***Official*** Australia in India

[pup11]

Once Gilly is in he smokes every type bowlers so spinners are no exception!

 

[stephen]

Class is permanent. Form is temporary.

Funny, I see a lot of poms using this arguement as to why Vaughn is the greatest batsmen their country has ever produced and that he should be an automatic selection, even with his dodgy knees and when he's completely out of form.

My question is, if form was temporary and class permanent, why did the Aussie selectors ever pick Katich

Edit: And why has Lee been in the test side for so long with neither form nor class to his name?

 

[Perm]

Funny, I see a lot of poms using this arguement as to why Vaughn is the greatest batsmen their country has ever produced and that he should be an automatic selection, even with his dodgy knees and when he's completely out of form.

My question is, if form was temporary and class permanent, why did the Aussie selectors ever pick Katich

Edit: And why has Lee been in the test side for so long with neither form nor class to his name?

Well Vaughan's captaincy has meant that he is basically an automatic choice whenever he is fit, which is understandable because he is their classiest Test batsman and also the most senior player in their batting lineup.

Also, my comments weren't specific to the players you mentioned, but instead about the pecking order. Just because one batsman is in good form doesn't mean he is a better player than another batsman.

I beleive the Australian selectors picked Simon Katich because he is one of the best batsman in Australia. He has been a run machine since coming to New South Wales, averaging 61 in FC and 51 in List A cricket for the state and also regularly scoring runs for teams like Australia A. His selection in both the Test and ODI team was definitely merited at the time, especially when there have been concerns over Phil Jaques and his fielding ability. As it is, Jaques' average is hugely inflated by dominating county attacks and scoring big runs for Northamptonshire, Worcester and Yorkshire.

 

[Perm]

Once Gilly is in he smokes every type bowlers so spinners are no exception!

Definitely. His 102* at the WACA was amazing.

 

[pasag]

____

 

[Perm]

____

?

 

[pasag]

In response to Vaughan being 'completely out of form', I thought I'd let the stats speak for themselves since his return from injury.

 

[Perm]

In response to Vaughan being 'completely out of form', I thought I'd let the stats speak for themselves since his return from injury.

I didn't think stephen was talking about his return to Test cricket, but perhaps he was.

 

[stephen]

I didn't think stephen was talking about his return to Test cricket, but perhaps he was.

I was referring primarily to when Vaughn was in Australia and was picked for the OD side. But more than that I was looking to the time between his brilliant ashes series and 2006. During that time he did NOTHING with the bat except for the odd century here or there (he was averaging around 35 in test cricket at the time I believe). To be honest I have not really followed his exploits since the World Cup, but seeing English fans fawn over a player with such a record at test level and use that exact phrase to justify it was bewildering at best.

Also, my comments weren't specific to the players you mentioned, but instead about the pecking order. Just because one batsman is in good form doesn't mean he is a better player than another batsman.

Mine were not necessarily specific either, except as examples. But time and time again in recent years the selectors have favoured players who are not in the best interests of the team at the time. The Katich example was the most obvious. If you have a core team, which Australia does, I don't think it hurts too much to pick a couple of players on form alone. If you pick a player who is out of form it can hurt their future (and the team) more than it can help.

 

[pasag]

Yeah he's horrible in ODIs, don't think any English deny that, here at least.

 

[Perm]

I was referring primarily to when Vaughn was in Australia and was picked for the OD side. But more than that I was looking to the time between his brilliant ashes series and 2006. During that time he did NOTHING with the bat except for the odd century here or there (he was averaging around 35 in test cricket at the time I believe). To be honest I have not really followed his exploits since the World Cup, but seeing English fans fawn over a player with such a record at test level and use that exact phrase to justify it was bewildering at best.

Michael Vaughan is a terrible ODI batsman, and I've not heard too many Englishmen dispute that fact. In Tests he is a class act but in the longer format he should have never been picked. In 36 games between the end of the 2002/2003 Ashes and 2006 Vaughan averaged 36.91 and scored seven centuries. It was a pretty poor return from him but you have to factor in his captaincy, which was one reason he remained in the side despite not being as consistent as he should have been. He was the stabilising factor in the middle order after the retirement of players like Hussain, Thorpe and Stewart while some of the newer faces established themselves.

Mine were not necessarily specific either, except as examples. But time and time again in recent years the selectors have favoured players who are not in the best interests of the team at the time. The Katich example was the most obvious. If you have a core team, which Australia does, I don't think it hurts too much to pick a couple of players on form alone. If you pick a player who is out of form it can hurt their future (and the team) more than it can help.

Simon Katich was in better form when picked to play ODIs for Australia in 2004, so I'm not really sure what your point is. Obviously Jaques has been piling on the runs since then, mainly in England, but Katich was the better batsman at the time of his selection and continued to score runs at ODI level and merited his selection.

 

[Laurrz]

Ponting has only been dismissed by Muralitharan once in Test cricket. That doesn't prove an awful lot TBH.

Isn't that a good thing though? to be dismissed by Murali only once having played him for a reasonable amount of time..

 

[Perm]

Isn't that a good thing though? to be dismissed by Murali only once having played him for a reasonable amount of time..

