Lehmann left out of Australian touring squad

[Jono]

indifferent form?
he scored 2 50s against NZ.

So what? Following your theory, he 'choked' in the first game against New Zealand because he was unable to finish the job for Australia by taking them to a winning total. 246 wasn't enough for Australia to win the game and Lehmann failed by getting out at a crucial time (44.6 overs) when Australia needed to lift and put the foot on the pedal. Thus it doesn't matter what he scored, because he didn't take Australia to victory, and that's his fault.

Just following your theory.

 

[tooextracool]

So what? Following your theory, he 'choked' in the first game against New Zealand because he was unable to finish the job for Australia by taking them to a winning total. 246 wasn't enough for Australia to win the game and Lehmann failed by getting out at a crucial time (44.6 overs) when Australia needed to lift and put the foot on the pedal. Thus it doesn't matter what he scored, because he didn't take Australia to victory, and that's his fault.

Just following your theory.

my 'theory' of choking is applied to players who do it all the time, which is clearly not true of lehmann. and i've never applied a first inning total in ODIs to say that someone choked, otherwise basically everyone to play the game is a choker.

 

[tooextracool]

Yeah come on, man you've never heard of players carrying injuries/illness's because they don't want to give up their place in the side? Hello, FLINTOFF?

hah, you carry an illness when the side needs you, and how much did the england side need flintoff? AFAIC had hayden played in that series or not, australia would still have won and he would still have kept his place in the side.

 

[marc71178]

Seven pronged, Hussey can bowl.

Hmm, and so can Andrew Strauss.

 

[tooextracool]

No Bichel was dropped for the previous seasons Summer's VB series finals and Bevan was dropped after the Sri Lankan tour. That is almost a year between droppings. It was good and allowed other players to feel comfortable in the team.

what the hell are you talking about?
there was a difference of 1 month between the VB series and the tour of SL. they were both not given central contracts at exactly the same time.

Let's agree to disagree.

fine, but i can assure you that lehmann has shown no problems against vettori this summer, which is one of the basis of your arguments.

Bullocks. If we are talking tests, Hayden's top score against Bangladesh is something like 51, and he has only played two test against Zimbabwe, so to say he has scored the bulk of his runs against this two nations is ridiculous.

even though we are so obviously not? how many times do i have to say it, tests are tests,ODIs are ODIs, they are 2 separate things.

If we are talking ODIs the same can be said, IIRC Hayden would have only played Bangladesh at the previous Champions Trophy, and maybe a few games here and there, and over the last few years would have barely played against Zimbabwe. I will admit he has not got as many centuries as he should have, but the way the team has played the last few years, that is understandable..

err since last world cup:
hayden vs WI - 26.50(6 games)
vs b'desh - 88.00(3 games)
tvs cup - 34(6 games)- goes down even further if you dont consider the 51* against NZ chasing 97!
vb series 03/04 - 47.22(9 games)
vs SL - 37(4 games)
vs zimbabwe- 43
videocon cup - 44(2 games)- even worse considering that the 59 came off 114 balls and basically slowed the entire side down.
icc championships - 29(3 games)
chappell hadlee trophy- 28(2 games)
vb series - 10.50(4 games)
let me hear you say that that is not indifferent form.

If that were the case, than anyone going through some kind of form slump would have had an injury. .

This injury has turned out to be quite serious, he was at risk of not touring New Zealand - his lung capacity was down to 42%. Had the team know the seriousness of the injury in the first place, I doubt he would have played at all during the VB series.

he was given the chance to rest, yet he decided to come back. AFAIC if his condition was severe he wouldnt have come back, its as simple as that.

Of course not, but my point was that technically Martyn replaced Mark Waugh not Lehmann.

even though the point has no relevance to this argument at all? you initially suggested that they put faith in martyn when waugh was gone, and it payed off, well clearly that wasnt something that required genius.

Domestic form does not matter, if that were the case Bichel would have been rushed back into the Australian team months ago, along with Bevan.

coughaustralian selectors are stupidcough

The fact is the two were not performing well enough in the International side to warrant a place with so many other strong contenders sitting on the wings.

and hayden does doesnt he? what rubbish, clarke is performing far far better than hayden can possibly imagine. and please, it wasnt too long ago before that that bevan was still getting australia out of jail in several situations.

