Is Australian cricket on a rudderless ship? Who is running it and who is making poor decision after poor decision.
In the space of a year, Australia cricket has:
1. Cheapened the brand - giving fringe players the chance to play for Australia who would not have played in any era of Australian cricket. The likes of Jamie Cox, Jammie Siddons and Stuart Law must feel annoyed at how easily blokes can represent Australia. Gone are the days of "putting the runs on the board" over a period of time to earn selection.
2. Shat on its home fans - The decision to tell the paying public, "we don't care about winning a 3 test series v the number 1 cricket side in the world", was a massive slap in the face for those loyal fans who follow Australian cricket. It is now being argued that our 2 main strike bowlers were injured but at the time we are told they needed to be rested or "Rotated". As far as the cricket public is concerned, that was Australia's grand Final and resting/rotating our 2 best bowlers in Perth mind you, goes against everything Australians believe it. Very unAustralian as far as i am concerned.
Then the Australian Crickets shats on its fans and on the game itself by pretty much destroying one day cricket. Is it part of the ACB's agenda to rid one day cricket forever? Why did they choose to select a second rate side for the first two one day games on OUR home turf? It would have been the marketing departments worst nightmare by treating the Australian public like fools.
What organisation on this earth would choose to not to promote their product at home when they get the chance.
3. Create instability in an already fragile team - How on earth can a player have any sort of confidence playing for Australia. They dynamics of a team and of an individual are based a lot on confidence. Imagine playing in every game knowing that you are likely to be dropped or rotated the next. If i know anything about cricket, i know that confidence plays a major role in batting. Players go to the crease scared.
4. The selectors - we have to hear all this BS about saving players and planning for the future. But when did Xavier Doherty become our number 1 spinner? Was this part of the grand plan????? So the selectors thought, we will playing Nathan Lyon in all of our home series games and not use him in India where we know spin wins you games. Good plan guys!!! I thought selection was about putting someone into your position because they are playing better than you. I think Lyon took 4 wickets in the first test. Was that so bad that Doherty was a far better choice and was going to take more than 4 in the 2nd test?
I wonder what Kuwaja thinks of the selectors who have only given him opportunities on crap wickets and Watson who is our best opening option but playing down the order. Old saying in sport. Never weaken one position to strengthen another and Watson is a prime example of this.
5. Michael Clarke - Has too much power. Making the captain a selector would deeply affect the dynamics of the team. Human nature will always win out and friendships will always sway decisions. Imagine the amount of pretentiousness within the team when having anything to do with Clarke.
Why doesn't he bat up one spot? At 8 for he threw away his wicket on 91. Shouldn't be in that position. How many more times do we have to watch our top order collapse to around 4 for 70. It happens nearly every test i watch.
6. The Ashes - Since we keep getting the Ashes shoved down our throats from selectors (as to why they are resting/rotating), does this mean if/when we fail in England, they will fall on their own swords? I am sick of the attitude of "this series is not our priority", so we can wait for the ashes. So, the eggs are going to be in one basket boys. We better win!
