![]() |
Comments on this story Comments have now been closed for this article
Posted by Samdanh on January 29 2008, 10:13 AM GMT To bolster the pace battery Australia should try out Bollinger, Nofke and Nannes who have been performing very well and consistently in domestic matches. Best option would be to rotate Seniors and give opportunities for these players to play. Every alternate game, one of the three - Brett Lee/Mitchell Johnson/Stuart Clark should be rested to give opportunity for Bollinger/Nofke/Nannes to play Haddin is the best choice at this moment to replace Gilchrist On the batting front players like David Hussey should be tried out Among all rounders I would like Australia to sharpen bowling skills of Cameron White with help from Shane Warne. If only he shapes up quickly he could be a potent all rounder weapon both in Tests and one days Posted by chipmunk0709 on January 29 2008, 08:51 AM GMT Although Australia has lost some of the greatest players the world has seen in Warne, McGrath and Gilchrist and some very good players in Langer and Martin, there are simply no other teams in the world that is managed by their repsective boards well enough to challenge Autralia. What we have here in the Australian domestic competition is unsurpassed. It is well managed and funded and has been like it for many years. The only team that has challenged Australa in recent years has been England in 2005, and India in the series just finished. But look at what has happened to England since. A couple of injuries, a few players out of form, and all of a sudden they get trounced by a determined and resurgent Australian team in the return bout and loose to Sri Lanka on home soil. India while they have played well and truly challenged Australia face problems of their own. Don't forget they will loose their big 4 very soon too. The only concern for Ausralia will be SA and only if they don't choke. Posted by Ryanbrew on January 29 2008, 08:49 AM GMT Yes I think they will miss him desperately. Haddin may be a good player, but his batting doesnt even come close to that of Gilchrist - especially Gilchrists destructiveness. Gilchrist will leave a huge whole in the side, because of the weight of runs he scored, and the speed at which he scored them. Him batting at 6 or 7 is also what gave comfort to the Ausie batsmen higher up the order, Symonds always knew he had the dependability of Gilchrist behind him, now he wont have the same amount of security. Gilchrist was a genuine batsmen at test level, as well as gloveman. Any side in world cricket would gladly have accepted him purely on his batting ability - forgetting about his keeping. The next problem Aus have is his next logical replacement is already over 30, and has a first class batting ave that is lower than Gilchrists international averages. THis should tell us something about what is to come against Aus. Will Haddin compare against bowlers like Murali, Steyn, Ntini? Posted by Karnog on January 29 2008, 08:25 AM GMT Australia will be hardest hit in the ODIs. A superb, blitz-kreig start is no longer guaranteed which is going to expose Australia's middle order a lot more. Personally, i think they need to chuck in a 20 year old batter in the team along with Haddin. That could mean Hopes spot is taken but i feel Australia need to test out a young player. Jacques will have to wait for Hayden's retirement in the ODIs in my view. Posted by ryan2007 on January 29 2008, 06:03 AM GMT Vpadmana... Well their is an Opener called Hughes who is 20 this year that is performing well, if Hayden also decided to retire (But said he could go until 40). Posted by sadid_hasan on January 29 2008, 04:28 AM GMT Gillchrist's retirement will post a huge vacuum in the Australian team as I think Australia's domination will fall down shortly because when Gilly was playing there were actually twelve members in the team and his quit will create a big hole in the cricket world also. Brad Haddin has to work really hard to fill the big shoe. Posted by Revnq on January 29 2008, 02:55 AM GMT Have to agree with vpadmana - Hayden will be a much bigger loss, though he is the sort of guy who seems always hungry for more and who knows, perhaps he will join the ranks of those who have played until 40. I think the loss of Gilchrist is greatly tempered by the promotion of Brad Haddin, who is not only a fine gloveman but has also averaged over 50 the past few domestic seasons. As far as I'm concerned the future looks pretty good and whilst I doubt Australia will be the dominant force they have been the past decade or so, I reckon they can still be no. 1. India were probably the side who could take the crown, but with the big four heading towards the end of their careers, they'll have to get a move-on as the batting stocks coming through haven't impressed me as yet. I do have big wraps on their pace attack, Sharma, Khan, Singh and Pathan all performed well here, the question is whether they can be as useful on their home pitches. Posted by chuBBs1965 on January 29 2008, 02:13 AM GMT Hey fellas, we all know that Rome wasn't built in a day so was the Australian team. They were the dominant team for the past ten years or more and they are humans and we know that all humans have life span in cricket. I would say that good cricketers have a span of five to seven years in their cricketing career. Now we all saw what happen to the West Indies team some years back, they waited too long before letting their good players go thus leaving them with what they have today. However I am starting to see the same trend with the Australians. It looks as though they are starting to panic; so far no one has step up to replace their recent retirees (Warne,Langer,McGrath,Martyn and Gilchrist)But I guess we will just have to wait and see. Posted by gung-ho on January 29 2008, 01:13 AM GMT Gilly was a gem of a person on and off the field and he will be missed. Its not easy to replace a great cricketer - the very thought of someone like Sachin/Dravid/Laxman retiring gives me the creeps. However, for a country like Australia, where many players do not break into the team till their mid 20's, they should have had it all figured out by now - Haddin has been groomed for a while for Gilly - much like they had Stuart McGill for Warne. But a great player is a great player. Who knows, a less brash Ponting & co finding it difficult to walk the talk without players like Gilly around might just augur well for world cricket though. And last but not least lets not forget the brash old spinner with that perpetual silly grin of his - Hogg. Looking at how he has fared in this series, I doubt whether he is grinning now - he might as well hang up those boots (and that silly grin) now... Posted by malph_182 on January 29 2008, 01:02 AM GMT A lot of people don't understand what actaully makes the Autralian cricket team so consistently good. Hayden didn't become a 'regular' player until he was 29. Justin Langer didn't become a regular opener until he was age 30. Gilchrist made his Test debut just before he turned 28. Hussey debuted at 30. Ponting and Clarke are largely exceptions: most batsmen who make the team, only do so after they have spent the best part of a decade perfecting their games in order to crack into a very hard-to-get-into lineup. And they perfect their games in what is easily the toughest domestic competition in the world. Australia have been the best since they beat the West Indies in 1995, and NOT ONE current player actually played in that series. Before Hayden and Langer, there was Taylor and Slater. Before Hussey and Clarke, Mark and Steve Waugh. Ian Healy was once Australia's greatest 'keeper, and now watch how well Brad Haddin plays. Great players are just going to keep coming.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||
|