Brad Hodge WILL play for Australia in the next calender year

[deeps]

wat alarm clock incident?

 

[Craig]

Where the Victorian players were required for an early morning training session (Around 6am IIRC) and Hookes said that players who did not show up would get dropped, Berry spelt in, and Adam Crosswaite (sp) got his chance).

 

[Mister Wright]

Nope.

2003/04 was a superb season , no doubts , but 2002/03 was pretty ordinary , at one stage he was even dropped from the Victorian team by Hookes but then recalled the day before the match because Darren Berry had been left out and there was noone else to captain (the alarm clock incident).

Exactly. Hodge is not consistent enough. He will have one amazing season, and then follow it up with a dud. However, in saying that last season he did look a more mature batsman, not playing the rash strokes he has in previous seasons and concerntrating for longer than 25 mins (which is rare for a Victorian). We can only see how much he has improved this season.

 

[Hoggy]

Almost there......

 

[luckyeddie]

Almost there......

rising.... rising.... rising.... rising....

 

[Simon]

he wont play, but if he some how gets in there, he wont let anyone down...

 

[Waughney]

Yep, I don't think he'll play. But his selection proves that he is high in the pecking order.

 

[Richard]

TBH, it's poor selection to pick Clarke ahead of Love and Hodge.

 

[Waughney]

TBH, it's poor selection to pick Clarke ahead of Love and Hodge.

For the good of Australian cricket, I think it is the right desicion. Clarke is a class player and is quite possibly the future of Australian cricket, but he can't reach his full potential if the is sitting on the sidelines. He needs to get into the team, get experience, maybe get dropped and come back bigger and better than ever before (like every current Aussie batsman)
Love is OK, like Mark Waugh, but he just isn't cut out for the Australian team. He's too old to be a permanent player now.
Clarke is better than Hodge anyway. Hodge may be able to have a good time in first class matches, but I doubt his international career will be much of a sucess.
Clarke is the best selection.

 

[Mister Wright]

For the good of Australian cricket, I think it is the right desicion. Clarke is a class player and is quite possibly the future of Australian cricket, but he can't reach his full potential if the is sitting on the sidelines. He needs to get into the team, get experience, maybe get dropped and come back bigger and better than ever before (like every current Aussie batsman)
Love is OK, like Mark Waugh, but he just isn't cut out for the Australian team. He's too old to be a permanent player now.
Clarke is better than Hodge anyway. Hodge may be able to have a good time in first class matches, but I doubt his international career will be much of a sucess.
Clarke is the best selection.

Hodge aint no spring chicken either, he is only 9 months younger than Love.

Just think about this

Clarke's first class average: 37.83
Hodge's first class average:46.51
Love's first class average: 51.92

Hmmm. makes you think a bit doesn't it?

 

[Waughney]

Clarke's first class average: 37.83

Almost every player has a poor start to their career. Look at Hodges average at that stage.....

Hodge's first class average:46.51

Good. I'm not denying that he is a good cricketer, as I explained before, Clarke is the better option. He is also suscepatble to form slumps.

Love's first class average: 51.92

He is a great batsman, however how is he against spin? How long would he last in the AUstralian team?

 

[Mister Wright]

Almost every player has a poor start to their career. Look at Hodges average at that stage.....

Good. I'm not denying that he is a good cricketer, as I explained before, Clarke is the better option. He is also suscepatble to form slumps.

He is a great batsman, however how is he against spin? How long would he last in the AUstralian team?

Well Clarke is yet to prove to me that he deserves to be in a test team ahead of other more qualified batsman. His returns in England this winter were nothing short of terrible (for an Australian player). Every time I have seen him bat in a first-class innings he has wreaked of immaturity, and I doubt testing him in India is going to help that.

Hodge, yes deserves selection, but how is he against spin? He is one of the most inconsistent players in Australian domestic history, one season he will come out and play like Don Bradman, the next season like Glen McGrath. After a good season last year, wonder if he can back it up for the first time ever.

