• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Selection errors tally thread

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Glad to hear you were claiming he was in-form before this innings, and glad you knew beyond reasonable doubt that he'd look calm and assured (he usually does TBF).
Any fool can use hindsight, to use foresight takes balls. None of us would have done it but credit to the Aussie selectors they felt a change needed to be made and they made it. I thought it a poor call, Watto looking like he should have been there all along though.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
Glad to hear you were claiming he was in-form before this innings, and glad you knew beyond reasonable doubt that he'd look calm and assured (he usually does TBF).
Well he's been in good form for a while, since coming back from his back injury back in February, so I think it's fair to say the selectors would have thought that. Also, I was listening to Brett Lee talk in an interview a few weeks ago, and he was saying Watson's batting in the nets at that time was 'ridiculous' because it was so good.

In terms of calm and assured, I am pleasantly surprised. I didn't think he would look so much that way, and my recollection of him in tests previously is that he has looked anything but. Has looked ****-scared imo.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
But people like Katich have done it well. I don't think he'd done it before.
For every person who's done it well there's hundreds who haven't. In my estimation it (making someone open in Tests who's never opened much before) is a non-percentage decision and should only be taken when there's no reasonable alternative (ie if all your specialist openers are unavailable or utterly terrible).

The fact that it succeeded on a handful of occasions - as anything inevitably will if you give it enough chances to - is no justification.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
For every person who's done it well there's hundreds who haven't. In my estimation it (making someone open in Tests who's never opened much before) is a non-percentage decision and should only be taken when there's no reasonable alternative (ie if all your specialist openers are unavailable or utterly terrible).

The fact that it succeeded on a handful of occasions - as anything inevitably will if you give it enough chances to - is no justification.
If they felt that Hughes had to go, then that's what the situation was, surely?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well he's been in good form for a while, since coming back from his back injury back in February, so I think it's a good call. Also, I was listening to Brett Lee talk in an interview a few weeks ago, and he was saying Watson's batting in the nets at that time was 'ridiculous' because it was so good.
I've said before that how someone's hitting them in the nets is no use in judging form, or class. Nets are places to learn new tricks and hone what you have; the middle is the place to judge how good someone is or how well they're currently going.

As for Watson's recent form in the middle, UIMM the Northants game was his first game for months?
In terms of calm and assured, I am pleasantly surprised. I didn't think he would look so much that way, and my recollection of him in tests previously is that he has looked anything but. Has looked ****-scared imo.
If you weren't expecting him to look assured, it's hard to use that as a contributory factor towards a case of why you'd have opened with him.
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
But people like Katich have done it well. I don't think he'd done it before.
Actually the most successful current openers are makeshift. There are five current players with averages of 45+ at the top of the order (30+ innings), three (Katich, Sehwag and Gibbs) are openers. Michael Vaughan, who averages 46 opening, missed the cut by one week.

It's batting at a different position Rich FFS. It's not being asked to play baseball.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
If they felt that Hughes had to go, then that's what the situation was, surely?
Nope, Hussey would've been a better choice and I said so. Anyway, the idea that Hughes had to go is nonsensical IMO, he'd had 1 bad game. Absolutely ridiculous to drop him for this Test AFAIC.
 

pasag

RTDAS
It was about the extra bowling more than the lack of runs at the top of the order, IMO. It was either North or Hughes that had to make way and North has two tons on the tour already.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Actually the most successful current openers are makeshift. There are five current players with averages of 45+ at the top of the order (30+ innings), three (Katich, Sehwag and Gibbs) are openers. Michael Vaughan, who averages 46 opening, missed the cut by one week.

It's batting at a different position Rich FFS. It's not being asked to play baseball.
:laugh:

Didn't I read this post already today?
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Nets are places to learn new tricks and hone what you have; the middle is the place to judge how good someone is or how well they're currently going.
Not only do you rant about this like a broken record, but Watson is currently right in the middle of showing it all to be wrong. Hilfenhaus already has.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Actually the most successful current openers are makeshift. There are five current players with averages of 45+ at the top of the order (30+ innings), three (Katich, Sehwag and Gibbs) are openers. Michael Vaughan, who averages 46 opening, missed the cut by one week.

