Rhino Richards

If its not knifing Clarke, Ponting or Hussey its misguided swipe at individuals on the selection panel. And you do without every putting up a plausible or reasonable alternative to the player dropped. Its very much a doll/axe situation with the same paltry thinking just a different person involved And your fixation on the $$$$ is your own. The need to perform is not $$$ based but you try to create it as an imperative. Clearly Clarke has gone through the horrors both on the field and off it. And just because he has suggested club cricket may be as astute as some of his shot selections in the middle or his girlfriends of late. Its hardly weak of the selectors when they are prepared to back a player who in form is critical to the Australian OD side. If he turns it around they will deserve but not get the kudos for it. If he fails in the World Cup they will wear the egg that will also stain Clarke as well. Its a dumb idea. Thinking outside the square means thinking creatively to find solutions to the problem not just falling off the edge of the square. Hence the importance of an inform Clarke to the team atm. Watson is too wooden and White aint making runs. Both could make names for themselves at this World Cup as thumping batsmen.

[ Only at MFC could this ever be an ethos. As dee -luded quoted....... There are no exceptions if you want to be successful. I would have had Chippa over Jones myself

For God sake, Clarke has been nicking them all summer. I know its ODI, but its that sort of decision making which makes Haddin better at 7 than 6. Disappointing nearly every batsman got a start but no one played the real killer innings.

Clarke's innings in the context of the game was a good start for the form reversal process. He needs to build on it in the final games and needs to score heavily in the World Cup. He is in the gun as a Captain and as No 4 batsman.

Dramatics a side that is not the measure that was taken to challenge Green's hardness at the ball. He was hardly subject to phyiscal pressure on the lead by the very nature of the action. There were posters identifying his reluctance to the contest early in his career. This is not relevant to whether he would make the contest for the ball. He will continue to be used to pinch hit up forward and on the wings. He won the Bluey and almost AA last year playing this way so he is certainly not restricted to the one role.

As usual, its more a case of what are you talking about???? What is the relevance of the 3 games?? If Clarke does not fire in those 3 games its highly unlikely that CA will dump there one day captain on the eve of the World Cup. The reality is that he will have somewhat longer depending on Australia's progression in the World Cup. But Blind Freddie can see he is out of touch and every failure is burning up credits he has amased over recent years as one of our leading batsman. And if he does not perform in the World Cup then he is in a precarious position for any post mortem. No one is arguing the issue of form so dont go off like a wingnut about "Oh so your obviously happy with Clarke blah blah blah". I'm not and its obvious he needs to find form and we all want him to earn his spot but you spend alot of time dribbling over a players demise to the extent of being petty. Much

His injuries have been unfortunate. At the end of 2006 he had the promise of being something special but plateaud and fell back. His lack of pace was always going to cap his potential. At best Sylvia has been a "teaser" without having a sustained break out year. He is nowhere near elite at this point. But his time is now and he needs to produce it. McLean was naive at times and I dont think he had the mettle to be a true leader. However, his inability to get on the track consistently certainly dimmed his star and performance at MFC.

Agree. McLean's star was more a reflection of the lack of leaders at MFC at the time after Neitz. I read recently that he is undergoing a modified program in the pre season to be cherry ripe for the main season. At 25/26, its disturbing that a midfielder with a history of soft tissue issues is still having to managed through the AFL grind. Not good. Anyway, Brad Green come on down.....

I think discussions will be had b/w AH and CA whereby the requirements of the CofS role will be such that Hilditch cant renew. Review, renewal and change are a healthy part of an effective selection panel. Hilditch has been around long enough to know the wheels of change are coming regardless of what other wingnuts froth about in media outlets. As part of the discussion on selection I wonder what will happen to Boon and Cox. They must feel a tad safer than Hilditch given they are not part of the base level witchhunt being performed by some.

Its not literal at all. What's the relevance of the 3 games if you have been running a countdown and grandstanding every failure? You are focussed on getting him axed. Pathetic how you try to wriggle another point of view. Thats not the issue. As HT pointed out your alternative is completely unworkable and unrealistic. Lets just say you want him axed without the pretence of a poorly thought out strategy.