Add to the fact that the Australian team's tactics had evolved where they would attack almost all the way through the 50 overs and Bevan really doesn't do that.

rubbish, you do realise that no team can attack through 50 overs of every game dont you?
just look at their recent games, how many of those games have been scores of around 240-250? isnt that what bevan was best at?

 

[Mister Wright]

what the hell are you talking about?
there was a difference of 1 month between the VB series and the tour of SL. they were both not given central contracts at exactly the same time.

Fair enough, however they were not dropped at the same time - like you said.

even though we are so obviously not? how many times do i have to say it, tests are tests,ODIs are ODIs, they are 2 separate things.

It is not as simple as that. If players are playing both forms (or just one form) they can perform poorly in one form & not the other. However a player can be out of form in both forms over a summer, because they are purely out of form, which clearly is what Lehmann & Hayden have been.

err since last world cup:
hayden vs WI - 26.50(6 games)
vs b'desh - 88.00(3 games)
tvs cup - 34(6 games)- goes down even further if you dont consider the 51* against NZ chasing 97!
vb series 03/04 - 47.22(9 games)
vs SL - 37(4 games)
vs zimbabwe- 43
videocon cup - 44(2 games)- even worse considering that the 59 came off 114 balls and basically slowed the entire side down.
icc championships - 29(3 games)
chappell hadlee trophy- 28(2 games)
vb series - 10.50(4 games)
let me hear you say that that is not indifferent form.

That clearly is indifferent form, but apart from the truely great players how many openers over that period of time, aren't inconsistent.

he was given the chance to rest, yet he decided to come back. AFAIC if his condition was severe he wouldnt have come back, its as simple as that.

No, it isn't. He was playing for his spot in the side, and he may not have known the extent of his injury.

even though the point has no relevance to this argument at all? you initially suggested that they put faith in martyn when waugh was gone, and it payed off, well clearly that wasnt something that required genius.

Neither was selecting Lehmann...

and hayden does doesnt he? what rubbish, clarke is performing far far better than hayden can possibly imagine. and please, it wasnt too long ago before that that bevan was still getting australia out of jail in several situations.

No, but I'll say it again, I'm not a selector and I wouldn't necessarily do what that do, but they obviously feel Hayden still has some value in the side.

rubbish, you do realise that no team can attack through 50 overs of every game dont you?
just look at their recent games, how many of those games have been scores of around 240-250? isnt that what bevan was best at?

And how many games of those have they lost?

 

[tooextracool]

Fair enough, however they were not dropped at the same time - like you said.

they were not given a contract at the same time. and its not like 1 month makes such a great difference that you can ease someone into the side.

It is not as simple as that. If players are playing both forms (or just one form) they can perform poorly in one form & not the other. However a player can be out of form in both forms over a summer, because they are purely out of form, which clearly is what Lehmann & Hayden have been..

i repeat, lehmann has not been out of form in both forms of the game. in ODIs he was playing quite brilliant until the last 3 games, and even in those games his dimissals had to do with poor shot selection than poor form.

That clearly is indifferent form, but apart from the truely great players how many openers over that period of time, aren't inconsistent...

oh get off it, you'll find every excuse to keep hayden in the side. when others have been inconsistent, you've suggested that they should have been dropped, when hayden's done the same, you think he should remain in the side. you're just as biased as those aussie selectors.

No, it isn't. He was playing for his spot in the side, and he may not have known the extent of his injury.

how was he playing for a spot in the side? had he not played, he would not have failed and he would still be part of the side for the tour of NZ.the fact that despite his failure, hes still playing in NZ emphasises that.

Neither was selecting Lehmann...

lehmann's been knock on the door for years and years and years. he was always going to be the replacement to m.waugh

No, but I'll say it again, I'm not a selector and I wouldn't necessarily do what that do, but they obviously feel Hayden still has some value in the side....

yes they do, because they are biased.

And how many games of those have they lost?

which changes what exactly? yes they have a brilliant record, possibly because some of their other players are world class, not because of the selection blunders. i wonder how many of those games that they have lost, bevan would have saved.

 

[Craig]

so your saying that if a team does well the selectors are invariably doing a brilliant job? if you are saying that then let me also hear you say with a straight face that the english selectors have been doing a brilliant job with the current test side. no while the australian selectors arent nearly as bad as the ones in england, india and pakistan, it doesnt change the fact the fact that they are still poor.

No I am not.

I simply don't see how Australian selectors can be a joke yet the team is constantly winning yet can be blasted as poor.

