Martyn dropped from test squad

[Mister Wright]

How many people actually think that Martyn's career is over, though? I'd be very surprised if this were true - I'm going to wait and see what happens when the WI squad is announced.

Up for another bet?

 

[Slow Love™]

Up for another bet?

Haha, once bitten, twice shy....

 

[Linda]

Players who have struggled for a fair while generally don't get dropped the test after making a century. I think I read somewhere that Jones, Boon and maybe Geoff Marsh were all dropped about 3 tests after they scored a hundred.

Oh good, so we only have to wait until the 3rd Test until its bye bye to Matty? :P
I was referring to Martin Love vaguely... and yes, I realise you cant compare him to Hayden, but you know what? I dont care, Im angry.

 

[Top_Cat]

I wouldn't say he looked confident and assured on the Ashes tour. It can often be a mask to how a player is batting when they are as elegant as Martyn. As Robert Craddick said in one of his post-Ashes column even though Martyn did recieve two terrible decisions he wasn't excatly putting himself into a position with those shots where it was obvious he wasn't out.

1) Robert Craddock is a popularist Aussie yobbo when it comes to cricket. He know ****.

2) He looked better overall than Hayden, Katich and Gilchrist did all series, particularly Hayden and Gilchrist. He didn't just lose form overnight.

Some of the dismissals that Martyn got out to weren't that crash hot, being bowled by Giles and in particular his last innings.

I'd be interested to hear what you think he could have done to avoid being bowled by Giles with that ball. It was great ball, one of Giles' best.

 

[greg]

I'd be interested to hear what you think he could have done to avoid being bowled by Giles with that ball. It was great ball, one of Giles' best.

He could have got forward instead of sticking his frontfoot about 6 inches in front of the crease.

BTW everyone is completely ignoring one other crucial factor in all this. MERV HUGHES IS A SELECTOR. Does anyone really know what goes on in his head?

 

[Mister Wright]

I'd be interested to hear what you think he could have done to avoid being bowled by Giles with that ball. It was great ball, one of Giles' best.

Put bat to ball, maybe...

 

[Adamc]

Bah. I can understand Hayden being dropped from the OD squad, it's been on the cards for a long time now. Gillespie and Kasprowicz being dropped altogether is a bit harsh, but understandable nonetheless. Dropping Martyn, however, is sheer folly. He's been scapegoated once before; hopefully this time he won't have to wait six years to play another Test.

 

[Top_Cat]

He could have got forward instead of sticking his frontfoot about 6 inches in front of the crease.

Come off it. Have you ever faced a decent leftie-spinner? It was a great ball; the drift in and drop forced the indecision and by the time he made a decision, it was too late. It was just about the perfect leftie orthodox's dismissal.

So easy from the safety of the couch, isn't it guys?

 

[Mister Wright]

Oh good, so we only have to wait until the 3rd Test until its bye bye to Matty? :P
I was referring to Martin Love vaguely... and yes, I realise you cant compare him to Hayden, but you know what? I dont care, Im angry.

Martin Love wasn't an intrenched test player like Hayden is. He was a fill-in, however he should have been picked instead of Katich against Zimbabwe, that was a joke, on par with Martyn's dropping IMO.

 

[greg]

Come off it. Have you ever faced a decent leftie-spinner? It was a great ball; the drift in and drop forced the indecision and by the time he made a decision, it was too late. It was just about the perfect leftie orthodox's dismissal.

So easy from the safety of the couch, isn't it guys?

I was only pointing out how he could have played it (made easier by the fact that the ball pitched outside leg). Of course it was an excellent ball, made better to a batsman who doesn't usually move his feet much. That's not really in dispute.

 

[Pedro Delgado]

Quite baffled by this decision. If Aus can afford to drop somebody of Martyn's calibre then they must have some serious talent coming through. It'd be like England dropping Thorpe.

 

[howardj]

How many people actually think that Martyn's career is over, though? I'd be very surprised if this were true - I'm going to wait and see what happens when the WI squad is announced.

EDIT: And it makes even less sense to keep him on in the ODIs, if your theory is true.

Not really, I don't think they're worried about the succession plan for ODI cricket. The focus is on the World Cup - they would go there with Dad's Army if that was their best team. As long as they think the players can make the next World Cup, then they will be retained. With Tests, there is no such Holy Grail. Yes Martyn at the moment is a better selection than Watson. But they're casting their sights ahead, and probably figure that against the weak Windies, it's a good time for Watson to come into the team.

 

[Top_Cat]

I was only pointing out how he could have played it (made easier by the fact that the ball pitched outside leg)

And I was saying it's so easy to say 'he should have gotten forward'. You could say something like that for every dismissal there has ever been. Flintoff, for example, should have gotten forward to the ball which Lee bowled him with when England were chasing 129 to win. If he did that, he wouldn't have been bowled, right? How about the first dig at Lords; Flintoff was bowled by a ball which cut-in and kept low but seeing Vaughan's dismissal earlier and knowing that the ball would shape in down the slope meant that if he'd only gotten forward, it wouldn't have beaten him. And all Gatting had to do was to stick his pad out to the Warne ball and everything would have been okay. Yah right. Watching it happen and knowing what the batsman should have done is one thing, actually being at the business-end of such good bowling is another thing entirely.

The point is that the fact it was such a good ball that he didn't have time to make the decision to do so and Martyn was the same. You're acting like he actually could have done something about the ball when he did, technically-speaking, most of what anyone could have and it still beat him. Most players wouldn't have hit that one yet the way you're saying it, Martyn could still have kept it out when just about no-one would have. Martyn cannot and should not be criticised for getting out to a good ball.

