*Official* Zimbabwe in Australia Thread

[Eclipse]

I really wish people would stop going-on about Lee's strike-rate, it seems to be just about all people can find that is good about him.
The fact of the matter is that averages speak louder than strike-rates and in the last 3 years Lee's average has been going in only one direction, and that is up. He couldn't even average under 30 against Bangladesh.
Lee and Bichel might have been economical enough in this match, but I'd like to see them bowl in the 7 Tests against India, because I can't help feeling that Tendulkar, Laxman and Ganguly will punish them rather more.

Ganguly?? you have to be kidding this guy cant play pace for ****.

Lee avraged 28 in the series against West Indies on some very flat pitches I though he was quite impressive there. One of the spells to Brian Lara in particular was amazing.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Ganguly?? you have to be kidding this guy cant play pace for ****.

Lee avraged 28 in the series against West Indies on some very flat pitches I though he was quite impressive there. One of the spells to Brian Lara in particular was amazing.

I agree that he bowled some excellent spells and I especially recall that spell to Lara - I was there. However, the problem that he had was that he only seemed to bowl very well in concentrated spells, rather than consistently.

 

[age_master]

I agree that he bowled some excellent spells and I especially recall that spell to Lara - I was there. However, the problem that he had was that he only seemed to bowl very well in concentrated spells, rather than consistently.

yeah well, though hes like super fit, its pretty tiring bwoling at that speed for too long, which is why its great to have bowlers liekl Bichel, McGrath and Noffke, who can hande longer spells better, so lee can be sed more effectivley, as a wicket taker

 

[Mister Wright]

I can't believe that Katich has got a call up ahead of Love for the second test. The first thing I thought of was that Love might be injured but I remember reading in the paper that he was playing for University on the weekend. The second thought (and most disturbing, if true) is that Katich and Braken have only been called into the side because they are playing for N.S.W. and the match is to be played in Sydney.

If this is true I can't believe the selectors would be so blase as to just give players a spot in the team because the test team is playing in their state. From what I've noticed is that Australian selectors just don't hand out tests willy nilly!

If someone out there knows the reason why Katich has been selected ahead of Love please enlighten me.

 

[Richard]

I can't believe that Katich has got a call up ahead of Love for the second test. The first thing I thought of was that Love might be injured but I remember reading in the paper that he was playing for University on the weekend. The second thought (and most disturbing, if true) is that Katich and Braken have only been called into the side because they are playing for N.S.W. and the match is to be played in Sydney.

If this is true I can't believe the selectors would be so blase as to just give players a spot in the team because the test team is playing in their state. From what I've noticed is that Australian selectors just don't hand out tests willy nilly!

If someone out there knows the reason why Katich has been selected ahead of Love please enlighten me.

Love has every right to feel baffled and hurt.
However, at least Katich could feel the same, after 1 Test, 1 innings, 15 and a good delivery. He unquestionably deserves another chance. Just not ahead of Love in this instance. An unbeaten century was his most recent Test innings. It was unjustifiable enough for Martyn to get his place back when his recent Tests (all less recent than Love's) produced moderate returns.

 

[Richard]

There was a good line in the papers about Hayden' innings in comparing it to others on the high score list. It suggested that it should rate with the others because all of the scores were scored on very flat pitches. Any attack would have struggled against Hayden in the mood he was in on that pitch. Despite not being as elegant as some he gets the job done against all opposition in all conditions. You shouldn't stay in any side just because you look good. Hussain may have only played in a handful of tests if he was Australian. His average just doesn't cut it.

Lara's innings was also scored on a road of a pitch against ordinary bowling. Just because it was against England doesn't make it greater than Hayden's. Caddick and Fraser were mentioned as 2 of the bowlers in that game. Let's face it if Caddick doesn't get a wicket early he's terrible especially in the first innings and Fraser isn't that good a bowler.

So let's give Hayden his dues and leave it at that.

I very strongly dispute the notion that "if Caddick doesn't get a wicket early he's terrible", and even more so the notion that Fraser wasn't that good. Fraser was the best bowler England have produced since Willis and Botham, and but for his terrible troubles with injuries, he would almost certainly have played far more Tests, taken far more wickets and had a decidedly lower average. It's not just the one spell of 8\53 against West Indies - he has had many good spells (especially in WI) and has made large contributions to the winning of many matches.
Hayden gets the job done in all conditions? Don't make me laugh. On the rare occasion Australia have played in seamer-friendly conditions recently, Hayden has been exposed in full.
Sure, he gets the job done better than plenty when the going's good, but to suggest that any attack would have conceded 380 in that innings is ludicrous - just because most attacks are no more penetrative than Zimbabwe's, most are more accurate and would probably have prevented his scoring pace, which would most likely have caused frustration and dismissal. Probably after scoring 150 or so, but not 380.
Of course it's near enough impossible to score even 150 in uneven\seaming\swinging\turning conditions. Most professional bowlers are good enough to exploit them.

 

[iamdavid]

I can't believe that Katich has got a call up ahead of Love for the second test. The first thing I thought of was that Love might be injured but I remember reading in the paper that he was playing for University on the weekend. The second thought (and most disturbing, if true) is that Katich and Braken have only been called into the side because they are playing for N.S.W. and the match is to be played in Sydney.

If this is true I can't believe the selectors would be so blase as to just give players a spot in the team because the test team is playing in their state. From what I've noticed is that Australian selectors just don't hand out tests willy nilly!

If someone out there knows the reason why Katich has been selected ahead of Love please enlighten me.

