Monday, August 17, 2009

Hilditch gives selectors A+(+)(+), Clark likely to miss out

We've been on Sabbatical for a while, for myself it's been a case of sorting out my fantasy premier league team (it's chugging along nicely thanks for asking), and adjusting to life in the nations capital. Whilst, for the captain, I assume it's assembling his spring racing bible. We missed the funniest tale of the summer, the one where the Australian selectors gave themselves a collective pat on the back for the way they have guided Australia's ashes tilt.

You probably don't need to have heard from us as get the party line at WHAB as to the horrendous inaccuracies that King Hilditch espoused. Let's summarise. The selectors don't get an A+ (+?) from us. The cavalcade of shit looks like so:

1. Waiting until the fourth test to play a younger (devilishly handsome) Glen McGrath clone.
2. Spouting nonsense that he won't play the fifth.
3. Leaving the ginger cue in the rack for five tests.
4. Not picking a reserve batsman. Does Brad Hodge lack the awesome of, say Shane Watson?
5. Picking three all-rounders for a touring party for balance. And failing to select the only one who actually provides BALANCE. Let me explain my take on the fabled all-rounder. A batting all-rounder (North, Watson) is a useless item. Batsmen who can bowl a few overs are not all-rounders. Mark Waugh is not an all-rounder. By the same logic, neither is Watson or North. Andrew McDonald is an all-rounder. A guy who can bat 7/8 and bowl as an actual weapon has value when you construct a side.

Anyway, my ginger dream will not come true at the NPOWER OVAL. This is a shame. However, the shame on Hilditch doubles, nay, triples if the line and length stylings of Stuart Clark aren't on display in the final test. He was the destroyer in the first innings and was not quite himself in the second innings. That's a success rate of 50%. Compare this to Johnson (one good innings out of 8) and Siddle (2 good innings out of 8) and you ask yourself, what justification can there be to leave out Clark in the fifth test?

In short, Hilditch has given himself a massive pat on the back for tying up the series 1-1 against one of the most mediocre England sides that I can recall. Is this side better than the 2001 team listed below?


Atherton
Trescothick
Butcher
Hussain
Ramprakash
Afzaal
Stewart
Tudor
Caddick
Gough
Mullally

Probably not, but the current squad isn't great!



3 comments:

Captain Carnage said...

What the selectors don't realise is that the fans actually aren't happy being 1-1 with said mediocre England side. Why the fuck would we be?! At the very least it should be 2-0 Australia.

On Clark, the second innings he got taken to by a couple of clowns, swinging the bats with eyes closed and gay abandon. Who cares? The match was already a foregone conclusion. When the pressure was on, Sarfraz had 3/7 off his first 8 overs. What's more, Cook is his bitch. Having an opener who is your bowler's bitch shouldn't be underestimated.

Our friend at Drinks Break made the point that Hilditch has justified the non-selection of Clark by the fact we have the three leading wicket takers in the series and that he really needed 16 wickets in the 4th Test to be seriously considered for the Fifth Test.

I'd put it to Hilditch that quality always rules over quantity...don't you or Punter come home without the fucking Ashes...there will be snipers waiting...

Captain Carnage said...

By the way, I've been busy perfecting my Keytar Concerto in E Flat Major.

Professor Chaos said...

Exactly,
Now I hear about the THREE WAY BATTLE??? for the final spot. Yeah, Lee should totally be playing instead of Clark.

Mickey Arthur has it right with the idea that you don't need a containment spinner when you have a containment seamer.