Australians get off easy??

[Sanz]

Martyn nothing special? Did you see any cricket last year at all?

I dont know why you get so worked up everytime someone dismisses Martyn's batting. Yes Martyn is nothing special when Aus are chasing a decent score to win or save a game.

 

[marc71178]

Warne's behaviour reminds me of when I was a kid. My mum had taken a lollipop from me - and I was not happy about it.

Did you get fined 50% of your pocket money for dissent?

 

[Top_Cat]

I dont know why you get so worked up everytime someone dismisses Martyn's batting. Yes Martyn is nothing special when Aus are chasing a decent score to win or save a game.

That's because Martyn has generally done the job in the first dig (when it really matters) and this situation hasn't materialised very often. To say he's then nothing special is looking for an excuse to denigrate him. The facts are, Australia has won more Tests in the last two years than they would have without him which says enough.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I dont know why you get so worked up everytime someone dismisses Martyn's batting. Yes Martyn is nothing special when Aus are chasing a decent score to win or save a game.

Right... which is why he performed consistently last year in those situations, is it? You already know the games, so there's no need for me to point them out, but frankly that's about the last criticism one could reasonably level at Martyn.

 

[Linda]

I dont know why you get so worked up everytime someone dismisses Martyn's batting. Yes Martyn is nothing special when Aus are chasing a decent score to win or save a game.

Didnt you see any of Sri Lanka 04, or India 04?
In other words, your wrong.

 

[Sanz]

Didnt you see any of Sri Lanka 04, or India 04?
In other words, your wrong.

I watched him in Mumbai where Aus need 100 runs to win the game, guess what was Martyn's contribution ?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I watched him in Mumbai where Aus need 100 runs to win the game, guess what was Martyn's contribution ?

South Africa in 94, anyone?

Martyn clearly can't bat at all under any sort of pressure. Durr!

 

[Sanz]

That's because Martyn has generally done the job in the first dig (when it really matters) and this situation hasn't materialised very often. To say he's then nothing special is looking for an excuse to denigrate him. The facts are, Australia has won more Tests in the last two years than they would have without him which says enough.

Martyn is a good batsman, infact very good batsman, but there are atleast 15-20(4 in the aussie team itself) international batsman who are as good as him or better than him.

 

[Top_Cat]

I watched him in Mumbai where Aus need 100 runs to win the game, guess what was Martyn's contribution ?

: blink

He scored two tons and a 97 in that series AND scored a half-ton in the first innings of that match! And after all of that, you expected him to drag himself up to win that match for Australia as well?!? He's not Superman; After two energy-sapping tons (one of which he saved Australia from almost certain defeat, again putting paid to your ridiculous assertion that he's suspect under pressure in the second-innings of a match), he could be forgiven for being a little weary!

 

[Top_Cat]

Martyn is a good batsman, infact very good batsman, but there are atleast 15-20(4 in the aussie team itself) international batsman who are as good as him or better than him.

Overall, maybe you have a point about players being equal to him. But in the last two years, he's been Australia's best batsman. I don't even need to say much on this one because his record speaks for itself.

 

[Sanz]

South Africa in 94, anyone?

Martyn clearly can't bat at all under any sort of pressure. Durr!

Err yeah Aus were chasing 116 to win, Martyn scored a HUGE SIX.

 

[Sanz]

: blink

He scored two tons and a 97 in that series AND scored a half-ton in the first innings of that match! And after all of that, you expected him to drag himself up to win that match for Australia as well?!? He's not Superman; After two energy-sapping tons (one of which he saved Australia from almost certain defeat, again putting paid to your ridiculous assertion that he's suspect under pressure in the second-innings of a match), he could be forgiven for being a little weary!

In none of those matches Australia were chasing a score to win. I didn't say Martyn can't bat. I said he is nothing special when chasing a score. So far you haven't proved me wrong and I dont know how you can call my assertions as ridiculous when the stats clearly support it.

 

[Top_Cat]

In none of those matches Australia were chasing a score to win. I didn't say Martyn can't bat. I said he is nothing special when chasing a score. So far you haven't proved me wrong and I dont know how you can call my assertions as ridiculous when the stats clearly support it.

Okay so explain why you think he's 'nothing special' in those situations. Because if you're just pointing it out and have no reason, well what's the point? Is it actually a relevant point to explain anything or just a bit of random trivia?

 

[Dasa]

Okay so explain why you think he's 'nothing special' in those situations. Because if you're just pointing it out and have no reason, well what's the point? Is it actually a relevant point to explain anything or just a bit of random trivia?

