Cricket VIII

[Stubby]

(Jeor's assessment)

I agree with all of this and only have two real observations to add.

It was the Aussie first innings performance which summed up the series. Poor first innings at Lords and the Oval - 2x lost tests. Strong first innings elsewhere - different results.

I still stand by my assessment about individual match-winners earlier in the series. Australia did not have a stand out player to grab the match by the scruff of the neck when it mattered. Even Ponting, who could normally be counted on to do something, had a poor series with the bat by his lofty standards. Sure, there were efforts that went a fair way to saving matches (like North's second hundred) and a devastating spell from Clark at Leeds, but the way England managed to cobble together a match-winning individual performance was the key. Strauss' magnificent hundred at Lords and Broad's spell in the last match turned the series on its head.

[Jeor]

I just read a statistic that Australia have only won 6 of their last 16 Tests. So maybe a drop to 4th isn't as unfair as I might have initially thought.

In addition the match-winning performances of England and the lack of ones from Australia, Australia also had some match-losing performances. ;) Johnson's bowling in the first few Tests (particularly Lords) was absolutely disastrous and cost us huge amounts of momentum and lost sessions. It's probably not a bad time in his career to have a setback like this. He will have a way to go yet before he can assume the mantle of leader of the attack again, and before Ponting regains the confidence to turn to him at crunch moments when he needs a wicket.

I was pleased with how Hilfenhaus turned out. Siddle I'm still not entirely convinced; he picked up wickets, but I don't feel he was really ever consistently economical or threatening to take a wicket. He mixed in plenty of ordinary spells with some good ones and wasn't able to maintain his performance.

[Stubby]

Johnson's bowling in the first few Tests (particularly Lords) was absolutely disastrous and cost us huge amounts of momentum and lost sessions. It's probably not a bad time in his career to have a setback like this. He will have a way to go yet before he can assume the mantle of leader of the attack again, and before Ponting regains the confidence to turn to him at crunch moments when he needs a wicket.

I still reckon that he would be the only player in Australia that I would pick as an out and out all-rounder (if we had to pick one). I note that Ponting made no attempt to bowl Watson. Has anyone seen any comments Ponting has made about that?

[Paxter]

I just read a statistic that Australia have only won 6 of their last 16 Tests. So maybe a drop to 4th isn't as unfair as I might have initially thought.

Also, one of those wins was a dead rubber, and two were against the NZers, who Australia has not lost a single test to in the last 17 years. Hardly a record worthy of a Top 2 or 3 nation.

Speaking of the Kiwis, it was interesting to note that Vettori and Moles were given voting rights on NZ's selection panel. That represents a major innovation in the way that national cricket teams are selected, and it will be interesting to see how it goes.

@Stubby: I think that Australia and Watson have finally decided that Watson is not a test all-rounder, and needs to focus almost exclusively on his batting in that form of the game. About time really. He doesn't have the fitness levels, nor the skill, to be a successful test bowler.

[Jeor]

Also, one of those wins was a dead rubber, and two were against the NZers, who Australia has not lost a single test to in the last 17 years. Hardly a record worthy of a Top 2 or 3 nation.

Speaking of the Kiwis, it was interesting to note that Vettori and Moles were given voting rights on NZ's selection panel. That represents a major innovation in the way that national cricket teams are selected, and it will be interesting to see how it goes.

@Stubby: I think that Australia and Watson have finally decided that Watson is not a test all-rounder, and needs to focus almost exclusively on his batting in that form of the game. About time really. He doesn't have the fitness levels, nor the skill, to be a successful test bowler.

For the first paragraph, agreed it is a terrible record, although something has to be said for beating the South Africans at their own grounds.

For the second...I don't think it's all that revolutionary, actually (although perhaps it is for New Zealand, I'm not sure). In the 1990s the England team went through times when Atherton or Hussain had a say in the selections. Both Atherton and Hussain have written in their autobiographies that they hated it when they had a vote. Atherton said he either wanted to completely control selection (which after his first tour he never did) or have absolutely no say in it. What he didn't like was having a vote, where it was perceived he was powerful but really wasn't when the other selectors were taken into account.

I may be remembering the details of this wrongly, but I'm pretty sure the gyst of it is true: Atherton said it was intolerable when Peter Such was selected to his team, because someone had leaked to Such that Atherton had voted against him in the selection meeting, and yet Such was overall voted in anyway by the other selectors. Thus Such knew that his captain didn't rate him and yet he was in the team. Atherton preferred either having complete say in selection so he got the guys he wanted, or having no say at all so that he could at least keep his opinions to himself and play with the team he was presented with. And I believe in Hussain's biography, Nasser admitted he didn't like it simply because he wasn't very good at it and didn't have much of an eye for spotting talent. As an international captain he simply didn't have the time to be watching the county cricket circuit to see who was up and coming.

