On 24/01/2011 at 00:32, why you little said:

Hilditch is just the start of the problem RR, i have always said that. Cricket Australia needs a full revamp

I would like to see memberships sold to the public, so the entire organization is made more accountable, but i am tipping you will not agree to that.

ANd you have been flat wrong WYL. As usual you personalise your issues on individual without rhyme or reason.

And despite your flaccid armageddon cries, the summer has been almost a sell out in Tests and the ODIs. You can see the attendances in the media. You cant get more transparent than that.

CA is accountable to its State associations. How can Cricket Australia become more accountable to the general public on a meaningful basis than what it is now? You have the option to buy a ticket or not to the entertainment.

You have already puffed your chest out and said you wouldn't go. Fine.

Memberships sold to the public???

  On 24/01/2011 at 00:40, Rhino Richards said:

ANd you have been flat wrong WYL. As usual you personalise your issues on individual without rhyme or reason.

And despite your flaccid armageddon cries, the summer has been almost a sell out in Tests and the ODIs. You can see the attendances in the media. You cant get more transparent than that.

CA is accountable to its State associations. How can Cricket Australia become more accountable to the general public on a meaningful basis than what it is now? You have the option to buy a ticket or not to the entertainment.

You have already puffed your chest out and said you wouldn't go. Fine.

Memberships sold to the public???

ok RR if you think all is sweet and nice with CA fine have your opinions, i shall keep mine.

I would be more than happy to buy a cricket membership just as i do for the MFC. Maybe you need to widen your horizons a little....

  On 24/01/2011 at 00:51, why you little said:

ok RR if you think all is sweet and nice with CA fine have your opinions, i shall keep mine.

I would be more than happy to buy a cricket membership just as i do for the MFC. Maybe you need to widen your horizons a little....

I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but what would a cricket membership get you? How would it help cricket and it's administrators to do a better job?

As I see it, the whole point/necessity of AFL memberships is that there is such a large competition and each team needs a competitive edge (as it's essentially all financial). Cricket doesn't have that competition/need, and as RR points out - the crowds are as big as ever.

  On 24/01/2011 at 00:51, why you little said:

I would be more than happy to buy a cricket membership just as i do for the MFC. Maybe you need to widen your horizons a little....

And maybe you should be more accountable and fess up your mistaken views.

He is right. You WYL, made predictions prior to the Summer that CA faced poor crowd attendances. They have been anything but ! Record Test Match crowds and healthy figures for the T/20 & ODI's to date.

Thankfully your views escaped the "great Demonland crash of 1/11" and are plain for all to see.

  On 24/01/2011 at 00:51, why you little said:

ok RR if you think all is sweet and nice with CA fine have your opinions, i shall keep mine.

If you cant move beyond that numbskull response when I have clearly stated that all aspects of CA should and will be examined. I just dont repeatedly make uninformed, factless and brainless allegations and attacks on individuals like you do.

This thread has gone on for 59 pages and is testimony to your appalling lack of knowledge and insight into cricket.

  On 24/01/2011 at 00:51, why you little said:

I would be more than happy to buy a cricket membership just as i do for the MFC. Maybe you need to widen your horizons a little....

More the fool you. If you think its a good idea its a decent bellwether that its a dog in real life.

The only thing "comedic" is you suggesting to someelse "to widen your horizons a little".

You just dont get it do you whether its cricket, football or debt.

The pitches in India for the World Cup are likely to be flat batting paradises. Teams should score lots of runs if history is any guide to the pitches.

On these pitches then you need something different from the norm to be able to keep batsmen in check. Simply sending out more fast medium bang 'em in type bowlers is just not going to cut it a lot of the time. So Tait is a gamble on his ability to be dangerous on flat pitches. If he bowls badly then he'll still go for a run a ball like everyone else. But if he bowls well then the opposition is right up against the wall.

He's probably not the sort of bowler you want on a slow, seaming pitch because that role could be better performed by the likes of Bollinger, Watson and Hastings, but if you're bowling on a 300+ wicket then Tait would be almost the first bowler picked.

