we need to play youngsters to inject youth into the side has let us down. What we needed to do was play our best XI. Anyone who thinks Hughes or Smith, in their current form, are a part of Australia's best XI, right now, aren't thinking clearly, because they're not. And consequently, we were let down.

This is going to sound a lot like a WYL proposition, but I honestly feel that what needs to happen now is a full review of the entire Australian cricket industry. People say this isn't a time to panic, which of course it isn't, but if there ever was a time to be worried or to question what is going on with Australian cricket, it is right now. There's a much too strong focus on limited overs stuff, the selection process is unclear and has caused us problems, scheduling is a worry as well. There are problems all over the place.

Also, why aren't Tim Nielsen, Justin Langer, and the other coaches, with Troy Cooley excepted, copping any criticism? Our batting has been woeful all summer, but no one seems to think that might be bpoor coaching? Plenty of people took to Josh Mahoney in 2009 when we weren't scoring, but when our cricket side fails both to make runs or to occupy the crease, Langer apparently had nothing to do with it.

Final comment: moving Haddin to 6 is just another wallpaper-over-the-crack move.

Thanks TU and i agree, Cricket from the top down needs a complete clean out and careful planning-I mean part time coaches, and selectors. Enough please.

there is talk of having less shield games and more 20/20's...Do we want to be the best cricket nation again or do we just want quick dollars??

I said it a long time ago, Cricket Australia need a complete restructure on & off field something like our beloved MFC.

[Whispering_Jack 30,031]

Ponting out of the final test with a busted finger.

And silly me, I thought it might have kept him out of the fourth test.

[titan_uranus 25,013]

No surprises with the squad for Sydney.

Either Beer plays as the spinner, with Smith at 6, or we go with 4 pacemen again. There's also the choice between Hilfenhaus and Bollinger if we go with Beer. I'd go with Bollinger, he can't be worse than Hilfenhaus and he knows the SCG well. Plus I assume he's improved his fitness.

I'd have preferred to see another batsman named. It's a very weak top 6, with Hughes, Clarke and Smith all out of form and a debutant at number 3.

Squad: Watson, Hughes, Khawaja, Clarke, Hussey, Smith, Haddin, Johnson, Siddle, Beer, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

No surprises with the squad for Sydney.

Either Beer plays as the spinner, with Smith at 6, or we go with 4 pacemen again. There's also the choice between Hilfenhaus and Bollinger if we go with Beer. I'd go with Bollinger, he can't be worse than Hilfenhaus and he knows the SCG well. Plus I assume he's improved his fitness.

I'd have preferred to see another batsman named. It's a very weak top 6, with Hughes, Clarke and Smith all out of form and a debutant at number 3.

Squad: Watson, Hughes, Khawaja, Clarke, Hussey, Smith, Haddin, Johnson, Siddle, Beer, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus.

Those changes are so predictable and nothing has changed in the selecting philosophy. NSW is still the state to be.

I will just watch all this with great interest, the change to that squad is basically to cover an injury. Did we just get beaten by an innings plus and lose the ashes???

Clarke as Captain? i am not in agreement but it was inevetable. He is averaging 21 this summer and has never looked comfortable. Will he fire up as captain or burst into tears at some stage?? B)

[old dee 23,787]

Those changes are so predictable and nothing has changed in the selecting philosophy. NSW is still the state to be.

I will just watch all this with great interest, the change to that squad is basically to cover an injury. Did we just get beaten by an innings plus and lose the ashes???

Clarke as Captain? i am not in agreement but it was inevetable. He is averaging 21 this summer and has never looked comfortable. Will he fire up as captain or burst into tears at some stage?? B)

I agree I was angry when I saw the team but what can you expect.

Until there are changes made at the top it will be the same old story.

It is almost 2011 and Australia has A chairman of selectors who is part time Oh please!

WE have been beaten in every area on and off the field by the English

I always judge a team by " how many of these players would the oppositon want?"

In our team I came up with 4, Watson, Hussey, Haddin and Siddle.

Not many is it.

My new theory is this team led by a guy who has an average of 21 and laughs when we are getting done like a dinner

will again get thumped.

Hughes, Clarke, Smith and Hilfenhaus will be shown up as the imposters they are and fade away never to be seen again.

I am actually surprised Hilfenhaus is in the team could have sworn he came from Tassie.

[Rogue 585]

Nice concept. However, we are probably 1 to 1.5 years from collecting the best 15. I can find 8 to 10 that could be given any assurance. There is such a wonderful opportunity for young players to put their hand up with wickets or runs to get a Test cap. Its been that way for 12 months but few have done that.

