Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
- Thread starter marty344
- Start date
Sober Symonds
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I have no argument over how influential Hayden was. He made a massive contribution, without a doubt. I'm talking about when to call it a day.
Langer & Martyn drew the curtain themselves. One appropriately, one abruptly, but they did it before ruining all the good work they'd done. You could argue the same about every great player, that they could have done more if only they'd stayed on. Of course they could, but there comes a time for every man ...
As for Hussey, I've argued precisely the same thing. He'll probably pull his weight for another couple of years, but in the meantime we lost ground. Ponting, well his bad trot hasn't been so pronounced.
Happy for you to sing Hayden's praises, but love is blind and I think you forgot how bad he was going there for a while. Young blokes get dropped for such poor form. Old ones need to make the decision themselves.
Boris;384462 said:
I have no argument over how influential Hayden was. He made a massive contribution, without a doubt. I'm talking about when to call it a day.
Langer & Martyn drew the curtain themselves. One appropriately, one abruptly, but they did it before ruining all the good work they'd done. You could argue the same about every great player, that they could have done more if only they'd stayed on. Of course they could, but there comes a time for every man ...
As for Hussey, I've argued precisely the same thing. He'll probably pull his weight for another couple of years, but in the meantime we lost ground. Ponting, well his bad trot hasn't been so pronounced.
Happy for you to sing Hayden's praises, but love is blind and I think you forgot how bad he was going there for a while. Young blokes get dropped for such poor form. Old ones need to make the decision themselves.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
You make some very good and correct points. I just think that he seriously wasn't going through that bad a trot for such huge media attention. I felt he wanted to end on his own terms, not be forced to give up when he could have made such an impact in the next series, or so he thought anyway. The important thing is that he looked like he was looking to the future, he was really working hard to improve even at his age.
He has the record for most Tests played in a row, the most consistent player with no injuries to speak of at all, except for his late Achilles problem. One match off an everyone screams he has gone, that he will never be the same. Give him the time he required to get back on his feat, the same thing has happened to Ponting right now. He has a bit of a lean patch, not quite as pronounced as Hayden's, then he get's an injury. If that injury kept him out for one match I'm sure the media would have had a little bit more of a field day with him. Now he has come back with a double ton. I think South Africa would have been Hayden's double ton so to speak.
It is all what ifs and should have dones of course, but so is retirement itself.
Sober Symonds;384502 said:
You make some very good and correct points. I just think that he seriously wasn't going through that bad a trot for such huge media attention. I felt he wanted to end on his own terms, not be forced to give up when he could have made such an impact in the next series, or so he thought anyway. The important thing is that he looked like he was looking to the future, he was really working hard to improve even at his age.
He has the record for most Tests played in a row, the most consistent player with no injuries to speak of at all, except for his late Achilles problem. One match off an everyone screams he has gone, that he will never be the same. Give him the time he required to get back on his feat, the same thing has happened to Ponting right now. He has a bit of a lean patch, not quite as pronounced as Hayden's, then he get's an injury. If that injury kept him out for one match I'm sure the media would have had a little bit more of a field day with him. Now he has come back with a double ton. I think South Africa would have been Hayden's double ton so to speak.
It is all what ifs and should have dones of course, but so is retirement itself.
eddiesmith
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Beats Hughes 26 if you take out his only decent gameMousey;384500 said:
Sober Symonds
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Yep, and Ponting would be minced meat on the back pages if Aamer had turned around and let that hook shot wedge between his cheeks, Hussey would be under the hammer big-time if the previous 'keeper had a clue and we'd be struggling to avoid an embarassing series defeat.
Yep, and Ponting would be minced meat on the back pages if Aamer had turned around and let that hook shot wedge between his cheeks, Hussey would be under the hammer big-time if the previous 'keeper had a clue and we'd be struggling to avoid an embarassing series defeat.
Caesar
Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
Hayden, for all his run records, was relatively ordinary outside Australia - he averaged a mere 41, which compared to other openers' records O/S falls somewhere between Boon and Taylor. Not bad but hardly outstanding.
His raw statistics overrate him somewhat. Aside from India, he had a pretty demonstrable inability to perform on pitches that offered much to bowlers.
Hayden, for all his run records, was relatively ordinary outside Australia - he averaged a mere 41, which compared to other openers' records O/S falls somewhere between Boon and Taylor. Not bad but hardly outstanding.
His raw statistics overrate him somewhat. Aside from India, he had a pretty demonstrable inability to perform on pitches that offered much to bowlers.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
That's another point all together.
If Hayden had to be replaced those 17 matches earlier, think of how many young players would be in the side.
Another example I use often is the Lee situation. I would be fine with someone taking his spot if they were young and looking good. But the fact of the matter is that over half the team has had to be replaced in that 'rebuilding' period. If Hayden went too the team would be in even more shambles.