I think Clarke is better down the order. But he's just having a really poor trot at the moment because he's out of form. There's no doubt that he'll get back to making runs at some point and when he does he's one of our best. If we are going to win the World Cup then we need Ponting and Clarke in the team and making runs, because they're the cream. If they don't fire then we won't win the tournament, whether they're in the team or out of it. Also, I think Clarke's captaincy so far this ODI series has been absolutely top shelf - now he just needs to make some runs.

WYL, the reason why nobody rates your arguments is because (among other things) you are frightfully inconsistent in your rambling and use absolutely no substantive evidence whatsoever. Nobody is compelled to your view because you offer nothing compelling - just emotive rambling and poorly thought out opinions. It's the same in every forum, be it cricket, football, or tiddlywinks.

Also you are lucky that the two weeks deleted your views on the selectors naming Mike Hussey. It would have been interesting viewing now that Hussey looks like recovering for the World Cup!!

It's been a pretty interesting ODI series so far. In every game, at least one batsman has stood up, as has at least one bowler. In this form of the game you probably only really need one bloke to stand up, so as long as this keeps happening then we're still a chance to continue winning. It's nice to see some winning cricket anyway, after the dreadfully depressing Ashes series.

Brett Lee is an interesting proposition at this stage of his career. He's bowling at around 140kph - I always thought during the peak of his career that if he stopped being able to bowl at 155kph he'd be next to useless, but it looks as if he's still capable of being a good enough bowler even without the speed. Good for him - I thought he was finished.

  On 24/01/2011 at 03:55, Nasher said:

Brett Lee is an interesting proposition at this stage of his career. He's bowling at around 140kph - I always thought during the peak of his career that if he stopped being able to bowl at 155kph he'd be next to useless, but it looks as if he's still capable of being a good enough bowler even without the speed. Good for him - I thought he was finished.

I held the same view - for Test cricket in particular. Certainly injury has played a big part in that regard. He has done well to get back in time. It will be interesting to see how he goes in India. I'll search for his stats over there and see how they stack up. He did bowl around the ~145km/h mark with good control, which is not pedestrian by any stretch. So he is still pretty slick. As he stated post match, he may well provide good experience for the younger bowlers over there.

edit:

According to stats - Cricinfo ESPN Brett Lee's ODI record in India is:

13 Matches - 13 innings he bowled in -

Overs - 98.2

Maidens - 8

Runs - 472

Wickets - 13

Avg. - 36.30

S/Rate - 45.3

Economy - 4.80

Games against in India:

India - 9

West Indies - 2 (1/45 off 8 overs)

New Zealand - 1 (2/31 off 8 overs)

England - 1 (0/25 off 9 overs)

Best Bowl - 3/37 off 8 overs against India @ Deccan. (Hyderabad)

*Brett Lee's overall ODI bowling average is 22.85 - economy 4.71

  On 24/01/2011 at 04:08, High Tower said:

I held the same view - for Test cricket in particular. Certainly injury has played a big part in that regard. He has done well to get back in time. It will be interesting to see how he goes in India. I'll search for his stats over there and see how they stack up. He did bowl around the ~145km/h mark with good control, which is not pedestrian by any stretch. So he is still pretty slick. As he stated post match, he may well provide good experience for the younger bowlers over there.

While Lee's days as a Test bowler are finished, he can still survive for a few more years in the short game if he bowls with some level of smarts that sometimes alluded him on flat Test wickets. Lee has bowled well this ODI series.

  On 24/01/2011 at 03:49, Axis of Bob said:

[Clarke's] just having a really poor trot at the moment because he's out of form. There's no doubt that he'll get back to making runs at some point and when he does he's one of our best. If we are going to win the World Cup then we need Ponting and Clarke in the team and making runs, because they're the cream. If they don't fire then we won't win the tournament, whether they're in the team or out of it. Also, I think Clarke's captaincy so far this ODI series has been absolutely top shelf - now he just needs to make some runs.

I don't think Clarke is 'the cream' in ODI cricket.

For anyone who is keen: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/4578.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting

As an aside, I like his record at #6 - averaging 49 (no doubt some NOs help) at a strike-rate of 90 (overall s/r 78).

