Rhino Richards

Hilfy was the best of the bowlers but a little short. Johnson is not a new ball bowler but did so because we played George. I am surprised about the bat in the top 6 comment. I have never hear that unless its a WYL special. Clarkes home form was patchy but he did have the 160 in England. But he looked awful in India. He is no douby better than Hussey or North. Regardless of the Ashes outcome, Ponting Hussey and Katich would have been moved on regardless. I am not worried about the Test rankings as the difference between 1 and 5 aint that much. Thats garbage. The ACB selectors have no need to tell the public anything as much as MFC does. MFC does not do it well. They fluff injury lists, give blank media conferences and mangle training times and venues. MFC have no need to tell us anything about selections, game plans or other strategies. The ACB have no need to do so either. Even if they did most cricket followers wouldn't have a clue. If you really want to understand the issues faced by a Test selector, chase up a book by John Benaud (ex Aust cricketer, brother of Richie and ex Test selector). It might give you some insights that you tragically lack. And you might be a little more circumspect in making silly broad brush criticisms that lack any substance.

If they delisted PJ then I would rookie Newton. Cut Healy and Hughes. We should be able to pick up 5 new rookies next year.

I am not. But if I am going to criticise. I make sure I have a sound grasp of the facts. You dont and repeatedly reflect it. You value toughness. I dont think there is a mental tougher cricketer around despite his indifferent performances. I have never said he was immune from the axe. You cant follow another person's point of view. Wrong again. Australia has decided it needs to play a spinner. Hauritz is the best credentialled out of an ordinary bunch. I have already said he has bowled himself out of the team. But who reasonably replaces him? The issue preceeded 20/20. Its gthe quality of the top level in the Shield. No one think Hauritz is up to it. i dont know why you tried to ping other posters with favouring. I am not sure what long bow you are trying to pull with the Pakistan comparison. The quality of your Test side should not be a factor of the economic well being of the country. It does not create fat cats at all. Its provides fair rewards for the sportsman that bring the spectators through the turnstiles. If it was not for the rewards in the game players would not stay in it. Keep that fat cats view for talk back radio where they will think your perceptive with high values if you spout that. Couple it with Play the Kids. Eureka that caller has all the answers!

I do recall him looking smart in a suit in Peter Jackson ad when at the WBs. Besides that famous goal ....his career has been forgettable.

Hodge hit his peak at a time when Australian cricket was strong. Unfortunately as the positions opened up, Hussey was well on the wrong side of 30. And they may have played a kid instead (Michael Clarke??)

You dont know and its not being argued that he is not good enough. The issue is there is no ready replacement. Selection is a process not based on the number of head you chop. The contracts are given to the ACB assessed 25 best players in the country. The selectors can choose a Test side from that group or from outside that group. The last one was Peter Siddle. The rest you write is crap based on your own lack of understanding of the process. The current Test team is a reflection of the stock of players in Australian cricket. Mental toughness??? I would have thought Hussey has show more mental toughness than most others. Which raw kid has developed mental toughness at 20 or younger??

To be replaced by ....??? Its easy to call for someone's head. Its harder to find the perfect replacement. Hodge is 36 and you want to play the kids. Hodge is a tweener. Brilliant at Shield and struggles at Test level. Because the other options are under 5 out of 10. Bryce McGain... no thanks. Krejza...cant land a ball at Shield level. Smith is from NSW. I have given you fair reasoning on White. On top of which he failed on his last tour of India. To be replaced by??? Name the better option and you haven't done so. Hodge at 36?? I dont think playing raw kids in India is fair or sensible. If selectors were doing that I would be asking questions about their nous and commitment. I want the selectors to pick what they believe is the best Test team. They get abused when we lose and forgotten when we win. Should Punter break down and sob in front of the media? FFS, what needs to be said gets said behind closed doors and not in the media. Crap. Taking chances or punts is nothing to do with transparent it just shows they are being desperate. The process has started but you have missed it.

Good pick up rpfc. Really ordinary.

... on the best available and not for needs or for type. Particularly with picks in the top 30.

Duhhh! He isnt saying that. And asserting that shows you cant consider another point of view while being unable to coherently develop your own argument. You have been unable to provide a sensible case for any young player to replace beyond "PLAY THE KIDS" Is it a possibility the Test Selectors have a better grasp of the problems and the solutions than you? Anyway call up talkback radio and use the list clogger line. They'll think your real sharp.

