Australian Cricket Team Discussions

Top Contributors
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

Mousey;341618 said:
Exactly. It's like saying take out all of Ponting's tons and see what he averages. It won't be 58.
Click to expand...
Big difference. Eliminating outliers make sense when you're determining a mean from a data set. Particularly when one of the outliers is as anomalous as Hodge's double-century n.o. in an otherwise unimpressive run of results.

Hodge's median score would be much lower than his average.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

Caesar;341906 said:
Big difference. Eliminating outliers make sense when you're determining a mean from a data set. Particularly when one of the outliers is as anomalous as Hodge's double-century n.o. in an otherwise unimpressive run of results.

Hodge's median score would be much lower than his average.
Click to expand...

Do you play cricket? Say you play six games in the ones, you average 56, you go to meet the chairman of selection and he says, sorry mate apart from that 200:eek: you haven't really done much, so your dropped. Fair enough.:eek::D
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

Yeah bottom line is, In fact Brad Hodge did actually score that 200*. It's like winning a race after finishing fifth 4 or 5 times and then saying to the guy "Sorry you didn't deserve to win that". Thats just my opinion.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

distributer of pain;341917 said:
take away husseys 70 and in his last 15 innings his average is 18, not to bad from a no4 batsman.
Click to expand...

Why would you take away his 70? He made it, so it counts:p
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

Caesar;341906 said:
Big difference. Eliminating outliers make sense when you're determining a mean from a data set. Particularly when one of the outliers is as anomalous as Hodge's double-century n.o. in an otherwise unimpressive run of results.

Hodge's median score would be much lower than his average.
Click to expand...

You actually do have a very good point, but I still think that he deserved a go because of the 200 not out.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

there have been, are currently, and always will be batsmen that are definitely good enough for a test spot that wont get a test. that is a fact of cricketing life, although it should be minimised. in reality hodge is competing for ponting's spot. that will never happen. no. 3 is for the sides best batsman, and that is what ponting is. in reality hodge is competing to become australia's best batsman while only playing 6 tests. the selectors would not drop anyone else in any other position for hodge, he is a no.3 batsman, that is what he has proven. when playing for nsw he only scores as he does in this position. maybe he should try moving around in the nsw team and prove that he can bat elsewhere, that is what martin love did. love averaged 68 for a season in no.3 and looked extremely good when he batted, the only way he got out is when he got himself out, not the bowlers doing, and he was never thought in contention for a test spot. so he moved to opening, no.4 and no.5 for no foreseeable reason and proved his worth. he got to 12th man after having after proving that he can bat everywhere else and was waiting for a form slump or injury from anyone on the team so he could play his first test. unfortunately he injured himself and as such never played a test.

a batsmen's worth should not be calculated fully on stats. its more how they play in comparison to those stats. if a batsmen scores 250* in an innings off 350 balls after being dropped 6 times throughout it, and never looked settled, instead always looked troubled by bowlers and only sheer luck got him his double century, then in his second innings he score 2 off of a shaky 15 balls. do we call him a good batsman? instead if you have another batsman score 70 later in the game off off 80 balls and looked like he was completely dominating everyone, but ended up running himself out, then in the second innings forces a match winning 40 off not so many balls, once again not looking troubled by bowlers. instead do we call him a better batsman then the one who scored 250*? if you look at the two inning averages of those two batsman: the first is has an average of 252, and the second 55. which one would you call the game winner? if you apply this philosophy over a first-class career, which one would you select to play for australia?
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

You also have to remember that Hodge has David Hussey at 4 and Cam White at 5 who are also trying to get a game in the test team.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

No reason why a no3 batsman cant bat at no4, Hussey is struggling there but at his age Hodgey wont be coming in unless its for an injury so they can dump him again afterwards no matter how he peforms

Given the options around the Aussie team atm, Hodge should be backup batsman in the test squad for the next 12 months atleast, Duss is slowly slipping from contention, White isnt quite ready yet (Needs a prolonger exposure in the ODI team) and there aint much else around

Ljp86;341490 said:
Take out Hodge's score of 203 not out and he has a test average of 30. That's hardly a figure which is good enough to retain a test spot. For a guy who has played very well in domestic cricket for his entire career, Hodge has really failed to capitalise on the chances he has been given.

ODI's are much the same, was in reasonable form before the India/Australia serie. His first few innings were poor but was still given an opportunity to prove himself but he didn't improve and was rightly dropped.



Hodge has showed he really isn't good enough at international level. Has been given enough opportunities but hasn't taken them.
Click to expand...

Yet others can take 10+ tests to actually get that first century yet they kept getting games, he still made the double century

As for ODIs, Hodge was unlucky, its not an excuse but I dont think he can play in India, his IPL form was terrible as well, but his ODI career got cut as his one chance in a full series was in India, didnt see Ponting getting cut for his Indian test form over multiple series :p I will be interested to see how he does in the IPL over in South Africa

But Hodge was a great example of the selectors bowing to pressure but not actually doing it, they cut Martyn to try and look tough but then recalled him when he did nothing to warrant it, same with Symonds now, they take the tough road but a couple of losses and they go crawling back even with no form

But the T20 squad will be interesting, if they picked a squad to win the T20 title then Hodge would be there, but expect them to stick with their ODI side with a couple of minor changes and lose yet again
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

eddiesmith;344466 said:
Yet others can take 10+ tests to actually get that first century yet they kept getting games, he still made the double century
Click to expand...