  On 24/01/2011 at 03:49, Axis of Bob said:

Also you are lucky that the two weeks deleted your views on the selectors naming Mike Hussey. It would have been interesting viewing now that Hussey looks like recovering for the World Cup!!

Did WYL comment on M Hussey in the World Cup squad?

  On 24/01/2011 at 05:18, Rogue said:

Did WYL comment on M Hussey in the World Cup squad?

I wondered that too (didn't see any comments if there were any). Thought if there was one thing anyone may've learned from this summer, is to write off Mike Hussey at one's own peril!

  On 24/01/2011 at 03:49, Axis of Bob said:

WYL, the reason why nobody rates your arguments is because (among other things) you are frightfully inconsistent in your rambling and use absolutely no substantive evidence whatsoever. Nobody is compelled to your view because you offer nothing compelling - just emotive rambling and poorly thought out opinions. It's the same in every forum, be it cricket, football, or tiddlywinks.

Also you are lucky that the two weeks deleted your views on the selectors naming Mike Hussey. It would have been interesting viewing now that Hussey looks like recovering for the World Cup!!

AoB i am not trying to convert anyone to my ideas, i am just stating my views on Cricket Australia & how i think the whole organization needs to be re vamped on many levels.

If no one on here agrees i am not losing any sleep i assure you, although i have received the odd PM in support.

If Mike Hussey recovers in time for the WC fine, but lets see him earn that spot back as he will not be match hardened-Michael Clarke should be playing for NSW right now to help regain his confidence, by making him ODI captain it just puts more pressure on him. His whole persona on the pitch yesterday batting was just sad, i felt sorry for him, he was trying too hard.

Let him go back to State level or even club level & Bat again-A long innings. Recapture some footwork, at the moment it has all deserted him.

I said it pages back and i stand by it. If any player fails in 5 consecutive matches i would drop them back to state level.

For any newbie coming in i would give them 5 games to find form.

Standard for anybody regardless of Cricket Australia Contract or Advertising/Marketing Contracts.

  On 24/01/2011 at 06:18, why you little said:

If no one on here agrees i am not losing any sleep i assure you, although i have received the odd PM in support.

Indeed it would be odd. Possibility charity or someone with a similar diagnosis.

I agree you dont seek to convert any one to your "ideas" because beyond your ignorant whinging you dont stand for anything.

  On 24/01/2011 at 06:18, why you little said:

For any newbie coming in i would give them 5 games to find form.

Standard for anybody regardless of Cricket Australia Contract or Advertising/Marketing Contracts.

Plain dumb. So Bryce McGain deserved 4 more Test matches. Ugh!

And Xavier Doherty would have playe the whole Ashes series.... unbelievable.

And you make your misguided attacks on Hilditch. FMD.

You may not be trying to convert anyone, but you are trying to receive support for your views or some other motivation. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting them on an anonymous internet forum.

You want M Hussey to earn his spot back. I'm pretty sure that he has already earned his spot. But your scathing comments about the selectors, who you stated made an error by naming him for the World Cup squad because he would not be fit in time, look foolish in retrospect and continue a pattern of yours for spouting off without considering any evidence than may be present. It ruins every argument you ever make (regardless of whether or not you happen to stumble across the right answer by the 1000 monkey approach).

Another example of this is your thought on Michael Clarke. You want him to have gone back to state cricket to play some long innings. How many long innings is he going to play when the states are playing in the Big Bash? Cause and effect. Everything affects something else, but that's too complex for your thinking. Besides, Clarke has captained bloody well so far.

Your 5 consecutive match rule is also idiotic. Nothing is as simple as you want to make it and dropping a quality player now due to form would be insane. Why? So he can play Big Bash. A month before the World Cup? He'll play more one day cricket to return to form if he stays with Australia. Form is only ever an innings away, so we should give our best players the opportunity to get that form before the World Cup - not playing state level Twenty20!! Besides, Clarke has only 'failed' (assuming 36 is a failure) in his last 3 matches. Before that he made 50* from 51 balls. Before that two scores in the 20s and before that 111* (in India) and 99*.

Your 5 consecutive match rule (using <40 as a failure, since Clarke's 36 does is a 'failure') would have seen Mike Hussey dropped from Tests in October last year (a month before his Ashes series), in January the year before and in June 2008. He'd have been dropped from ODIs in June last year and March 2007. His overall record in ODIs is an average of 52, and 51 in Tests.

