Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Top Contributors
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;384299 said:
IMO Our best batsman is the one who is making the most runs at the best average. You can look good all you want, but the bottom line is that our best batsman is the one making runs.

I don't think moving him down the order while he is restricted isn't such a bad idea, and my reasoning for this is to groom someone else into the role since we have had such a settled number 3 for so long.

If it is totally in your opinion then stop putting words in people's mouths and shooting them down for their own opinions.
Click to expand...

How is moving him down the order while 'his restricted' going to help him? When he comes in his still going to get bounced.

It is great cricket to watch a guy like Ponting hook and pull flogs who try and bounce him - his a punter and he'll take the challenge on and it is great to watch. It is the closet we'll get to the raw cricket of the 70's.

Coming in at 6 or 3 won't change that.

There is plenty of time to 'groom' a number 3 batsmen in years to come. I class Ponting as our best batsmen because his still the man most likely to win us a test match of his bat. Sure, his numbers may not stand up agaisnt Clarke's in recent history but Ponting is more then capable of playing those innings.

I can't understand why you'll want to try and inhibit your best weapon by playing him down the order where he is responding to the match situation rather then influencing it.

Ian Chappell said the same on Ch 9, he said that the people in the media who suggested Ponting go down the order have no clue and he hadn't heard anyone that he thought knew a bit about the game suggest it.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;384362 said:
How is moving him down the order while 'his restricted' going to help him? When he comes in his still going to get bounced.

It is great cricket to watch a guy like Ponting hook and pull flogs who try and bounce him - his a punter and he'll take the challenge on and it is great to watch. It is the closet we'll get to the raw cricket of the 70's.

Coming in at 6 or 3 won't change that.

There is plenty of time to 'groom' a number 3 batsmen in years to come. I class Ponting as our best batsmen because his still the man most likely to win us a test match of his bat. Sure, his numbers may not stand up agaisnt Clarke's in recent history but Ponting is more then capable of playing those innings.

I can't understand why you'll want to try and inhibit your best weapon by playing him down the order where he is responding to the match situation rather then influencing it.

Ian Chappell said the same on Ch 9, he said that the people in the media who suggested Ponting go down the order have no clue and he hadn't heard anyone that he thought knew a bit about the game suggest it.
Click to expand...

So because a commentator agrees with you, it makes you correct? No, it shows he shares your opinion.

Since you've provided a case for why he shouldn't be moved from three, I'll provide a case for why he should be moved from three.

We don't have that much time to groom a number 3 batsman. It's a hard position to play with having to be either the aggressive middle order batsman, or having to play like an opener. If we have no one to fill this gap, which we don't. Clarke bats at 5 and hasn't had any real exposure to the number 3 spot, while our openers are functioning correctly so we shouldn't jinx that there. Hussey will be retiring around the same time as Ponting, maybe earlier, so that's a number 3 and 4 batsman we would have lost. Replacing those two wouldn't be easy. So having a ready made number three who has been exposed at test level will make that transition a lot easier.

As for the case while he is restricted. If Ponting had of gone out for 0, there would be a serious case for alarm. Luckily, Pakistan can't field, but he fell for their well executed bowling plan AGAIN. I want my number three to be averaging probably 45+, which Ponting has not for some time now. It doesn't matter how much they are going to influence a game, his records lately suggest he has not been making the runs he should have, which puts us in a bad position at 2 for not many (whilst I don't doubt his ability, and 41 isn't a bad average). When he is restricted, you can only expect him to not be making as many runs. If he had gone out for 0 like she should have, he would be averaging about 20 for the summer (rough estimate). It is much easier to play a pull shot against an old ball that you no isn't seaming or swinging much, than a newish ball that rises very quickly off the back of a length.

Matthew Elliot had one of the best techniques I've ever seen, he could go from aggressive to defensive, but he won't be remembered as a huge player because he didn't make the runs. While that seems irrelevant (which it probably is), it comes to the point, if Ponting's not making the runs he should be, what happens? Move him down the order to try and help his form? Play him until he's past his use by date? Play him into form like we did with Hussey?

It's the selectors choice.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;384389 said:
So because a commentator agrees with you, it makes you correct? No, it shows he shares your opinion.

Since you've provided a case for why he shouldn't be moved from three, I'll provide a case for why he should be moved from three.

We don't have that much time to groom a number 3 batsman. It's a hard position to play with having to be either the aggressive middle order batsman, or having to play like an opener. If we have no one to fill this gap, which we don't. Clarke bats at 5 and hasn't had any real exposure to the number 3 spot, while our openers are functioning correctly so we shouldn't jinx that there. Hussey will be retiring around the same time as Ponting, maybe earlier, so that's a number 3 and 4 batsman we would have lost. Replacing those two wouldn't be easy. So having a ready made number three who has been exposed at test level will make that transition a lot easier.

