Group A - Australia, South Africa, Scotland, Holland

[Craig]

Well Symonds >> Hodge in ODI batting?

IMO I am leaning towards yes.

 

[Matt79]

Well Symonds >> Hodge in ODI batting?

IMO I am leaning towards yes.

Current form (ie Symonds coming back from injury) - probably not.
Overall - Yes, based on Symonds sustained excellence with the bat over the last 4 years. Obviously if Hodge gets more of a go in the team he might be able to redress that, but to say otherwise at the moment is to be speculating on some displays of potential at this level. Plus, Symonds has the potential to be more explosive if required, while still being able to pace an innings as well.

Plus of course there's the extras that Symonds brings cf. Hodge with his useful bowling and brillant fielding (consistently the best fielder in the world for mine over the past few years)...

So yeah, Symonds is >> Hodge. And he's worth carrying for a couple of games while he shakes the rust off.

 

[Perm]

For mine, I don't think there can be any comparison between Symonds and Hodge in the ODI arena. Not only is Symonds the better batmsan, his bowling and fielding are big factors in how highly he is rated as an ODI player thesedays. Added to that his experience and leadership, both on and off the field, make him a far better player than Hodge. I am sure Brad Hodge will get plenty more opportunities in the future, and he would be my backup batsman should any of the top 6 get injured.

 

[mikeW]

Well Symonds >> Hodge in ODI batting?

IMO I am leaning towards yes.

Thats pretty damn obvious.

I don't have a problem with anybody's position in the team except for Watson. I just hope he doesnt cost us a vital match at the WC.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Well his runout last night could be a case for winning us a match.

 

[mikeW]

Well his runout last night could be a case for winning us a match.

Havent seen it but will see it soon enough as im watching the replay, even though that may be the case he wouldnt keep his place purely on 1 runout.

 

[Matt79]

On top of what, 14 off 9 balls faced and a reasonable spell with the ball (1 for 46 off 8 overs - ER of 5.75 looks better once you realise that other than Bracken, every other bowler went for 6 or more an over...) pretty useful all round performance actually...

 

[mikeW]

On top of what, 14 off 9 balls faced and a reasonable spell with the ball... pretty useful actually...

Decentish, bowling still concerns me however.

 

[Prince EWS]

Havent seen it but will see it soon enough as im watching the replay, even though that may be the case he wouldnt keep his place purely on 1 runout.

Of course he wouldn't, but a mid-thirties average and mid-twenties average with the ball since the Ashes of 2005 - taking into account the fact that he's had several injuries in there and seems to be forever "just coming back from injury" - certainly does.

He's not competing with Hodge for a place really... given the strength of Australia's batting lately and the potentially fragile nature of their bowling, I think there's more chance of Watson getting dropped for a legitimate bowler than another batsman, because there's negliable different between Watson's and Hodge's batting, but his bowling is quite obviously quite important as 4th seamer.

 

[Prince EWS]

Decentish, bowling still concerns me however.

Hodge's bowling would concern me a hell of a lot more, and I doubt he'd have done any more with the bat than Watson in the last game - and that's the point really.

 

[mikeW]

Hodge's bowling would concern me a hell of a lot more, and I doubt he'd have done any more with the bat than Watson in the last game - and that's the point really.

Fair point, Hodge isnt a bowler. However Symonds is an all-rounder and i naturally would've thought he'd replace another allrounder in Watson. From all reports it was out of Hodge and Watson as to who got dropped.

 

[Prince EWS]

Fair point, Hodge isnt a bowler. However Symonds is an all-rounder and i naturally would've thought he'd replace another allrounder in Watson. From all reports it was out of Hodge and Watson as to who got dropped.

Symonds isn't really selected as an allrounder though - he's selected as a batsman who can bowl a bit. Having Symonds as your fifth bowling option and then having Hodge bat 7 would just be unbalanced IMO, especially given the relative strength of the rest of the batting compared to the bowling. Australia's bowling is its weakest area so they really need a full-time fifth bowler... and hence the options, really, are Clark, Johnson and Watson. Watson's being picked to cut Australia's losses and make sure they can still bat down to 7 with genuine batsmen. His record over the last two years in ODIs is quite good as well - his selection is not nearly as potential-based as people make out.

I'd honestly be more inclined to pick Johnson than Hodge if Watson died in a knife fight tomorrow.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Buddy, he was dreadful. Some absolutely beautiful and timed cover-drives, but this is modern ODI cricket, and Kallis can`t adapt.

I disagree. Kallis is a very good ODI batsman. He should have been able to take command over the scornig when wickets started falling yesterday, but there was nothing wrong with his batting before that at all. 50 off 60 or whatever was a perfectly good innings under the circumstances, because South Africa had already taken a firm grip on the game when he came in. What they needed was another solid stand without letting the required rate get out of control, and Kallis did fine in that regard. It's not as though he was playing out maidens.

 

[marc71178]

Hussey hasn't been firing like he usually does. 3 matches in a row.

Actually, he's had a 10 match run which is quite bizarre bearing in mind what had gone before:

202 runs @ 20.20, including a 105 and a 42.

It all started when Bopara bowled him - is it possible that he's ashamed of such an event?!

 

[sideshowtim]

I disagree. Kallis is a very good ODI batsman. He should have been able to take command over the scornig when wickets started falling yesterday, but there was nothing wrong with his batting before that at all. 50 off 60 or whatever was a perfectly good innings under the circumstances, because South Africa had already taken a firm grip on the game when he came in. What they needed was another solid stand without letting the required rate get out of control, and Kallis did fine in that regard. It's not as though he was playing out maidens.

Normally I would agree with you, however Kallis was only striking at about 75-80 when the situation required a run a ball to keep up with things. It was a silly decision to bring him in at 3. They should've kept attacking, it is a strategy that was working for them for 25 overs previously.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

His bowling has been substandard since his return. Hasn't really impressed me. Loves bowling long hops.

He bowled perfectly decently yesterday. In fact, he had a fair hand in keeping the pressure on when Ponting went for the second power play after the wicket fell. Certainly didn't bowl any "long hops" at all.

Anyway, Hodge and Watson play different roles. Hodge wouldn't have bowled 8 overs, so there's no point in comparing their potential performances. Someone's got to bowl them.

 

[marc71178]

I'd honestly be more inclined to pick Johnson than Hodge if Watson died in a knife fight tomorrow.

I wouldn't - that leaves an awfully long tail.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Normally I would agree with you, however Kallis was only striking at about 75-80 when the situation required a run a ball to keep up with things. It was a silly decision to bring him in at 3. They should've kept attacking, it is a strategy that was working for them for 25 overs previously.

And how is that Kallis's fault? He got sent in at 3. Obviously if they'd wanted to "keep attacking" they would have sent in Gibbs or Boucher. What they wanted was another partnership, and that's what Kallis provided, and he scored at a reasonable rate as well. I'm not his biggest fan or anything, but people are way too quick to judge an innings by the scoring rate in this sort of situation. South Africa lost because they fell to bits and lost wickets at regular intervals after the run out, largely due to sustained pressure from the bowling and fielding, not because Kallis struck at 80 instead of 150 or whatever.

 

[TT Boy]

What was Smith meant to say? We are going to lose by 83 runs?

The heat Smith gets on this forum is ****ing ridiculous.

 

[Prince EWS]

I wouldn't - that leaves an awfully long tail.

Given the strength of the Australian batting lineup in comparison to its bowling though, that's a risk worth taking. The bowling lineup could go to absolute pieces without Watson if one of the bowlers had a bad day and the part-timers got smashed, especially given Symonds isn't bowling at 100% fitness.