Elliot should replace Langer

[Gaijin-san]

I think there was a degree of seriousness in it. Either way, it has nothing to do with it if he's Victorian. If he likes Elliot, that's his business :P

I don't, however.

 

[Linda]

In that case.

I think the entire australian team should be made up of warriors.


:P

 

[Gaijin-san]

The way they're playing their first class cricket at the moment, don't you mean 'worriers'?

 

[Linda]

Oh, ged, where's your WA spirit, hmm?

 

[Gaijin-san]

It went out with the 'Worriers' Pura Cup form years ago.

Sorry about the name, Linda, but I don't give them up easily

 

[Richard]

It may supprise you but Langer has avraged over 50 in his last 4 or 5 years of test cricket I hardly call that inconsistant.

Langer's Test-career series-by-series
As you see, one series (or two or three consecutive series) averaging between 40 and 90, next series (or two) averaging barely 30.

 

[marc71178]

Since he's become a fixture he's had 1 series below 30 - what terrible consistency.

Jesus, if you think of 40 in a seris as a mark for consistentcy, you really are a harsh judge.

Out of interest, is he one of the 30 players you rate above Hayden?

 

[Eclipse]

As you see, one series (or two or three consecutive series) averaging between 40 and 90, next series (or two) averaging barely 30.

I think you will find that just proves my point and that is he has avraged over 50 in the last 4 years.

Maybe you should look at other batsman as well because you may find a simular pattern no one can avrage 50+ every series you are going to have some bad ones.

Why dont you take it form somone who watches alot more of Justin Langer than you do he is fairly consistnat the odd bad patch and the odd very good patch but over the course of a year if you manage to avrage 50+ then thats all I care about.

 

[anzac]

and it could have been oh so different as Langer had a fair share of luck during that honeymoon period with all those incredible opening partnerships. The series v Pakistan & NZ come to mind......

 

[Richard]

Annoying, all the luck Hayden's had, ain't it?!

 

[Richard]

I think you will find that just proves my point and that is he has avraged over 50 in the last 4 years.

Maybe you should look at other batsman as well because you may find a simular pattern no one can avrage 50+ every series you are going to have some bad ones.

Why dont you take it form somone who watches alot more of Justin Langer than you do he is fairly consistnat the odd bad patch and the odd very good patch but over the course of a year if you manage to avrage 50+ then thats all I care about.

And you need to watch every series to know things such as consistency?
Don't be ridiculous.
No, of course no-one is going to average 50+ every series, but there's a difference between 80-30 and 35-50. Everyone has the odd bad series, but how many series' recently have Stephen Waugh, Ponting etc. averaged under 35?
I never actually said, did I, "Langer doesn't average over 50 in the last 4 years"? I simply said he's very inconsistent - which for my money he is. He's not inconsistent enough to get dropped more than once in those 5 years, but he's inconsistent.

 

[Richard]

Since he's become a fixture he's had 1 series below 30 - what terrible consistency.

No, actually he's had 3 - Sri Lanka 1999, 2000\01 Worrell Trophy, 2003 Southern Cross Series.

Jesus, if you think of 40 in a seris as a mark for consistentcy, you really are a harsh judge.

If the series' are played on the pitches that 13 out of the 18 were, 40 is something to be expected from a batsman hoping to keep his place secure beyond doubt.

Out of interest, is he one of the 30 players you rate above Hayden?

I'd say without doubt he's a much better player of seam and swing - all those years at Lord's will very probably have helped. Hayden had the benefit of honing his already considerable spin-playing skills at Wantage Road. However, when Langer's in one of his poor spells he's worse than plenty.

The point I was trying to make was:
Summer 1998\99: 42.63
Sri Lanka tour 1999: 12.75
Summer '99\'00: 59.5
Summer 2000\01: 28.00
Fifth Test 2001 & Australian home summer 2001\02: 87.44
Away series in SA 2001\02: 30.40
Pakistan "away" series 2002\03: 34.50
Ashes \ Worrell Trophy 2002\03: 60.40
Bangladesh series barely counts; he only played 2 innings', 71 and 1.
Thus far summer 2003\04: 12.00
And if you attempt the old "manipulating" argument you're again trying to get around the simple fact of chronological correctness, just like in the Ramprakash case.