 

[Mister Wright]

Not really, I don't think they're worried about the succession plan for ODI cricket. The focus is on the World Cup - they would go there with Dad's Army if that was their best team. As long as they think the players can make the next World Cup, then they will be retained. With Tests, there is no such Holy Grail. Yes Martyn at the moment is a better selection than Watson. But they're casting their sights ahead, and probably figure that against the weak Windies, it's a good time for Watson to come into the team.

Agreed (although I'd like to see Watson get a full domestic season under his belt before he is unleashed). But, wouldn't it make more sense to drop Martyn/Hayden after the Super Test for the W.I. then now?

 

[greg]

And I was saying it's so easy to say 'he should have gotten forward'. You could say something like that for every dismissal there has ever been. Flintoff, for example, should have gotten forward to the ball which Lee bowled him with when England were chasing 129 to win. If he did that, he wouldn't have been bowled, right? How about the first dig at Lords; Flintoff was bowled by a ball which cut-in and kept low but seeing Vaughan's dismissal earlier and knowing that the ball would shape in down the slope meant that if he'd only gotten forward, it wouldn't have beaten him. And all Gatting had to do was to stick his pad out to the Warne ball and everything would have been okay. Yah right. Watching it happen and knowing what the batsman should have done is one thing, actually being at the business-end of such good bowling is another thing entirely.

The point is that the fact it was such a good ball that he didn't have time to make the decision to do so and Martyn was the same. You're acting like he actually could have done something about the ball when he did, technically-speaking, most of what anyone could have and it still beat him. Most players wouldn't have hit that one yet the way you're saying it, Martyn could still have kept it out when just about no-one would have. Martyn cannot and should not be criticised for getting out to a good ball.

Don't disagree with any of that. I wasn't criticising him.

(I thought Flintoff could have played that McGrath delivery better btw He could have at least made it look better)

 

[Mister Wright]

And I was saying it's so easy to say 'he should have gotten forward'. You could say something like that for every dismissal there has ever been. Flintoff, for example, should have gotten forward to the ball which Lee bowled him with when England were chasing 129 to win. If he did that, he wouldn't have been bowled, right? How about the first dig at Lords; Flintoff was bowled by a ball which cut-in and kept low but seeing Vaughan's dismissal earlier and knowing that the ball would shape in down the slope meant that if he'd only gotten forward, it wouldn't have beaten him. And all Gatting had to do was to stick his pad out to the Warne ball and everything would have been okay. Yah right. Watching it happen and knowing what the batsman should have done is one thing, actually being at the business-end of such good bowling is another thing entirely.

The point is that the fact it was such a good ball that he didn't have time to make the decision to do so and Martyn was the same. You're acting like he actually could have done something about the ball when he did, technically-speaking, most of what anyone could have and it still beat him. Most players wouldn't have hit that one yet the way you're saying it, Martyn could still have kept it out when just about no-one would have. Martyn cannot and should not be criticised for getting out to a good ball.

That's all well and good to say, however Martyn did have 9 innings in the series and he was robbed in only 2 of them. He was lazy and ran himself out in one, played a terrible pull shot in another, was beaten (in some people's opinion) by a good one. He had more than enough opportunities to get a big score. The difference between his and Hayden's series is that Hayden finally converted one of those starts, Martyn didn't.

 

[Top_Cat]

That's all well and good to say, however Martyn did have 9 innings in the series and he was robbed in only 2 of them. He was lazy and ran himself out in one, played a terrible pull shot in another, was beaten (in some people's opinion) by a good one. He had more than enough opportunities to get a big score. The difference between his and Hayden's series is that Hayden finally converted one of those starts, Martyn didn't.

Hayden had 30+ innings and wasn't robbed in any of them yet remained in the side. Once again, try removing your maroon-tinted glasses. If form is the indicator, Hayden should have been dropped half-way through the series. Hayden finally converted one of those starts because he was given more successive out-of-form innings than Mark Taylor was and Taylor's run of outs eventually became embarassing for Australia. Any Test-quality player, given 30 consecutive innings to get out of a bad slump would have eventually scored a ton. And it was a pretty awkward-looking ton on an absolute road, by the way.

 

[howardj]

Agreed (although I'd like to see Watson get a full domestic season under his belt before he is unleashed). But, wouldn't it make more sense to drop Martyn/Hayden after the Super Test for the W.I. then now?

No, because then the selectors put themselves in the position where Martyn may peel off a quadruple hundred against the Rest of The World, then he fills his boots against the Windes (which he inevitably will) then the succession plan is buggered. Moreover, the need to get Watson, or any all rounder, into the side is greater than the need to prolong Martyn's career by what would only be 18 months anyway.

 

[Linda]

No, because then the selectors put themselves in the position where Martyn may peel off a quadruple hundred against the Rest of The World, then he fills his boots against the Windes (which he inevitably will) then the succession plan is buggered. Moreover, the need to get Watson, or any all rounder, into the side is greater than the need to prolong Martyn's career by what would only be 18 months anyway.

Um. What?! That a pretty cheap excuse.

 

[Mister Wright]

Hayden had 30+ innings and wasn't robbed in any of them yet remained in the side. Once again, try removing your maroon-tinted glasses. If form is the indicator, Hayden should have been dropped half-way through the series. Hayden finally converted one of those starts because he was given more successive out-of-form innings than Mark Taylor was and Taylor's run of outs eventually became embarassing for Australia. Any Test-quality player, given 30 consecutive innings to get out of a bad slump would have eventually scored a ton. And it was a pretty awkward-looking ton on an absolute road, by the way.

Get off your high-horse with this maroon-tinted glasses stuff. I have never proclaimed that Hayden shouldn't have been dropped and have said before that if the side wasn't winning Hayden would have been dropped. I was simply stating what happened, not what should have happened.