Well yeah, it is a good thing but how does it prove that Ponting is statistically the best batsman against Muralitharan? He's played against him in 8 Tests and been dismissed once, which is a good effort from Ponting, but it doesn't conclusively prove he is the best against Muralitharan.

 

[Athlai]

Well yeah, it is a good thing but how does it prove that Ponting is statistically the best batsman against Muralitharan? He's played against him in 8 Tests and been dismissed once, which is a good effort from Ponting, but it doesn't conclusively prove he is the best against Muralitharan.

Wonder if there is anyone who's played in more tests with more runs that hasn't been dismissed by him tbh.

 

[NUFAN]

Well yeah, it is a good thing but how does it prove that Ponting is statistically the best batsman against Muralitharan? He's played against him in 8 Tests and been dismissed once, which is a good effort from Ponting, but it doesn't conclusively prove he is the best against Muralitharan.

Lara and Fleming both have great records against Murali.

 

[stephen]

Simon Katich was in better form when picked to play ODIs for Australia in 2004, so I'm not really sure what your point is. Obviously Jaques has been piling on the runs since then, mainly in England, but Katich was the better batsman at the time of his selection and continued to score runs at ODI level and merited his selection.

The point with Vaughn was that he didn't warrant a spot based on batting skill, and to counter this was used the phrase "form is temporary, class is permanent". Enough talk about poms though :P

Katich was the best choice when he was picked but by the 05/06 summer was by no means the best choice any longer. He was holding both Hayden and Jaques out of the team. Hayden probably deserved to be dropped after the ashes, but Jaques deserved a go while Katich, at his snails pace didn't. Jaques only got one opportunity that summer and made a 90, which was higher than Katich's highest ODI score that summer IIRC.

Similarly, when he first cracked onto the scene, Brett Lee was very very good. But by 2002 his form no longer warranted his place in the team, and when he was dropped, he only got back on account of his ODI form, which has always been top notch. He never earned his way back into the team and now that he's back in he's really been treading water, relying on McGrath or Warne at the other end to create the pressure. And the biggest criticism I have of him - every time he gets a bit of tap he goes back into bouncer-yorker mode and goes for even more.

 

[Perm]

Wonder if there is anyone who's played in more tests with more runs that hasn't been dismissed by him tbh.

Not sure ITBT, and wouldn't really know how to look up the stats for that one.

 

[Perm]

The point with Vaughn was that he didn't warrant a spot based on batting skill, and to counter this was used the phrase "form is temporary, class is permanent". Enough talk about poms though :P

Katich was the best choice when he was picked but by the 05/06 summer was by no means the best choice any longer. He was holding both Hayden and Jaques out of the team. Hayden probably deserved to be dropped after the ashes, but Jaques deserved a go while Katich, at his snails pace didn't. Jaques only got one opportunity that summer and made a 90, which was higher than Katich's highest ODI score that summer IIRC.

Similarly, when he first cracked onto the scene, Brett Lee was very very good. But by 2002 his form no longer warranted his place in the team, and when he was dropped, he only got back on account of his ODI form, which has always been top notch. He never earned his way back into the team and now that he's back in he's really been treading water, relying on McGrath or Warne at the other end to create the pressure. And the biggest criticism I have of him - every time he gets a bit of tap he goes back into bouncer-yorker mode and goes for even more.

No, Vaughan didn't warrant a place on batting alone. As I said, his captaincy helped him be selected through that tough time.

The thing is, once Simon Katich was in the side he was scoring runs pretty consistently and I find it tough to drop players when they are doing that. Jaques scored his 94 at the start of the 2006 season and Katich averaged almost 40 for that season and also scored his maiden century, an unbeaten 107*. Dropping a batsman who is performing well isn't good practice at all, and shows know confidence in the player. He wasn't keeping Jaques or Hayden out of the side either, as they both hada poor summer and didn't deserve selection.

 

[stephen]

No, Vaughan didn't warrant a place on batting alone. As I said, his captaincy helped him be selected through that tough time.

The thing is, once Simon Katich was in the side he was scoring runs pretty consistently and I find it tough to drop players when they are doing that. Jaques scored his 94 at the start of the 2006 season and Katich averaged almost 40 for that season and also scored his maiden century, an unbeaten 107*. Dropping a batsman who is performing well isn't good practice at all, and shows know confidence in the player. He wasn't keeping Jaques or Hayden out of the side either, as they both hada poor summer and didn't deserve selection.

Obviously your memory is foggy. It was not the amount of runs that was the issue with katich, but instead the way in which he scored them. He chewed up a ridiculous number of balls to score his runs and only went on past fifty very, very rarely. His strike rate for the summer was something like 65! That's attrocious for a modern day one day batsman and put a lot of pressure on the bat at the other end. Meanwhile, that same season Jaques made 4 ODD centuries, ended with an average over 90 and the highest strike rate in domestic one day cricket.

 

[Eclipse]

Ponting has only been dismissed by Muralitharan once in Test cricket. That doesn't prove an awful lot TBH.

And scored alot of runs against him too?

I dont see how you can say it doesn't prove alot.