The current malaise in Australian cricket can be sheeted home to poor selection, as it has for the last few years. It's surprising Hilditch, a lawyer, seems to not have a grasp of proper structure in a cricket team nor has the ability to spot emerging talent. But I'll accuse this panel of having blind spots about certain players as well as playing favourites.
Batsmen
There are currently two very good Test opening batsmen knocking about in Shield cricket (Hughes and Jaques) together with another young bloke who's been in great form the last few years (Rogers) who are currently ranked behind a flakey journeyman, Watson. Personally, I wouldn't have Watson anywhere near an Australian Test team, unless the first twenty players were injured in a bus accident. It is imperative a Test team have two solid openers who have time to develop a long-term partnership. Does Watson fit into this category? Obviously not.
Ponting's great powers seem to waning (a little but noticeable), and as is the way of great batsmen in their twilight years he should shift down the batting order to 4; in fact I could see him batting at 5 in the near future. But, conversely, the batsmen who SHOULD be picking up the traces and accepting (demanding?) more responsibility by insisting on going in at first drop is Clarke. These should be his best years and it would bode well for Australian cricket if he started to take a more prominent role. Coming in at 3 wouldn't in any way be seen as undermining Ponting but the extra responsibilty could lift this team enormously.
Hussey's been going through a bad patch for a while now (possibly terminal) and doesn't deserve his spot in the side. His continued selection contrasted with Brad Hodge's continued omission illustrates for me the pig-headedness of this selection panel. Or their absolute commitment to favourites. Can anyone honestly say the best six Australian batsmen are currently in the Test team?
Bowlers
The three fast bowlers the panel's stuck with have done a reasonable job the last two seasons. There have been times when one of them's lost form and probably should've been replaced by Clark but it's hard to criticise the selectors for trying Siddle and sticking with Hilfenhaus. But if any of the three get injured, or lose form, Clark should be slotted straight into the team as his metronomic accuracy will always strangle opposing batsmen. In fact I'd go so far as have the selectors tell Clark he's got two more years in the Test team, barring injuries and loss of form, as they run their rulers over long-term replacements.
Finding a replacement for Warne would try the patience of Job, or possibly someone higher up. We're up to, what is it, six spinners used since Shane retired? The standout performance for me was Krejza's performance in the last test in India, the fourth best figures by a bowler on debut. The bloke MUST have some talent to take wickets in India against blokes who lay spin in their sleep. To be discarded after getting tonked on a hard, flat track in Perth is unconscionable. Hauritz has had more than enough opportunities to prove he's good enough, and he isn't. To be shown up by an ordinary West Indian spinner on an Australian pitch should be cause to pack his bags.
All-rounders
After Flintoff's magnificent performaces five years ago the selectors have been myopic in their quest to shoe-horn an all-rounder into the Australian Test team. Watson, or McDonald or Symonds, have to justify their selection with either bat OR ball before getting a guernsey. It's hard to see any of that lot as a front-line seam bowler so they have to score runs, consistently. Or, preferably, bugger off.
End of rant.
