Answers Required

[Adelaide Hawk]

I don't think a player who did well at test/state level will necessarily make a better coach.

And therein lies the problem. Ever tried winning a position at the SACA? Unless you've played shield cricket or been a mainstay at grade level, you have no chance. I have mates who have great cricket minds, they have identified the problems, but they will never have the chance to correct them because they are not part of the network.

We sit in front of out TVs and watch players with obvious flaws in their techniques, but nothing ever seems to happen to improve them. The first question is how those players reached that level with such deficiencies in the first place, and why aren't they working on correcting them?

It defies comprehension.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Just who will be trusted with this rebuilding process?
This mob of Galoots?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2 ... 95801.html

Despite all of this James Sutherland, the chief executive, is happy with the head coach, the selectors and the players - just not the result. Andrew Hilditch, the chairman of selectors, is not resigning and is pleased with the form of the four decision makers. "I think we've done a very good job as a selection panel, but the reality is we were totally out-played," he said. He was being serious.

Have a squizz at the Board of Directors, bar a couple of recently retirees, obviously for show who are the rest of them? If Bannons an example of their ilk, Jeeeeesus.

The fish rots from the head.

[Jim05]

I know its a differant level. But at club level if a guy is struggling and gets out you grab someone and go into the nets for a while and practice. Guys at ss and tests get out and then put their feet up for the rest of the day. I would think popping over to the nets for a while might do them a world of good.

[smac]

I don't think a player who did well at test/state level will necessarily make a better coach.

And therein lies the problem. Ever tried winning a position at the SACA? Unless you've played shield cricket or been a mainstay at grade level, you have no chance. I have mates who have great cricket minds, they have identified the problems, but they will never have the chance to correct them because they are not part of the network.

We sit in front of out TVs and watch players with obvious flaws in their techniques, but nothing ever seems to happen to improve them. The first question is how those players reached that level with such deficiencies in the first place, and why aren't they working on correcting them?

It defies comprehension.

And if a no-name coach was appointed, the press and public jump all over that and the poor bloke is on a hiding to nothing. Plus a coach needs a level of credibility with the playing group that is very difficult to achieve without a certain level of experience.

[smac]

I know its a differant level. But at club level if a guy is struggling and gets out you grab someone and go into the nets for a while and practice. Guys at ss and tests get out and then put their feet up for the rest of the day. I would think popping over to the nets for a while might do them a world of good.

That's just not true.

[Adelaide Hawk]

I don't think a player who did well at test/state level will necessarily make a better coach.

And therein lies the problem. Ever tried winning a position at the SACA? Unless you've played shield cricket or been a mainstay at grade level, you have no chance. I have mates who have great cricket minds, they have identified the problems, but they will never have the chance to correct them because they are not part of the network.

We sit in front of out TVs and watch players with obvious flaws in their techniques, but nothing ever seems to happen to improve them. The first question is how those players reached that level with such deficiencies in the first place, and why aren't they working on correcting them?

It defies comprehension.

And if a no-name coach was appointed, the press and public jump all over that and the poor bloke is on a hiding to nothing. Plus a coach needs a level of credibility with the playing group that is very difficult to achieve without a certain level of experience.

There was a guy coaching PAC back in the 60s and 70s named Chester Bennett who had more to do with the development of the Chappell brothers, as well as Ashley Woodcock, John Causby, etc, than anyone coaching at first class level. The type of coaching I was refering to was technical development, not someone sitting behind a computer finding out how many balls a batsman scored off when the ball was pitched 7.27 metres short, and 1.34 cm wide of off stump. There is a level of academic coaching in cricket these days that is all very interesting, but not doing much for players' technigues.

Experience at top level is all very well, but look at Ponting. All those Tests and still no idea how to set fields and use bowlers.

[Hondo]

50 over cricket was equally as smash and bash when it started and all countries have been playing it to do death for the last 30 years. Over that time there's been many ebbs and flows in team fortunes at test level and I don't think there was a correlation then and there isn't now. I think players are smart and skilled enough to adapt and distinguish between the different formats. They know when to bash and when not to bash IMO. If anything, one day cricket ultimately improved the standard and/or spectacle of test cricket.

