1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Benefit of hindsight

Discussion in 'Cricket Forum' started by Matabele, Aug 25, 2009.

  1. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    Given the failures of Philip Hughes I stand by my comments on 6 months ago that it was premature of the selectors to have tapped Hayden on the shoulder.  I'd go as far to suggest the Ashes would still be Australia's had he toured. 
     
  2. Fro

    Fro Well-Known Member

    8,337
    181
    Ratings:
    +245 / 0
    pfft.

    thats pure garbage.
     
  3. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    And that's a really intelligent response.
     
  4. Fro

    Fro Well-Known Member

    8,337
    181
    Ratings:
    +245 / 0
    Didnt think it deserved anymore :)

    He was well past it at the end, I know you think his career was curtailed in the middle stages and I tend to agree, the southern states pushed their own agenda as far as selections go at that time and he was a victim of that.

    But at the end of last home season he was simply not doing the job as well as he used to and needed to.

    regardless of that the major dramas in England werent the openers, it was the middle order and the balance of the bowling attack, Hussey must have Willos photos, he has been lower than average for a long time now, Ponting only had a couple of good innings as well.

    That put a lot of pressure on clarke and North, and both responded well, but you really need 3 and 4 to do better.

    And the bowling selections are perplexing to say the least.

    But Hayden??

    yesterdays man, a great servant for a number of years, but they were a while ago.
     
  5. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    My rationale is that he wouldn't have done worse than Hughes, in fact at Lords in all likelihood he'd have held a lot firmer.  But more important would have been the experience and the presence of a hard head for Ponting to refer to.  I'd suggest he could have assisted Ponting make better fielding/bowling changes in the First Test to get the win and might have also occupied the crease a little better in London. 
     
  6. Fro

    Fro Well-Known Member

    8,337
    181
    Ratings:
    +245 / 0
    He may have done so, but so may Watson if he had played one test earlier than he did.

    Hayden was not a real big tactician on the field, that role of older shoulder was supposed to have fallen to Hussey, and we all saw how that turned out.
     
  7. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    You're right about Hussey and his photos.  It galls me that he has made a century, too little too late, but it will probably ensure him a spot in the side for another 18 months at least.
     
  8. Fro

    Fro Well-Known Member

    8,337
    181
    Ratings:
    +245 / 0
    nah Hussey must go. there will be a couple of big heads to roll, He and Clark will be the guys with their tickets punched.

    My tip is Hughes back in, Watson to 5 and Clarke will move up to 4, captains, or captains in waiting dont bat at 5 or 6 when they are at the peak of their powers, he has shown he can handle a bit more responsibility, the time is right to go back to 4 for him.
     
  9. The Gronk

    The Gronk Well-Known Member

    3,475
    37
    Ratings:
    +37 / 0
    Load of bollocks Matas.  Hayden was past it and showing no signs of recovery.  The weakness in our batting was Hussey not getting any runs, and North getting them mainly when the going was easy - he fell cheaply every time we were bowled out for a low score. 

    One thing is for sure, we would have lost the series in South Africa without Hughes in the side - maybe you would have liked that though. 

    Hughes should never have been dropped - 3 centuries in 3 tests, and then three innings later he is out of the side.  Dropping him showed they were panicking. 

    The selectors have a lot to answer for in the way they have treated our spinners - they have gone through 7 since the king of texting retired.  If they had stuck to their guns with any one of them, Krezja for example, they might have been a lot more confident about playing a spinner in that final test.  Taking more than one to the UK, rather than 7 seam up bowlers, would have been a good idea too. 

    I was disappointed to see Clark had lost 10kmh since his injury.  Bowling tight is great, but these days he needs a pitch that is doing a lot to be effective at that pace.  I think Johnson, Hilfenhaus and Siddle have shown enough to be given a bit more of a go.  Hilfenhaus might struggle in Aus without as much swing around though. 

    Maybe Lee has a year or so left if he goes well in the one dayers, then big Dougie Bollinger should be given more of a go. 

    My YAGT:

    Hughes
    Katich
    Ponting
    Clarke
    Watson
    Ferguson
    Haddin
    Johnson
    Krezja
    Siddle
    Hilfenhaus
     
  10. Volley

    Volley Well-Known Member

    3,809
    315
    Ratings:
    +581 / 21
    Yep the Hughes dropping was ridiculous. They drop a 20 year old who's scored 3 tons in his last 5 tests or something, and keep a 34 year old who hadn't scored one in 15.

    Jaques and Hughes to open for me, with Katich in the middle order. Hussey out. Can never have enough Blues in there.
     
  11. Fro

    Fro Well-Known Member

    8,337
    181
    Ratings:
    +245 / 0
    agreed apart from North Gronk, he has done pretty much all that was required of him, and is a handy back up bowler, but shouldnt be required to bowl 30 overs in an innings.

    Looks like volley probably knows more about cricket than football :) although Jaques has dropped a bit down the pecking order.