Martyn does average only 23.67 in the 4th innings (less including the 2nd Ashes Test) - of course he's only played 12 innings in the 4th innings. It does suggest though that he isn't as reliable in the 4th innings as he normally. For comparison, Langer averages 44.67,Hayden 44.76, Ponting 45.86, Vaughan 33.95, Tendulkar 34.88, Lara 38.00 and Dravid 50.53.

 

[Sanz]

Okay so explain why you think he's 'nothing special' in those situations. Because if you're just pointing it out and have no reason, well what's the point? Is it actually a relevant point to explain anything or just a bit of random trivia?

As Dasa posted, he averages only 23.66 in 4th innings. Agreed that he doesn't get many opportunities to prove himself and has batted only 12 times, still out of that he has been out on duck 3 times, other scores are 6,4, 21,30,40,28,17*,34*,33* not a single 50. So nothing much to brag about.

Even in ODIs when chasing a score his averages drops by 12 runs/innings. While batting 1st he scores a 50+ score every 3.5 innings, whereas this conversion rate more than doubles(7.2) while batting second.Once again it confirms my opinion that he is nothing special infact ordinary when chasing a target.

 

[Smudge]

"Australians get off easily??"

We all know Warne does.

Badoomtish. Thank you thank you I'm here all week try the baked beans.

You waited four pages for that?

 

[Top_Cat]

As Dasa posted, he averages only 23.66 in 4th innings. Agreed that he doesn't get many opportunities to prove himself and has batted only 12 times, still out of that he has been out on duck 3 times, other scores are 6,4, 21,30,40,28,17*,34*,33* not a single 50. So nothing much to brag about.

Even in ODIs when chasing a score his averages drops by 12 runs/innings. While batting 1st he scores a 50+ score every 3.5 innings, whereas this conversion rate more than doubles(7.2) while batting second.Once again it confirms my opinion that he is nothing special infact ordinary when chasing a target.

I'm not denying Martyn's lesser record in those situations. I'm asking why it matters at all. He does the job in the first dig when it matters most because many, many more matches are won in the first-innings than the second.

And of those scores, here are the matches where his batting in the fourth innings, whilst not having the opportunity for a big score, he's guided Australia to a win;

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1999-2000/AUS_IN_NZ/SCORECARDS/AUS_NZ_T2_24-28MAR2000.html

I remember this one very well; if it wasn't for Martyn and his excellent 34* in partnership with Gilchrist, Australia may well have lost the match.

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2000-01/WI_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/WI_AUS_T3_15-19DEC2000.html

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001/AUS_IN_ENG/SCORECARDS/AUS_ENG_T3_02-06AUG2001.html

Of the others, here are the ones where he scored a decent knock in the first dig in the context of the matches, making the score needed to win in the fourth innings less;

http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1993-94/RSA_IN_AUS/RSA_AUS_T2_02-06JAN1994.html

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/AUS_IND_T4_03-07NOV2004.html

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1999-2000/AUS_IN_NZ/SCORECARDS/AUS_NZ_T3_31MAR-04APR2000.html

http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2001-02/NZ_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/NZ_AUS_T3_30NOV-04DEC2001.html

So after scoring well in the first innings of these matches, Martyn could definitely have been said to have done his bit. And you expect him to then back up with a decent score to save the Aussies in the second innings as well? What about the responsibility of the other batsmen? Don't you think it's unfair to expect that having scored well in the first innings, the other batsmen then rely on him again to get them out of the hole they've made?

This is a perfect example of why the raw numbers do not tell the whole story in this instance. You posting his sequence of scores completely ignores the state of the match (such as when Australia were chasing small totals and Martyn scored an important, but small, innings) and what he did in the first dig (which definitely has an effect on what he does in the second dig due to fatigue, etc.). It's also, by virtue of the small sample size (12 innings) easily influenced by the introduction of a decent score if he gets one next time the Aussies are in that situation. I added 110*, for example, to the list and the average shot up by 11 runs. This is why drawing conclusions from small samples isn't done in the real statistical world because it often results in erroneous conclusions.

The reason I asked why it's important anyway is because who would you rather have in your side; a player who gets you into a winning position in the first-innings or a player who fails in the first innings and then only when he gets a second chance and effectively hands the destiny of the match over to the bowlers, scores well? As far as which situation occurs more frequently, the player who puts his side in a winning position first-up is far more valuable and will win you more matches than a player who scores in the second innings.

 

[Sanz]

I
So after scoring well in the first innings of these matches, Martyn could definitely have been said to have done his bit. And you expect him to then back up with a decent score to save the Aussies in the second innings as well? What about the responsibility of the other batsmen? Don't you think it's unfair to expect that having scored well in the first innings, the other batsmen then rely on him again to get them out of the hole they've made?