The reason Katich has been selected ahead of Love is that the selectors wanted a like-for-like replacment for Lehmann, while Love made a hundred in his last dig he is just not the man they are looking for , they want someone who can bat in the number 6 position (Im not saying Love cant do that) , someone who feilds under the helmet (Katich does regularly while Love is a slipper) and someone who could bowl some handy spin (Love has bowled 1 over in his FC carear while Katich is in my opinion as good a bowler as MacGill).

The only reason Bracken was called up is that Noffke is injured , I still find it baffling that they are ignoring Matthew Inness but Bracken was certainly not picked simply because of his state of residence

 

[marc71178]

It was unjustifiable enough for Martyn to get his place back when his recent Tests (all less recent than Love's) produced moderate returns.

Love's "Test's" weren't that big a Test.

Martyn is proven.

 

[iamdavid]

Marc , Im kinda new here & Im just wondering whats up with all the Ajit Agarkar stuff?

 

[marc71178]

Marc , Im kinda new here & Im just wondering whats up with all the Ajit Agarkar stuff?

Goes back a long time to when he was declared a world class all-rounder by a few people who are long since gone. We now "worship" him.

 

[Neil Pickup]

It was unjustifiable enough for Martyn to get his place back when his recent Tests (all less recent than Love's) produced moderate returns.

Age_master, someone agrees with you!

 

[Top_Cat]

It was unjustifiable enough for Martyn to get his place back when his recent Tests (all less recent than Love's) produced moderate returns.

So? He was out of form, yet still managed to score a couple of pivotal half-centuries such as in Perth. He's proven whereas Love is not, therefore expendable. Just because a player is injured, doesn't mean you just say, "Well, you'll have to start again, mate!", particularly if he's a proven Test player and especially if his previous international innings was a gem like his 88* in the WC final.

Picking Martyn over Love was a little contentious , maybe but picking Love over Martyn on the strength of a ton against Bangladesh would have been nothing short of a scandal.

Love has bowled 1 over in his FC carear while Katich is in my opinion as good a bowler as MacGill

Sheesh, whatever you're on, man, up the dose............

 

[Andre]

Damien Martyn is a far better batsman than a lot of people credit him for.

He has ALL the shots, every single one, but has refined his game to succeeed at the top level.

Averaging 45 in Test cricket and 40+ in ODI is a fine achievement in any era - simply because he's no Ponting or Hayden, people bag him!

Well in fact, he scores just as quickly as they do, he just creeps up on people. Nothing extravagant, just good, strong, responsable strokeplay.

As for the Bichel baggers - the guy isn't the most talented in the squad, but what he brings to the team is a positive attitude and a will to succeed. He never ever gives in, so I'm going to say he's worthy of his spot.

And for the record, Cam White is far too raw for Test selection, and Brett Lee was picked on the basis that he would bowl at 150km/h. Nothing else. Whatsmore, he achieves what they have asked him to do.

 

[Mister Wright]

Love is my second favourite player, and I don't for one minute think he should be selected ahead of Martyn, unless Martyn has a suden form slump, which I very much doubt. But to pick Katich ahead of Love is a different story. Surely over the last year Love has been the next in-line, so therefore he should be the next batsman picked. If they were looking for an allrounder type, surely Andrew Symonds would have been the better choice.

 

[Richard]

Love's "Test's" weren't that big a Test.

Martyn is proven.

No, they weren't; England, West Indies and Bangladesh. All on pretty flat surfaces.
Nonetheless, they were all recent and they all came under the marking of "Test-match".
That's all you can base selection on.

 

[Richard]

So? He was out of form, yet still managed to score a couple of pivotal half-centuries such as in Perth. He's proven whereas Love is not, therefore expendable. Just because a player is injured, doesn't mean you just say, "Well, you'll have to start again, mate!", particularly if he's a proven Test player and especially if his previous international innings was a gem like his 88* in the WC final.

Picking Martyn over Love was a little contentious , maybe but picking Love over Martyn on the strength of a ton against Bangladesh would have been nothing short of a scandal.

Well, fair enough, basically you're saying that picking the team you reckon is likeliest to win the next match is more important than being fair to a player.
Even though the fact that Australia will beat Zimbabwe is almost a given.

 

[Andre]

I'm suprised at the reaction to Martyn's recall.

The last time an established senior batsmen was injured for a series, it was Ricky Ponting in 1999/2000 for the New Zealand tour.

Martyn filled in and was Australia's best batsman - by a fair margin, IMO.

So really, it's quite an old policy the selectors have adopted - showing faith in the tried and tested performers.

 

[Richard]

That's not a fact at all. Neither of them speak louder than the other in a factual sense. If you place more weight in an average, fine but that's entirely opinionative. My personal opinion is that it depend upon the bowler but in general, I look at strike-rates more than averages. Last I checked, a bowler's role was to take wickets and since strike-rates measure the frequency at which a bowler takes wickets, I'd put more stock in that than how many runs a bowler concedes per wicket. Again, my opinion though.

Fair enough - it's all about attitude and value. Personally, I place equal importance on strike-rate and economy-rate (average can be calculated from those two) in the First-Class game, and more importance on economy-rate in the one-day game.
However, the placement of more weight on averages than strike-rates is not opinionative on my part, just an observation. The first thing most people I know (personally and via the TV or Internet) talk about averages before they talk about strike-rates and economy-rates (RPO as it's sometimes called).
I'm not saying you're in a minority but you're certainly in the minority of those I have corresponded with.

 

[marc71178]

No, they weren't; England, West Indies and Bangladesh. All on pretty flat surfaces.

So you say I'm wrong, then back my point up - good arguing skills those!

 

[Neil Pickup]

OT: Just decided to try and put Zimbabwe's display in a good light (and give my PC a workout) so I decide to play Zimbabwe v Australia on ICC with Zimbabwe's bowlers bowling to nine third men.

The results...