You'd have dropped Ricky Ponting from the ODI side in June 2010, January 2010, February 2009, June 2008, February 2008, October 2006, February 2005, September 2004, January 2004, August 2003, March 2002, August 1999, April 1999 and November 1996. That's 14 times you would have dropped him in his 352 game career. Do you agree with dropping one of Australia's greatest ever batsmen 14 times in his ODI career? One that has netted us 3 consecutive world Cups?

In that same time you would have dropped Clarke 5 times in his 185 ODI career. Extrapolating, you'd have dropped Clarke once every 37 games and Ponting once every 25 games. Does that sit comfortably with you?

  On 24/01/2011 at 07:11, Rhino Richards said:

And Xavier Doherty would have playe the whole Ashes series.... unbelievable.

And you make your misguided attacks on Hilditch. FMD.

I see where WYL is coming from and it's not so bad. I bet someone can rattle off a bunch of names who failed in their first Test and went on to have a good career. A rule with no exceptions* is almost always (see what I did there) a bad one, but guys brought into the team deserve a decent run at nailing a spot. If they don't deserve this, they shouldn't be picked in the first place.

*The exceptions in this case would be the horse-for-courses selections (ie. second spinner in Syd) and the seat-warmer selections (replacing someone who is injured)

  On 24/01/2011 at 17:36, Rogue said:

A rule with no exceptions* is almost always (see what I did there) a bad one, but guys brought into the team deserve a decent run at nailing a spot. If they don't deserve this, they shouldn't be picked in the first place.

*The exceptions in this case would be the horse-for-courses selections (ie. second spinner in Syd) and the seat-warmer selections (replacing someone who is injured)

I think your first comment about a rule with no exceptions is indeed correct. I think it depends upon what you would call a decent run. The selection of a side takes into accounts many variables including the performance or disposition of the individual. However a "decent run" will always be judgemental. It may be 2,3 or 4 Tests depending on these variables. My example of Bryce McGain would suggest that one Test is a decent run. In the case of Xavier Doherty, I think the two Tests he played showed he had more work to do and was not causing England the slightest difficulty. In the case of Smith, the selectors have given him a bit more faith as they have rated his ability at such a young age. He is still developing but may blossom into a worthy No 6 in good time. Its not unusual for the selectors to "invest" in players who they believe to be talented eg Steve Waugh.

  On 24/01/2011 at 07:26, Axis of Bob said:

You may not be trying to convert anyone, but you are trying to receive support for your views or some other motivation. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting them on an anonymous internet forum.

You want M Hussey to earn his spot back. I'm pretty sure that he has already earned his spot. But your scathing comments about the selectors, who you stated made an error by naming him for the World Cup squad because he would not be fit in time, look foolish in retrospect and continue a pattern of yours for spouting off without considering any evidence than may be present. It ruins every argument you ever make (regardless of whether or not you happen to stumble across the right answer by the 1000 monkey approach).

Another example of this is your thought on Michael Clarke. You want him to have gone back to state cricket to play some long innings. How many long innings is he going to play when the states are playing in the Big Bash? Cause and effect. Everything affects something else, but that's too complex for your thinking. Besides, Clarke has captained bloody well so far.

Your 5 consecutive match rule is also idiotic. Nothing is as simple as you want to make it and dropping a quality player now due to form would be insane. Why? So he can play Big Bash. A month before the World Cup? He'll play more one day cricket to return to form if he stays with Australia. Form is only ever an innings away, so we should give our best players the opportunity to get that form before the World Cup - not playing state level Twenty20!! Besides, Clarke has only 'failed' (assuming 36 is a failure) in his last 3 matches. Before that he made 50* from 51 balls. Before that two scores in the 20s and before that 111* (in India) and 99*.

Your 5 consecutive match rule (using <40 as a failure, since Clarke's 36 does is a 'failure') would have seen Mike Hussey dropped from Tests in October last year (a month before his Ashes series), in January the year before and in June 2008. He'd have been dropped from ODIs in June last year and March 2007. His overall record in ODIs is an average of 52, and 51 in Tests.

