-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Cricket
- Thread starter mb64
- Start date
A look at the 2007 squads indicate that replacement players are allowed.
The 2007 squads can be viewed here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Cricket_World_Cup_squads
The last WC was in the West Indies versus this time India, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh
A comparison of the Australian squads, then and now:
2007 2011
Watson Watson
Hayden
Ponting Ponting
M.Clarke M.Clarke
White
Hodge D.Hussey
M.Hussey M.Hussey
Symonds Smith
Gilchrist Paine
Haddin Haddin
McGrath Bollinger
Tait Tait
Bracken Hastings
Johnson Johnson
S.Clark Lee
Hogg Hauritz
Brett Lee was a late withdrawal in 2007, replaced by S.Clark
Also, we recall that in 2007 Gilchrist was at the end of his career but did open the batting as well as WK'ing.
The 2011 side is missing a genuine opening partner for Watson.
Where is the specialist 1-Day opening batsman that Australia has developed since Hayden retired?
Much rather have another opening batsman in there than an extra wicket-keeper.
The selectors might throw Haddin or Paine up into an opening batting spot but neither is a Gilchrist.
My worry is that Hayden batted only, he wasn't called on for extra duties.
In the 2011 squad, Watson will be our specialist opener & bowl regularly.
How will he perform in 35+ degree conditions on some Indian grounds?
The sub-continental conditions should favour turning wickets, though on 1-day wickets this can't be guaranteed.
Fortunately, D.Hussey, M.Clarke & Smith can assist Hauritz on a turning wicket.
If it's turning enough, even White might get a bowl.
On this occassion, picking both Haddin & Paine, wastes a spot.
I think I'd've rather had the extra genuine opening batsman.
The 2007 squads can be viewed here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Cricket_World_Cup_squads
The last WC was in the West Indies versus this time India, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh
A comparison of the Australian squads, then and now:
2007 2011
Watson Watson
Hayden
Ponting Ponting
M.Clarke M.Clarke
White
Hodge D.Hussey
M.Hussey M.Hussey
Symonds Smith
Gilchrist Paine
Haddin Haddin
McGrath Bollinger
Tait Tait
Bracken Hastings
Johnson Johnson
S.Clark Lee
Hogg Hauritz
Brett Lee was a late withdrawal in 2007, replaced by S.Clark
Also, we recall that in 2007 Gilchrist was at the end of his career but did open the batting as well as WK'ing.
The 2011 side is missing a genuine opening partner for Watson.
Where is the specialist 1-Day opening batsman that Australia has developed since Hayden retired?
Much rather have another opening batsman in there than an extra wicket-keeper.
The selectors might throw Haddin or Paine up into an opening batting spot but neither is a Gilchrist.
My worry is that Hayden batted only, he wasn't called on for extra duties.
In the 2011 squad, Watson will be our specialist opener & bowl regularly.
How will he perform in 35+ degree conditions on some Indian grounds?
The sub-continental conditions should favour turning wickets, though on 1-day wickets this can't be guaranteed.
Fortunately, D.Hussey, M.Clarke & Smith can assist Hauritz on a turning wicket.
If it's turning enough, even White might get a bowl.
On this occassion, picking both Haddin & Paine, wastes a spot.
I think I'd've rather had the extra genuine opening batsman.
Navy cant agree that the selectors erred by taking two keepers when they have the batting ability of both Haddin & Paine.
The advantages are -
- Paine is currently the equal of any batsmen around the country not selected so can step into the breach in case of injury or form to one.
- He's being groomed as a future leader of the country. Having him around the team at a major even will expand his knowledge/experience.
- If Haddin has a short-term injury that doesnt need him being sent home or needs a rest Paine is a straight swap with the gloves & in the batting lineup.
- If Haddin continues to keep the way he is he shouldnt be a lock to play anyway.
The big thing for navy on those pitches is that spin could play a very big role. Having Hauritz as the only full-timer could leave the squad short in that regard which could be telling.
The advantages are -
- Paine is currently the equal of any batsmen around the country not selected so can step into the breach in case of injury or form to one.
- He's being groomed as a future leader of the country. Having him around the team at a major even will expand his knowledge/experience.
- If Haddin has a short-term injury that doesnt need him being sent home or needs a rest Paine is a straight swap with the gloves & in the batting lineup.