Exactly. How long did it take Steve Waugh to get his first century?
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

fact is that its very hard to break up winning sides and we havnt lost much over the last decade, the selectors are certainly harder on others than some though. darren lehman probably being the biggest tragedy, it doesnt matter what teams picked there will allways be critics.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

as for the ponting without form over multiple series statement made earlier by someone. ponting never seems to be in form, yet he still gathers in record amounts of runs every season. he is a very strange batsmen to be thought of as always out of form, but always making runs. his average hasnt wavered much over the past few seasons at around that 55 mark, with means that he is still getting the amount required to make that average stick. i dont think pontings position in the side or the batting order or captaincy should be changed until the day that he retires.

i think it is important that a batting position should be secured like you secure your spot in the side. all positions require a particular type of batsman. some batsman can only make runs in a certain position and it adds structure to a side. if a batsman wants to change his position in the side they should make sure they look at it seriously and make sure it doesnt affect the side too much. i believe that m.hussey should move down the order as the last or second last recognised batsmen. i think he fills that roll perfectly, like he did when he first come into the side, then he made his way up to no.4 and hasnt been as fruitful. he is very good at batting with the tail, and clark is more suited to batting higher up.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

Mousey;344471 said:
Exactly. How long did it take Steve Waugh to get his first century?
Click to expand...

Different era Mousey, our batting depth was like NZ's in those days.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

eddiesmith;344633 said:
How long did it take Andrew Symonds then?
Click to expand...

Symonds has never really been a century scorer, even at first-class level. he has made much improvement in his game from becoming the more hit and hope sort of player who would make a big score mostly out of luck, but he is still someone i think who settles in quickly, makes a reasonable score of 70 or 80 during a good partnership with someone then gets out as soon as his partner does. this isnt a necessarily bad thing, but i dont think its really a fair comparison between him and Steve Waugh. either way it would be nice to have them both in the side.:p haha
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

Boris;344565 said:
as for the ponting without form over multiple series statement made earlier by someone. ponting never seems to be in form, yet he still gathers in record amounts of runs every season. he is a very strange batsmen to be thought of as always out of form, but always making runs. his average hasnt wavered much over the past few seasons at around that 55 mark, with means that he is still getting the amount required to make that average stick. i dont think pontings position in the side or the batting order or captaincy should be changed until the day that he retires.

i think it is important that a batting position should be secured like you secure your spot in the side. all positions require a particular type of batsman. some batsman can only make runs in a certain position and it adds structure to a side. if a batsman wants to change his position in the side they should make sure they look at it seriously and make sure it doesnt affect the side too much. i believe that m.hussey should move down the order as the last or second last recognised batsmen. i think he fills that roll perfectly, like he did when he first come into the side, then he made his way up to no.4 and hasnt been as fruitful. he is very good at batting with the tail, and clark is more suited to batting higher up.
Click to expand...
ponting either makes 0-20 or a big hundred in most cases, he does go out a lot for little runs but he more than makes up for it with his big scores, allthough i think his no 3 days are numbered, i think he should move to 5 IMO id move pup to 3, as for hussey, id drop him now, he"s had a lot of time to get over this slump, we just cant afford one of our senior batsman playing like that, it drags the whole team down.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

ponting must be a brilliant batsman to get out on such small scores continuously and yet have scored so many runs with such a high average for the amount of tests he has played.

also the amount of centuries he has gotten compared to the amount of times he has gotten out in the 80s and 90s. it really is pretty unbelievable.

plus he is a damn fine captain.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

distributer of pain;344702 said:
ponting either makes 0-20 or a big hundred in most cases, he does go out a lot for little runs but he more than makes up for it with his big scores, allthough i think his no 3 days are numbered, i think he should move to 5 IMO id move pup to 3, as for hussey, id drop him now, he"s had a lot of time to get over this slump, we just cant afford one of our senior batsman playing like that, it drags the whole team down.
Click to expand...

Do you mind me asking how old you are?

Ponting is still by far and away our best batsmen.

Hussey played a great innings in the first ODI.

Have some patience.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;344734 said:
Ponting is still by far and away our best batsmen.

Hussey played a great innings in the first ODI.

Have some patience.
Click to expand...

exactly. at least i know there is somebody else out there that believes in hussey. he will come back, and when he does its going to be good.
 
Re: Australian Cricket Team Discussions

LIONS then DAYLIGHT;344734 said:
Do you mind me asking how old you are?

Ponting is still by far and away our best batsmen.

Hussey played a great innings in the first ODI.

Have some patience.
Click to expand...

ODI isn't test cricket. IMO Hussey's lean patch has gone on for too long, and if he doesn't make a score in the next ODI series he would be on the verge of getting dropped if I was a selector.

Ponting at his best is our best batsman, but he's not consistent. He should still be in the side, but it is pretty close between our 'best' bats at the moment. By the way if you looked at the post, you'd realise he is saying that Ponting is a great batsman, but maybe he should help feed the younger guys through by moving to #5, I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's what he was saying.

If a player was trying to get into the side, if they played a good ODI innings 1 in every 5, do you think they'd be promoted to the test side?

Do you mind me asking how old you are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top