Rhino Richards

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.

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.

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

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 .........

I am glad you are watching it now. I am sure Warnie has enough axes to grind. And I am glad you know how to set a field in cricket. Very reassuring. You might work out that its impossible to set a meaningful field when a bowler is bowling crap. But I am sure you must be on top of that too. And to correct a misconception, alot of posters feel you rant on and I believe with proven justification.

It was FFS. Watson was moved in as an opener with success. Bollinger and Siddle have about two years experience. Since then Harris, George and Paine have been blooded since then. Hussey averaged 66 with the bat against the Pakis. Not a case to be dropped. I am not sure what the match fixing allegations have here with team selection. Oh, yes HT did point that out. B) North could have been dropped but who would they have reasonably replaced him with given they were going for a No 6 that could bowl. Sorry White struggled at 8 when he played and does not even bowl himself these days. So not a clear selection issue. The ACB selectors have been doing this where there are ready replacements. The spinner and middle order roles are begging for players to sit up and create the action. Who did? Ferguson got injured at the wrong time and missed his moment. There is no clear You continue to rant on about this but have been unable to put a plausible or sensible substantiation to your comments. I dont think in some areas its a deep well for the selectors to tap. But only you see the obvious.

At 21, Smith with one or two tests and a part time bowler is not a frontline option in either India or the Ashes. While Hauritz is a poor option you cant provide a better one than Smith...Hmmm So who would you replace Hussey and North with? As for the same side being selected series after series. The last time I looked George and Paine are new to the side in the past 3 months. So much for the pumping going on. Most of the players that play for Australia have been identified in their youth and tracked and developed by the ACB. You learn little by throwing kids to the wolves. I would have thought MFC might have taught you a bit more. It sounds great when you rant but when you think about it.... He's right WYL. You do this all the time. The silly statements are only outdone by the tragic efforts to support/divert/deny/falsify or complicate matters. And you get found out every time. B)

And what would you DO that would improve the side now and with the Ashes in sight? Like it or lump it, Hauritz is our only 4th innings bowler. He is bowling poorly. This is further exacerbated by the fact that he has been taken apart by one of the great players of spin, Tendulkar. Smith is not a frontline spinner and the silliness of playing a part time spinner was shown on the last India tour with White. As for the batting I would have thought that century aside that North position is in doubt before Hussey. Mind you Clarke has been ordinary for a while on and off the field but he has some creds. I am also struggling to identify definite replacements for either or both players where that replacement has a good track record over the past 6 to 12 months to push for selection. There are no quick fixes and I would rather considered selections as opposed to making changes for changes sake under the banner of "LETS DO SOMETHING".

How? Can you give examples and what do you think Ponting should have done in the situation? He has been in the job six weeks. The ACB are still to agree the terms of reference for the 4 man selection panel at their Board meeting this month. What did you expect in such a short time given the side for India was already selected?

On the contrary, i think Ponting does back his bowlers I think the issue here was that Hauritz bowled poorly in his spells and when you have 200 to 250 to defend you cant [censored] foot around. Bowling North just highlights Hauritz's weakness. Atm, I am not sure who stands out to push North out of the middle order. His spot is shaky if any batsman performs early.Could we play Paine as bat and have Haddin as keeper??

Clarke has a back injury and Katich a shoulder injury which is preventing them from any sustained bowling. The real issue is the failure of Hauritz as a 4th innings bowler. This will crucify us in the coming Ashes series.

I'm sympathetic to your cause TD re Victorians. I think the alleged bias to NSWmen preceded Hilditch but over that time generally the selections have served Australia well. I am hoping Smith usurps North. White was overlooked because he did little on the last Indian Tour. He is best suited to ODI and 20/20. His bowling just wont carry him in Test cricket. Hazelwood is a definite prospect. George a little less so. However doesn't there selection give rise to the thought the selectors are seeking to build and broaden the stock of fast bolwers they can draw on given the toll on the quicks last season.

I understand your sentiments and feel the same way. But I think we need to work through the existing system.

There is a reason why it wont happen. India controls at least 70% of the revenues derived form the game. It is the elephant in the room of world cricket. Australia and England are minnow. IPL should clearly demonstrate who calls the shots in the game. And you can forget Sri Lanka and Bangladesh cricket as their cricket councils are effectively financed by Indian cricket and its commercial arrangements. Your proposal would send the game further backwards at a greater pace than what is happening now. At this time, cricket needs unity of action not the disintegration bred from discontent.