Martyn dropped from test squad

[age_master]

Originally Posted by James90

I don't know what the selectors see in James Hopes. He had a good season but isn't a good enough batsman or bowler alone to deserve a place for Queensland. Obviously his ability to open the batting was taken into account but I can't imagine him being affective against the likes of Pollock and whoever else is in the World XI team.

i dont think Hopes will open in the World XI games, Clarke, Katich or Martyn are more likley to i would say

[greg]

This is slightly O/T but isn't there an argument for saying that this Australian squad has basically killed the whole concept of the Super Series stone dead? It makes no sense unless Australia are picking their best team, and there can be no doubt that as things stand Martyn is part of Australia's best team.

FWIW it seems to me that the Australian selectors just don't like him and have jumped at the first opportunity to get rid of him. Of all the players who didn't perform in the Ashes it seemed to me that Martyn was the one most clearly in bad form, rather than having been "found out" or in long term decline. It was a classic formula, seen so many times before, of a batsman starting OK, getting a few dodgy decisions or inconsequential dismissals (the runout) and then failing to ever recover any sort of momentum.

Gilchrist just looked basically clueless throughout the series, and if Hayden has to score at 2 an over in perfect conditions with the ball barely swinging to have any success in his future career then one must ask if it's really worth him hanging around.

Anyway, as an Englishman I'm loving it!!

[social]

The last 2 innings that Martyn played in the Ashes were amongst the worst I have ever seen him play and his form throughout the tour was ordinary at best.

However, his form over the past few years should have been his saviour. He is a very fine player that should have commanded more loyalty.

I applaud the selections of both Watson AND Hopes.

Whilst I have never rated the latter, he always seems to perform when selected and his 146 in unfamiliar conditions and position demanded consideration.

I just hope that this ushers in a new era of selectors picking on the basis of performance.

[sqwerty]

8 tons last calender year obviously wasn't enough.

I'd say Martyn's been flicked as much for his lack of commitment as anything else. He's never been much of a team man by all reports

[Dasa]

Geez I read this on Cricinfo and was flabbergasted...I can't believe Martyn has been axed for just one bad series. I fully expected to see Hayden get axed, but not Martyn. Like others, I can't see the logic of axing him only from the Test squad...in ODIs he's not 'great', and at any rate ODIs are a better medium for trying out new talent.

[Robertinho]

Martyn shouldn't have been dropped at all, Katich would have been my #1 candidate.

Anyway, possible test team:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Clarke
Katich
Watson
Gilchrist
Warne
Tait
McGrath
MacGill

ODI:
Gilchrist
Clarke
Ponting
Martyn
Symonds
Watson
Hussey
Hogg
Lee
Bracken
McGrath

Not sure about the ODI - embarrassed to say it but I don't know Hogg or Bracken that well.

[howardj]

When you think about it, there are invariably some very harsh calls made when the Australian team loses a series. Going back to 1996, Australia lost a one-off Test to India, and Michael Slater (averaging 47 at the time) was dumped. When Australia missed the finals of the VB tournament in 2001/02, the captain, Steve Waugh was dumped. When Australia lost to India in 2001, Justin Langer was dumped, despite averaging over 50 in Australia's streak of 16 straight Test wins (a streak which ended in that series). Put simply, it's the climate created by Australia losing a series, which results in players being axed, as much as the actual performance of the player themselves.

[greg]

Originally Posted by howardj

When you think about it, there are invariably some very harsh calls made when the Australian team loses a series. Going back to 1996, Australia lost a one-off Test to India, and Michael Slater (averaging 47 at the time) was dumped. When Australia missed the finals of the VB tournament in 2001/02, the captain, Steve Waugh was dumped. When Australia lost to India in 2001, Justin Langer was dumped, despite averaging over 50 in Australia's streak of 16 straight Test wins (a streak which ended in that series). Put simply, it's the climate created by Australia losing a series, which results in players being axed, as much as the actual performance of the player themselves.

Wasn't Langer axed because he couldn't buy a run in the warm-up games on the 2001 Ashes tour? From memory he was expected to be in the first choice team. Basically he was given a chance to keep his place and didn't take it. They could have presumably given Martyn the same opportunity in the one off game vs RoW.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by greg

Wasn't Langer axed because he couldn't buy a run in the warm-up games on the 2001 Ashes tour? From memory he was expected to be in the first choice team.

still an incumbent with good form, in test matches, immediately prior to being dropped though. selectors just view things through a different prism after a series loss.

[greg]

Originally Posted by howardj

still an incumbent with good form, in test matches, immediately prior to being dropped though. selectors just view things through a different prism after a series loss.

But in Langer's case, the fact that he was brought back in at the Oval suggests that it had far more to do with poor form.

[Slow Love™]

Originally Posted by greg

This is slightly O/T but isn't there an argument for saying that this Australian squad has basically killed the whole concept of the Super Series stone dead? It makes no sense unless Australia are picking their best team, and there can be no doubt that as things stand Martyn is part of Australia's best team.

FWIW it seems to me that the Australian selectors just don't like him and have jumped at the first opportunity to get rid of him. Of all the players who didn't perform in the Ashes it seemed to me that Martyn was the one most clearly in bad form, rather than having been "found out" or in long term decline. It was a classic formula, seen so many times before, of a batsman starting OK, getting a few dodgy decisions or inconsequential dismissals (the runout) and then failing to ever recover any sort of momentum.

I agree with all this - and Ian Chappell was cautioning the same thing a few days ago. The Super Series is meant to showcase the best vs the best, and not be used by the Aussie selectors as a tryout for new players. It undermines the entire concept.

And drastic measures or not, Martyn shouldn't have been the player to go. It would not surprise me in the slightest if he plays in the first test against WI.

[Nnanden]

Stuff Bracken, Watson.

But Martyn!

[howardj]

Originally Posted by greg

But in Langer's case, the fact that he was brought back in at the Oval suggests that it had far more to do with poor form.

youve lost me. i wasnt debating why they were dropped, just that they were, despite good for against international sides. never mind.

[Top_Cat]

The fact they dropped Martyn from the Test side, I think, is to put him on notice because on form, dropping him from Tests but keeping him in the ODI side is nonsensical. You get the feeling that there were a few more reasons other than performance for dropping him and keeping him in the ODI side seems like they've taken some sort of disciplinary measure because he was sawn-off in three innings in the series and when he did get a decent start, looked solid. It's possible a reason to the two soft dismissals in the second Test might have been noted, for example. I dunno, maybe he didn't appear cut up enough about it all. Certainly he wasn't playing a missing regularly like Hayden or getting out to the same sorts of deliveries like Gilchrist. A decent score, one got the feeling with Martyn, was only around the corner.

How on Earth does one player get 30 innings to score a Test ton and look pretty out of his depth all the way yet another has one bad series with plenty of bad luck to go with it and gets dropped? No, form is only one of the reasons I reckon. And picking Hopes, admittedly a decent prospect with the bat, for Hayden; WTF?

[greg]

Originally Posted by howardj

youve lost me. i wasnt debating why they were dropped, just that they were, despite good for against international sides. never mind.

I got the impression that you were arguing that after every Aus defeat the selectors have sought to make some hard decisions as a result of that. (call it scapegoating if you like) My point was simply that this was not really the case in the example of Langer. He was not dropped because of what happened in India, because at the start of the England tour he was earmarked to be in the Aussie's first choice team. It was only when he hardly managed to score a run in the warm up games that he was replaced by someone who was scoring runs (ironically Martyn). It was probably more akin to Kaspa's replacement with Lee in this series.