I think it's too simplistic to point the finger at T20 as a reason for the drop off in our test team.

The other factor mentioned is the number of teams and level of competition in the lower grades however many blamed the County system for England's test woes and yet they have now improved with no major changes to County cricket that I am aware of.

As for the selectors, while I also disagree with some of the selection decisions I don't think we had an alternative team out there that would have turned around the result. For whatever reason the cupboard is a bit bare right now. We have to be as fit and focussed as we can be while our overall level of talent available is lower. The 3 selection decisions I most question are not playing Hauritz at all, playing an out of form Hughes and persisting with Hilf for so long over Bollinger.

[Dogmatic]

Looks like some players are sort of getting taps on the shoulder to move on.
Clarke pulling the pin on 20/20's (I suspect he was pushed)
Haddin not being selected for 20/20 and not being happy about it. http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/haddin-first-to-feel-the-pain/story-e6frecj3-1225983948432
It appears there is difference of opinion within the ACB ranks with a few issues going by the story above and this one http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/08012011/28/clarke-nielsen-differ-batting-approach.html
After recents series flush all of this crap out and start working together.
About time Australian cricketers and the ACB stopped holding their hands out for more money and investing in junior development (heavily subsidise fees) to attract and retain players in the game.
If I was young and had a choice out of cricket, footy, golf and baseball, cricket would come a distant last.

[Killa]

I think the problems are coming out of the closet as like flower said after perth and it sounds like the coach is the problem.

[smac]

I don't think a player who did well at test/state level will necessarily make a better coach.

And therein lies the problem. Ever tried winning a position at the SACA? Unless you've played shield cricket or been a mainstay at grade level, you have no chance. I have mates who have great cricket minds, they have identified the problems, but they will never have the chance to correct them because they are not part of the network.

We sit in front of out TVs and watch players with obvious flaws in their techniques, but nothing ever seems to happen to improve them. The first question is how those players reached that level with such deficiencies in the first place, and why aren't they working on correcting them?

It defies comprehension.

And if a no-name coach was appointed, the press and public jump all over that and the poor bloke is on a hiding to nothing. Plus a coach needs a level of credibility with the playing group that is very difficult to achieve without a certain level of experience.

There was a guy coaching PAC back in the 60s and 70s named Chester Bennett who had more to do with the development of the Chappell brothers, as well as Ashley Woodcock, John Causby, etc, than anyone coaching at first class level. The type of coaching I was refering to was technical development, not someone sitting behind a computer finding out how many balls a batsman scored off when the ball was pitched 7.27 metres short, and 1.34 cm wide of off stump. There is a level of academic coaching in cricket these days that is all very interesting, but not doing much for players' technigues.

Experience at top level is all very well, but look at Ponting. All those Tests and still no idea how to set fields and use bowlers.

I'm not disputing that there may be someone out there the public has never heard of who could do a good job, in fact I'd be surprised if there wasn't. What I am saying is that SACA would be doing him no favours by appointing him. Sorrell copped enough of a hard time with his background without appointing someone with an even more obscure cricketing history.

[brod]

Michael Clarke and Phillip Hughes made a "supreme error of judgment" in attending functions on the morning of Ashes Tests, according to Cricket Australia's chief executive James Sutherland. The Age reported that the pair attended a Shane Warne Foundation breakfast on Boxing Day, and they were interviewed at 7.30am at Melbourne's Crown Casino, before returning to the team hotel.

[Interceptor]

Gideon Haigh slams Cricket Australia big time:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/497175.html

[dedja]

LOL ...

If a "supreme error of judgement" has been perpetrated in Australian circles lately, it's been the promotion of such permanently stunted mediocrities as Shaun Tait and David Warner as "great cricketers".

[smithy]

Now it seems as if Hilditch can't even form his own opinion of players he picks.
His press release was written by someone else and he signed off on it.

For example - Hauritz has a great ODI record in India............4 wickets at 70 in 7 ODI's..........BZZZZZZZZ wrong.

Hilditch and CA are a JOKE

[pels]

Gideon Haigh slams Cricket Australia big time:

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/497175.html

Fantastic article by Gideon who is an excellent writer