It's batting at a different position Rich FFS. It's not being asked to play baseball.
And regardless of the fact Sehwag, Katich and Gibbs are manufactured openers and have been successful of late, the fact is that long-term it's a policy that has little going for it. As Corey said a while back, most decent players should be able to bat anywhere in the order, but as a rule, they don't.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Not only do you rant about this like a broken record, but Watson is currently right in the middle of showing it all to be wrong. Hilfenhaus already has.
He isn't. No two cases prove it wrong when countless thousands of cases have already proven it right.
 

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
It was about the extra bowling more than the lack of runs at the top of the order, IMO. It was either North or Hughes that had to make way and North has two tons on the tour already.
Ponting did say that at the toss actually, didn't he? Makes it hard to disagree.

I know where Rich is coming from, most people on the forum last night/this morning thought it to be a poor decision. The difference, obviously, is a difference in ideology as to whether we can judge how good a selection was once play has started.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It was about the extra bowling more than the lack of runs at the top of the order, IMO. It was either North or Hughes that had to make way and North has two tons on the tour already.
In which case, as I say, Hussey should've opened. To bring Watson in was not completely without merit, I've never once said as such. But to prefer him to Hughes as an opener had nothing whatsoever going for it and until Watson started slapping it around I doubt you'd have found one voice on this forum saying it was a seriously good plan (some said it had a bit going for it IIRR, being Corey and Fuller).
 

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
And regardless of the fact Sehwag, Katich and Gibbs are manufactured openers and have been successful of late, the fact is that long-term it's a policy that has little going for it. As Corey said a while back, most decent players should be able to bat anywhere in the order, but as a rule, they don't.
It's not a long-term policy. It's a last-minute decision based on the (absolutely reasonable) feeling that Watson is more likely to score runs in this match than Hughes. Hussey could have opened, but the word from the Australian camp was that they wanted to combat Flintoff's skill with the new ball to left-handers. And Watto was presumably happier than Hussey to do it, and he has the technique to do it, and he's done it loads in ODIs.

Reasonable decision for me on all counts.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
I've said before that how someone's hitting them in the nets is no use in judging form, or class. Nets are places to learn new tricks and hone what you have; the middle is the place to judge how good someone is or how well they're currently going.

As for Watson's recent form in the middle, UIMM the Northants game was his first game for months?

If you weren't expecting him to look assured, it's hard to use that as a contributory factor towards a case of why you'd have opened with him.
Well, his Shield season for Qld (when most of these players last played FC cricket, and all but one match this calender year) got him an average of over 50. He then played 5 ODIs against Pakistan where he averaged 90, even though the batsmen generally struggled. And then he, apparently, looked excellent against Northants.

And I'm not saying I would have opened with him, fwiw I would have gone with Hussey although I can see the logic of stability in the batting order. I'm giving the selectors credit for picking someone who looked comfortable out there today and did a good job for his team in a slightly tricky situation.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It's not a long-term policy. It's a last-minute decision based on the (absolutely reasonable) feeling that Watson is more likely to score runs in this match than Hughes.
Didn't seem too last-minute to me - looked like they made their minds up a few days ago.

Either way that's not what I meant by long-term policy. I meant policy used (repeatedly) long-term. There have been many examples down the years of failure; there have, on the contrary, been a mere handful of examples of success.
Reasonable decision for me on all counts.
Did you mention this before the game started? If so I missed it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
I'm giving the selectors credit for picking someone who looked comfortable out there today and did a good job for his team in a slightly tricky situation.
IOW, you're saying they did well because their decision paid dividends. Not because they used solid reasoning to come to it.

Not the right way to go about things IMO, but I've known for a fair while that others - plenty of them - think differently.
 

four_or_six

Cricketer Of The Year
IOW, you're saying they did well because their decision paid dividends. Not because they used solid reasoning to come to it.

Not the right way to go about things IMO, but I've known for a fair while that others - plenty of them - think differently.
No, I'm saying that maybe it was me that was mistaken in my opinion on the batting order, not the selectors/Ponting.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
No, I'm saying that maybe it was me that was mistaken in my opinion on the batting order, not the selectors/Ponting.
Me, I'd say that if I was mistaken in something, I'd question why I ever held said belief ITFP.

Here, I don't. I maintain, and will continue to do so, that this was a dreadful decision which happened to pay-off, as some bad decisions do.
 

Top