 

[marc71178]

No, actually he's had 3 - Sri Lanka 1999, 2000\01 Worrell Trophy, 2003 Southern Cross Series.

Funny, since he only came a fixture after 2 of those series.

 

[Richard]

Funny, since he only came a fixture after 2 of those series.

Langer has not played in 4 of Australia's Tests since the Pakistan series of 1998\99.
He became a fixture then, believe me.

 

[Mister Wright]

Annoying, all the luck Hayden's had, ain't it?!

First of all, you make your own luck. If the English or any other players from any other team for that matter played as positively and as agressively as Hayden I'm quite sure they would have about as much 'luck' as him. The only touring player in the last 4 or 5 years to have a massive series against the Aussies is Michael Vaughan. He played with such freedom, skill, attacking flair and agressiveness that I have ever seen. It was a pleasure to watch this wonderfull batsman bat, and he had alot of luck during that series too. So, if teams were good enough to bowl consistenly well to Hayden I am sure he would have less 'luck'.

 

[Eclipse]

Hayden has had no more luck than any other batsman.

He was droped alot against England but I would not call that good luck England just could not catch for ****.

against other nations he does not give many chances.

 

[Richard]

He was very lucky the series before too, and the summer before that he had at least 3 let-offs that lead to centuries.
And just because England, like most people atm, cannot catch, that makes it not lucky for the batsman?

 

[Richard]

First of all, you make your own luck. If the English or any other players from any other team for that matter played as positively and as agressively as Hayden I'm quite sure they would have about as much 'luck' as him. The only touring player in the last 4 or 5 years to have a massive series against the Aussies is Michael Vaughan. He played with such freedom, skill, attacking flair and agressiveness that I have ever seen. It was a pleasure to watch this wonderfull batsman bat, and he had alot of luck during that series too. So, if teams were good enough to bowl consistenly well to Hayden I am sure he would have less 'luck'.

No, if teams could catch better Hayden would have less luck. If they bowled better he'd score even less than he does already.
Vaughan had one real slice of luck all series, none of which had anything to do with anything except poor Umpiring. On 19, he was caught and went-on to have 177 against his name.
The notion of making your own luck is a straw-clutcher's one.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, if teams could catch better Hayden would have less luck. If they bowled better he'd score even less than he does already.
Vaughan had one real slice of luck all series, none of which had anything to do with anything except poor Umpiring. On 19, he was caught and went-on to have 177 against his name.
The notion of making your own luck is a straw-clutcher's one.

Getting drop doesn't really have anything to do with luck - but it does have something to do with poor fielding. Hayden can't be blamed for fieldsman dropping catches off his batting. I thought you were talking about 'luck'...you know, just wide of slips, just clearing the top, edges past the stumps.

Keep this in mind, once the batsman hits the ball he has no control over what happens next. If he has done everything right, as in preperation to hitting the ball, balance, head down etc... a batsman cannot be held at ransom and being labelled - lucky, underated, etc. just because fielders can't catch. So therefore the argument of creating your own luck is not a straw-clutcher.

 

[Richard]

Getting drop doesn't really have anything to do with luck - but it does have something to do with poor fielding. Hayden can't be blamed for fieldsman dropping catches off his batting. I thought you were talking about 'luck'...you know, just wide of slips, just clearing the top, edges past the stumps.

Keep this in mind, once the batsman hits the ball he has no control over what happens next. If he has done everything right, as in preperation to hitting the ball, balance, head down etc... a batsman cannot be held at ransom and being labelled - lucky, underated, etc. just because fielders can't catch. So therefore the argument of creating your own luck is not a straw-clutcher.

And this is not a straw-clutch? This is one of the best I've ever seen.
The whole point is the batsman has no control over what happens after he's hit the ball (or not in the case of lbws). All that matters as far as his ability is concerned is whether he hits the ball in the air to a fielder or not.
It matters not whether it's the batsman's fault if a fielder can't catch. Because he doesn't lose anything through it. He gains something through it. Hence, what matters is if he deserves credit for it. And he doesn't.
Regarding edging just past the stumps, hitting the ball in the air within inches of fielders... yes, that's a bit lucky but not that lucky - you've done well enough to avoid getting out. There is no circumstance whereby this can result in dismissal. However, under normal circumstances a chance results in dismissal. Simple as.