I'm sure some said the same when Simpson adopted the policy I'm advocating those many years ago. Some may not make it, but we'll know if they are given an extended run. We don't play a series until Aug anyway.

[H_T 3,043]

I'm sure some said the same when Simpson adopted the policy I'm advocating those many years ago. Some may not make it, but we'll know if they are given an extended run. We don't play a series until Aug anyway.

It's an exciting time for many to make hay while the sun shines in the second half of the shield season. RR's pick in the other thread.

[WonnaJurah 5]

And its big Bash time good win by TAS last night with Tim Paine doing well

[Axis of Bob 11,792]

Michael Clarke gets a shocking run of it from the punters on the sidelines. Why do people not want him as captain?

Remember this is someone who, over his career, averages 48 with the bat. Talk that he shouldn't be captain because he is having bad series is idiotic. It is obvious that he is a class player who is just having a bad run of form and, that being the case, he is clearly a long term member of the Australian test set up. Since he is a long term player, the only question is whether or not he'd be a good captain.

I think his work captaining the ODIs and T20s has been pretty good. Certainly there is nothing that he has done that has made me think that he's not the right person to captain the test side after Ponting.

So, I ask again, why do you not want him to be captain? Who is the alternative? Why is the alternative better than Clarke?

And don't get me started on the idiocy of people claiming NSW bias. I dare not even suggest that the next batsman who makes it into the Australian set up is an immensely talented 19 year old by the name of Nic Maddinson.

Watson (NSW ex Qld ex Tas ex Qld)

Hughes (NSW)

Ponting (Tas)

Clarke (NSW)

Hussey (WA)

Haddin (NSW)

Johnson (WA ex Qld)

Harris (Qld ex SA)

Siddle (Vic)

Hilfenhaus (Tas)

Beer (WA ex Vic)

4 players out of 12? And that includes Watson, who was initially selected for Aus when playing for Tassie, and then for Queensland.

33% of players in the 12 for Melbourne. NSW contains 32% of all people in Australia (just over 7 million). One could argue, by the numbers, that they are under-represented!!

I am a Victorian, but NSW is producing the best cricketers in the country (especially young cricketers).

[titan_uranus 25,013]

Michael Clarke gets a shocking run of it from the punters on the sidelines. Why do people not want him as captain?

Remember this is someone who, over his career, averages 48 with the bat. Talk that he shouldn't be captain because he is having bad series is idiotic. It is obvious that he is a class player who is just having a bad run of form and, that being the case, he is clearly a long term member of the Australian test set up. Since he is a long term player, the only question is whether or not he'd be a good captain.

I think his work captaining the ODIs and T20s has been pretty good. Certainly there is nothing that he has done that has made me think that he's not the right person to captain the test side after Ponting.

So, I ask again, why do you not want him to be captain? Who is the alternative? Why is the alternative better than Clarke?

I'm with you. There's no other choice.

Cameron White, IMO, would make a better captain, but there's no way he could captain a side he hasn't been a part of for 2 years.

And don't get me started on the idiocy of people claiming NSW bias. I dare not even suggest that the next batsman who makes it into the Australian set up is an immensely talented 19 year old by the name of Nic Maddinson.

Watson (NSW ex Qld ex Tas ex Qld)

Hughes (NSW)

Ponting (Tas)

Clarke (NSW)

Hussey (WA)

Haddin (NSW)

Johnson (WA ex Qld)

Harris (Qld ex SA)

Siddle (Vic)

Hilfenhaus (Tas)

Beer (WA ex Vic)

4 players out of 12? And that includes Watson, who was initially selected for Aus when playing for Tassie, and then for Queensland.

33% of players in the 12 for Melbourne. NSW contains 32% of all people in Australia (just over 7 million). One could argue, by the numbers, that they are under-represented!!

I am a Victorian, but NSW is producing the best cricketers in the country (especially young cricketers).

Nice argument.

But surely the state that's won the past two Shields is the state with the best players?

I'm talking White, D. Hussey, Hodge, McDonald, Nannes, Rogers, McKay. Over the last 2-3 years these players have been in their prime, and IMO these have been the best players in the country.

Nic Maddinson will be an Australian player. But I don't want him in the side until he's had at least another year with NSW. Learn the craft there, get the runs, experience, form and fitness on the board with them, not with Australia.

[old dee 23,787]

Michael Clarke gets a shocking run of it from the punters on the sidelines. Why do people not want him as captain?

Remember this is someone who, over his career, averages 48 with the bat. Talk that he shouldn't be captain because he is having bad series is idiotic. It is obvious that he is a class player who is just having a bad run of form and, that being the case, he is clearly a long term member of the Australian test set up. Since he is a long term player, the only question is whether or not he'd be a good captain.