No you dont know it well at all. You are just having an overblown slap at Hilditch. As you have said you dont have much knowledge about the inner workings of Cricket Australia but you can make a judgement on accountability.Ridiculous. And you know nothing of his passion for the game. Also a full time CoS does not necessarily lead to better accountability or decisions. Now where do I send the box of pins? You must be working at fever pitch on the doll. Better make that two boxes of pins...with instructions. If and when Clarke breaks his drought I am sure you will be howling "geez he was lucky" and sneer at his good fortune while ignoring his performance. How many times now has this statement been proven a lie?? why you little, on 03 November 2009 - 02:13 PM, said: I have been involved in cricket for over 35 years so i don't just write crap.

I am sure he is saying that publicly and he may feel that way. But its not for him to dictate. But I reckon that once his contract is expired so will he be. And Greg Chappell has been doing alot of spokesperson work for the selectors will be elevated. Tim Neilson may be feeling very focussed in his role as National coach and has a 3 year contract that has just started. If I were Neilsen I wouldn't be betting that he will complete that contract.

For someone who claims to have "media" experience, you would surely know that the press conference is one of the most contrived settings where its an exercise in media subjects rolling out cliches that hold little if any weight except for the simple minded and the basic. And your gross self serving overreaction to Hilditch's comments proves my point. It really is numbskull thinking for petty minded observers to dictate the level of humility, honesty or disclosure the torch wielders expect. We copped that sort of crap over Bailey in the early years of his coaching. And you should have learned from that. But I know not to expect miracles ....just small steps forward...well maybe one step. You have had it in for Hilditch and any of the selectors for a long time without demonstrating at any time a coherent and logical argument for their failings. The problems with Australian cricket goes well beyond the selection panel but you have tried unsuccessfully to claim the problems stem from there. Its dull and its dumb. And you're the last person to realise it. And given Hussey was already out for a prolonged period of time and not available for selection, it is immaterial whether Hilditch knew whether he was in for an operation or not. He was not available for selection. And if you had missed my earlier comment, Hilditch's contract expires in April. He will not be seeking a renewal. There is also a change in process over the past six months for G Chappell. You have stick pins in something else. And when Hilditch goes, the problems with Australian cricket remain to be addressed. Not that you will figure this. So cut the flossed pretence. BTW, can I send you more pins for the Hilditch doll?

While you are free to boast of your experiences as having drawn some insights I could give a stuff of where you came from or what you do. But if you post rubbish on a forum you get pinged. And you get pinged not just by me but many others as well ad often. And when it comes to validity you are regularly unable to substantiate an opinion and when provided evidence to prove/suggest that your opinion is ill conceived you are unable to countenance that and withdrawn to Basil Fawlty like behaviours to deny you said or state you stand by a previously disproven statement that only highlights the problem not strengthens your argument. I play no favourites but I drawn conclusions on footballers and cricketers based on the facts that are available. I am certainly not precious towards cricket. However, I dont have access to the inner sanctum of cricket and dont know their processes and internal issues. And you have shown that you know even less. However it does not stop you from carrying on with your torch lynching stupidity where clearly you have neither the facts nor the knowledge of the situation. And when rightfully challenged on your comments are unable to reflect any semblance of proof or sound thinking on a matter. As AoB says whether on football, cricket or tiddlywinks. Another flaccid opinion from someone who baked Ponting for not batting when he won the toss when Ponting's captaincy record suggested otherwise. You shouldn't talk on topics you know little on. And for the record what brought ND undone is the limited talent he had at his disposal hit the wall and his game plan was exposed against the top teams. Its a poor analogy you make. Playing "favourites" suits the neanderthal thinkers that actually believe that its a disadvantage to be a Victorian for a Test cap.

FWIW, I dont have any interest in your past but when you self promote as means of providing "validity" to a point of view then your fair game on a forum. And you do it a bit with little or no relevance to the point in question. And only you could see Hodge and Tait competing for a spot in the 15 man squad. I have no doubt its astounding. And I remember this gem of self importance... Agree you dont "just"

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

No need for the puerile carry on Soze. Good to know that players like Judd, Franklin, Ablett, Swan have been effectively neutered from the game. What a relief.

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???

Clarke down the order makes sense at the moment. Ferguson's knee injury was cruel timing for the kid. I trust Chappell did not want Sachin as one of them. However, it has been said for some time that the Indian cricketers are talented but prima donnas. On a relative scale to the other Indians, their wealth rivals Zuckerberg from Facebook. With Tait there is definitely a gamble there but selection is about making those sort of judgements. The player gets lauded if the gamble is good and selectors get baked if it doesn't! B)