Rhino Richards

.....or a spot for the 4th test.....

I can make my own reasoned and logical judgements without parroting and misrepresenting what knowledgeable sources have said. And if when they have made any critical comments about Clarke they certainly haven't been blaming for the rancid performances of other players or claiming he is "shitat it" re captaincy And you and gormless mates have shown not an iota of a intelligent or considered case for your criticism of Clarke's captaincy. And you have the ignorance to claim others don't get it.

Smith left a century go begging with beach cricket shot. Dumb cricket. Wrecked the balance of the innings. And Warner must have learnt how to work the DRS off Philip Hughes. What was he thinking? And Michael Clarke leading the way...... He will need to get a 200 to make up for the some of the brain fades before him We need to bat another session to get 500. I reckon we have seen the best of the wicket to bat on. Lyon must be licking his lips. Australia finally hits a reasonable score to defend and pitch is a turner and will crumble.

If anyone does not have a clue it's you. FMD, it's a suffocating bubble you live in. Clarke is giving another Captaincy 101 performance and he gets supported by Smith 20/20 stupidity on 89 and Warners absolute brainless. But it's all Clarke's fault. The dialogue on Clarke's leadership issues with jazza is some of most witless and gormless discussion on this long thread. ( And that includes WYL vacuous contributions).

And what your referring to is a process that has gone on for some time. I am not sure how its been slated home to Clarke though who in fact has flown the flag admirably with the bat and with a debilitating injury. The other issue is that it not just leadership but the quality of the talent pool in this country. It's a dream to fully replace the list of greats that retired but we have not had close to the calibre. And FWIW, when you had the side at Waughs disposal that he had, leadership is far easier. And Waugh was not without his weakness and there were serious issues under his tenure too.

Agree Maurie. They have been the two major howlers. I would think what has happened to Rogers off a Swann full toss has merit also.

And where he has batted has nothing to do with lack of leadership but are reflections of the dire state of cricketers around him. As for fantasies I can't think of a poster whose contributions so accurately and aptly match his username. Completely delusional and persistently lowbrow. I now realise the sound reasons some time ago why I put you on the Ignore list.

Outstanding Captains knock by Clatke and I'm talking about LEADERSHIP with that effort. Great support from Rogers and Smith. Appalling stuff up with Khawaja. It's inexplicable that the 3rd umpire could not conclude the ball did not hit the bat.

At this stage, Watson, Rogers and Hughes are one more poor Test each from Test oblivion. For Watson(32 + fragile body) and Rogers (35) it could be final hurrah in a test cap. Hughes could e a long time in the cold. A rejuvenated Warner could an important jolt for the Australia effort in this series. If Watson and Rogers survive the series in anything less than acceptable I would expect they will be passed over. Given the dire state of the batting, Cowan would do well to post a good 3 figure score in Hove. A few past misdemeanours could be forgotten. With Clarke out and Watson resting his front pad it's interesting Cowan is leading the side. There's a lack of leadership within the side in general (no Clarke No leadership) and Cowans status validates that.

Lets compare his paltry last Test 10 innings with his last 10 Tests and what does that say about form.....ummmm. There is a sports opinion site called the Roar which actually writes about Katich. The article is dated Dec 2011. It actually uses a few facts and figures. At his best Katich was a good but never a great Test batsman who was on the wane when finally dropped. So what if he had spat with Clarke. Differences in the changing rooms have been present since The Don and Bill zo Reilly agreed to disagree. They only become public when times are tough. Or in Katichs case when he can't control himself in public ( a constant issue) as he continues to burn relationships through the Australian cricket scene. And you weren't talking about leadership at all. You just repeatedly wrote it in CAPS without any due cause. You have to tried to bizarrely claim that a past fall out between Clarke, an abrasive senior player in Katich and an off the rails wing nut in Symonds as some slur on leadership. You have not put up anything more plausible than irrelevant scuttlebutt. Ok you don't like Clarke. Fine. But I am not sure if its dislike of Clarke or your lack of nous about leadership that makes you think you are onto something. If Warner is focused and in form he could be just shot in the arm this limp batting line up needs.

Symonds got rid of himself. His form dropped away and his personal problems also came to the fore. Katich's demise could also focus on form. His last 10 Test innings yielded around 240 runs at around 20 a piece. And I am not sure where you pull "the best batsman in the world for the previous 2 seasons". But it sure is a nice bit of hoopla. Well done. And it's hardly Clarke's fault that neither Watson nor Warner can behave like responsible human beings. You have a naive and self serving view of LEADERSHiP. You have carried ad nauseam about it but given nothing but your personal grudge and an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. Don't get me wrong I love a good conspiracy theory. I just prefer them with a few facts and evidence.