As for the case while he is restricted. If Ponting had of gone out for 0, there would be a serious case for alarm. Luckily, Pakistan can't field, but he fell for their well executed bowling plan AGAIN. I want my number three to be averaging probably 45+, which Ponting has not for some time now. It doesn't matter how much they are going to influence a game, his records lately suggest he has not been making the runs he should have, which puts us in a bad position at 2 for not many (whilst I don't doubt his ability, and 41 isn't a bad average). When he is restricted, you can only expect him to not be making as many runs. If he had gone out for 0 like she should have, he would be averaging about 20 for the summer (rough estimate). It is much easier to play a pull shot against an old ball that you no isn't seaming or swinging much, than a newish ball that rises very quickly off the back of a length.

Matthew Elliot had one of the best techniques I've ever seen, he could go from aggressive to defensive, but he won't be remembered as a huge player because he didn't make the runs. While that seems irrelevant (which it probably is), it comes to the point, if Ponting's not making the runs he should be, what happens? Move him down the order to try and help his form? Play him until he's past his use by date? Play him into form like we did with Hussey?

It's the selectors choice.
Click to expand...

I agree there, but I do feel like Ponting is wasted down the order.

Number 3 is his niche, and he's still the best number 3 in the country. For me the only other number 3s in the team are Katich and Hussey. Moving Ponting down the order for either of those to me sounds a little silly. Just for two innings I would like to see Clarke come in at 3, Ponting at 4 and Hussey at 5, just to see what would happen. If Clarke looks like he should be there (even if he gets out for 30ish or whatever) then we know we can make something out of him. As England have demonstrated for the last few years number 3s make a huge difference.

I would actually prefer to pick a player who plays number 3 in domestic games and is in form.

This is only me though, because number 3 to me is the penultimate position and I play it like a baseball position (ie they pick only if you have played there before and done well). Others don't have the same thoughts on that position as I do.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris;384324 said:
The Hayden situation is different, ... I don't want to continue with this topic though.
Click to expand...

Why not? Afraid some unflattering truths might come out?:D

Look, he was an awesome batsman, and an Australian great. For a while there though, it was quite excruciating and he risked ruining all the good work he had done, and end up being remembered for the wrong reasons. That's the balancing act.

Perhaps his love of cooking distracted him.;) It's funny when they come out one day and say, "I've lost the motivation/enjoyment/competitive edge". Does that mean they played their last few matches in the wrong frame of mind? Hmmm ... stayed too long???

Anyway, I respect your preference not to talk about it so I'm happy to leave it there. (Let's see if you take the bait!!!)
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Sober Symonds;384441 said:
Why not? Afraid some unflattering truths might come out?:D

Look, he was an awesome batsman, and an Australian great. For a while there though, it was quite excruciating and he risked ruining all the good work he had done, and end up being remembered for the wrong reasons. That's the balancing act.

Perhaps his love of cooking distracted him.;) It's funny when they come out one day and say, "I've lost the motivation/enjoyment/competitive edge". Does that mean they played their last few matches in the wrong frame of mind? Hmmm ... stayed too long???

Anyway, I respect your preference not to talk about it so I'm happy to leave it there. (Let's see if you take the bait!!!)
Click to expand...

I will take the bait so far as to say I didn't want to continue because it was quite off topic and knowing me the argument would end up on whether dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate and someone would have had to step in and head it in the right direction ;)

Hayden could have continued on had he been given the chance in ODI cricket. He saluted none of the crowds when he got out, rather got annoyed at them for giving him standing ovations for scoring 20. He had the intention to play on but the selectors preferred to go with the youngster Hughes... and what a great find he was.

It was only one and a half series, a miserly 5 matches with a top score of 30 (which he got off to a blazing start with 6 fours before Katich run him out ball watching). He wasn't in a really bad patch, no need to drop him when he did.

Hahaha would you look at that, I took the bait anyway :D
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris;384452 said:
I will take the bait so far as to say I didn't want to continue because it was quite off topic and knowing me the argument would end up on whether dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate and someone would have had to step in and head it in the right direction ;)

Hayden could have continued on had he been given the chance in ODI cricket. He saluted none of the crowds when he got out, rather got annoyed at them for giving him standing ovations for scoring 20. He had the intention to play on but the selectors preferred to go with the youngster Hughes... and what a great find he was.

It was only one and a half series, a miserly 5 matches with a top score of 30 (which he got off to a blazing start with 6 fours before Katich run him out ball watching). He wasn't in a really bad patch, no need to drop him when he did.

Hahaha would you look at that, I took the bait anyway :D
Click to expand...

For 2 years he averaged under 33, not good enough, even for a great.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;384458 said:
For 2 years he averaged under 33, not good enough, even for a great.
Click to expand...

As I said, 5 matches.

And in between he played two matches of domestic cricket, one of which he scored a 100 off less than that balls, hitting an in form Brett Lee for 7 an over by walking down the pitch to 150km/h balls.

He was just as influential as Langer, Ponting, Hussey, Martyn and the list goes on. They have all had much larger out of form patches and they weren't pushed to an early grave, especially those who were close to retirement at the time.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris;384462 said:
As I said, 5 matches.

And in between he played two matches of domestic cricket, one of which he scored a 100 off less than that balls, hitting an in form Brett Lee for 7 an over by walking down the pitch to 150km/h balls.

