Surprisingly little analysis from Aussie cricket authorities

From http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ca-boss-sees-no-evil-in-loss/story-e6frey50-1225765772308 ...

AUSTRALIAN cricket chief James Sutherland yesterday lifted his head out of the sand just long enough to assure Test skipper Ricky Ponting his job was safe and that chairman of selectors Andrew Hilditch and his panel were not to blame for Australia losing the Ashes.

In the wake of England's 197-run fifth Test victory at The Oval, giving them the series 2-1, Sutherland gave the impression he was comforting a toddler who had taken a spill rather than trying to appease a nation of fans who had lost their most prized possession.

In a remarkable performance Sutherland labelled Ponting's campaign "very, very good'', largely because of his "dignity and poise''.

Meanwhile in http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25977220-2882,00.html you can read more intersting stuff...

CRICKET Australia has allayed Ricky Ponting's concerns he will face an inquisition for a second Ashes loss in England.

Chief executive James Sutherland pointed to team inexperience for the 2-1 series loss and defended the captaincy of Ponting, who became only the second Australian to lead his country to two Ashes losses in England - and the first in well over 100 years.

He has also led Australia to losses in three of its past five series, including the first home series loss in 17 years.

Sutherland said any call for Ponting's sacking would be "completely unfair".

And there's another article in Sydney's small paper for stupid people that I can't find a link for online but it contains this gem...

Hopefully most of the questions I'm going to be answering are going to be from journalists and not people above. I felt I've given myself the best ossible opportunity and I felt I've done a good job as a captain and leader throughout this series as well. - Ricky Ponting

Oh, he's also threatening to stay on as captain to lose the Ashes again in 2013.

I mean, FCOL, if I decided my office could be as devoid of accountability as the current Aussie cricket set-up seems to be, I'd be given very short shrift by my employers. This verges on ridiculous.

I think Ricky should come back for another go in 2013 without doubt.

You would.

On the back page of the Sydney Morning Herald today:

There's no point looking at people and saying they were at fault. - ANDREW HILDITCH

Zat wrote:You would.

On the back page of the Sydney Morning Herald today:

There's no point looking at people and saying they were at fault. - ANDREW HILDITCH

I saw that quote and laughed out loud.

Tried to imagine how the country would have reacted had the England football team selectors displayed the same attitude when England failed to qualify for Euro 2008 .

I hope skully delivers on his threat to deliver on Quntitch's doorstep.

I am amazed that all Hilditch and Drunky have it admitted to was leaving out Hauritz at the Oval. Did they expect hime to score a double century ffs.

It wasn't the bowling that was the problem

I'm also amazed that much of the focus is on the pitch for the last Test and the non-selection of Hauritz for that match. HAve a look at the series as a whole, FFS...

Australia should have won by an innings or 10 wickets at Cardiff, but for the inability to take a number 11's wicket. Although the main attacking bowlers didn't really bowl much to the number 11.

Australia batted like millionaires in the first innings at Lords and lost.

At Edgbaston, after again a poor first innings with the bat, they'd fought back well. The match was very evenly poised for mine, and had there not been five sessions lost, it would've been an interesting conclusion.

The result at Headingley masked a few issues. Particularly the lack of penetration from the bowlers against the English lower order in the second innings. Haven't heard much said about that. It should have been an innings and 200 runs win.

And at the Oval, sure, Broad bowled well in the first innings, but the fact that the Aussies in that innings made the pitch look like a minefield, yet in the other three innings on it, teams scored readily and easily in excess of 300 suggests that there's something wrong mentally with the Aussie team and their approach to the game.

It wasn't the bowling that was the problem

FFS you spivs are are thick as farking Hilditch. An Australian bowling attack better suited to that wicket would much more likely reduced the runs scored by England. Graham Swann is all the evidence required to illustrate that even a talent limited spin specialist was going to be very effective on that deck.

Tell me again how our bowling got us out for 160.

No matter how you twist it with your qbilly bias there is no way around that that was the basic problem.

Hauritz in the team would not have significantly reduced England's first innings score (in fact it more than likely would have increased) and once we were 150+ behind on the 1st innings it was a losing cause.

We still managed 300+ in the 4th against a swan led England so the impact of spin bowling isn't all you are cracking it up to be.

And it wasn't just the performance at the Oval that cost us the Test. Go up two posts and read it again.

Hauritz in the team would not have significantly reduced England's first innings score (in fact it more than likely would have increased) and once we were 150+ behind on the 1st innings it was a losing cause.

Mate, I'll just refer to you any Warne quote you care to pick on the topic. For your convenience I'll paraphrase "Anyone who doesn't think that Hauritz was a must for the Oval Test is a farkin idiot."

How's that for qbilly bias?

Mick, have a look at the big picture.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

Hauritz in the team would not have significantly reduced England's first innings score (in fact it more than likely would have increased) and once we were 150+ behind on the 1st innings it was a losing cause.

Mate, I'll just refer to you any Warne quote you care to pick on the topic. For your convenience I'll paraphrase "Anyone who doesn't think that Hauritz was a must for the Oval Test is a farkin idiot."

How's that for qbilly bias?

Do you seriously think that a serviceable spinner (at best) would have made 200 runs difference?

And I am wetting myself at seeing you of all people resort to using the "logic" of Shane Warne to support your argument. Who was it who dubbed him a Fat Julio Lair?
You must be desperate.

oops

Zat wrote:Mick, have a look at the big picture.

I am beginning to think his real name is Mick Hauritz

Zat wrote:Mick, have a look at the big picture.

Zat, I haven't said anywhere that it was the sole issue. I'll come back & kick it around later.

Then WTF are you arguing about?

G.Wood wrote:I am amazed that all Hilditch and Drunky have it admitted to was leaving out Hauritz at the Oval. Did they expect hime to score a double century ffs.

It wasn't the bowling that was the problem

**RD in arguing for Hodge and Rogers inclusion shocker**

G.Wood wrote:Then WTF are you arguing about?

I entered the discussion on the back of your remark that the "bowling wasn't a problem". HTF that translates to me believing it was the only issue I wouldn't know.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

G.Wood wrote:Then WTF are you arguing about?

I entered the discussion on the back of your remark that the "bowling wasn't a problem". HTF that translates to me believing it was the only issue I wouldn't know.

err I didn't say it wasn't a problem I said it wasn't THE problem. My position was then clearly outlined to be, once we scored 160 the bowlers were irrelevant

Your responses clearly translate to you thinking that the bowling was the major problem.

Guys, we're really getting very English and turning on each other here...

s

pharque you too

Sook.

um we just lost the Ashes, I believe I am entitled