Philip Hughes has to be Lucas Cook selection. I cringed when he was selected for another Ashes tour. Ugh. Two weak dismissals in this Test and he bizarrely challenged both on no good reason. The guy does not have a basic clue. This effort is as spineless as the 1st innings. I did not think it possible.

That's the scary part. Rogers, Watson and Hughes should all be playing Lancashire league and learning ATM.

His selection was a reflection of what he was up against. There are reasonable and valid doubts about Lyon at Test level. His bowling in the 1st test was good when there was some ability to put some pressure on. He has been hung out to dry by the batting clowns in this Test. He is only 19 and has a future in Test cricket. Watson and Hughes don't.

Warners issues are Warners and Clarke should not have to be his wet nurse the same goes for Watson. Mitch Johnson is a perennial head case that has been countless opportunities to perform at Test level and failed. He was dropped from the Ashes Tests because he repeatedly bowled poorly. All you have done is tried to smear Clarke with innuendo and hearsay and dressed it up as "LEADERSHIP" yet given no plausible or informed argument as to why Clarke has failed. I agree on the long rebuild.

This information should temper those that have Warner is a "never" for Test. We don't have the luxury. Yes, he's been a goose and a big head in recent months but hopefully he has room to change his ways. But IMO, repeat offenders like Watson, Hughes are in the gun. There was a batting lesson given by a 22yo today but I doubt whether the egos in the Australian batting will learn it. England will probably bat for most of the 1st session and set Australia 600+ to win. England will have 5 sessions to bowl us out. The pressure will be right off the Australian bats. They can't win. So go out there and build an innings. And heaven help those batsman that repeat the stupidity of day 2.

And you have given nothing on LEADERSHIP except innuendo. And FWIW I would discount any issue of leadership when Symonds and Lara are involved.

Its now endemic in Australian cricket that talented players cant control themselves in public..... Watson Warner Pomersbach Marsh brothers But its Clarkes leadership ......

Clarke left a post match function early to be with that ditz Lara Bingle. That says nothing about leadership. If thats the beef with Michael Clarke then its small beer indeed. The Symond incident was actually an issue about Pontings leadership and judgement. But lets not undermine a shallow piece of muckraking.

I think thats right. And you could possibly add Australia's diabolical handling of the DRS.

It's a hot air claim at best. Despite a couple of glitches I think Haddin has been good this series. Keeping has not been the problem here. Agreed with analogies of the batting with MFCs midfield. And enough has been said about the meccano Watson. Arrogant selfish and deluded. Surely but surely he might have learnt something when he had Cook LBW and Cook considered but did not challenge. Watson decision was a text book fault that has been repeated time and time again. There was no basis beyond ego referring the decision. His dismissal and referral sowed the seeds. And Clarke's captaincy has been inspired. I find it difficult to hold him responsible for wing nuts like Warner and Watson. At 32, this could be Watsons last series in a baggy green. I guess he has a chance to make amends when England set us 500+ to chase. You would have to think his cards must be heavily marked already. Unbelievable that we have effectively snuffed our Ashes quest in one session and one ball of total stupidity and incompetence. But we'll done Peter Siddle on the start of a fight back. But hell we are so far behind and England have not played that well.

He has never been fit enough to string enough Test together. At best his batting was adequate and he was talk of as a future opener. I dont recall the captaincy because Clarke was the heir apparent, younger than Watson and with a more imposing record as an established batsman. As far as his bowling concern, how often has he bowled "long stints". At best he has been a 2nd change bowler. Watson could do a hamstring just thinking about doing tai chi! How about he is 43yo? When he retired from Test cricket six years ago he complained about the physical stress of cricket. Its age catching up with him despite his skin looking 23.

You seemed to make your point off the phrases you quoted and highlighted that were drawn from the articles. And I dont think they higlighted the point. And Healy was just stating an opinion that he did not think he is young. Anyway it was a trite issue to call someone a "[censored]" about it. FWIW, batting aside, Wade has had a difficult time with the gloves. And keeping is a cruel game and I dont believe there is any 1 to 2 year settling in period. You get scrutinised from day 1. With the focus on the Ashes there is pressure to perform.

Ian Healy is saying he is the right age (25yo) and Heally does not think he is not young. IMO Wade isnt. He should be coming into his prime. What Healy said was fair enough. Nothing hypocritical just you dont get the point.

Both Samuels and Warnes performance in the BBL was completely disgraceful and shameful. Samuel should have been banned for the rest of the year. Bat throwing is a no no but grabbing the shirt of a batsman to retarded them is outrageous. For his part, Warne vigilantic heroism was appalling. Throwing the ball at the batsman should have seen him banned for a year. It's a pity the 2nd best cricketer Australia has ever produced is such a booked bogan. He should be finished up at the end of the BBL season for good.