    Will be very interesting for me to see how young Tim Paine goes behind the stumps with Haddin flying home for the one dayers.
     
  12. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    Jaques before Hayden but really Hughes wasnt the problem.

    Hughes in his 3 innings averaged 3 less than Hussey managed prior to his century in 7 innings.

    Looking forward, Hughes has to remain in the side - maybe at 5 with Jaques and katich to open then take over from Katich in a few years.

    If we bowl a spinner then drop North and play Watson.

    Clark needs to prove he is back to hitting the wicket harder and faster than he did. Outside of that 1 good innings he took 1/158 in the 3 others.
     
  13. SilentBob

    SilentBob Well-Known Member

    1,368
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0
    Rogers may have done better than Hughes, Klinger too, probably Langer, Jaques even if he was half fit, blah blah blah, Hughes was the least of the problems.

    Go back and give the captaincy to Warne, he would still be playing today IMO, that would have a bigger bearing on results than anything Hayden could provide with his meditation and paranoia, the pitches were doing way too much for Hayden to have any effect with the bat anyway.
     
  14. Matabele

    Matabele Well-Known Member

    23,047
    447
    Ratings:
    +466 / 6
    Another thing, what is it with Ponting and the toss?  1/5 in this series and if memory serves me correctly 1/6 versus the Proteas. 
     
  15. Chip and Chase

    Chip and Chase True Supporter Staff Member Administrator Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,810
    3,170
    Ratings:
    +6,282 / 44
    Hayden would have made sweet FA difference. He was on the slide 12 months ago, he did the right thing by pulling the pin.

    Unlike most here, I think that dropping Hughes was justified in a way. He has some pretty major technical flaws in his batting and it was only a matter of time before the test class bowlers figured him out. The kid has got talent no doubt, but still needs a bit more polish. At this stage I'd be more inclined to bring back Jaques, who scored a ton in his last test if I recall.

    Anyway the batting wasn't the major problem. Our ineffective bowling attack cost us the Ashes. Mitchell Johnson was diabolical for a so called spearhead, he had the yips something chronic. Not having a test class spinner also found us wanting. I don't how many more guys they are going to try before they make up their mind who is going to be the one going forward. Hauritz went OK, but he's hardly a formidable weapon, nonetheless he should have been picked in the last test.

    We should have won in Cardiff but couldn't seal the deal. Got outplayed at Lords. 3rd Test we probably could have been a chance of setting England a 400+ chase but rain cruelled any hope of a result. Smoked them at Leeds. Choked on it in the 5th Test, with a combination of a poor 1st innings with the bat and some ineffectual bowling on a dodgy pitch. Inconsistency was what cost us The Ashes.

    Hilfenhaus was the pick of the bowlers and hopefully can keep it going this summer. Johnson needs to get on the leather couch and sort his head out. Siddle solid. Clark ? well I don't know, I'm prepared to give him a bit longer, he's got experience and we all know he has the ability, maybe a yard or two short of pace at the moment.

    I love the Huss but he is hanging onto his spot with his fingernails. The ton might have saved him for another test or two, and hopefully will give him some confidence, but he needs to see the same shrink as Johnson.

    Let's be realistic though, our side doesn't strike fear into the opposition anymore. We've come back to the pack quite a bit since the loss of oodles of talent and experience over the last couple of years. You don't replace 3-4 outright gamebreakers (Warne, McGrath, Gilly and probably Hayden) overnight. We've just got to suck it up and knuckle down and start fighting for wins instead of just expecting it will happen like we have in the past. Personally I like the uncertainty of our winning prospects at the moment, our team is merely mortal again and it adds a bit of interest.
     
  16. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    How can you say batting wasnt the problem when the test we lost we posted a ****house first innings score.

    and to blame a lack of test class spinneer is a very long bow, Hauritz outplayed Swann, who won the ashes.

    The bigegst difference in the bowling is that England occasionally produced ripper spells, we did it just once. Overall our guys were better.

    So did England produce bowling that good or were our batsman poor and impatient?

    The latter for me.
     
  17. SilentBob

    SilentBob Well-Known Member

    1,368
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0
    Hauritz may have outplayed Swann, just means he is better than Swann, not a Test class spinner.

    If we had a quality spinner then we would have won Cardiff and he would have played at The Oval because there wouldn't be any debate about his spot in the XI to begin with.

    The batting was as expected, any movement off the pitch or in the air has them scratching their heads. The result of having roads prepared on the grounds around the world for best part of the last decade.
     
  18. Chip and Chase

    Chip and Chase True Supporter Staff Member Administrator Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    12,810
    3,170
    Ratings:
    +6,282 / 44
    To win a Test Match you need to take 20 wickets. Something we only managed once in the Ashes series. You do the math.
     
  19. Fluffy

    Fluffy Well-Known Member

    17,768
    1,417
    Ratings:
    +3,624 / 132
    Done the Maths.

    In the 2 tests England managed 20 wickets and we lost our batting last 63 and 52 overs in the first innings. Nothing to do with a bowling problem.
     

Share This Page