- If Haddin continues to keep the way he is he shouldnt be a lock to play anyway.
The big thing for navy on those pitches is that spin could play a very big role. Having Hauritz as the only full-timer could leave the squad short in that regard which could be telling.
And let's not forget Paine is already 26. If we don't get him involved in the national set up and keep him there, it will be another one of that lost generation.
Navy doesnt always agree with everything Gideon Haigh writes & doesnt with everything here (though do agree with most).
But he's a bloody good writer with a good no holds barred article on Cricket Australia.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/497175.html?comments=all#comments
But he's a bloody good writer with a good no holds barred article on Cricket Australia.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/497175.html?comments=all#comments
Great article by Gideon Haigh, doesn't pull any punches.
Hilditch was still at it last night on 3AW. Tim Lane asked him about teh comments that the selectors had done a very good job and he avoided it by spouting the same sort of gobbledygook that Haigh refers to. The impression I got was that Hilditch does actually believe they are doing a good job and its entirely the players fault. He has got to go, no question.
Hilditch was still at it last night on 3AW. Tim Lane asked him about teh comments that the selectors had done a very good job and he avoided it by spouting the same sort of gobbledygook that Haigh refers to. The impression I got was that Hilditch does actually believe they are doing a good job and its entirely the players fault. He has got to go, no question.
Excellent piece.
The commentary around Sutherland having a crack at Hughes/Clarke's 'error in judgement' in attending a charity brekky while not sanctioning Ponting for haranging Aleem Dar was priceless.
Haigh and Roebuck are two of the better cricket writers around.
The commentary around Sutherland having a crack at Hughes/Clarke's 'error in judgement' in attending a charity brekky while not sanctioning Ponting for haranging Aleem Dar was priceless.
Haigh and Roebuck are two of the better cricket writers around.
Haddin is clearly in the best 5-6 at present - in tests and ODI.
Not sure about Paine, but he looks very promising
Not sure about Paine, but he looks very promising
lukeanddad said:
Yeah its a quality article isnt it.
But thats actually one area navy disagreed with. No way should Hughes/Clarke been at that event instead of preparing as best they can to bat on Boxing day in a couple of hours. Reckon Haigh is incorrect to make light of it.
No way would Flower have let the Poms go. But nor were Clarke/Hughes if reports were correct. Reckon they have their priorities well mixed up as shown by being out on the drink during the test.
LoL@Hilditchs view that Horroritz,s performances in india got him over the line........7 matches,4 [email protected]. :hihi :hihi :hihi :hihi
Navy Days said:
Good article by Haigh recognising many of the matters that have already been raised on this thread.
The rot starts at the head, all eyes should be focused on Sutherland & his senior management team.
BTW, Hauritz was actually a good pick, in the tight Ashley Mallett mould.
It's just that Hilditch justified the reason for his selection so poorly.
Navy Days said:
Fair enough. However, the point Haigh makes is that in the list of things we got wrong this summer (eg going to India, not enough 1st class cricket, stuffing around our spinners, condoning Ponting's embarrassing behaviour in Melbourne) attending a charity brekky would be a long way down the list.
By the way, Gus Gilmour and Dougie were very disappointed to hear about them out drinking during a test...
Navy Days said:
Agree Leysy. I think Haigh was more trying to point out that Sunderland was taking on the small issues and avoiding the major ones.
I do get a sense of Clarke and Hughes being the cool kids of the side, first the breakfast, then off to dinner together durring the test. That stuff is fine when you are winning but when things are going so bad, it just looks awful.
I don't think anyone's image has suffered more over the summer then Micheal Clarke.
It is interesting to compare the attitudes of Clarke & Hughes to that of the opposition's Paul Collingwood.
I know that Collingwood was approached by friends for a lunch in Melbourne on January 15 the day in between the T20 on the 14th and the 1-Day'er on the 16th.
Although he apologised profusely, he was clear that captaining the English team to victory, and setting the right example, was paramount over all social matters.
I know that Collingwood was approached by friends for a lunch in Melbourne on January 15 the day in between the T20 on the 14th and the 1-Day'er on the 16th.
Although he apologised profusely, he was clear that captaining the English team to victory, and setting the right example, was paramount over all social matters.