Rhino Richards

Absolutely. And I dont select all rounders unless they are a perfect fit for the side rather than a nice to have. Like Watson, McDonald gets selected primarily as a batsman if selected. I have not rated AMac before this but 3 Shield centuries is not to be ignored.

South African wickets are a little different to Australian wickets. I cant see the sense in replacing Hauritz with AMac. You must have a spinner for the fourth innings in Australia. If AMac plays...its to bat first and foremost possibly at six. I would pick Doherty ahead of Hauritz. But it not clear cut and the spinning and No 6 spots look far from resolved.

AMac is making runs when it counts and has put his name forward with the bat. I am not sure how AMac adds variety to our attack when he is right arm fast medium with Hilfy and Watson. Desperate times means desperate measures and Bell cannot be out of the mix even though he has a crud record there. Might be good for Australia if he was there. Trott should start there at 3 but if Cook is dropped....

Thanks Flintoff was rushed back before time unfit and as Captain. Its great Cook is out of form. It puts more pressure on Strauss particularly if Bell is at 3.

If ever there was a time for a potential player to score runs or take wickets its NOW over the past month. Its no good relying on averages over the past couple of seasons if they dont make runs at the critical times. i have always thought that was Brad Hodge's failing (apart from not playing for NSW! ) White M Hussey and Hauritz really have not done themselves any favours. I am not so sure that D Hussey is out of the picture. Hitting a ton only brings you into focus. I do prefer Ferguson and other young NSW player (name blank) Can anyone recall what they did when Trescowthick left the last tour early? Did they move Cook from the 3 to open?

I think Smith is a better bat than bowler but not a number 6. I thought I read somewhere that Smith is carrying an injury in the short form game. So why are they playing him in the longer form? What are the selectors thinking by selecting him? Agree there are better options in batting and bowling than Smith.

Cameron White (Captain, Vic)Tim Paine (Vice-captain, Tas) Mark Cameron (NSW) Callum Ferguson (SA) Peter George (SA) Phil Hughes (NSW) Usman Khawaja (NSW) Shaun Marsh (WA, subject to fitness) Steve O'Keefe (NSW) Steve Smith (NSW) Mitchell Starc (NSW). Names in bold are on Test cusp. Why isnt Doherty there? I wouldnt pick Marsh if he isnt fit. Same goes for Smith.

How? When many ICC representatives are continually proven to be corrupt over so many years, how much worse can it get? Outside Ashes series, I believe there is room to question nearly every unusual result in the past 15 years. Anything involving the Windies, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and certain Indian performances. I would add Zimbabwe and B'desh but they dont have to be paid to drop games but their administrators are on the take financially. Its hardly astounding at all.

It already is.

The ICC wont get tough. It has had plenty of opportunity and reason to over the past 15 years and hasnt. The ICC is a lacky of the South Asian nations headed by India. Unless India decides to change the culture of nepotism, corruption and lack of governance over its top Government/ cricket officials then the ICC and World Cricket is doomed. Not only is India the financial elephant in the game of cricket, it also bankrolls Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh cricket. Theres a block of 4 votes that are at India's disposal then you have Zimbabwe . While they allow betting on micro events in cricket matches, the game is stuffed and cannot be immune from fixing of outcomes or the destruction of the integirty of performers.

Yes. Last tour they had one first class warm up game with a hit and giggle against the PM X1. They brought their strike bowler on one legs(Flintoff) and brought one player out with chronic depression (Trescowthick). They could not have been as bad as last tour.

He debuted for Tasmania as a 17yo in the mid 1990's. Given the Ashes pressure, I doubt whether they will force either Ponting or the quicks to do this. Our fast bowlers have a heavy programme year in year out and I dont see the value of an extra four days of toil.

Now recovered to 6/118 but poor indeed. For the Brisbane Test, my thoughts: 1. Whether you pick a spinner, depends on the weather. Unless its been damp and seaming, I think you play a spinner 2. I am not convinced at this point Smith is a more than a part time spinner and by default Hauritz gets the spinner's spot in a more friendly climate but I am not comfortable. Footnote: If you are not going to play to Smith then you are going to play North to back in the spin area. I cant see Smith alone on the 4th innings trying to bowl the Poms. 3. Johnson stays as first change but is burning tickets after his last couple of Tests. Could easily turn us to victory. 4. One of North or Hussey to...North for mine and put Khalwaja in. 5. Haddin (if fit) for Paine but he must produce. Big Test on Clarke. If he is a future Test captain then he needs to fire. Ponting will be out of the role within 12 months. Good articles in The Age by Roebuck and co on Saturday. Food for thought for some.

Marvellous. But at these info sessions, they are not giving any secrets away. Much of this is the confirmation of the bleedin obvious. Ok so you love the touchy feely texts and emails that actually say little. The ACB selectors have no such need to do that. If your gripe about "transparency" is about that then the slagging off at Test selectors/selection is at the far galaxy of the absurd. And no one disagrees about Australia firing up this summer and that it is not playing well. Your delusional if you believe that your view here is different to what everyone else can see. If Aust do perform badly or lose the Ashes at home, I'm sure you'll come out with some self stroking post that says " I've been saying this all slong". Fact you havent. You have said little of substance on the matter and have been pinged for it.

MFC like any professional sporting team do not reveal their selection and list planning strategies. MFC haven't done it , wont do it and shouldn't do it. If you have ever heard Bailey speak, he says nothing new in the press conferences. It got nothing to do with old Board vs new Board. Once again you try and divert the subject to avoid being shown up. BTW, I am from Earth, which galaxy are you from? Best not watch what you dont understand. Bullsh!t. It will be a ratings bonanza for them after the fluff and rubbish last summer. Its got nothing to do with transparency by the selectors. Its all about the win-loss on the field. Its going to be difficult no matter who the selectors choose for Australia. I thought I'd better explain anyhow on Benaud. Dont know where you get it..a library.. Explains alot about the opaqueness of selection. Its not as cut and dry as you try to pretend it is.

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.

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!

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.

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.