You'd have dropped Ricky Ponting from the ODI side in June 2010, January 2010, February 2009, June 2008, February 2008, October 2006, February 2005, September 2004, January 2004, August 2003, March 2002, August 1999, April 1999 and November 1996. That's 14 times you would have dropped him in his 352 game career. Do you agree with dropping one of Australia's greatest ever batsmen 14 times in his ODI career? One that has netted us 3 consecutive world Cups?

In that same time you would have dropped Clarke 5 times in his 185 ODI career. Extrapolating, you'd have dropped Clarke once every 37 games and Ponting once every 25 games. Does that sit comfortably with you?

Sure i want M Hussey to earn his spot for the world cup. He has just ripped his Hammy of the bone. He is getting older, and i would want to be dead sure that he can bolt flat out from a standing start for a single.

If he ticks all those boxes then he gets a game, if in fact somebody in the side deserves to be dropped..

Concerning your figures above, i would consider 5 innings from a batsmen of less than 20 to be a failure 40 is too high, So you can readjust all that work.

M Clarke could do well to play club cricket for a while (I know he won't, but i disagree) he needs some 4 day games in him, but the marketeers would never allow it.

Good argument put forward AoB. But I'm afraid it won't make an impression...

  On 24/01/2011 at 21:50, Rhino Richards said:

I think your first comment about a rule with no exceptions is indeed correct. I think it depends upon what you would call a decent run. The selection of a side takes into accounts many variables including the performance or disposition of the individual. However a "decent run" will always be judgemental. It may be 2,3 or 4 Tests depending on these variables. My example of Bryce McGain would suggest that one Test is a decent run. In the case of Xavier Doherty, I think the two Tests he played showed he had more work to do and was not causing England the slightest difficulty. In the case of Smith, the selectors have given him a bit more faith as they have rated his ability at such a young age. He is still developing but may blossom into a worthy No 6 in good time. Its not unusual for the selectors to "invest" in players who they believe to be talented eg Steve Waugh.

If we adopt WYL's rule (albeit modified with some exceptions as I've described) it'd work okay. I agree that the number of games constituting a decent run can be arbitrary but I'll put that aside for a second.

With regards McGain, I think you could defend a case that he did deserve some more games. As I mentioned earlier, plenty of decent players bombed on debut, and in McGain's favour is the fact he was on the injury comeback trail.

With regards Doherty, I wouldn't argue he deserved more games, but that's because I wouldn't have supported the initial selection in the first place - I think that's where the problem was.

Well, going by your 5 consecutive matches of failures (ie, scores < 20) Michael Clarke would never have been dropped from the one day team. Not a single time. In Tests he would not have been dropped either.

Hussey would not have been dropped from Tests (although he'd have gone close a few times, with a few well placed scores between 20 and 30!). You'd have dropped Hussey from ODIs in March 2007 as the only time.

Ponting would have been dropped from Tests in 2001 half way through the Ashes. He had 10 scores under 20 in a row. Curiously, he then finished off the series by scoring 144, 72 and then 62. This is our best batsman for some time, and currently 3rd on the overall Test run scorers list. You'd have dropped him from the ODI team in February 2009, June 2008 and October 2006.

So, overall, the total ratio of matches per 'WYL dropping' for each of the batsman would be:

Mike Hussey (Test average 51, ODI average 52): 210 matches per dropping

Ricky Ponting (Test average 54, ODI average 43): 126 matches per dropping

Michael Clarke (Test average 46, ODI average 43): never dropped in 254 matches

Any further requests?

Also, Clarke won't get to play 4 day cricket if he plays club cricket. He'll get one 2 day match a week (possibly just a one dayer or T20). If he stays in the side then he'll get a 4 matches in the next 2 weeks! Just because you use throwaway labels like 'marketeers' to try to personalise your arguments, it doesn't stop your arguments being awful. Each action has a consequence. A one day series that is basically a World Cup tune up is the perfect time for Clarke to try to find some form.

I do get it: You don't like Clarke. Probably based on some misguided notion that because he isn't Allan Border he that he doesn't deserve to be captain. Well times are changing and you'd better get used to it otherwise you'll be a very frustrated grumpy old man.

  On 25/01/2011 at 04:06, Axis of Bob said:

Also, Clarke won't get to play 4 day cricket if he plays club cricket. He'll get one 2 day match a week (possibly just a one dayer or T20). If he stays in the side then he'll get a 4 matches in the next 2 weeks! Just because you use throwaway labels like 'marketeers' to try to personalise your arguments, it doesn't stop your arguments being awful. Each action has a consequence. A one day series that is basically a World Cup tune up is the perfect time for Clarke to try to find some form.

I do get it: You don't like Clarke. Probably based on some misguided notion that because he isn't Allan Border he that he doesn't deserve to be captain. Well times are changing and you'd better get used to it otherwise you'll be a very frustrated grumpy old man.

Clarke should be given a chance to find form away from the spotlight. That is my problem with him at the moment. I have no dislike for Michael Clarke personally, I think he is a good solid cricketer, I do not think he is in the elite category, as many people do.

And i will be very happy if and when he finds some form, i just think he has had a dream run over the years with the Baggy Green, compared to some other players.

If Clarke was from Victoria i wonder if he would have been treated the same way??

His Batting last sunday was truly painful to watch & i don't want to be watching that in the world Cup, Greg Chappell may be thinking of his own bad trott when he says Clarke will keep captaining Australia-Fair Enough & Noble, but my problem with that is that in GS Chappell's time the media was there, but the Spotlight is far more intense today. There is no way Clarke can be sleeping well at the moment, and that just makes it worse.

I am suggesting 4 day club Cricket only so he can go out & enjoy a good bat.

I do get it AoB & it has nothing to do with Alan Border!!! (where did he come from??) You and i look at it from different angles

Thanks for all your Mathematics btw Very interesting. Hussey in his own words said he was lucky to survive in the team last year, I would have dropped him, but that does not mean he could not have batted his way back into the side. For a time last year he was Clogging the List, but he got his shite back together, Good Luck to him.

Does M Clarke have that same Mental strength with the added weight of the Captaincy on his shoulders to do the same as M Hussey??? I am not sure because its hard to guage how hard the Poms are playing at the moment.

Last Sunday looked pretty close to rock bottom so he has got 4 games.

Edited January 25, 201114 yr by why you little

  On 25/01/2011 at 03:44, Rogue said:

If we adopt WYL's rule (albeit modified with some exceptions as I've described) it'd work okay. I agree that the number of games constituting a decent run can be arbitrary but I'll put that aside for a second.

With regards McGain, I think you could defend a case that he did deserve some more games. As I mentioned earlier, plenty of decent players bombed on debut, and in McGain's favour is the fact he was on the injury comeback trail.

With regards Doherty, I wouldn't argue he deserved more games, but that's because I wouldn't have supported the initial selection in the first place - I think that's where the problem was.

I dont think you can generalise in regard to all cricketers and I think there is enough evidence that suggest there are a number of factors in play with selection.

Once in a while a player is selected who just seems completely and totally out of their depth. A couple of bowlers come to mind. Watkins, Angel, C Matthews and McGain. Capable at Shield level but a complete disaster at Test level. It happens from time to time where a player completely implodes. There is no way you could have selected McGain after that effort.

I guess with players like Doherty or Beer you need to monitor how they perform.

Selection takes into more factors than the simplistic numbers games as promoted by some (not you). And thats why for the distant follower selection appears as a mystery.

  On 25/01/2011 at 05:11, why you little said:

Clarke should be given a chance to find form away from the spotlight. That is my problem with him at the moment. I have no dislike for Michael Clarke personally, I think he is a good solid cricketer, I do not think he is in the elite category, as many people do.

And i will be very happy if and when he finds some form, i just think he has had a dream run over the years with the Baggy Green, compared to some other players.

If Clarke was from Victoria i wonder if he would have been treated the same way??

His Batting last sunday was truly painful to watch & i don't want to be watching that in the world Cup, Greg Chappell may be thinking of his own bad trott when he says Clarke will keep captaining Australia-Fair Enough & Noble, but my problem with that is that in GS Chappell's time the media was there, but the Spotlight is far more intense today. There is no way Clarke can be sleeping well at the moment, and that just makes it worse.