It is better to have carried him for those matches, and this is anyone, not just Hayden, then have put in Hughes and make him play along with the likes of North, Siddle, Bollinger, Hauritz, Krezja, Hilfenhaus, McDonald, and so the list goes on as they all made their starts.
It would have been just one more trouble for Ponting to introduce a 20 year old into the side when things weren't going well.
It is far, far better to bring in players gradually if you have the choice. It is only now, three years later, that the team is starting to look settled and have a shape. Just think if only Warne, Langer and Gilchrist retired. Then Haddin, Katich and a spinner would have been brought in. That is only one player to introduce and work on in the field as the other two have had the experience before. Now that spinner can be toiled with, and we might not have seen the antics going on with the bowling attack. Then when the injuries came of Clark and Lee it would have been simpler to put in another bowler.
Not sure if you get fully what I mean, but having lost half the team, losing another and dropping Hussey would have brought more woes, and we still may see the team in shambles.
This doesn't really have much to do with the Hayden issue though, new topic mostly.
breeno;384542 said:
That's another point all together.
If Hayden had to be replaced those 17 matches earlier, think of how many young players would be in the side.
Another example I use often is the Lee situation. I would be fine with someone taking his spot if they were young and looking good. But the fact of the matter is that over half the team has had to be replaced in that 'rebuilding' period. If Hayden went too the team would be in even more shambles.
It is better to have carried him for those matches, and this is anyone, not just Hayden, then have put in Hughes and make him play along with the likes of North, Siddle, Bollinger, Hauritz, Krezja, Hilfenhaus, McDonald, and so the list goes on as they all made their starts.
It would have been just one more trouble for Ponting to introduce a 20 year old into the side when things weren't going well.
It is far, far better to bring in players gradually if you have the choice. It is only now, three years later, that the team is starting to look settled and have a shape. Just think if only Warne, Langer and Gilchrist retired. Then Haddin, Katich and a spinner would have been brought in. That is only one player to introduce and work on in the field as the other two have had the experience before. Now that spinner can be toiled with, and we might not have seen the antics going on with the bowling attack. Then when the injuries came of Clark and Lee it would have been simpler to put in another bowler.
Not sure if you get fully what I mean, but having lost half the team, losing another and dropping Hussey would have brought more woes, and we still may see the team in shambles.
This doesn't really have much to do with the Hayden issue though, new topic mostly.
breeno
Active Member
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
The team would've been in a shambles? Having an opening batsman failing every innings doesn't help the team. You're arguing a dead point. You know Hayden should have retired, you just don't want to admit it. Move on.
Boris;384560 said:
The team would've been in a shambles? Having an opening batsman failing every innings doesn't help the team. You're arguing a dead point. You know Hayden should have retired, you just don't want to admit it. Move on.
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread
I tried to make it clear that Hayden wasn't the point of that argument, this is different altogether. Just that he happened to come into it.
The topic I am talking on now is the management of new players to the team.
The only reason Hussey stayed in despite 3 years of bad form was that they didn't want to lose the 7th person in that team.
Retirements:
Hayden
Langer
Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
McGrath
Lost for other reason:
Symonds
Clark
Lee
You will see that over the space of two years almost a whole team has been changed for one reason or another. Over one year saw the worst of it. Pretty much went from having everything to nothing.
Then what happened was a terrible mess IMO.
The selectors opted to go with all young and unproven players. The only ones to come in with some experience and knowing that they were going to perform were Katich and Haddin.
Then we had North, McDonald, Krezja, Hauritz, Johnson, Siddle, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, McGain, Hughes and I have probably forgotten someone. One thing that is similar in almost all those players is that they are all young and inexperienced.
It's fair enough having one bowler and one batsman come in young and inexperienced, it is how you prepare for the next generation obviously. But there comes a time when there are simply too many youngsters.
For a start what is going to happen in ten years time? Siddle, Bollinger, Hauritz, North, Hughes and Hilfenhaus to name a few are all going to retire in a short period of time. If any three of these play in the same team together for the rest of their career they are most likely to be very successful. Then what happens? They all retire at the same time and leave this same process to happen all over again.
Only twice in Australia's history do I know of such a huge setback from retirements, simply because all the cricketers were picked at the exact same age just following along a trend. We now have a generation of cricketers, instead of a cricketing team with someone who is 38 and someone who is 20 and the rest spaced in between. Now we have a couple oldies left over and the rest are all in their early 20s.
Apart from the physical part comes the mental part. New players often need time and experience to work their way into the side fully. Not many turn up and average 50 from the get go and keep going. Siddle took three series before anything half good was produced, then he settled right in with the team. The same with Hilfenhaus, the same with Bollinger. They all didn't just get picked and then go. They took time. And in the meantime they lost Tests for the team, along with an inexperienced batting line up. There was nobody to fall back on, everyone either collapsed at the same time or bowled badly at the same time. When things were going good, it was great, but not too often do things go good for you in Test cricket for extended periods of time.
