(Matt Poynting is a cricket fan, freelance writer and BPL Citizen Journalist).

The omission of Michael Beer from the starting XI for the third Ashes Test in Perth epitomises an utterly dumbfounding selection policy that has been left to go on far too long.

While the omission is not unusual based on merit - Beer was never more than about a 50/50 chance to make the XI anyway - one has to question the point of it all. The main query raised by all asunder is why pick an untried left-arm orthodox spinner to make his debut when he has only played five first-class games, three of those at his ‘home ground' the WACA?

The multi-dimensional argument against Beer's original selection does not need to be trundled out again, but seeing as Beer is carrying the drinks for Australia during the Perth Test, the reason for his selection becomes even more mysterious.

There is a lot at stake when a player is dropped, especially if it appears to be in the slightest way unjustified. Nathan Hauritz, the most recent example, infamously gained press coverage by waiting outside his apartment and giving away his cricket kit to passers-by.

Michael Slater was considered a loose cannon long before his Test axing in 2001, but upon the announcement of his omission from a particular Test match, he challenged then skipper Steve Waugh to "tell them the real story". The fallout between Slater, Waugh and then coach John Buchanan left many wounds that take a long time to heal. Going further back, Ian Meckiff and Sid Barnes were other examples of fine players dropped for what can quite easily be seen as political reasons.

So why then would the selection committee, namely Chairman Andrew Hilditch and Australia's first full-time selector Greg Chappell, make this mistake again? They must remember that they are playing with careers here. These are livelihoods that are at stake.

If Michael Beer was any chance at all of not playing in the third Test, why on earth was he called into the side at the expense of another young talent in Xavier Doherty? Surely it is more logical to retain Doherty, or at worst bring back Hauritz, and make either 12th man if need be. Instead, yet another young cricketer has been discarded like a used tissue, tossed aside to join the plethora of aptly talented colleagues who have seemingly used up their one and only lifeline.

What now for this Aussie team? What happens when the third Test is completed today or tomorrow and Michael Beer was unused - win, lose or draw? Will he be the next victim of the rotating roster at the MCG for the fourth Test? Where does Doug Bollinger come into the picture? The paceman was Australia's best this past year taking 30 wickets at 27.17.

Nathan Hauritz has committed the most heinous of crimes in speaking out against the selection policy. His career as a Test spinner appears to be over. Xavier Doherty is quite clearly out of the loop. The only thing left to do is guess who will be the next victim of the selector's axe.