Scallywag said:
I must admit I'm curious as to who you would replace Hayden with.
Perhaps in the last two games Australia could have done with a slower start and a steady build up with Gilly coming in with 10-15 overs to go.
The statistics are misleading, and even so not that great with Langer. I don't see why we can't have two openers who'll consistently strike at 100 in good conditions, instead of Gilchrist scoring at 150 to make up for his partner. Just because you can cruise with Gilchrist at the other end, doesn't mean you should, the 15-over rule is there for a reason. Langer would be even worse than Hayden in this regard, not based on statistics, but attitude. I have watched him play many times in all forms of the game, he's not suited to ODI's, no matter how many times he wants to crossbat it in tests or square drive rookie kiwis serving up half volleys.
Hayden boasts about not watching the scoreboard, which goes a long way towards indicating his unsuitability in ODI cricket, His ODI average is inflated by easy run chases courtesy of a very good bowling attack (his second innnings average is much higher than his first). He's just better suited to the test dynamic. Both he and Langer can, relatively often, be agressive by the standards of the longer game, but that's still not aggressive enough (and I don't mean just hitting boundaries, they're perfectly capable of that when the field's in, although Hayden seems a bit off lately playing shots from the crease).
As to who I'd pick to partner with Gilchrist or ahead of Langer...
M Hussey (Better List A average than Langer)
D Hussey (Better List A average than Langer)
Jacques (Better List A average than Langer)
North (List A average more or less equal to Langer's)
Maher (Better List A average than Langer)
Katich (Better List A average than Langer)
Di Venuto
Dighton
Hodge (List A average more or less equal to Langer's)
Campbell/Haddin (but you can't have 2 keepers, obviously)
All have the advantage of being younger than Langer too, plus a number of young players with potential, who are much younger, could also be considered once they prove themselves. And I mention youth even though I consider it a travesty that Bevan is dropped due to age while Lehmann is retained and Elliott is offered a contract. If the selectors weren't hypocrites I might not have mentioned youth so much.