Ponting was having trouble adjusting to this as well, especially not having an all rounder at his disposal.
I would like to introduce the Queensland team as a method of doing it.
They just lost all but two of their players due to retirements, contractual deals, preferences and money.
Instead of going out and filling the team up with 'the next big things' half their team are 35 year old rejects from the last generation that couldn't get a spot due to players like Maher, Love, Bichel and Kasprowicz to name a few, but were fine players in their own right.
Then with the spaces left over they filled the spots with young talents like Ben Cutting. Then they had tried and tested players to fall back on, as well as people for the future.
It would be like if Ponting retired now, it would be good to select someone in the lines of Hodge or Dussey, and not someone like Henriques who is new to cricket, just because there are so many inexperienced players as it is.
If you looks at Queensland now they won the FRC last year, second in the SS and did well in the Big Bash. Now they are top of the leaderboard in FRC again, not doing half bad in SS and let's not mention the T20s. From a team with only two recognised players.
There comes a time when you have to stop planning for the future and actually look at the current. If you forever plan for the future you will never win a game today.
Australia aren't up to the standard they should be. I expect some very fierce opposition and a loss of the Ashes again, from what should be a mediocre English team in the Aussies minds.
breeno;384566 said:
I tried to make it clear that Hayden wasn't the point of that argument, this is different altogether. Just that he happened to come into it.
The topic I am talking on now is the management of new players to the team.
The only reason Hussey stayed in despite 3 years of bad form was that they didn't want to lose the 7th person in that team.
Retirements:
Hayden
Langer
Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
McGrath
Lost for other reason:
Symonds
Clark
Lee
You will see that over the space of two years almost a whole team has been changed for one reason or another. Over one year saw the worst of it. Pretty much went from having everything to nothing.
Then what happened was a terrible mess IMO.
The selectors opted to go with all young and unproven players. The only ones to come in with some experience and knowing that they were going to perform were Katich and Haddin.
Then we had North, McDonald, Krezja, Hauritz, Johnson, Siddle, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, McGain, Hughes and I have probably forgotten someone. One thing that is similar in almost all those players is that they are all young and inexperienced.
It's fair enough having one bowler and one batsman come in young and inexperienced, it is how you prepare for the next generation obviously. But there comes a time when there are simply too many youngsters.
For a start what is going to happen in ten years time? Siddle, Bollinger, Hauritz, North, Hughes and Hilfenhaus to name a few are all going to retire in a short period of time. If any three of these play in the same team together for the rest of their career they are most likely to be very successful. Then what happens? They all retire at the same time and leave this same process to happen all over again.
Only twice in Australia's history do I know of such a huge setback from retirements, simply because all the cricketers were picked at the exact same age just following along a trend. We now have a generation of cricketers, instead of a cricketing team with someone who is 38 and someone who is 20 and the rest spaced in between. Now we have a couple oldies left over and the rest are all in their early 20s.
Apart from the physical part comes the mental part. New players often need time and experience to work their way into the side fully. Not many turn up and average 50 from the get go and keep going. Siddle took three series before anything half good was produced, then he settled right in with the team. The same with Hilfenhaus, the same with Bollinger. They all didn't just get picked and then go. They took time. And in the meantime they lost Tests for the team, along with an inexperienced batting line up. There was nobody to fall back on, everyone either collapsed at the same time or bowled badly at the same time. When things were going good, it was great, but not too often do things go good for you in Test cricket for extended periods of time.
Ponting was having trouble adjusting to this as well, especially not having an all rounder at his disposal.
I would like to introduce the Queensland team as a method of doing it.
They just lost all but two of their players due to retirements, contractual deals, preferences and money.
Instead of going out and filling the team up with 'the next big things' half their team are 35 year old rejects from the last generation that couldn't get a spot due to players like Maher, Love, Bichel and Kasprowicz to name a few, but were fine players in their own right.
Then with the spaces left over they filled the spots with young talents like Ben Cutting. Then they had tried and tested players to fall back on, as well as people for the future.
It would be like if Ponting retired now, it would be good to select someone in the lines of Hodge or Dussey, and not someone like Henriques who is new to cricket, just because there are so many inexperienced players as it is.
If you looks at Queensland now they won the FRC last year, second in the SS and did well in the Big Bash. Now they are top of the leaderboard in FRC again, not doing half bad in SS and let's not mention the T20s. From a team with only two recognised players.
There comes a time when you have to stop planning for the future and actually look at the current. If you forever plan for the future you will never win a game today.
Australia aren't up to the standard they should be. I expect some very fierce opposition and a loss of the Ashes again, from what should be a mediocre English team in the Aussies minds.