Rogue

Yep. What's the deal with sending players over to put out cones at training or whatever? Any rules against it? If not, you'd be silly not to have a wicketkeeper doing so, etc.

There's still hope for Hussey! http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc_cricket_worldcup2011/content/current/story/503569.html

Finch had a pretty decent innings too. I expect bigger things from him.

Wow!

I like KP opening the batting. It makes England a better side. Pretty ridiculous he's not in the subcontinent IMO. Fairly standard modus operandi from Chappell. I think there needs to be a change of the guard but, for now, while our few decent older players are in good form they should be retained.

Absolutely. I'm scared about our spin options - Kreza, Smith and Hussey. Given that our pace bowling options are mostly attacking, a Hauritz/Doherty type would have helped.

I agree. He should have been included not because of precedent, but because he would have given us a better chance of winning the World Cup. Hussey would be missing largely inconsequential matches, since round one of the tournament has been redesigned so that all main cricketing nations get through to round two. I think even the selectors agree that a fit Hussey in the later games would mean we had a better chance of winning the World Cup. What odd rules? My understanding is that the rules are pretty clear - if we took Hussey and it turned out he couldn't become fit we could replace him.

Will people who don't support Melbourne? How often would you choose to go to the Collingwood Football Social Club over some other venue nearby?

After the original squad was announced I said Ferguson was the unlucky bat to miss so I'm not unhappy he's going, but I think Hussey should have been in the 15 we took. From what I've read Marsh was ruled out. He's justifiably jilted IMO.

Voges into the squad - the forgotten man makes his return.

Absolutely. I was glad to see Clarke down the order a bit. Yeah. I wonder if he feels he needs to play the big shots all the time since he's one of the power hitters in our side. If he's out there a while his strike rate will look after itself, so he should focus on playing a longer innings. I understand there was some pressure to get going last night, but in general I feel like he tries to hit out a little too much.

Good innings by Clarke, and a good partnership with Hussey. It's a shame they seemed to lose their head with a couple of overs to go - there was no need to 'go the tonk' with the RRR around 7. I was also glad to see Trott get MOTM despite being on the losing side, because I'm always annoyed when it seems to go to a player on the winning team by default.

+1 I'll say! The structure of the ICC board is a massive problem and I'm not sure it'll ever be reformed. I said he was the unlucky bat, and it's no surprise he's been added. I think we're a good but not great ODI team, and the injuries we have make it tough for us to win the World Cup IMO.

Totally.

I think he's gone too, but you said something quite different - you said he wouldn't seek renewal. I'd recently read a quote from Hilditch that said otherwise, hence my question.

Really? Last I heard he was adamant he wanted to continue being a selector and that, essentially, if CA didn't want him they'd need to push him out. I'm sure I read that in the last week or so.

If we adopt WYL's rule (albeit modified with some exceptions as I've described) it'd work okay. I agree that the number of games constituting a decent run can be arbitrary but I'll put that aside for a second. With regards McGain, I think you could defend a case that he did deserve some more games. As I mentioned earlier, plenty of decent players bombed on debut, and in McGain's favour is the fact he was on the injury comeback trail. With regards Doherty, I wouldn't argue he deserved more games, but that's because I wouldn't have supported the initial selection in the first place - I think that's where the problem was.

I see where WYL is coming from and it's not so bad. I bet someone can rattle off a bunch of names who failed in their first Test and went on to have a good career. A rule with no exceptions* is almost always (see what I did there) a bad one, but guys brought into the team deserve a decent run at nailing a spot. If they don't deserve this, they shouldn't be picked in the first place. *The exceptions in this case would be the horse-for-courses selections (ie. second spinner in Syd) and the seat-warmer selections (replacing someone who is injured)

I don't think Clarke is 'the cream' in ODI cricket. For anyone who is keen: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/4578.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting As an aside, I like his record at #6 - averaging 49 (no doubt some NOs help) at a strike-rate of 90 (overall s/r 78). Did WYL comment on M Hussey in the World Cup squad?

The great Demonland crash of '11 wiped my post, but I suggested that Clarke needs to bat lower down the order, taking on a finishing role a la Bevan and M. Hussey - working the field, hard running, etc. That is of course if he finds some form - if not it's a moot point. I also suggested Ferguson was unlucky, so if Ponting and M Hussey don't go to the WC perhaps he'll get a look-in. (I don't even figure Hodge in the equation). I'm pretty sure Chappell wanted to move along some of the other guys too - just that Ganguly was the only one he was successful with. I agree with your comments on Tait, btw - I can see why we've gone down this route.

I'm not WYL, but Siddle is the obvious choice if Tait wasn't to be picked. There are also guys like Pattison (sic?). Regarding Chappell, I'm not convinced he is a great choice as full-time selector. If he had his way when Indian coach many of the senior players would have been jettisoned before their time. There's also the issue of him juggling selection and that development role - there's some potential conflict of interest there IMO (even if unintended). Someone wrote about this stuff in a recent The Age article, I think.

For sure. I'm not going to take credit for White taking over from Clarke, who moves out of the team, because it's an obvious decision Thanks - I hadn't heard of this. So Bevan needs to push out Lara, Richards, or Ponting if he's to nab a spot. I reckon RR makes a fair point - Knott was an excellent keeper. I doubt even Prior rates his glovework at that standard. He's definitely improved, though.

I have no idea what 'all time' team you're talking about ;o It wasn't so long ago that people were rubbishing Prior for his keeping. Knott, really?

There's not much in the Haddin and Prior debate IMO. Strauss gets the edge because he deosn't keep running out his batting partners, but Watson's thereabouts. The only clear winner for Aus is Hussey and with just the one it's no surprise we're getting trounced. I think Roebuck (or Baum) made a similar point in a recent article.

I agree. I know your comment was about Test cricket - and that's what was being discussed - but I thought I'd just throw that in. I'd play Cam White as captain of the T20 team. I'm not sure Clarke's in our best XI in T20 - a shame he doesn't bowl much.