the electric internet

Note that all 4 Australian wickets - even the debutant with whose selection I did not however quibble - have “(NSW)” after their names. All failed, some worse than others.

Hughes will always be battling his fundamental technique flaws, and will forever fail against quality professional bowling. There is no way his results this season have justified his selection for this or any other Test match. Before today he was averaging less than 20, and maybe edged over that tailender’s ambition today. Some of the flock of NSW apologists now suggest that has struggling 31 today was a success. What arrant nonsense! The shot he played to get out - which he will play throughout his career - was a schoolboy howler, the bat 18 inches from the body and the feet nowhere. It was the same shot he played when he failed in the first innings in Melbourne. If they keep picking him, he will play that shot again and again and again and again. Against crappy bowling he will get runs with it. Against good bowling that shot will get him out a ludicrously high proportion of the time. He must be dropped, in favour of Marsh (WA).

Apparently Hughes was at a charity breakfast this morning and when asked in interview, he was utterly unrepentant about those schoolboy howler shots outside the off stump which get him out so repeatedly… “That’s the way I play”, he said. Ah, so that’s it - apparently we are expected to nod and say “OK then”. Well if that’s the way he plays, and he is determined not to change, that would make him permanently unselectable for Australia but for the fact that he is from NSW. The England team must love it when his name is read out in the team list.

Clarke has lost sight of the reason he was selected - the runs he once scored - and now thinks that, well, he should be selected because he is owed this much. A man in the dubious thrall of his manufactured self-image, who now sadly believes the bullshit the NSW machine continues to peddle about him.

There is no way Clarke’s performances this year, or possibly over the last 2 years, have justified his selection in the XI for this Test, let alone the captaincy. The man is a tosser, and it is obvious that he does not carry the dressing room. I mean, how can a boy - he’s clearly not yet a man - who is happy to be photographed wearing jocks and showing the arty tatts on his unimpressive arms imagine that he will cut it against the flint-eyed Waugh, Taylor, Chappelli and Lawry of yore? Can you imagine the Phantom in the gossip mags with a supermodel and driving a Lamborghini? And yet the NSW crickerati continue to wonder why it is that a poll last week showed that he had a 92% vote against him as the next Australian captain. Ask anyone from Perth or Adelaide. Let’s just watch him fail again in the second dig. Put simply, his continued selection cannot be justified.

I have some sympathy for Watson. It is painfully obvious that he is not an opener, as his first movement is always forward, and his back foot defensive technique is hit-or-miss. Still, I thought that today he applied himself properly and did look as though he was concerned not to give away his wicket cheaply. I would retain him, though I would bat him at 6 (we will talk about Smith later), and select a genuine opener, say Klinger from SA or Finch from Victoria.

I also quite like Khawaja, and indeed it is interesting to consider whether his selection in Melbourne in lieu of Ponting might have made a bit of a difference, albeit not eough to have changed the result. [Certainly we can say that when Ponting to have declared himself fit for the Melbourne Test, at best he was letting his personal ambition get in the way of what was right for the team, and at worst he was being outrageously avaricious and selfish.] Khawaja is a bat-choker, gripping it very low, showing lots of handle above his top hand. I think the English professionals will quickly assess him (if they have not already) as being not a strong driver and prone to getting out on the sweep and cut. But I would retain him for a few games to see how he goes.

Let’s pass over the fact that Haddin is actually picked to bat at no. 6 for this game, as if it were true that he is in the top 15 number sixes in Australia when no-one can even seriously make that claim, and go to his wicketkeeping, which is about the 5th or 6th best in the country. Selected only because he has NSW after his name and is the incumbent.

Now to the curious case of Steven (sic) Smith. This is a nice young fellow who, we were told last Test, was an appropriate choice as an Australian number 6. Well, they said, perhaps after the airy wave that got him out in the first innings he might be a swashbuckler who might hit us out of trouble on occasion, but he is a jolly good bowler or at least one who might become that. Sorry - no evidence of buckle, though admittedly some swash. Benaud he ain’t, still less a Warnie.

Fact is, Hughes, Ponting, Clarke and possibly Smith should have been dropped for this Test, the Ashes having already been lost and hence a rebuilding period having commenced. But this selection panel, clearly in awe of the NSW machine, had no guts for the task.

Last evening I went to the 20/20 cricket at the MCG and saw the Vic crush Qld. Brad Hodge was superb, and so were Finch, McKay and Pattinson. But of course they are unselectable for Australia as they have the disqualifying initials VIC after their names.

Enough ranting for now - I am writing a passionate letter to The Age about the absurd NSW bias of Peter Roebuck in particular and also Kerry O’Keeffe, which I doubt they will publish as it attacks their own columnist.