So where are the ready solutions? I have already established that a 20yo PT spinner is a very green option on Hauritz. At best Hauritz is a 5 or 6 out of 10. In India he performed like 3 out of 10 and has bowled himself out of the team. Everyone knows what the problem is. You are no hot shot ranting in the fashion you are about it. The solutions are not so obvious. And shouting the cliche "Play the kids" is a typical all care no responsibility where you can never be proven wrong. You have provide no ready plausible solutions. And maybe that because there aren't any ready calls. Test cricket is a tough gig and the step up from Shield to Test is large. And Ashes series is more so. 5 Tests where the opposition works you over proper. Phil Hughes is a perfect example of player that got found out in that comp. There is a justification to play experienced hardened players like North and Hussey if they are in form. They have struggled and opportunities now open up that werent as prominent before. Given the results in India many of the changes that may not on judgement basis six months have been brought forward due to the failings of the incumbent. I dont have too much problem going into the Ashes series as the underdog. There is an expectation that England will win away. They have not done this for 25 years. Its a tough gig in Australia. They rely on a few people to really fire. Much can go wrong for them here.

Warnie's a maverick. He was that good that you could almost let the Sheik of tweak set his own traps. I dont think its case of Hauritz setting his fields or Ponting overruling his bowler. Both are dysfunctional situations which only blow up when the pressure is on. My understanding of arrangements is that the Captain and bowler agree fields for various batsman off the field. This includes scope to make changes under various scenarios. The last thing you want is either the Captain making moves without the bowlers approval or the bowler demanding moves that the Captain does not feel he can support. I dont think this was the case here. The basic fact of the matter is that Hauritz is limited spinner to start with. India is probably the hardest venue for visiting spinners to bowl especially spinners who arent bent on flight and bounce. India is also have the premier players of spin in Tendulkar, Laxman etc. However this does not detract from the fact that Hauritz bowled very poorly so poorly that he has bowled himself out of the Test team when we dont have a ready made replacement. Its impossible to have legitimate competitive fields if the (quick and spin) bowlers do not bowl a proper line and length. In Hauritz's case his efforts handed the initiative to the batsman which amplifies the problem of setting a field. It is interesting though that Warne has had a gratuitous public shot at Ponting and has been silent about Hauritz's performance. One wonders if Warne needs to keep the controversy rating pumping or its just one of a number of lapses of judgement that has symbolise Warne's public life. Greatest bowler I have ever seen but a bogan egghead if ever there was one as a bloke. In general, Australia have bowled poorly in this Test. Hauritz the worst of them. George did little to excite. Johnson was hit and miss. Hilfy had some flat spell. I am also concerned about the middle order. Not just Hussey and North but also Clarke. Clarke is a VG bat and made a century on debut in India. He did not look like it this time around. He has not been the same since he had that bingle in that car. And that's for starters.

You just struggle with a cosidered alternative view that uses evidence and facts to support it that routinely blows holes in your shallow rants. Its proved alot of things if you actually pulled yourself away from talk back radio and thought about it.

Paine has. Harris is injured. George has just come in. Smith at 20 was given a taste but needs to work on his game. It easy to say drop x and y behind a phantom nom de plume. But where are the decent replacements? All you have done is call for players necks without a plausible or decent replacements. You have given no viable alternative. Maybe you spend too much time with hot air on talk back? Who's arguing that today's performance was acceptable? Another rant in dire need of relevance WYL.

That's eerie. Because I was thinking you would do well there. Smith, Bollinger, George, Harris, Paine have all been blooded in the last 12 months. Smith has already had a taste of Test cricket and is working on the areas he needs to improve. There has been considerable opportunity. In the last 12 months Watson has been reinvented as an opener. You only need to look to find out Not on form to date.

You also could not help but make a smartazz dig at me without any need on the thread .So grow up and put aside the petulant indignation.Its fools just yourself. I just offered a different opinion to your underperforming comment. You dont like challenges and your prickly about it but give away the name calling. Like other Geelong supporters?? Did you consider starting a new thread? Hmmm. Goose and gander. They challenged but weren't as good as the team that had lead the competition all year. They did not underperform. And I am glad that the fact its Geelong strengthens that opinion. Not sure how though? Its not hard. And I dont think one slip on the GF day in 2008 condemns a side to the tag "underperformer". And StKilda have proven that on the day things can happen. But Collingwood should they were sooo superior in their whitewash in the replay.

