After Punter & Co Lost The Ashes Again

For the sake of Australian cricket, these men should either resign now or be fired.

Cricket Australia chief executive James Sutherland:
"Everyone will be looking for people to blame, but I don't think in any way we can hold the selectors accountable for us losing the Ashes. At the end of the day the players go out and do the business on the field."
Then who the hell is responsible?
"Whether that decision (not playing Hauritz) had any bearing on the result of the game, who will know? We've lost the game by 200 runs, it's a pretty significant defeat.

"Having a spinner in the side wouldn't have helped us in the first innings when we were bowled out for 160 and effectively lost the game."
Oh yes, The CA CE is holding the batsmen accountable for scoring only 160 runs. Had Australia gone in with the right bowlers, English batsmen would have also struggled. Team Selection was rotten - not just in the Oval Test - right through the series - when Australia should have played Clark - they didn't.
"The captain and the coach are always heavily consulted before matches but the structure that we prefer is for the selectors to be independent and making their own decisions and to be accountable for selection on that basis."
You said it Sutherland. Hold them responsible - now. Or take the responsibility and fire yourself out of CA.

You want accountability?

If it was Andrew Symonds who talked up his chances of sneaking in as an opening batsman, like how Paris Watson did - we know what CA and their schoolboy administration would have done. Hughes didn't do that bad in the series - got a bad umpiring decision as well - in the four innings he played.
"I bring a bowling option to the team, as well as batting in the top order," Watson said. "It's always helpful for the captain to have another option."
When you have players lobbying through media - to replace another in the team - then you have a BIG problem. And if the Captain, Coach and Selectors fall for such lobbying... oh well.

There is also a very good example of Stuart Clark, who should have been in the team through the series. He didn't talk about replacing Wayward Mitch.

"Our seesawing between good and bad in this series was due to inexperience"
Oh really? Either Ponting is lying OR he has no idea of the team he is leading.

Name Age Tests ODIs
Shane Watson 28 11 77
Simon Katich 34 43 45
Ricky Ponting 34 136 315
Michael Hussey 34 42 108
Michael Clarke 28 52 156
Marcus North 30 7 2
Brad Haddin 31 19 53
Mitchell Johnson 27 26 55
Peter Siddle 24 12 1
Stuart Clark 33 24 39
Ben Hilfenhaus 26 8 12
Total 329 380 863
Average 30 35 78

If this Aussie team is inexperienced; it can be true that Afridi is only seventeen.

Average age of 30 is inexperienced? Marcus North and Hilfenhaus are the only ones - who have played below TEN TEST MATCHES - and they were the real success of this Ashes series for Australia. So how can Ponting point towards lack of experience being a factor for the loss?

Trott, making his Test debut at the Oval, scored 160 runs - what the entire Australian team managed in the first innings. What experience did Trott have? It is all about having the right temperament to play at the highest level - and the ability to execute a plan. Australia didn't have a plan, England had one.

The last-wicket pair of James Anderson and Monty Panesar batted for 69 balls in the first Test at Cardiff. Australia should have won the match, Ponting threw it away.

Forget what Ian Chappell has to say about Ponting as a captain. Ponting has been parading his lack of cricket nous - in public - for many years now. Yes, he has won two World Cups and a Champions Trophy... so what, when it mattered most - he has failed to inspire his team.

Ponting was also guilty of allowing Strauss and Trott to settle down and score heavily in the second innings of the Oval Test. He set extremely defensive field and didn't have a wicket-taking plan, he was hoping for England to make a mistake. Katich was once again not used properly as a spinner - that too on a dusty pitch.

Why Australia didn't pick Hauritz? Here is Ponting's answer to it:
"We probably got that wrong. Not before the game, we thought we were picking the right attack for the conditions that we saw. But in hindsight, a specialist spinner would have been pretty handy out there."
Probably wrong? You lost the Ashes - dude.

Not long ago, in December 2008 -- in the space of less than two weeks, Australia lost two Tests matches at home to South Africa. Under any other captain, Australia wouldn't have lost those two matches; Ponting has no idea how to snare wickets.

Australia lost at Perth, allowing South Africa to score 414-4 in the fourth innings.

At Melbourne, with South Africa 184-7 and 210 runs behind the Australian first innings score - Ponting allowed Duminy (166) and the tail to score another 275 runs. Australia lost the match by nine wickets.

With McGrath and Warne, it really didn't matter who the captain was. They knew how to set a field and take wickets. They were men -- who knew what to do.

Under Ponting, Australia have developed a schoolboy culture -- men told what to do and what not to do. Players rely on dodgy dossiers and inputs from their leaders. People who don't believe in such approach -- like Symonds -- are booted out of the system.

Talking of dossiers, I am very sure Andy Flower stuck a print out of Langer's Dossier in the English dressing room at The Oval. The English team had a reason to motivated. How did the dossier leak in the first place?

Now the chief selector Andrew Hilditch:

"We read it as a wicket that was looking like a road, which was the assessment of everybody.

"We thought it was a wicket that would suit the four fast bowlers that played at Headingley and it was a reluctance to change a winning side from the fourth Test.

"It would be an over simplification to say that is the reason we lost the Test. We lost the Test because we got 160 in the first innings.

"Obviously the selector on duty has a big role in assessing wicket conditions, but in the end we all communicate and made the decision.

"Jamie Cox was the selector on duty but everybody misread the wicket - captain and coach included. That just happens from time to time."

If Sutherland is right about selectors being accountable, Hilditch should have quit by now.

What about Tim Nielsen?

Nielsen's confession through his blog - explains what the hell is wrong with Australian cricket.

Selection: There has been much talk about the selection of our team for the Test at the Oval. I think most important from my perspective is, as Andrew Hilditch said in Adelaide during his media conference, that we did misread the wicket, and certainly didn’t see it being as dry and inconsistent as early in the game as it was. Having said that, not having a spinner in our team was in no way the difference between winning and losing! Losing 10/87 in the second session of day two was the costly period and we couldn’t fight back from there.
Nielsen makes it abundantly clear that after the second session on day two, Australia GAVE UP. That's not the Aussie spirit. The Test got over in four days, which means, Australia were not giving their best for the remaining two days.

Here is another reason why Nielsen should quit:
The selection of Shane Watson at the top of the order worked well and has given us another option at the top of the order in all forms of the game.

According to a report in Cricinfo, Nielsen said:

"In the end that's what my role is, I'm not running away from that. I understand that my job is to support and set up the team as well as they can be so they play their best, and we didn't play our best. There's got to be something missing.

"That's what the last couple of days have been for me, searching for that answer or trying to find in my own mind what I could have done better or where we could have done things differently to ensure a different result."

Sutherland, Ponting, Hilditch and Nielsen should all be sacked.

Doosra's vote:
Mark Taylor: Chief Executive of CA.

Katich/ Clarke: Captain

Mark Waugh: Chief Selector

Tom Moody: Coach

No comments :

Post a Comment