What a load of crap from Spanky

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/good-but-not-great-dropping-hauritz-is-an-indication-of-australias-new-outlook-20101121-182nm.html

He conveniently avoids the fact that they continue to select Hussey despite him averaging a VERY ordinary 36 over the last three year, and North, who averages 37.

Oh, and let's not forget that Doherty averages 48 with the ball in first class cricket. How is that being bold and no longer refusing to tolerate mediocrity?

phurt...we are so carp - we aspire to mediocrity

Dearie me, Roebuck is a bore isn't he?

He either writes articles that state the blindingly obvious, presenting it as a startling revelation with flowery language.

Or then you have pieces like this where his worrying lack of logic leads him to some erroneous (usually pro-Australian) conclusion. The best thing about being in England for the Ashes this time around is that I won't have to listen to him on the radio.

In the article he state's that Hauritz is Australia's best spinner, and the bold Australian Test selectors are ending his career as he isn't good enough. In his mind this is a good move. But then surely you end up with someone who isn't as good as him playing in his place? By dropping the serviceable spinner you must surely be let with a not even serviceable spinner? If the West Indies went down the same route they would have a team of Chanderpaul and 10 blokes from the 3rd XI, who would be dropped as soon as they became established for players in the 4th XI.

Does anyone take Spanky seriously?

Red does

She's into that sort of thing then?

These English people who live in Australia and spout forth with crap...

Is there any evidence that trev isn't spanky?

Zat wrote:These English people (with Aussie passports) who live in Australia and spout forth with crap...

Fixed

Henry wrote:http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/good-but-not-great-dropping-hauritz-is-an-indication-of-australias-new-outlook-20101121-182nm.html

He conveniently avoids the fact that they continue to select Hussey despite him averaging a VERY ordinary 36 over the last three year, and North, who averages 37.

Oh, and let's not forget that Doherty averages 48 with the ball in first class cricket. How is that being bold and no longer refusing to tolerate mediocrity?

Hmmm I guess a case of any new player into the side, is a case for a "new" outlook for Aus.
Some players the only way they will be removed from the test side is in a coffin, as the NSP are a pack of ball less qunts with no vision for the future.

I'm taking a flying guess but I presume his contract says that he has to write something for Monday's paper.

I wouldn't call the article a load of crap. Picking Smith or Doherty ahead of Hauritz is bold. We here have often been loudly critical of the NSP conservatism.

disagree Mick...dropping Haurie is hardly bold...maybe replacing him with Artie Mailey's ghost would have been bold

horace wrote:disagree Mick...dropping Haurie is hardly bold...maybe replacing him with Artie Mailey's ghost would have been bold

Leaving out an incumbent (who has a very good Test record in Australia & yes, that's where this series is to be played) & selecting an alternative who barely get a bowl in Shield isn't bold?

Being bold would have been to axe Hussey after the last ashes even though he scored a ton at the Oval to bring in some new batting blood. Assuming clarke makes it, Aus are now playing the exact same top six that lost the ashes last time, and it's not like there hasn't been a fair few batting collapses since then.

Meanwhile, how many fast bowlers and spinners have they gone through? I guess that's what happens when your selection panel consists of four former batsmen and no bowlers.

Henry wrote:Being bold would have been to axe Hussey after the last ashes even though he scored a ton at the Oval to bring in some new batting blood. Assuming clarke makes it, Aus are now playing the exact same top six that lost the ashes last time.

Meanwhile, how many fast bowlers and spinners have they gone through? I guess that's what happens when your selection panel consists of four former batsmen and no bowlers.

Much validity in all this Trev. Your error is to label the writers thoughts "crap". He writes of an intention by the selectors. You can't argue that dropping Hauritz is taking the safe option. The published versions of Warne's reaction is evidence that they have gambled.