As for Watson...yes, I think he really does need to ditch his bowling. It's the bowling that will cause his body the most stress and injury. If Australia are going to select him, they need to select him as a batsman, not an all-rounder. He's done reasonably well enough to possibly retain his place, but he can't stay as opener forever. He doesn't have the right technique and his concentration is not always the best - almost all the times he's been dismissed have been after breaks in play.

[Stubby]

In other news of interest to State cricket in the 09/10 season, WA have recruited Ashley Noffke from Queensland.

He joins a Warriors attack already featuring Brett Dorey, ex-Queenslanders Steve Magoffin and Ben Edmondson and former Victorian speedster Brad Knowles.

Australian left-armer Mitchell Johnson, also a former Queenslander, is contracted to the Warriors but is yet to play a game for his adopted state

It seems WA is the England of Aussie domestic cricket, when it comes to playing ring-ins. :P

[Paxter]

For the second...I don't think it's all that revolutionary, actually (although perhaps it is for New Zealand, I'm not sure). In the 1990s the England team went through times when Atherton or Hussain had a say in the selections. Both Atherton and Hussain have written in their autobiographies that they hated it when they had a vote. Atherton said he either wanted to completely control selection (which after his first tour he never did) or have absolutely no say in it. What he didn't like was having a vote, where it was perceived he was powerful but really wasn't when the other selectors were taken into account.

I may be remembering the details of this wrongly, but I'm pretty sure the gyst of it is true: Atherton said it was intolerable when Peter Such was selected to his team, because someone had leaked to Such that Atherton had voted against him in the selection meeting, and yet Such was overall voted in anyway by the other selectors. Thus Such knew that his captain didn't rate him and yet he was in the team. Atherton preferred either having complete say in selection so he got the guys he wanted, or having no say at all so that he could at least keep his opinions to himself and play with the team he was presented with. And I believe in Hussain's biography, Nasser admitted he didn't like it simply because he wasn't very good at it and didn't have much of an eye for spotting talent. As an international captain he simply didn't have the time to be watching the county cricket circuit to see who was up and coming.

TBH, I have always taken Atherton's opinions on this subject with a grain of salt. His judgement always seem to be coloured by his own personal bitterness towards many years of mayhem at the English selection table - the constant unwelcome intervention of Peter May (Chairman of Selectors during the '80s), the appointment of four different captains in 1988 and the "revolving door" selection policy which characterised the '89 and '93 Ashes series. In my view, the sum of those experiences means that is almost impossible for Atherton to be unbiased on this matter.

Having said that, Atherton raises a valid point about whether the player-coach/player-captain relationship might be adversely affected by the appointment of the captain/coach as selectors. As demonstrated by the Peter Such example, problems can arise when a player is selected to play but was not endorsed by the captain at the selection table. This raises the question of whether the captain should be involved in the selection process at all. However, Moles and Vettori are very cognisant of this potential pitfall, and in my opinion, have responded to this issue adequately by cultivating a spirit of trust, professionalism and objectivity in their relationships with players:

Moles said it was up to him to build relationships with players. "So that they feel they are given the one message from the selection group to them. Hopefully this will be a continuation of where we are at the moment, where the players feel they can be honest with me. So I feel that isn't a problem."

When Moles first joined nine months ago, he didn't want to have a say in the selections, but he now feels he has gained enough trust with the players. "When I first came on board, I remember I wanted to get to know the players and build a relationship and see how they tick," he said. "Nearly a year down the line, they know how I like to operate, I certainly know how they play the game, how they like to be treated. Now we are just moving on to the next phase of the relationship, which is to become a selector as well. I don't see that as a problem."

In any case, it is at least arguable that the potential benefits of integrating those responsible for the strategic and technical development of the team (the captain and coach) with those responsible for squad/team selection outweigh any potential costs that might arise. After all, Moles and Vettori are the people working with these players on a day-to-day basis, and they will ultimately be held accountable for the performance of those players, so it would seem logical that they have formal input in the selection process.

As Vettori and Moles have said, their appointment merely formalises the role they were already playing:

"I suppose this a continuation of what I have been doing," Daniel Vettori said in a teleconference from Colombo. "When you sit on in charge of a lot of things and because you are responsible for the team's performance, you want to have some control on selection. The whole way through it has been pretty much that way, with the relationship we had with other selectors, now it just formalises it. When you anyway sit on selection meetings, it seems appropriate to make it as formal as possible." On tours, Vettori and Moles used to select the XI from the 15 players they had.