Love, yes, was inconsistent in the mid-90s but since then has been on a run-scoring spree. People say he was poor last year, well of course he was considering most people are comparing him to his 2002-2003 season where he hit double century after double century, his season wasn't spectacular, but surely wasn't bad enough to keep him behind Katich, Elliot, Clarke & Hodge.

The selectors like to change their minds on selections all the time. When Katich was selected ahead of Love, it was because of Katich's bowling ability. But then when Ponting didn't play against Sri Lanka Elliot was considered ahead of Love, because of his English form, but we saw how Elliot cannot do anything but open the innings.

I can't see that Hodge is that much better player of spin than Love. But then neither have been tested against high-quality spinners for the majority of their career.

 

[Waughney]

Well Clarke is yet to prove to me that he deserves to be in a test team ahead of other more qualified batsman. His returns in England this winter were nothing short of terrible (for an Australian player). Every time I have seen him bat in a first-class innings he has wreaked of immaturity, and I doubt testing him in India is going to help that.

Hodge, yes deserves selection, but how is he against spin? He is one of the most inconsistent players in Australian domestic history, one season he will come out and play like Don Bradman, the next season like Glen McGrath. After a good season last year, wonder if he can back it up for the first time ever.

Love, yes, was inconsistent in the mid-90s but since then has been on a run-scoring spree. People say he was poor last year, well of course he was considering most people are comparing him to his 2002-2003 season where he hit double century after double century, his season wasn't spectacular, but surely wasn't bad enough to keep him behind Katich, Elliot, Clarke & Hodge.

The selectors like to change their minds on selections all the time. When Katich was selected ahead of Love, it was because of Katich's bowling ability. But then when Ponting didn't play against Sri Lanka Elliot was considered ahead of Love, because of his English form, but we saw how Elliot cannot do anything but open the innings.

I can't see that Hodge is that much better player of spin than Love. But then neither have been tested against high-quality spinners for the majority of their career.

I can see your point, the other players may deserve selection more and may well score more runs. But Clarke can score runs too. He has been to India, and played well. If he is selected, the main reasons will be because of his amazing footwork and ability against the spinners and also his ability to break partnerships with his part-time off spinners. Hodge and Love don't offer this option and neither of them are very proven against spinners, let alone against them in India.
An oppurtunity to make it into the Australian side does not come often, and the selectors need to look to the future aswell. Who is more likely to carry Australian cricket in the years to come? Clarke, Hodge or Love? There is really only one obvious choice. The selectors need to take this chance to place Clarke in the side, give him some experience and help him grow as a player. He has proven himself capable (e.g. 130* or so against India in Hobart).
The positive reasons for Clarke being in the side far outweigh those for Hodge and Love.

 

[Mister Wright]

I can see your point, the other players may deserve selection more and may well score more runs. But Clarke can score runs too. He has been to India, and played well. If he is selected, one of the main reasons will be because of his amazing footwork and ability against the spinners and also his ability to break partnerships with his part-time off spinners. Hodge and Love don't offer this option and neither of them are very proven against spinners, let alone against them in India.
An oppurtunity to make it into the Australian side does not come often, and the selectors need to look to the future aswell. Who is more likely to carry Australian cricket in the years to come? Clarke, Hodge or Love? There is really only one obvious choice. The selectors need to take this chance to place Clarke in the side, give him some experience and help him grow as a player. He has proven himself capable (e.g. 130* or so against India in Hobart).
The positive reasons for Clarke being in the side far outweigh those for Hodge and Love.

So we should say to all up-and-coming first class players - "unless you're young and from New South Wales & some journalist see's you score an impressive innings, suddenly get the weight of the New South Wales media behind you, you can be one of the most consistent players in the domestic competitions for several years, but we aren't going to select you when your time comes because this guy is the future..." it is sending the wrong message. Clarke has plenty of time, and it has been a detriment to his career that he has been in the one day squad. It has kept him away from domestic cricket first-class exposure, which he obviously needs. The reason why Australia is so successful is because the players who are playing now have spent so long developing their first class skills.

