Selection criteria: for the WC or winning/crowds now?

Hot debate currently on radio about the crazy selection policy of them looking ahead to the WC rather than maximising crowds and trying to win the current series.

Many callers who were going to go are now boycotting Friday because of the exclusion of Hussey and the resting of Warner, Clarke etc.

Of course the anomaly of overlooking Michael but selecting his ageing brother hasn't escaped the attention of the masses.

And if they really are focussing on the WC in two years time, shouldn't they be selecting Paine ahead of Haddin? Or is Paine now off the selectors' radar?

It's probably another version of the rotations policy but it all smacks of treating the patrons with disdain.

Should have played it on Boxing Day

I think Invers has lost the plot. The selection of Hastings & Hazelwood ahead of Bird & the exclusion of Siddle for the Perth Test was inexplicable & possibly cost us the series.
The reinstatement of Haddin ahead of Paine/Hartley/Neville is also inexplicable especially when Haddin was dropped from the ODI side over three years ago because he was past it.

Resting David Warner? Thought he'd just done pretty pants so far?

Brass Monkey wrote:Resting David Warner? Thought he'd just done pretty pants so far?

Mental stress Dan.

Mentally stressed himself to a 30 average?

The mental stress of fighting the ferocious SL pace attack combined with all the things he has to reinvent. He's a proper little Edison.

Big Dog wrote:I think Invers has lost the plot. The selection of Hastings & Hazelwood ahead of Bird & the exclusion of Siddle for the Perth Test was inexplicable & possibly cost us the series.
The reinstatement of Haddin ahead of Paine/Hartley/Neville is also inexplicable especially when Haddin was dropped from the ODI side over three years ago because he was past it.

Pastings was a poor selection but they had it in their head they needed an all-rounder.

Not sure if Siddle would have made the difference. The rot started with the batsmen falling so cheaply after the attack had done its job first up. Johnson may have missed a spot and he did ok but most significantly Siddle said his hammy was a bit dicky after the marathon Adelaide performance. Remember Siddle would have been required to bowl first up in Perth because Clarke lost the toss. The batsmen were at fault here. SA then decided to attack our bowlers in the second innings in a ruthless manner but there's no guarantee Siddle could have stemmed the flow.

Red wrote:

Big Dog wrote:I think Invers has lost the plot. The selection of Hastings & Hazelwood ahead of Bird & the exclusion of Siddle for the Perth Test was inexplicable & possibly cost us the series.
The reinstatement of Haddin ahead of Paine/Hartley/Neville is also inexplicable especially when Haddin was dropped from the ODI side over three years ago because he was past it.

Pastings was a poor selection but they had it in their head they needed an all-rounder.

Not sure if Siddle would have made the difference. The rot started with the batsmen falling so cheaply after the attack had done its job first up. Johnson may have missed a spot and he did ok but most significantly Siddle said his hammy was a bit dicky after the marathon Adelaide performance. Remember Siddle would have been required to bowl first up in Perth because Clarke lost the toss. The batsmen were at fault here. SA then decided to attack our bowlers in the second innings in a ruthless manner but there's no guarantee Siddle could have stemmed the flow.

Pastings, yet another in the line of great Aussie allrounders.

Red wrote:

Big Dog wrote:I think Invers has lost the plot. The selection of Hastings & Hazelwood ahead of Bird & the exclusion of Siddle for the Perth Test was inexplicable & possibly cost us the series.
The reinstatement of Haddin ahead of Paine/Hartley/Neville is also inexplicable especially when Haddin was dropped from the ODI side over three years ago because he was past it.

Pastings was a poor selection but they had it in their head they needed an all-rounder.

Not sure if Siddle would have made the difference. The rot started with the batsmen falling so cheaply after the attack had done its job first up. Johnson may have missed a spot and he did ok but most significantly Siddle said his hammy was a bit dicky after the marathon Adelaide performance. Remember Siddle would have been required to bowl first up in Perth because Clarke lost the toss. The batsmen were at fault here. SA then decided to attack our bowlers in the second innings in a ruthless manner but there's no guarantee Siddle could have stemmed the flow.

...but still, Bird's figures were far Superior to Hastings & Hazlewood was not even in the ballpark.

Big Dog wrote:

Red wrote:

Big Dog wrote:I think Invers has lost the plot. The selection of Hastings & Hazelwood ahead of Bird & the exclusion of Siddle for the Perth Test was inexplicable & possibly cost us the series.
The reinstatement of Haddin ahead of Paine/Hartley/Neville is also inexplicable especially when Haddin was dropped from the ODI side over three years ago because he was past it.

Pastings was a poor selection but they had it in their head they needed an all-rounder.

Not sure if Siddle would have made the difference. The rot started with the batsmen falling so cheaply after the attack had done its job first up. Johnson may have missed a spot and he did ok but most significantly Siddle said his hammy was a bit dicky after the marathon Adelaide performance. Remember Siddle would have been required to bowl first up in Perth because Clarke lost the toss. The batsmen were at fault here. SA then decided to attack our bowlers in the second innings in a ruthless manner but there's no guarantee Siddle could have stemmed the flow.

...but still, Bird's figures were far Superior to Hastings & Hazlewood was not even in the ballpark.

Certainly there is an argument that Bird could have been selected earlier; he's been running through sides for some time. With Pastings though it was his supposed attraction as an all-rounder which got him the nod if you listen to Invers and Hazlewood has been on their radar since he's been in nappies.