As far as Hussain's comment is concerned, well, NZ has nowhere near the number of first-class players that England has on their domestic circuit. So it will be much easier for Vettori and Moles to scrutinise up-and-coming players than for, say, Strauss and Flower. Vettori himself does not see this as a problem:

As far as the other aspect, judging the quality of a player goes, Vettori is clear he won't be out of place being a selector. "Hopefully I will bring a level head to the job, someone who knows the players very well," he said. "While I don't get to watch as much domestic cricket as I would like to, and as much as the selectors do, I do know how the players work and I do understand when they are in form and when they are not there."

Overall, I think the Kiwis have thought this out well. They are aware of the commonly encountered problems, and have implement safeguards to ensure that these problems are less likely to occur (something which England never did during Atherton's tenure). So this may well work for NZ, and I'm sure other nations will be looking on with some interest (and, yes, you were correct in saying that this is new for NZ - no Black Caps captain has ever had a vote at selection meetings before).

@Stubby. Yes, it is very sad state of affairs. Fortunately, three of Australia's top six batsmen were reared on the WACA, so we are still making a fairly sizeable contribution to the national team relative to our population ;). On second thoughts, do we really want lay claim to Katich's crustaceous technique?

[Jeor]

Atherton might be biased about the whole selection process, but that's because he's one of the few people who has actually had first-hand experience with the process, so I think his opinion is still worth looking at. And of course things depend on different people and different mindsets; other captains might want to have that total control, whereas others are happy to cast in their 2 cents and see what happens. With New Zealand, mind you, I think it could probably work out a fair bit better, with less press scrutiny and a smaller pool of players to worry about.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Speaking of selectors, when does Cricket Australia bring Warne into the fold?

[Maltaran]

It seems WA is the England of Aussie domestic cricket, when it comes to playing ring-ins. :P

Should I mentioned Andrew Symonds here?

[Paxter]

Oh dear. SL are 249/3. Samaraweera and Jayawardene both on 70*. This is just carnage. I wouldn't be surprised if both players are on 150 halfway through tomorrow's play. *sigh*

[DJDonegal]

Slow scoring though. Samaweera is 79* from 210 balls, and the run rate for the day is 2.91. Keep this up and that match will be looking down the barrel of a draw.

[Jeor]

Just when it looked like Kapugedera and Samaraweera were going to really let loose they have a big collapse and lose the last 6 for 50 odd runs. Gives NZ a ray of light in the match, but they're going to have to bat really well against a decent Sri Lankan attack, and they're still batting last on this track.

[Paxter]

Yeah, I was expecting Kapu and Thilan to hit NZ out of the game, but, as it turned out, the Kiwis did quite well to keep SL to around 400. Problem is, they have already slumped to 159/5. So, barring some miracle batting from the three Kiwi all-rounders, SL should obtain a sizeable (and probably match-winning) lead. NZ have slid a long way since the last time they toured the subcontinent in 2003, when they managed drawn series against both India and Sri Lanka. Ryder and Taylor are exciting young players, but that is no substitute for the quality and experience of guys like Richardson and Fleming.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Well Taylor and McCullum are now at the crease. Its pivotal that those two push on and score big if this match is to be competetive.

On another note, Ireland are currently kicking England's arse.

[Stubby]

On another note, Ireland are currently kicking England's arse.

Obviously England are so battered from their last opponent that they are weak and feeble and unable to compete and...

Oh fuck it I give up.

:leaving:

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

To be fair, Ireland are a fiercely competitive group of guys, who often cause upsets when underestimated. Johnston has bowled very well so far. Still this doesn't bode too well for the one day series from an England fan's perspective. :lol:

[Paxter]

Well, the signs have been there for a while, but it is becoming more and more apparent that 50-over cricket is on its last legs. As much as I have enjoyed watching ODIs over the years, I'm kind of relieved that India 2011 will (probably) be the last 50-over WC I will have to endure.

[ljkeane]

Well, the signs have been there for a while, but it is becoming more and more apparent that 50-over cricket is on its last legs. As much as I have enjoyed watching ODIs over the years, I'm kind of relieved that India 2011 will (probably) be the last 50-over WC I will have to endure.

Good news, ODI's despite the odd entertaining match are generally mind numbingly boring.

[Zoë Sumra]

Good news, ODI's despite the odd entertaining match are generally mind numbingly boring.

:agree: