Martyn dropped from test squad

[Top_Cat]

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.

Why the push for an allrounder, any allrounder? Just because England have got one?! If there's no allrounder up to the job, then there's no allrounder that should be picked for the sake of having one in the side. How many team picked four fast bowlers because the WI did it? How many did that SUCCESSFULLY? Not many I can assure you because the WI didn't pick four fast bowlers; they picked the four best bowlers in the WI who happened to be fast.

Pick quality first then decide on the mix if you have surplus. Picking a player for the sake of it or trying to turn them into something they're not has never worked long-term. Cases in point; Brendon Julian, Shane Lee, Andy Symonds, Michael Bevan, Greg Blewett or going back further, Tom Moody. All picked as all-rounders and persisted-with because of the 'we need an allrounder, any allrounder' mentality. We need a GOOD allrounder but if one isn't around, fine. Work with what we have.

 

[mavric41]

What is it with all the Hayden hatred here? 21 test hundreds and 6000 test runs at an average of 55 should give you a little leeway. If Hayden didn't get a hundred last test even I, one of his biggest fans, would have agreed it was time to look to the future. BUT HE DID and worked incredibly hard for it and had to change the way he played, which for most players is very hard to do. He did this with the pressure of every one calling for his head and not having a big test score for a while. This should buy him at least the WI series and deservedly so.

The problem with the scedule nowadays is there are very few tour matches to regain touch. When was the last time one of the full Australian team played for their states?

I thought dropping Damien Martyn was very harsh. The only things that saved Katich was that he occupied the crease a lot longer and the selectors don't want to hear him whinging in the papers (+ he's from NSW).

Martyn can come back, but dropping Hayden would have meant the end of his career. I don't mind that he was dropped from the ODI's. It should extend his Test career by giving him a break between tours.

It wouldn't surprise me if more of the older players become just test specialists. It wouldn't be unreasonable if Haddin came in for Gilchrist.

Watson coming in is a good idea as it allow him to plug up one end whilst bowlers such as Tait and Lee attack from the other. And he is quick when he wants to be. He can bowl in the high 140's. It would be great for him to learn from Glenn McGrath.

I really think that Hodge and Hussey are not part of the future but just stop gaps like Lehamnn was. Jaques should be the next long term batsman. If Katich doesn't shine in the next couple of tests, he should be brought in at 3 with Ponting dropping to 4. That way he gets the benefit of the experiance of batting with either Langer or Hayden and when either one of them gets the selectors tap, he can step up.

 

[howardj]

Um. What?! That a pretty cheap excuse.

Not really. The team comes first. It is of more value to get someone like Watson in there (who can give the side enormous flexibility) than extend Martyn's career by what would likely be only 18 months. Watson does average just shy of 50 with the bat in FC cricket. Who is to say he won't get 85% of the runs Martyn would have got. He can then more than make up for (hopefully) small shortfall with the ball.

 

[Mister Wright]

Why the push for an allrounder, any allrounder? Just because England have got one?! If there's no allrounder up to the job, then there's no allrounder that should be picked for the sake of having one in the side. How many team picked four fast bowlers because the WI did it? How many did that SUCCESSFULLY? Not many I can assure you because the WI didn't pick four fast bowlers; they picked the four best bowlers in the WI who happened to be fast.

Pick quality first then decide on the mix if you have surplus. Picking a player for the sake of it or trying to turn them into something they're not has never worked long-term. Cases in point; Brendon Julian, Shane Lee, Andy Symonds, Michael Bevan, Greg Blewett or going back further, Tom Moody. All picked as all-rounders and persisted-with because of the 'we need an allrounder, any allrounder' mentality. We need a GOOD allrounder but if one isn't around, fine. Work with what we have.

Couldn't agree more. Except for the Andy Symonds reference, he has been a success in ODI cricket and was only given 2 test matches, when the other players you mentioned there were given much longer to prove themselves (Shane Lee excluded as he dind't play a test).

 

[Top_Cat]

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.

Your post justified Martyn being dropped on form when on form, Hayden should have gone first. You simplify the issue by making the assumption that it was form alone when, if that's the case, it's very shaky argumentative ground and if you were a selector, I'd tell you as much. I know you said that Martyn's style makes him less likey to appear out of form but that's not the case; I've seen him out of form and he looks just as bad as Hayden has done.

 

[howardj]

Why the push for an allrounder, any allrounder? Just because England have got one?! If there's no allrounder up to the job, then there's no allrounder that should be picked for the sake of having one in the side. How many team picked four fast bowlers because the WI did it? How many did that SUCCESSFULLY? Not many I can assure you because the WI didn't pick four fast bowlers; they picked the four best bowlers in the WI who happened to be fast.

Pick quality first then decide on the mix if you have surplus. Picking a player for the sake of it or trying to turn them into something they're not has never worked long-term. Cases in point; Brendon Julian, Shane Lee, Andy Symonds, Michael Bevan, Greg Blewett or going back further, Tom Moody. All picked as all-rounders and persisted-with because of the 'we need an allrounder, any allrounder' mentality. We need a GOOD allrounder but if one isn't around, fine. Work with what we have.

And Watson shows no more promise than the aforementioned? Please I did mean any good all-rounder, though you'll probably be suspicious and not believe me. That's only directed at TC, by the way

 

[Top_Cat]

Couldn't agree more. Except for the Andy Symonds reference, he has been a success in ODI cricket and was only given 2 test matches, when the other players you mentioned there were given much longer to prove themselves (Shane Lee excluded as he dind't play a test).

Symonds was only a success when they finally started batting him as a top-order batsman like they should have done so from the start instead of a number 7 slogger who could then bowl some overs. I always thought it was ludicrous to pick him as an allrounder. When he was picked as a batsman first who could bowl a handy 10, well we all saw how well he batted.

And Watson shows no more promise than the aforementioned? Please

With the bat, you're absolutely right. With the ball........... The Aussie selectors seem to want him to bat at 7 and bowl 25 overs in a Test. He's too good a batsman and not good enough a bowler to do that.

 

[Linda]

Not really. The team comes first. It is of more value to get someone like Watson in there (who can give the side enormous flexibility) than extend Martyn's career by what would likely be only 18 months. Watson does average just shy of 50 with the bat in FC cricket. Who is to say he won't get 85% of the runs Martyn would have got. He can then more than make up for (hopefully) small shortfall with the ball.

Im to say he could very well not get 85% of the runs Martyn could have gotten.

But its all ifs and maybes anyway.. I hate those.

 

[Mister Wright]

Your post justified Martyn being dropped on form when on form, Hayden should have gone first. You simplify the issue by making the assumption that it was form alone when, if that's the case, it's very shaky argumentative ground and if you were a selector, I'd tell you as much. I know you said that Martyn's style makes him less likey to appear out of form but that's not the case; I've seen him out of form and he looks just as bad as Hayden has done.

First of all I don't think Martyn should have been dropped. Secondly, I think Hayden was very lucky to stay in the team as long as he did (I don't think he should have been dropped for the Ashes series but the selectors made an error not including another opener in the squad, especially considering Hayden's run going into that tour). Thirdly, my post was more to debunk the notion that Martyn was without his chances on the tour. He got just about as many starts as Hayden and didn't convert, and although he got those two bad decisions I got the feeling throughout the tour that Martyn wasn't playing for the teams position in the game or his career. In the likely event that the selectors saw the final test as somewhat of a 'bat off' between Martyn and Hayden - Hayden won and held his place.

Most of all I'm peeved that whenever I say something negative about a non-Queensland player you rip out the 'maroon tinted glasses' reference especially considering in that post I did not refer to Martyn v Hayden, and I have supported both Jaques and MacGill who are from NSW.

 

[Mister Wright]

Im to say he could very well not get 85% of the runs Martyn could have gotten.

But its all ifs and maybes anyway.. I hate those.

If he gets 85% of the runs Martyn has been getting he will struggle to reach double figures...

 

[Mister Wright]

Symonds was only a success when they finally started batting him as a top-order batsman like they should have done so from the start instead of a number 7 slogger who could then bowl some overs. I always thought it was ludicrous to pick him as an allrounder. When he was picked as a batsman first who could bowl a handy 10, well we all saw how well he batted..

Couldn't agree more. It was so frustrating watching a proven top order batsman in both forms of the game bat so low, especially considering at the start of career he wasn't bowling that well. He seemed to bowl better when he batted up the order. I fear the same thing is going to happen to Watson.

 

[howardj]

With the bat, you're absolutely right. With the ball........... The Aussie selectors seem to want him to bat at 7 and bowl 25 overs in a Test. He's too good a batsman and not good enough a bowler to do that.

I think he's good enough to do the job that he did in Sydney, where the two spinners bowl most of the overs anyway. He's not good enough to be the third quick on a non-spinning wicket though. But he wouldn't need to be, as you'd be picking 3 quicks and a spinner on non-spinning wickets anyway (from positions 8-11 in the order). Watson would then be more than capable of being the fifth bowler. In short, I don't think the selectors have any intention of picking him as the 3rd quick (unless it's on a spinning wicket).

 

[Top_Cat]

Most of all I'm peeved that whenever I say something negative about a non-Queensland player you rip out the 'maroon tinted glasses' reference especially considering in that post I did not refer to Martyn v Hayden, and I have supported both Jaques and MacGill who are from NSW.

It's a hard one to leave alone, particularly when you've admitted to QLD-bias in the past. Shooting at barrels, fish everywhere in some instances.

Besides, part of me is just red-ragging ya.

 

[Linda]

If he gets 85% of the runs Martyn has been getting he will struggle to reach double figures...

Ooooh that hurt..

 

[Mister Wright]

It's a hard one to leave alone, particularly when you've admitted to QLD-bias in the past. Shooting at barrels, fish everywhere in some instances.

Besides, part of me is just red-ragging ya.

Haha! Fair enough!

I am a huge Queenslander, and have often been Qld biased to red-rag a few people myself, but when it comes down to it, I can see the merit in other players outside of the greatest state in the land.

 

[Robertinho]

Ooooh that hurt..

As Damien Martyn's significant oth.. stalker, how do you think the news has affected him?

 

[mavric41]

Haha! Fair enough!

I am a huge Queenslander, and have often been Qld biased to red-rag a few people myself, but when it comes down to it, I can see the merit in other players outside of the greatest state in the land.

Yeah me too. Although at times it hurts to admit it.

 

[Top_Cat]

I am a huge Queenslander, and have often been Qld biased to red-rag a few people myself, but when it comes down to it, I can see the merit in other players outside of the greatest state in the land.

Huh? How did South Australia come into the conversation?

 

[Mister Wright]

Yeah me too. Although at times it hurts to admit it.

Doesn't it just!?

 

[mavric41]

Huh? How did South Australia come into the conversation?

lol