I think his work captaining the ODIs and T20s has been pretty good. Certainly there is nothing that he has done that has made me think that he's not the right person to captain the test side after Ponting.

So, I ask again, why do you not want him to be captain? Who is the alternative? Why is the alternative better than Clarke?

And don't get me started on the idiocy of people claiming NSW bias. I dare not even suggest that the next batsman who makes it into the Australian set up is an immensely talented 19 year old by the name of Nic Maddinson.

Watson (NSW ex Qld ex Tas ex Qld)

Hughes (NSW)

Ponting (Tas)

Clarke (NSW)

Hussey (WA)

Haddin (NSW)

Johnson (WA ex Qld)

Harris (Qld ex SA)

Siddle (Vic)

Hilfenhaus (Tas)

Beer (WA ex Vic)

4 players out of 12? And that includes Watson, who was initially selected for Aus when playing for Tassie, and then for Queensland.

33% of players in the 12 for Melbourne. NSW contains 32% of all people in Australia (just over 7 million). One could argue, by the numbers, that they are under-represented!!

I am a Victorian, but NSW is producing the best cricketers in the country (especially young cricketers).

Sorry AoB but he is a promoted beyond his ability!

He should not be in the 20/20 side, every game his slow scoring holds back the team.

A captain does not throw away his wicket on the last ball of the day trying a ridiculous shot.

He should stick to selling second hand Astons and underwear.

I think you have missed the new guy from NSW to replace Ponting, so that makes 5 out of the 11 starters is 45%.

[Axis of Bob 11,792]

Clarke's Twenty20 batting form has absolutely nothing to do with his suitability for the Australian test captaincy. Nothing at all. When he bats in a test match then the relevance of his ability to slog sixes is slightly less than infinitely small.

Also, you are being grossly unfair saying that Clarke 'threw away his wicket on the last ball of the day trying a ridiculous shot'. He was turning a ball to leg, like he does comfortably so many times, and he got one that spun sharply on him. He didn't throw his wicket away and his shot certainly wasn't 'ridiculous'.

He averages nearly 50 with the bat over an extended period of test cricket. He's clearly a good enough batsman, but is in a lean patch of form.

So what is the real reason you don't think he should be captain?

Cameron White could pssibly be a better captain, or then again he may not. But nobody in their right mind would think that he is a test calibre batsman - certainly at the moment. He averages just 42 in first class cricket batting at 5 and 6 behind the likes of Hodge and Hussey.

The reason Victoria has been so good has been on the back of their more experienced players and the weakness of the other states at the moment. Hussey is a good first class batsman, Hodge too. With White and Rogers in the side, plus a genuine all rounder in McDonald, there is a side that has a solid core of players that is much better than other weak states. Add to them they have a solid core of experienced bowlers who are very good state cricketers, even if they have limited prospects above that - McKay, Nannes, Wright, Hastings, Harwood etc.

Mind you, if Victoria played against a full strength NSW team team then they'd get smashed. Watson, Clarke, Haddin, Katich, Khawaja, Smith, Hughes, Jaques, Lee, Hauritz, Clark, Bollinger, Copeland ..... they'd get killed.

The state with the best players hasn't been winning the shield because they've had to field their B-team as their best players have been playing for Australia.

Victoria has a couple of top class internation prospects on the books. However they are currently under 21 years of age: Pattinson and Keath. These are the types of player that Victoria needs to promote, rather than search for trophies by filling the gaps with imports like Wright and Rogers.

[Nasher 33,613]

Absolutely agree with everything else AoB has said. Especially regarding the phantom NSW bias, but you all already knew that

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Clarke out for 4 on his Home Deck, Stormy day sure, but still not good enough for me.

Pity the team is not picked on form rather than promises. Too many of those handshakes were made IMO.

Clarke is not the leader the Australian X1 need. Who our leader is right now, like the MFC is up for grabs in my view....

[45HG 1,539]

Clarke out for 4 on his Home Deck, Stormy day sure, but still not good enough for me.

Really? I thought his 4 was great...

Pity the team is not picked on form rather than promises. Too many of those handshakes were made IMO.

What handshakes? What are you talking about?

I suppose you didn't enjoy Khawaja's effort today...

Clarke is not the leader the Australian X1 need. Who our leader is right now, like the MFC is up for grabs in my view....

Huh? In no way are the two similar...at all.

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

Really? I thought his 4 was great...

What handshakes? What are you talking about?

I suppose you didn't enjoy Khawaja's effort today...