Correct. GC may be quite excited about Gary Ablett jnr coming. They are not so hot about Nathan. Struggled to make the VFL side this year. Flaky and not committed. Prefer others thanks.

Funny I thought it was a thread about Max Rooke. Oh that right you hi jacked it. You used the win/loss record to judge their premiership performance. And spare us the name calling..its childish. Hmmmm! Ask the other posters who have stated that. I dont see you attacking them. And I have never claimed "right". Its a nervous thing you must have.Get over it. If you dont like your opinion challenged, get a blog. I have no problem with Geelong supporters feeling that they could have won more flags in a golden period. Hell every supporter does that! There have been posters on here who have been adamant that we should have won 1990! It does not mean the Cats have underperformed as a side. And I am not sure that this year they were the best side in the competition. Collingwood were clearly the superior side this year and flag favourite from July onwards (according to the experts - you seem to value them). Geelong's 3rd position is a fair reflection of where they were this year. They weren't good enough to win the flag this year. As for 2008, Geelong played a rampant Hawthorn on GF day. And if they are to be labelled underperformers just because of that then its harsh and unreasonable and based on flawed criteria. I dont think you have put up a reasonable argument to back an unreasonable assertion. Thats just my opinion. And once more in your last paragraph, give away the name calling, its childish and unnecessary.

Smith is being considered as a bowler. At 20 and a part time leggie with an average of 50 and strike rate of one in 12 overs is not a firm basis for selection. However in the past 2 tests, Hauritz has bowled himself out of the Test team as opposed to the tenuous argument you are trying to make. Smith is likely to be thrown to the wolves Warne was a junior prodigy who was identified as a 15yo as a very promising leggie. Warne was always going to make it. Smith is nowhere near Warne's class. And for the record Warne was 3 years older than Smith when he made his Test debut. So they are hardly denying Smith opportunities. Why you cant actually provide information to support a comment is beyond me. You are a treasure trove of uninformed comment and a wasteland of facts. I am not sure 5 years averages are a basis for determining Test selection or not. I would have through a rolling 12 months of scores and average would have been more applicable. Duhhh! Only you could ask such a self serving question. There are no easy answers to the situation at the moment. I hope an uncapped player rises to occassion. Your last sentence would be a true assessment of your personal disposition

Yes. About 15 other sides. I'd have MFC topping that list. Premierships are not awarded on your win loss record for the year so your criteria is flawed. Your measure was the last 4 years so the MFC side of the 1950 and 1960s just falls outside that. As Daisycutter and others have told you "you're wrong". But keep trying. B)

No its not. You are not just asking at all. You make ignorant broad brush criticisms without substantiation and as usual you get found out. Smith has bowled 300 overs in first class cricket with a bowl ave of 49! and a strike rate of 73! Its no basis for Test selection as a front line spinner. And a couple of net sessions with Warnie wont change a thing in the short term. All you have done is thrown a couple of names without consideration of their form or first class record. Wonderful. And if it wasnt for the prat Chappell we wouldn't be in......

He needs his 'Jimma" gee up chat with WYL then it would all be clear. You have proven that ad nauseum.

I should have said if a bowler does not bowl to plan. But if Hauritz is not place the ball where it should go then..... Do you think Ponting and Hauritz talk off the field and actual plan the fields rather than "Hey that didnt work what do we do now?" I didnt. But you make so many silly statements it reflects on you and not your target. And if the selectors have not done enough post Gilchrist what should they have done? You have been challenged on this view previously like alot of other views and had little of substance to back it up. You do like to cash your chips in early.

Maybe you could give him a Jimma chat some time. If you did have a clue about field settings you would know it means nothing if a bowler does bowl to plan. I guess you cant see that at silly mid couch. I just dont stoop to an ongoing tirade of silly comments and thoughtless swipes on issues. It just highlights you and not the problem you think you are addressing.

Ok back on Earth A fit Ferguson and now Khawaja are starting to have claims and there is no reason why if they bat well that they can make the test team. Both Hughes and Rogers are openers and I dont think this is where the gaps are. Jaques has been patchy and does not make runs at critical times. Hussey is a one day player. Klinger needs a good streak of form to push. McDonald a good nice to have bat/bowl that just does not look competent enought to star sufficiently with one or the other. You need to do that at Test level. With Watson already there, I cant see how they will opt for MacDonald unless they drop a quick. Too true. I blame Greg Chappell for all this. Telling his brother to bowl that underarm was a .........