Rogue

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.

On that note, it certainly doesn't do the talking in T20 IMO. For a guy who had a fair bit of flair in his batting early on, his strike rate can be awfully low. The contrast between the batting style of him and the other rookies, Hughes and Smith, is stark.

I'm sure some said the same when Simpson adopted the policy I'm advocating those many years ago. Some may not make it, but we'll know if they are given an extended run. We don't play a series until Aug anyway.

My hope now is that the selectors choose a core bunch of guys who they feel are in our best 15 or so players, and stick with them for the next 1-1.5 years.

I'm sick of seeing guys run out...this is Test cricket, and we're not even chasing a big score.

As Dean Jones said when referring to Hughes' technical flaws, getting dropped and spending time (3 years in Jones' case) out of the side really working to address faults is not a bad thing for a young player. It's far easier to work on these things outside of the international cricket arena. Plenty of good players were dropped early in their careers, only to return - Martyn and S Waugh instantly come to mind. I don't think the answer is necessarily to 'persevere'. On Smith, I'm not even sure he's a long-term solution, let alone a short-term solution.

Jaques could do with some big scores right about now.

Australia's World Cup probables (30 players): http://www.espncricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/492953.html

The winner. Has D Hussey ever opened in his life? I'm not sold on Ferguson, let alone at # 3. Cameron White is another one I'm unsure about, and we're still a bat short IMO. Plus, if they're the best four quicks in the country we're even worse than I though. NB: I don't know Lynn.

Always good to see ex-players letting us know the gate's open after the horse has bolted Talking of Jones, what's with the 'bring back Warne' talk getting a run again this series?

You wrote more than me I noticed this in a recent Age article about a likely review of Aus cricket post-Ashes: The above is what I've been saying for a fair while now.

If England were making selections like us we - Australian supporters - would be in hysterics.

A few brief asides: The consensus seems to be that Katich will be replaced by Hughes. Not even scoring a mention is Jaques, who has a pretty handy Test average of 47. Note that I'm not suggesting he should be picked - simply pointing out he seems like yesterday's man. I'm open to replacing North, but I'm not sure Smith should be the guy. From what I can tell he's not a top-six bat and if that's the case he doesn't deserve the gig unless we're happy to bank on Haddin at 6 and pick Smith as an all-rounder. Maybe Dave Hussey is worth a crack. The bowling attack is probably the worst I've seen. I agree with the sentiment in general, but in this case I'm not sure Doherty's actually any good. If he's not, we're just throwing good money after bad. That said, I don't know - he's looked pretty poor in the Tests, but if I'd seen him bowl before that it wasn't something I paid attention to. I still think we need the selectors to decide on a core group of players who they think are the most talented 15 or so in the country, and then stick with them over a relatively long period. If Doherty's one of those then he should stay, but if he's not we should drop him now.

Interesting to see Cook and Hussey both doing well (to varying degrees!). On that note, the fact that Bell and Cook made decent but not great scores, while Haddin and Hussey went big, has been the big difference in the totals. Everything I've heard was along the lines of 'Bollinger isn't match fit'. We'll never know whether Siddle would have been selected if Bollinger had some cricket under his belt. (I doubt it). Ticket sales for the WACA and GABBA have been very good - both games are extremely heavily booked. Is Smith really in the top six bats we have? I heard him admit this on the TV coverage earlier today.

I can't figure out why Smith is in the squad. Surely he's not good enough to play as our #1 spinner. If he's not then who is he covering for, given Usman just got called up for Clarke?

A few brief points. I'm not sure McDonald is in the top six bats, but his form at the moment is very good. Smith isn't anywhere near anything IMHO. Dropping Hauritz for Doherty is another example of the poor selection decisions made by the panel in recent times, because it makes something like seven spinners dropped since Warne. Who's next cab off the rank? In case it wasn't clear, that was my point - I eliminated every bat except Bell, and thus Bell plays at #3 if Cook gets dropped. I don't think Morgan has ever batted at #3. Has he even batted there in county cricket?

...and who bats at 3? Morgan isn't a #3, and neither are Collingwood or KP. Bell has failed there many a time, and England have given up on him ever playing at #3.