I am suggesting 4 day club Cricket only so he can go out & enjoy a good bat.

I do get it AoB & it has nothing to do with Alan Border!!! (where did he come from??) You and i look at it from different angles

Thanks for all your Mathematics btw Very interesting. Hussey in his own words said he was lucky to survive in the team last year, I would have dropped him, but that does not mean he could not have batted his way back into the side. For a time last year he was Clogging the List, but he got his shite back together, Good Luck to him.

Does M Clarke have that same Mental strength with the added weight of the Captaincy on his shoulders to do the same as M Hussey??? I am not sure because its hard to guage how hard the Poms are playing at the moment.

Last Sunday looked pretty close to rock bottom so he has got 4 games.

1. No one has called Michael Clarke as elite. Why do you make up other people's views to somehow substantiate your unsupported position.

2. Clarke has hardly had a dream run at all. His last 4 months have been poor but his record up to then was good. His Ashes 2009 was outstanding.

3. AoB is right. You dont get it and you perpetually fail to validate or substantiate a position and continue to look daft as a result.

4. Hussey never clogged the list. That was your insulting and again embarrassing position which like so many was shown to rather stupid. And clearly nothing has been learned from it. If Hussey had been dropped he was finished at the top level. Its fantasy that he could have batted his way back into the team.

5. You have no way or make a decent comparison of the mental strength of either player. Its folly to make an opinion on it as its just as uninformed as your other statements.

  On 25/01/2011 at 06:57, Rhino Richards said:

1. No one has called Michael Clarke as elite. Why do you make up other people's views to somehow substantiate your unsupported position.

2. Clarke has hardly had a dream run at all. His last 4 months have been poor but his record up to then was good. His Ashes 2009 was outstanding.

3. AoB is right. You dont get it and you perpetually fail to validate or substantiate a position and continue to look daft as a result.

4. Hussey never clogged the list. That was your insulting and again embarrassing position which like so many was shown to rather stupid. And clearly nothing has been learned from it. If Hussey had been dropped he was finished at the top level. Its fantasy that he could have batted his way back into the team.

5. You have no way or make a decent comparison of the mental strength of either player. Its folly to make an opinion on it as its just as uninformed as your other statements.

And who actually says that you are so right RR. I disagree, Michael Clarke has always walked the red carpet, and as i said if he had come from Victoria would he have been given the same treatment??

Hussey did Clog the list during 2010 for about 20 innings, he was horribly out of form-Nobody should be finished if they are dropped, it is one of my strong gripes (Brad Hodge come to mind??) If a player regains form-then on goes the Baggy Green IMO

I know a little about Mental Strength RR i can tell you, and there are many ways to deal with it. M Clarke has got to do it now, what's your problem?

  On 25/01/2011 at 07:05, why you little said:

And who actually says that you are so right RR. I disagree, Michael Clarke has always walked the red carpet, and as i said if he had come from Victoria would he have been given the same treatment??

Its not whether I am right its the fact you get shown to be perennially wrong. Check the facts on Clarke and you will be shown up as usual. And the Victorian is really dull. Its foundless and witless the first time. On the umpteenth airing its likely you actually believe it.

  On 25/01/2011 at 07:05, why you little said:

Hussey did Clog the list during 2010 for about 20 innings, he was horribly out of form-Nobody should be finished if they are dropped, it is one of my strong gripes (Brad Hodge come to mind??) If a player regains form-then on goes the Baggy Green IMO

You made a right fool of yourself with that slight on Hussry. Dont extend the stupidity. I would have thought Hodges disposition might have shed some llght on Hussey's chance at 35 returning to the Test side. Once again the penny doesnt drop.

  On 25/01/2011 at 07:05, why you little said:

I know a little about Mental Strength RR i can tell you, and there are many ways to deal with it. M Clarke has got to do it now, what's your problem?

A little may be overstating it. About as much as you know about debt. You are in no position to make any informed assessment of the relative mental strength of Clarke and Hussey. So why do it? And I am not sure what all the self promotion of what you apparently know. It impresses you but is not reflected in your sometimes bizarre posts.