 

[Mister Wright]

Don't get me wrong I think Clarke has massive potential, he is a fine batsman, but he doesn't have that experience behind him which he needs.

He may very well prove me wrong, but I don't see why we need to rush him into the side.

 

[Waughney]

So we should say to all up-and-coming first class players - "unless you're young and from New South Wales & some journalist see's you score an impressive innings, suddenly get the weight of the New South Wales media behind you, you can be one of the most consistent players in the domestic competitions for several years, but we aren't going to select you when your time comes because this guy is the future..."

Not exactly.

it is sending the wrong message. Clarke has plenty of time, and it has been a detriment to his career that he has been in the one day squad. It has kept him away from domestic cricket first-class exposure, which he obviously needs. The reason why Australia is so successful is because the players who are playing now have spent so long developing their first class skills.

And guess why they were spending time in domestic cricket first-class cricket? Because they had been into the Australian team, got some experience and extra desire, did the hard yards in domestic cricket and came back stronger than ever.

Clarke has plenty of time

Two years ago it was 'I'm only 21 years of age'
Last year it was 'I'm only 22 years of age'
And this year.....
As I said before, the chance to play in the Aussie cricket team doesn't come too often, so there is no need to wait, get him into the team.

 

[Mister Wright]

And guess why they were spending time in domestic cricket first-class cricket? Because they had been into the Australian team, got some experience and extra desire, did the hard yards in domestic cricket and came back stronger than ever.

So you only have that desire if you've been in the team, then dropped?

Two years ago it was 'I'm only 21 years of age'
Last year it was 'I'm only 22 years of age'
And this year.....
As I said before, the chance to play in the Aussie cricket team doesn't come too often, so there is no need to wait, get him into the team.

And how much quality first-class cricket has he played in that time, not much, he's been with the one day squad most of the last two years.

 

[Son Of Coco]

So we should say to all up-and-coming first class players - "unless you're young and from New South Wales & some journalist see's you score an impressive innings, suddenly get the weight of the New South Wales media behind you, you can be one of the most consistent players in the domestic competitions for several years, but we aren't going to select you when your time comes because this guy is the future..." it is sending the wrong message. Clarke has plenty of time, and it has been a detriment to his career that he has been in the one day squad. It has kept him away from domestic cricket first-class exposure, which he obviously needs. The reason why Australia is so successful is because the players who are playing now have spent so long developing their first class skills.

DO you even make a comment that's not solely based on the fact that you think every Queensland player should be in the team? You have some very good players up there too, but it just seems like every post is "well, let's replace such and such with X from QLD" and so on.........personally I'm not too concerned where the players come from, as long as they perform and we keep on going well (which means I can definately see the case against B.Lee! haha)'

The media don't pick teams, the selectors do. The media from each state is obviously going to write about players from there, as they'd assume that's what people in that area are going to be interested in. I live just south of the QLD border, and if you think what's written in the media up that way is any better, then you must be kidding yourself, but I never assume that this has anything to do with who gets picked in the team.

Two of the selectors are from QLD, if you've got an issue with who's being picked then maybe you should question their loyalties to their home state (which shouldn't come into it anyway).

You say that Clarke has been with the one-day team most of the last two years, but then on another thread you call for the inclusion of Symonds if Lehmann's out, hasn't Symonds been with the one-day team most of the last two years as well thus missing out on a lot of first-class cricket?

 

[age_master]

The positive reasons for Clarke being in the side far outweigh those for Hodge and Love.

not to mention that hes got a very positive attitude and is an excellent fielder both close to the wicket and in the outfield.

 

[Waughney]

So you only have that desire if you've been in the team, then dropped?

Pretty much, yes. A batsman grows, is more determined and is mentally tougher.

And how much quality first-class cricket has he played in that time, not much, he's been with the one day squad most of the last two years.

He has played some cricket and shown his potential. Also, as I explained before, there are many other reasons for his selection. Anyway, what's this obsession with FC cricket. He is playing international cricket, sure the games may be different, but none the less he is up against the best in the world.