As for Williams and Bracken, did it not occur to you that Australia were going through some heavy injuries among their bowlers and one suspended (his own fault), so therefore they had to pick the next best available players, which they were.

 

[mavric41]

No I am not.

I simply don't see how Australian selectors can be a joke yet the team is constantly winning yet can be blasted as poor.

As for Williams and Bracken, did it not occur to you that Australia were going through some heavy injuries among their bowlers and one suspended (his own fault), so therefore they had to pick the next best available players, which they were.

I'll support you on this. Williams and Bracken had very good OD tours of India. The main strikers were out and it was early in the season when noone else had a chance to shine. I was just disappointed with their treatment of Andy Bichel. After so much time being in the squad, he deserved first shot at filling in. And they rushed Lee back too quickly after injury.

 

[Richard]

And didn't even think of picking Inness or Clark...
How on Earth anyone can think Bracken (in Tests) and Williams are better bowlers is completely beyond me.

 

[Mister Wright]

And didn't even think of picking Inness or Clark...
How on Earth anyone can think Bracken (in Tests) and Williams are better bowlers is completely beyond me.

Clark isn't much better & Inness barely gets a game for Victoria these days. The man they should have looked at was Kasprowicz.

 

[Richard]

Yes, of course, but - better late than never - he did eventually get in.
Not like Bichel wasn't in there before, either.
How Inness can be written-off just because he's been poor this season is beyond me. Incredibly unlucky guy.

 

[Mister Wright]

Yes, of course, but - better late than never - he did eventually get in.
Not like Bichel wasn't in there before, either.
How Inness can be written-off just because he's been poor this season is beyond me. Incredibly unlucky guy.

You can't be expected to be selected for the national side, if your state won't pick you.

 

[Richard]

I'm not saying he should be selected now, but unless I'm very much mistaken Inness' form wasn't bad at all last season (20 wickets in 7 games at 28.90, 2.89-an-over), even if not up to his usual standards, and would he not have been a better selection than Brad Williams who has done sod-all in his First-Class career of 10 years? Would not Stuart Clark, either?
Come to that, would they not both have been better picks than Lee, too? No, of course not.
Indeed, while I can see why Bracken was picked, surely both would have been better than him, too?

 

[Mister Wright]

I'm not saying he should be selected now, but unless I'm very much mistaken Inness' form wasn't bad at all last season (20 wickets in 7 games at 28.90, 2.89-an-over), even if not up to his usual standards, and would he not have been a better selection than Brad Williams who has done sod-all in his First-Class career of 10 years? Would not Stuart Clark, either?
Come to that, would they not both have been better picks than Lee, too? No, of course not.
Indeed, while I can see why Bracken was picked, surely both would have been better than him, too?

Stuart Clarke is useless. Matthew Inness is a good bowler, but I think even then he was in and out of the side because of injury, meaning he was a risky selection, and most likely was injured during that series.

 

[Richard]

Stuart Clarke is useless.

Michael Clarke might be useless (or is it Michael Clark...), but Stuart Clark - come on! He's not the best you'll ever see, certainly (still been pretty darn impressive this season, though, ain't he?), but he's so much better than Williams and the rest it's untrue - and even Williams I'd not call totally useless.

 

[Mister Wright]

Michael Clarke might be useless (or is it Michael Clark...), but Stuart Clark - come on! He's not the best you'll ever see, certainly (still been pretty darn impressive this season, though, ain't he?), but he's so much better than Williams and the rest it's untrue - and even Williams I'd not call totally useless.

I'm not Brad Williams' greatest fan, but I can tell you he is a damn sight better than Stuart Clark. You can't always go on statistics Richard, sometimes you just have to judge by what you see. Like Greame Smith some players are just lucky, Stuart Clark is one of them.

 

[Richard]

Hmm - I've seen Stuart Clark several times (and I've seen Williams a few more) and beyond question I rate Clark the better bowler.
He can't do anything with the ball Williams can, no, but he's so much more accurate it's untrue.
Incidentally, I can think of plenty more lucky players than Graeme Smith - Hayden, for instance.

 

[marc71178]

And didn't even think of picking Inness or Clark...
How on Earth anyone can think Bracken (in Tests) and Williams are better bowlers is completely beyond me.

I know I'd rather trust the selectors based in Australia than someone reading about players 12000 miles away.

 

[Richard]

Maybe - but it doesn't change the fact they've made mistakes aplenty.