Why is it unfair ? There is no such thing as doing your BIT when you are playing for a team. Imagine the day when Mcgrath says to his fellow bowlers , look fellas I have done my job of taking 3 wickets, now it is your responsibility to take remaining 6 wickets. Martyn as the premier batsman of his team has an added responsibility to bat in every innings. As for responsibility of his fellow batsmen, almost each one of them scores better than Martyn in fourth innings of a test match and most of them have been as(if not more) consistent as him.

It's also, by virtue of the small sample size (12 innings) easily influenced by the introduction of a decent score if he gets one next time the Aussies are in that situation.

It was a small sample in Tests, but ODIs he had a faily big sample and the ODIs do indicate that his scoring is significantly affected while chasing.

The reason I asked why it's important anyway is because who would you rather have in your side; a player who gets you into a winning position in the first-innings or a player who fails in the first innings and then only when he gets a second chance and effectively hands the destiny of the match over to the bowlers, scores well? As far as which situation occurs more frequently, the player who puts his side in a winning position first-up is far more valuable and will win you more matches than a player who scores in the second innings.

Oh Please !! Ricky Pnoting scored a double ton at adeliade and it was not enough to win the test match, even Dravid scored a double ton in the same test which was not enough to win the test match either. What won the test match for India was the miraculous spell from Agarkar. It has been proved time and again that no first innings score (let alone one by an individual) is a match winning score unless your bowlers score big in both innings of the opposing team. Martyn has been lucky that he has played with bowlers like Mcgrath, Warne etc.

And as for me selecting a batsman, I will select someone who is bit more consistent in all innings.

 

[Top_Cat]

Why is it unfair ? There is no such thing as doing your BIT when you are playing for a team. Imagine the day when Mcgrath says to his fellow bowlers , look fellas I have done my job of taking 3 wickets, now it is your responsibility to take remaining 6 wickets.

That's not what I was saying and you know it. As as for doing his 'bit' Martyn has done a LOT on quite a few occasions in the last two years which has meant that Australia either hasn't had to chase big scores in the fourth innings at all or he hasn't been required to bat.

Also, the fact that Australia bats on just about every occasion they win the toss means that Martyn will so rarely bat in the 4th innings of a match (12 innings out of 93 so far), this stat becomes so low-percentage as to render it insignificant. This has been my point all along; his stats may be low in 4th innings but considering his importance to the team cause in the last two or so years and how many Tests his batting in innings other than the 4th has won Australia matches, who cares?

Oh Please !! Ricky Pnoting scored a double ton at adeliade and it was not enough to win the test match, even Dravid scored a double ton in the same test which was not enough to win the test match either. What won the test match for India was the miraculous spell from Agarkar.

So you're using a freak example to argue against that which happens far more often (players scoring runs in the first innings winning Tests more often)? How often has it happened that a player has scored a double ton in the first team innings and his team has subsequently lost the match? No where NEAR as often as a double ton in the first innings wins matches. This is a no-brainer.

Cricket isn't about blacks, whites and absolutes; it's about percentages. Australia proprotionately aims to get into winning positions with big first innings scores and then grinds the opposition down from there, arguing that it's easier to press for a win from in front than behind.Martyn contributes significantly to that goal and by extension, to big wins by Australia. That's why he's held in such high regard.

 

[Sanz]

So you're using a freak example to argue against that which happens far more often (players scoring runs in the first innings winning Tests more often)? How often has it happened that a player has scored a double ton in the first team innings and his team has subsequently lost the match? No where NEAR as often as a double ton in the first innings wins matches. This is a no-brainer.

Once again you are not getting my point at all. My point is that a huge score by a batsman in the first inning doesn't guarantee the win and Adelaide test was just an example( I had no other motive). I can give you many examples from recent times such asLara's 202 Vs. SA, as well such as Tendulkar's 241 @ Sydney, Sehwag's 201 @ Banglore (Vs. Pak), Sehwag's 195 @ Melbourne, Gibbs 183 @ Oval, Lara's 400 and many more scored in last 2 years. Despite those scores their teams didn't win the test. Not to forget that Martyn's has never made a double century.

Cricket isn't about blacks, whites and absolutes; it's about percentages. Australia proprotionately aims to get into winning positions with big first innings scores and then grinds the opposition down from there, arguing that it's easier to press for a win from in front than behind.Martyn contributes significantly to that goal and by extension, to big wins by Australia. That's why he's held in such high regard.

This is as ridiculous as one can get. Except from March 2004 to March 2005 where Martyn scored 7 100s and 6 50s, Martyn's contribution has been rather inconsistent ?