Katich cut from CA contract list

"not picking a spinner at the Oval"

explain how that would have stopped the batsmen crumbling to Broad ...

If they had had a smaller total to chase ...

I don't know if it was the right time to ex Katich. ~ Age (though he wasn't the oldest in the squad) and maybe greater susceptibility to injury were starting to work against him.

It depends also on the balance of the batting lineup, esp. attack vs defence, that they are looking to build, where Katich would clearly be a bedrock among more pugnacious or flashy players. If the selectors generally think they have enough "solid" batsmen in the next year or two, it becomes easier to understand the decision.

Thirdly, if there are a couple of batsman clearly ready (or overdue to) bloom whom Katich's presence was arresting, then dropping the 35-year-old from the team (if not from the squad) would make good sense. I am all for Khawaja, but I am not sure Katich is the one I would drop for him. And forwarding Khawaja doesn't logically mean Katich should be exed altogether. Are there a couple of other young bloods Katich was definitively blocking?


My impression is, as others have noted, that differences of view and personality with the ex- and new skipper may well have played an inordinate part. Which is slightly paradoxical, if true, since Clarke has not yet demonstrated he has much of a clue about anything when in charge. ~ Perhaps that is exactly why he wanted any potential critics or rivals removed from the scene? Psychological speculation, I admit.

In any case, I would not trust the judgment of the present CA table-toppers on very much!

They probably could have contracted Kat for another year ...and just not picked him to play ...

((Not REALLY what I meant ... ))

In all honesty, Katich should have been made captain after the 2009 ashes.

if not earlier

I agree with virtually everything he has said

Fleas was treated shabbily his whole career. This final ignominy obviously made him say all the things he's wanted to say each time he's been jetisoned to make way for someone allegedly more deserving. This man had to break Shield records to get another chance, and when he did, he didn't let the side down, being one of our best of the last 4 years (including AB Test player of the year). He deserved at least another year, and did not deserve to be the face of Hildick's efforts to be seen to be doing something.

When TF is this so called "review" going to be finalised? Wasn't it all meant to be done by April?

I think until August or so.

embee wrote:"not picking a spinner at the Oval"

explain how that would have stopped the batsmen crumbling to Broad ...

It might have stopped England scoring 300+ in both innings....

England needed a result wicket to win the Ashes..... they weren't subtle, Panesar was called up from out of nowhere.... Siberia (or maybe Sussex) into the 12.

Hauritz had been one of the most successful bowlers in the series, but no, dropped for Clark who had been carted round Headingley in the second innings. In the end they gave Marcus North, the gentlest of off-spinners, 44 overs over 2 innings, more than any other bowler on their side. A monumental c*ck-up - for me a sackable offence for the coach / captain.

Fred Nerk wrote:"For the captaincy, I saw all the application letters submitted in the last Ashes series, and have to say that Clarke's was possibly the least convincing. He doesn't seem to have the respect of the team or embody the qualities needed..


Hmmmm.....maybe but I hope that's based on more than the bagging he gets from ignoramuses (ignorami?) on media chat sites. Inside the shed, among the folk whose views he might need GAF about, it may be different. He wasn't bad for most of Ashes 09, frinstance....

Hmmm, but I wasn't talking about '09. In 10/11 - in mostly favourable batting conditions his application letter read:

9
2
80 (cCook b Pietersen)
4
20
20
3

On top of that, (and this maybe media hearsay but didn't Katich once lamp him because he would rather go and meet his WAG of the moment than celebrate a win?

Not captaincy material....

And even the defence minister thinks Hildick sucks.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/06/12/3241875.htm

Agree with Embee, he could have had another year regardless of whether he would be picked or not. There's other deadwood who could have been cut. Only Watson contacted Katich according to the 'Offsiders' this morning. The public perception is that Clarke's antipathy towards him might have sealed his fate.

Wow. Great stuff from Smith.

Agreed. Very eloquently put by the minister.

This is not so eloquent - fark Hildick and his cronies. Qunts.

Katich's problem is that he is of the 'old school' of Aussie cricketers. Couldn't care less about twitter, or vodafone, or how good his hair looks. Clarke couldn't have that around his dressing room....

Probably not far from the truth, Trev.

Gary 111 wrote:

embee wrote:"not picking a spinner at the Oval"

explain how that would have stopped the batsmen crumbling to Broad ...

It might have stopped England scoring 300+ in both innings....

England needed a result wicket to win the Ashes..... they weren't subtle, Panesar was called up from out of nowhere.... Siberia (or maybe Sussex) into the 12.

Hauritz had been one of the most successful bowlers in the series, but no, dropped for Clark who had been carted round Headingley in the second innings. In the end they gave Marcus North, the gentlest of off-spinners, 44 overs over 2 innings, more than any other bowler on their side. A monumental c*ck-up - for me a sackable offence for the coach / captain.

It still doesnt explain how it would have stopped Oz's batting crumbling ....and youve now shifted the blame from the selectors to the coach/captain ...

Subi got tonked at headingley in dead time in the game when Broad threw the bat at everything and got away with it when England were no chance ...he was the match winner in the first innings

Swans figures were no better than North's in the second innings and he cleaned up after Broad had smashed the Oz top order after Fleas and Watson had made a very good start ...so it's doubtful Hauritz would have made farqall difference

embee wrote:
It still doesnt explain how it would have stopped Oz's batting crumbling ....and youve now shifted the blame from the selectors to the coach/captain ...

Subi got tonked at headingley in dead time in the game when Broad threw the bat at everything and got away with it when England were no chance ...he was the match winner in the first innings

Swans figures were no better than North's in the second innings and he cleaned up after Broad had smashed the Oz top order after Fleas and Watson had made a very good start ...so it's doubtful Hauritz would have made farqall difference

Aye, I agree it was convenient of Gaz to forget that a) the tonk was on because all was lost and b) it was lost because of Stuart Clark's effort in the 1st dig. But the fact is that Hauritz was one of your better bowlers when England were in any ascendancy and that Stuart Clark was one of your better bowlers full stop. I'm not sure how any of this is relevant, having stopped mid-post to have a look at the preceeding posts, but as I've bothered to type the post out I may as well post the f*cker. Clicking on send...

Henry wrote:Katich's problem is that he is of the 'old school' of Aussie cricketers. Couldn't care less about twitter, or vodafone, or how good his hair looks. Clarke couldn't have that around his dressing room....

Yes, Clarke is a sanctimonious, sychophantic, snivelling,snide, sly, self-absorbed metrosexual who's not fit to wipe the boots of some his predecessors in the role. Can't see him being popular with the public.

Red wrote:Yes, Clarke is a sanctimonious, sychophantic, snivelling,snide, sly, self-absorbed metrosexual who's not fit to wipe the boots of some his predecessors in the role. Can't see him being popular with the public.

Whaaaaaaaaa????

That describes the archetypal Aussie male circa the 2010s.

That's how Red describes most cricketers she doesn't like. She adds "closet gay" to her descriptions of Smith.

Less of the "she"

embee wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

embee wrote:"not picking a spinner at the Oval"

explain how that would have stopped the batsmen crumbling to Broad ...

It might have stopped England scoring 300+ in both innings....

England needed a result wicket to win the Ashes..... they weren't subtle, Panesar was called up from out of nowhere.... Siberia (or maybe Sussex) into the 12.

Hauritz had been one of the most successful bowlers in the series, but no, dropped for Clark who had been carted round Headingley in the second innings. In the end they gave Marcus North, the gentlest of off-spinners, 44 overs over 2 innings, more than any other bowler on their side. A monumental c*ck-up - for me a sackable offence for the coach / captain.

It still doesnt explain how it would have stopped Oz's batting crumbling ....and youve now shifted the blame from the selectors to the coach/captain ...

Subi got tonked at headingley in dead time in the game when Broad threw the bat at everything and got away with it when England were no chance ...he was the match winner in the first innings

Swans figures were no better than North's in the second innings and he cleaned up after Broad had smashed the Oz top order after Fleas and Watson had made a very good start ...so it's doubtful Hauritz would have made farqall difference

Sorry, I meant captain / selectors - I forgot the Aus coach doesn't get a say in selections. I assume Ponting does?

I disagree - first of all it is extremely rare to go into a Test without a spinner. When the ball is ragging square from the first day on a wicket that would have been more typical for Kandy than The Oval then you have to say it is a monumental c*ck-up. As a result Australia ended up bowling North, a modest part-time bowler striking at about every 15 overs in Tests more than any of their specialist bowlers. He bought his wickets - 4/131 was a passable effort, but imagine what a specialist spinner could have achieved.

You don't have to imagine actually, Swann (who had been outbowled in the series to date by Hauritz) dismissed Katich, North, Johnson and Clark in the first innings and Katich, Hussey, North and Haddin in the second. 8 of the 19 wickets English bowlers managed in the match including 6 specialist batsmen, 1 all-rounder and Clark himself (who lets not forget is also an inferior batsman to Hauritz) - 8/158, his 54 overs also giving the captain control, going as they did for less than 3 an over.

The batting collapse obviously played a large part, but if Australia had conceded less runs in the first innings, and even the second innings the game could still have taken a very different course. It was still, in my opinion right up there with others like Darren Pattinson, Robin Smith (the axeing of) and England 1989 in general as one of the greatest selection blunders in history.

Gary I think the selection of Beer tops that of Pattinson. He had barely been heard of before Warnie praised him in a column. The selectors promptly selected him. He looked average on his debut but despite the dearth of spinners he can't make the central contract list. Selectors were just seduced by Warnie's 'wisdom'.

At least Pattinson had some county form to recommend him.

And let's not talk about another ill-fated spinner who was selected to play against Pakistan, could barely hit the pitch but went to the Caribbean soon after. According to players on that tour he was hitting the wire in the practice nets.