Australian selector says the batsmen are rubbish

Well, you know, reading between the lines and joining the dots and making the odd leap and adding a few extra dots – that’s basically what he’s said.

John Inverarity’s comments include gems such as:

“They’re the best we’ve got.”

Which we like to imagine being delivered with a laissez-faire shrug of the shoulders.

Also:

“When you select, you do the best you can, given the material you’ve got.”

What is that material, John? What, precisely, is the nature of the “material” you are having to select?

Share this article...Email this to someoneTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0

Tired of checking the site for updates? Sign up for our near-daily email

16 Appeals

  1. King Cricket

    July 5, 2012 at 9:11 am

    And yes, we’ll do something about Mark Ramprakash once the news is official.

  2. Shome mishtake, shurely. I was sure that Australia were in fact the #1 ranked ODI team in the whole world, and that this ranking conferred on them the right to question the balance of any team they might be playing. I thought that Australian domestic cricket was literally a conveyor belt of international quality players. I thought that… oh you get the picture.

    But anyway, what I like most about his comments is that he thinks he’s being supportive. “They’re the best we’ve got” is apparently aimed at those people who think that others should have been picked instead. What he meant to say was, “I am absolutely convinced that the batsmen we have on tour here are the right people to do the job for us, and that I am confident that while the last couple of results haven’t gone our way, nonetheless they represent a very bright future for Australian cricket.”

    But he didn’t.

  3. The selector’s paradox is that any time you change the squad, it remains the best squad.

    There’s also a bit of a backdoor in that they’re quite deliberately grooming Forrest as a Test backup rather than an ODI number 3. They may be selecting a group of players with overall potential but not necessarily with an aim to winning every ODI.

    The player Australians like to scream about is Callum Ferguson, but his ability to string together first class scores is not entirely enviable. However, that doesn’t quite explain the angle on Adam Voges, who is not over the hill yet.

    Nevertheless, there will soon be a series against Pakistan and there will be at least a couple of changes and the squad will still be ‘the best we’ve got’.

    • Voges is good, but theres a young lad with significant ODI experience who came off a cracker of a domestic season – Tom Cooper.
      I have no idea why he hasn’t been selected yet (if only to cock block the Netherlands the way we did with Nannes).
      He bats at first drop too…

    • King Cricket

      July 6, 2012 at 8:01 am

      Tommy Cooper?

  4. I hate it when I have to google the French.

  5. I love it when Australians sound all England-in-the-90s. Using ODIs to groom Test players? Moaning about selection when the opposition is just better? Haphazard selection policy hoping that something will eventually click?

    They should pick Phil Hughes soon, so they can drop him a couple of games later. Like they did with Steve Smith.

    • Yes please.

      And also, I note that Mitchell Johnson didn’t bowl a single no-ball in the 3rd ODI. That has to be worth something, like an Ashes place for example.

      I would guess (hope) that currently the selectors have the following pencilled in for the Ashes 2013:

      Watson
      Hughes (please)
      Ramprakash
      Clarke
      Hussey (hopefully the wrong one owing to confusion)
      Smith
      Haddin
      Johnson (pretty please)
      McKay
      Siddle
      er, Doherty, or someone else, it doesn’t matter (*)

      (*) Not Warne

  6. Does it even qualify as a back-handed compliment?

  7. Yesterday, The Age has reported this as:

    “Australia’s chief national selector John Inverarity says he’s happy with the next batch of batsmen putting pressure on Australia’s Test top six ahead of next year’s Ashes tour.”

    http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-sport/inverarity-happy-with-aussie-batting-depth-20120704-21hk5.html

    Today, they went with:

    “AUSTRALIA’S chief selector, John Inverarity, admits he is dissatisfied with the depth in the country’s batting stocks, conceding George Bailey, Peter Forrest and veteran David Hussey are ”the best we’ve got” outside the Test team.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket/batting-depth-not-up-to-scratch-inverarity-20120704-21hjg.html#ixzz1ziYJbyWl

  8. It took me only 5 or 6 years to switch from “elation that England is better than the West Indies” to “I feel sorry for them and about it, I hope the West Indies recovers and starts playing decent cricket again soon”.

    I hereby serve notice to all KC readers:

    THE AUSSIES WOULD HAVE TO FALL A HECK OF A LOT FURTHER FOR A HECK OF A LOT LONGER BEFORE I’D FEEL A SMIDGE OF SYMPATHY OR SORROW.

    Sorry to shout.

    • Nicely put Ged.

      King Cricket readers of a more sympathetic disposition, take note. If you are feeling sorry for our antipodean adversary, try to conjure thoughts of Chappelli’s leering face, Shane Warne’s flipper, or Mark Taylor’s smug waddle. This should cure you.

      WARNING: may cause brief feelings of despondency.

    • I just think of a certain Chappell bowling underarm, and any sympathy vanishes.

    • Bill Lawrie’s one-eyed, smug commentary is the thing that sticks in my craw…

      …and the existence of Matthew Hayden.

    • Ricky Pontings face.
      I’m an aussie and that thing frightens me away from the team. That, and the arguing, the poor sportsmanship, the questionable decision making and inabililty to know when it’s time.

  9. As someone who struggles sometimes with pronouncing R’s, I humbly request that everyone stop referencing Inverarirarity.

Comments are closed.

© 2017 King Cricket

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