Huh? In no way are the two similar...at all.

Khawaja's effort has nothing to do with Clarkes form. Yes i did enjoy his effort. Did well for a dead rubber. (How hard are the poms Really playing?? The last 7 days would have been a large distraction)

I have already said Cricket Australia needs a MFC style clean out- Sooner it happens the better, i know many on here disagree, but it must happen.

The Poms out planned Cricket Australia from October-They arrived here before we did!!!

[45HG 1,539]

Khawaja's effort has nothing to do with Clarkes form.

He was picked on promise, which is wh.

I have already said Cricket Australia needs a MFC style clean out- Sooner it happens the better, i know many on here disagree, but it must happen.

And what would you start with? Who would you "clean out?" Who would you replace them with?

The Australian leadership situation is not similar to MFC's at all, and the rebuild is in much the same build.

The Poms out planned Cricket Australia from October-They arrived here before we did!!!

The Poms have the best spinner in the world at the moment, a painfully potent bowling attack and a strong upper order. Explain how they out-planned us?

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

He was picked on promise, which is wh.

And what would you start with? Who would you "clean out?" Who would you replace them with?

The Australian leadership situation is not similar to MFC's at all, and the rebuild is in much the same build.

The Poms have the best spinner in the world at the moment, a painfully potent bowling attack and a strong upper order. Explain how they out-planned us?

The Poms sent there 4 Pace Bowlers to the Institute of Excellence in Brisbane before the first test. After already spending time in Germany to train. It is much more than just a spin bowler.

Kudos to Andy Flower i say. He is a tough nut who stood up to Robert Magabe, so i have immense respect.

Cricket Australia has too many board members for a start, time to lean it down and get Communications sorted between between players coaches & the board.

At present it's not happening enough (Communication was the first problem Jimmy addressed at Melbourne-its paramount to a good business)

I am trying to be positive here, changes need to happen-They may already have started, but so far it is not enough.

I saw the game at the 'G last night, many people there were saying they care far more for the Bushrangers than the Aussie X1

My opinion is the "Golden Contracts" are not the most healthy idea, i wouldn't have them.

Open up opportunities to all who play State Cricket.

Edited January 3, 2011 by why you little

[Axis of Bob 11,792]

It's funny how everyone is saying that we need to pick players in form. It sounds stupid, but I would say that this is the last thing we should be thinking about when selecting a test team at the moment.

At the moment we are looking to discover future players rather than fill gaps. We need to select and play the players who have the talent to be long term cricketers in the test team.

Selecting players who are in good form is great when you are a really good team and you just need to fill in gaps around your stars. You can select whichever 3rd pace bowler is in the best form when your other 3 bowlers are McGrath, Gillespie and Warne. Or you can select the number 6 batsman who in best form to fill in the gaps.

But at the moment selecting the best form player is going to take us from being a crap team to being a slightly less crap team which is still crap. And when that player eventually loses form then we are left with absolutely nothing.

Marcus North was the form player when he came into the side a few years ago. He was there because we had a weakness at 6 and quality batsmen at 3, 4 and 5. The selectors thought that he could help us win some important series, but once he lost form then we are left with nothing.

However if we put Steve Smith at 6, or Hughes opening, then what happens if they lose form? We end up with a player who now has the experience to help become a quality long term player. Much like putting games of experience into kids in an AFL team when you're rebuilding, you need to invest the international experience in the players that are going to be able to bring you success. If the selectors think that Smith, Hughes and Beer will be among our best players in 4 years then I vote getting the games into them to accelerate their development.

Similarly, Clarke's 4 runs means nothing in the long term. He is a long term player who is in poor form at the moment. But he has undoubted class and will eventually get back to his best.

[old dee 23,787]

Clarke's Twenty20 batting form has absolutely nothing to do with his suitability for the Australian test captaincy. Nothing at all. When he bats in a test match then the relevance of his ability to slog sixes is slightly less than infinitely small.

Also, you are being grossly unfair saying that Clarke 'threw away his wicket on the last ball of the day trying a ridiculous shot'. He was turning a ball to leg, like he does comfortably so many times, and he got one that spun sharply on him. He didn't throw his wicket away and his shot certainly wasn't 'ridiculous'.

He averages nearly 50 with the bat over an extended period of test cricket. He's clearly a good enough batsman, but is in a lean patch of form.

So what is the real reason you don't think he should be captain?

Cameron White could pssibly be a better captain, or then again he may not. But nobody in their right mind would think that he is a test calibre batsman - certainly at the moment. He averages just 42 in first class cricket batting at 5 and 6 behind the likes of Hodge and Hussey.