Red wrote:

Big Dog wrote:I think Invers has lost the plot. The selection of Hastings & Hazelwood ahead of Bird & the exclusion of Siddle for the Perth Test was inexplicable & possibly cost us the series.
The reinstatement of Haddin ahead of Paine/Hartley/Neville is also inexplicable especially when Haddin was dropped from the ODI side over three years ago because he was past it.

Pastings was a poor selection but they had it in their head they needed an all-rounder.

Not sure if Siddle would have made the difference. The rot started with the batsmen falling so cheaply after the attack had done its job first up. Johnson may have missed a spot and he did ok but most significantly Siddle said his hammy was a bit dicky after the marathon Adelaide performance. Remember Siddle would have been required to bowl first up in Perth because Clarke lost the toss. The batsmen were at fault here. SA then decided to attack our bowlers in the second innings in a ruthless manner but there's no guarantee Siddle could have stemmed the flow.

Is that why they picked him for his bowling?

taipan wrote:

Pastings, yet another in the line of great Aussie allrounders.

I feel sorry for you, you must have a real bitch of a life to be so bitter and sniping. No wonder you never any of Red's comments go.

Can't wait for when Kallis retires.

***
Hazlewood, Copeland and Cummins to a certain point are fastracked and given the armchair ride because they're Spivs. They were always going to be first preference.

baggygreen wrote:

Red wrote:

Big Dog wrote:I think Invers has lost the plot. The selection of Hastings & Hazelwood ahead of Bird & the exclusion of Siddle for the Perth Test was inexplicable & possibly cost us the series.
The reinstatement of Haddin ahead of Paine/Hartley/Neville is also inexplicable especially when Haddin was dropped from the ODI side over three years ago because he was past it.

Pastings was a poor selection but they had it in their head they needed an all-rounder.

Not sure if Siddle would have made the difference. The rot started with the batsmen falling so cheaply after the attack had done its job first up. Johnson may have missed a spot and he did ok but most significantly Siddle said his hammy was a bit dicky after the marathon Adelaide performance. Remember Siddle would have been required to bowl first up in Perth because Clarke lost the toss. The batsmen were at fault here. SA then decided to attack our bowlers in the second innings in a ruthless manner but there's no guarantee Siddle could have stemmed the flow.

U
Is that why they picked him for his bowling?

taipan wrote:

Pastings, yet another in the line of great Aussie allrounders.

I feel sorry for you, you must have a real bitch of a life to be so bitter and sniping. No wonder you never any of Red's comments go.

Can't wait for when Kallis retires.

***
Hazlewood, Copeland and Cummins to a certain point are fastracked and given the armchair ride because they're Spivs. They were always going to be first preference.

SIUUBG

Roll up roll up ladeeez and gentlemen! A once in a lifetime chance to see the ultimate two one-legged mares in an arse-kicking contest: Taips v BG!!!!!!!

Fred Nerk wrote:Roll up roll up ladeeez and gentlemen! A once in a lifetime chance to see the ultimate two one-legged mares in an arse-kicking contest: Taips v BG!!!!!!!

AH you say such nice things Fred.

LOOK. To be an all-rounder, you have to be EXACTLY as skilled in BOTH disciplines.

Brass Monkey wrote:LOOK. To be an all-rounder, you have to be EXACTLY as skilled in BOTH disciplines.

Exactly. But that does qualify Watson.

The definitions I grew up with were capable of obtaining a place with either discipline or having a bowling average lower than your batting one.

Red wrote:The definitions I grew up with were capable of obtaining a place with either discipline or having a bowling average lower than your batting one.

It's a forum first.

Brass Monkey wrote:LOOK. To be an all-rounder, you have to be EXACTLY as skilled in BOTH disciplines.

That's not true. Otherwise Gary Sobers isn't an all-rounder - he was a far better batsman than he was a bowler, albeit because his batting was at genius level.

There's a reason we have the terms "batting all-rounder" and "bowling all-rounder". Most all-rounders have a primary skill.

It's like how some people think you have to be attracted 50/50 to both sexes to be bisexual. It's poppycock.

Hass wrote:

Brass Monkey wrote:LOOK. To be an all-rounder, you have to be EXACTLY as skilled in BOTH disciplines.

That's not true. Otherwise Gary Sobers isn't an all-rounder - he was a far better batsman than he was a bowler, albeit because his batting was at genius level.

There's a reason we have the terms "batting all-rounder" and "bowling all-rounder". Most all-rounders have a primary skill.

It's like how some people think you have to be attracted 50/50 to both sexes to be bisexual. It's poppycock.

Oh dear.

Hass wrote:
That's not true. Otherwise Gary Sobers isn't an all-rounder - he was a far better batsman than he was a bowler, albeit because his batting was at genius level.

There's a reason we have the terms "batting all-rounder" and "bowling all-rounder". Most all-rounders have a primary skill.

It's like how some people think you have to be attracted 50/50 to both sexes to be bisexual. It's poppycock.

You missed a bit o' the ol' sarcasm, Hass.

I'll forgive you. You're rusty.

Brass Monkey wrote:

You missed a bit o' the ol' sarcasm, Hass.

I'll forgive you. You're rusty.

Thankyou for the grace. NSR can strike at any time! Further to my defence, I was posting at the end of a 43 degree day here in Sydney.

It's like how some people think you have to be attracted 50/50 to both sexes to be bisexual. It's poopycock.

I think Monkey is omnisexual. Men, old women, dead men, preggos, goats, holes in trees ...

Hass wrote:
Thankyou for the grace. NSR can strike at any time! Further to my defence, I was posting at the end of a 43 degree day here in Sydney.

Ouch. Well done for typing. I reckon I'd be... well... dead.