He was just as influential as Langer, Ponting, Hussey, Martyn and the list goes on. They have all had much larger out of form patches and they weren't pushed to an early grave, especially those who were close to retirement at the time.
Click to expand...

No actually he played 11 matches in those 2 years.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;384463 said:
No actually he played 11 matches in those 2 years.
Click to expand...

Of which only some of those matches were bad. He scored two fifties in his second last season before the South Africans, then those four matches were poor, but he got two bad decisions and was run out by Katich. One of those decisions is officially the worst I have ever seen too, wasn't as if he was outclassed that time.

Just saying he should have been around for the Ashes.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

So you think scores of:

0, 13, 0, 29, 83, 16*, 16, 77, 8, 0, 24, 12, 4, 8, 23, 31, 39

are good enough?

Obviously I'm taking it from the start of his bad run, but in 17 innings he had 9 scores between 0 and 20, 5 scores between 20 and 40, and 2 scores between 50 and 100, and one 16*.

Out of 16 innings, that is 14 scores that I would consider failures. As I have stated, that's not good enough.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;384468 said:
So you think scores of:

0, 13, 0, 29, 83, 16*, 16, 77, 8, 0, 24, 12, 4, 8, 23, 31, 39

are good enough?

Obviously I'm taking it from the start of his bad run, but in 17 innings he had 9 scores between 0 and 20, 5 scores between 20 and 40, and 2 scores between 50 and 100, and one 16*.

Out of 16 innings, that is 14 scores that I would consider failures. As I have stated, that's not good enough.
Click to expand...

Well maybe the old memory banks have failed me this time.

So if I pulled up Langer's past 11 innings, or 11 of Ponting's out of form innings or Martyn's last 11 innings they would be any better? Even Hussey, there are people calling for his retirement, but only after some years.

Hayden would have done a better job than Hughes in the Ashes, and after some ODIs maybe even in South Africa. If worst came to worst, Watson could have come in like he did anyway, and they would have been Hayden's end.

I don't like forcing players out who have past history at being out of form for some lengthy periods of time, but coming back first with a burst in ODIs and then magnificence in the Test arena. Who says he couldn't have done it again just because he was old? Hell, he showed us all up in the IPL.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris;384471 said:
Well maybe the old memory banks have failed me this time.

So if I pulled up Langer's past 11 innings, or 11 of Ponting's out of form innings or Martyn's last 11 innings they would be any better? Even Hussey, there are people calling for his retirement, but only after some years.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between 11 innings and 17 innings. For the record, Langers last 17 innings yielded 482 runs at 32.13 (as compared to Hayden's 383 @ 23.94). Martyn's last 17 yielded 482 runs at 25.2.

All of these players have one thing in common, they retired during their form slump. Arguing that Hayden shouldn't have retired is quite ridiculous, he was costing the team and he knew it.
Boris;384471 said:
Hayden would have done a better job than Hughes in the Ashes, and after some ODIs maybe even in South Africa. If worst came to worst, Watson could have come in like he did anyway, and they would have been Hayden's end.

I don't like forcing players out who have past history at being out of form for some lengthy periods of time, but coming back first with a burst in ODIs and then magnificence in the Test arena. Who says he couldn't have done it again just because he was old? Hell, he showed us all up in the IPL.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous as it's a what if, Hughes scored 415 runs at 70 in South Africa, I highly doubt Hayden would have done better than that. The point is, Hayden retired as a 37/38 year old averaging under 25 for more than 15 innings. He was a detriment to the team, he knew it, so he retired.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I know I'm arguing a stupid point here, and one that I actually said I wanted no part of to begin with :D

I am extremely biased as I know a lot of friends of Hayden, he comes from the area I come from and have played against the club he used to play for. I also have a man crush on him :p.

I have over analysed pretty much everything to do with his career, and everything I said would happen, did. I just had the gut feeling that it was the wrong decision by the selectors.

Could be called hanging onto something that no longer worked, but I really do believe he was on his way back. Time after time his form slumps when he has almost been dropped, ODIs have saved him and he blazed back into form. Everything pointed to him going on.

I also wonder if it was coincidental that the day after he was dropped from ODIs was the day he announced his retirement?
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris;384486 said:
Hayden batted better with his left pinky than Hughes will ever bat in his career.
Click to expand...

Big call there Boris. By the way, do you like earth or scrubbies?
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris;384486 said:
Hayden batted better with his left pinky than Hughes will ever bat in his career.
Click to expand...

Dunno about that one sunshine. I'd like to see Hayden's pinky average 70 in South Africa.

Hey, I suppose it'd average more than 23.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Mousey;384488 said:
Dunno about that one sunshine. I'd like to see Hayden's pinky average 70 in South Africa.

Hey, I suppose it'd average more than 23.
Click to expand...

Was only referring to Hayden's actual career, not what could have been.

I don't care if Hughes averages 60 in ten years time and has records after records, for me Hayden will always be the best cricketing story of a career in Australian cricket history. His career is a very great one, plus his attitude on and off the field, as well as the 'I don't give a shit how good your bowling is, it's going over the ropes or I'm getting dropped tomorrow' attitude. Really my favourite cricketer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top