The reason Victoria has been so good has been on the back of their more experienced players and the weakness of the other states at the moment. Hussey is a good first class batsman, Hodge too. With White and Rogers in the side, plus a genuine all rounder in McDonald, there is a side that has a solid core of players that is much better than other weak states. Add to them they have a solid core of experienced bowlers who are very good state cricketers, even if they have limited prospects above that - McKay, Nannes, Wright, Hastings, Harwood etc.

Mind you, if Victoria played against a full strength NSW team team then they'd get smashed. Watson, Clarke, Haddin, Katich, Khawaja, Smith, Hughes, Jaques, Lee, Hauritz, Clark, Bollinger, Copeland ..... they'd get killed.

The state with the best players hasn't been winning the shield because they've had to field their B-team as their best players have been playing for Australia.

Victoria has a couple of top class internation prospects on the books. However they are currently under 21 years of age: Pattinson and Keath. These are the types of player that Victoria needs to promote, rather than search for trophies by filling the gaps with imports like Wright and Rogers.

Well AoB he has put up another fine display today 4, yes FOUR!

Summer average is now 18 and still headed south.

a long time ago I was told you dead bat the last ball of the day no matter what the game position.

He was the VC with his team in a tough position.

Pure and simple he gave away his wicket.

If you look at his long term average the big scores are against the weaker test nations eg NZ.

The guy is a good shield player who is not up to it against the better test sides.

Should not be in the test side let alone be the captain after his performances this summer.

Edited January 3, 2011 by old dee

[Sir Why You Little 37,033]

It's funny how everyone is saying that we need to pick players in form. It sounds stupid, but I would say that this is the last thing we should be thinking about when selecting a test team at the moment.

At the moment we are looking to discover future players rather than fill gaps. We need to select and play the players who have the talent to be long term cricketers in the test team.

Selecting players who are in good form is great when you are a really good team and you just need to fill in gaps around your stars. You can select whichever 3rd pace bowler is in the best form when your other 3 bowlers are McGrath, Gillespie and Warne. Or you can select the number 6 batsman who in best form to fill in the gaps.

But at the moment selecting the best form player is going to take us from being a crap team to being a slightly less crap team which is still crap. And when that player eventually loses form then we are left with absolutely nothing.

Marcus North was the form player when he came into the side a few years ago. He was there because we had a weakness at 6 and quality batsmen at 3, 4 and 5. The selectors thought that he could help us win some important series, but once he lost form then we are left with nothing.

However if we put Steve Smith at 6, or Hughes opening, then what happens if they lose form? We end up with a player who now has the experience to help become a quality long term player. Much like putting games of experience into kids in an AFL team when you're rebuilding, you need to invest the international experience in the players that are going to be able to bring you success. If the selectors think that Smith, Hughes and Beer will be among our best players in 4 years then I vote getting the games into them to accelerate their development.

Similarly, Clarke's 4 runs means nothing in the long term. He is a long term player who is in poor form at the moment. But he has undoubted class and will eventually get back to his best.

I can see where you are coming from AoB and i do not altogether disagree, Yes Smith, Hughes & Beer should be persevered with, if they show the right mental application going forward. Hughes needs work on his technique, but you can see him becoming Mentally Tougher, still mad he got run out in Melb.

What i do not like is seeing players getting a game when they are horribly out of form like Clarke and Hilfenhaus both are. It sends the wrong message out in so many ways.

We also must reward some shield players with opportunities at the moment as the side is not settled.

Clarke needs a rest, the last thing he needs right now is the added Burden of captaincy IMO.

What transpires in this last game against the Poms means very little-The Crunch game was melbourne and we got completely Pantsed in all areas of the game. On Day 1 when England batted that final session where was second slip?? At least 2 balls dissected 1st and 3rd slip. What was going on there?? I can handle losing in a hard fought game(s) but to be out played, out captained & out coached i draw a line at that. There is no way the Poms will be 100% switched on for this last game-I am sure they want to win 3-1, but the main job has been won.

Under Mark Taylor we often lost a dead rubber-it's human nature to just drop off that little bit. That said the Poms are still favourites to win

I have said it before, Punter was a magnificent Batsman at 3, but i have never been a fan of his captaincy as a tactician, and i don't have a good feeling about Clarke either.

Who should be captain next, i am not sure TBH, i think it is a very similiar situation to the MFC, the captain shall emerge in the coming months. But the reality is that Clarke has got the job, but he better perform-and soon

Can someone tell me how Ben Hilfenhaus earnt his place in this Sydney Test?? I can't work out any logic for that one.

Edited January 3, 2011 by why you little