Oz: Champion team vs Team of Champions

[Midwinter]

What are your thoughts on this ?

Obviously with the recent losses us Aussies are starting to whinge about all and sundry aspects about the team but this one occurred to me today.

Are some players "Untouchable" due to the past performances ?

Are some of them playing to protect their "brands" ie the advertising and media campaigns being run by Haydon, M.Clarke A, Symonds, B.Lee and not least the Punter ?

Is there too much outside money invested for the selectors to be able to drop players out of the team on form ?

The amount of money earned by the players from their "brand" has escalated in the last 10 years, the glory years of the team, the players becoming the celebrities and media stars we see today. Even Cricket Australia promotes the "brand " what would be the sponser's reaction to not having Lee,Symonds,Clarke et al in the team ?

It looks as if OZ is in danger of becoming like India where the mere mention of dropping certain players from the team causes a public outcry.

 

[Matt79]

Don't see how you can say that Clarke, Ponting and Lee are simply playing to protect their brands. Clarke is in line to be the next captain and has been having the best year of his career to date. Lee was the best performed bowler in the team last year, and remains the best quick in the country, albeit somewhat out of form/fitness. Ponting has again scored more than 1000 runs in the calendar year.

Symonds selection ahead of Watson raised some of these questions - he's easily the player who's media/advertising profile is most out of alignment with his test record and form. That said, he was ok in Perth.

Hayden loves playing and performing at a good level more than just about anyone else in world cricket - any reluctance on his part to retire has nothing to do with marketing and everything to do with not wanting his cricket days to be over, not to mention his enormous faith in himself to bounce back from difficulty.

Think you're jumping the gun a bit with this suggestion...

 

[Richard]

Think you're jumping the gun a bit with this suggestion...

TSTL.

Symonds selection ahead of Watson raised some of these questions - he's easily the player who's media/advertising profile is most out of alignment with his test record and form. That said, he was ok in Perth.

Symonds averages something like 60 from his 156 in 2006/07 onwards. Much as most of that's down to good fortune, you don't drop a batsman who's done that. Ever. His poor play has been only in his last 4 Tests.

 

[susudear]

Teh problem is

TSTL.

Symonds averages something like 60 from his 156 in 2006/07 onwards. Much as most of that's down to good fortune, you don't drop a batsman who's done that. Ever. His poor play has been only in his last 4 Tests.

That Watson has done so well in India and yet Symonds is the one who gets the easy matches against NZ etc.

 

[silentstriker]

Nah, Ponting is a fantastic batsman. Hayden, IMO, deserves more chances, and as people said, Symonds has been such a threat now for several years that you don't drop him either.

Their batting is fine, there is nothing wrong with it. Obviously, they'll miss the #7 Gilchrist, but other than that, I don't see many problems with it. Their recent struggles have been due to their bowling. I don't think anyone is necessarily living on their reputations. Hayden might be given an extended run due to his past performances, but look at Dravid: he got a much better deal in terms of time to start performing. The bad luck for Hayden is that his dip in form happened to coincide with losing some match winning bowlers, so everything is magnified when you start losing when you're usually not accustomed to it.

 

[Richard]

Teh problem is That Watson has done so well in India and yet Symonds is the one who gets the easy matches against NZ etc.

Watson hardly did "so well" in India though, he was merely decent-ish. And Symonds (even though most of it was down to luck) did exceptionally in 2007/08 against Sri Lanka, India and West Indies.

Symonds didn't exactly cash-in on the "easy" games against NZ anyway (thanks in part to getting a rare piece of misfortune back) and if he were to be taken apart again in SA - which is very possible for them to do, all they need is to bowl well, Symonds does not have the skill to combat that so as long as catches are taken he would fail - then his career could just possibly be over before The Ashes.

Of course, it should never have started ITFP as there were always better long-form batsmen than him. It was only Martyn being - ridiculously - dropped because they decided they wanted an all-rounder, then Watson being injured instantly, that caused him to get in ITFP. Then it was Hodge being injured again that caused him to get another chance he didn't deserve, then luck enabled him to take that chance.

 

[Richard]

Obviously, they'll miss the #7 Gilchrist

I'm not even sure that's true TBH. Haddin has so far in his career been better than Gilchrist was for almost all the time between 2003/04 and 2007/08. And they didn't even really miss the Gilchrist of 1999/2000-2003 all that much, as they won virtually everything even after his decline. Clearly, though, a good wicketkeeper who can average all but 60 with the bat would make EVERY Test team IN HISTORY better.

 

[susudear]

Disagree

Watson hardly did "so well" in India though, he was merely decent-ish. And Symonds (even though most of it was down to luck) did exceptionally in 2007/08 against Sri Lanka, India and West Indies.

He was the best pace bowler from Australia in that series and stats doesnt show how unlucky he was at times. In fact he was the only one who really looked like taking wickets.

Symonds didn't exactly cash-in on the "easy" games against NZ anyway (thanks in part to getting a rare piece of misfortune back) and if he were to be taken apart again in SA - which is very possible for them to do, all they need is to bowl well, Symonds does not have the skill to combat that so as long as catches are taken he would fail - then his career could just possibly be over before The Ashes.

That is not the point. Symonds got a chance ahead of Watson despite the latter having shown how well his bowling skills have consolidated. Australia obviously should have realised that their problems lie in the bowling department than batting and accordingly seen Watson as the better option than Symonds.

Of course, it should never have started ITFP as there were always better long-form batsmen than him. It was only Martyn being - ridiculously - dropped because they decided they wanted an all-rounder, then Watson being injured instantly, that caused him to get in ITFP. Then it was Hodge being injured again that caused him to get another chance he didn't deserve, then luck enabled him to take that chance.

Yes, no doubt luck has played a big part in Symonds' test career so far. However the exclusion of Watson after being the best bowler apart from Krejza in India, probably the most horrible of conditions as far as a fast bowler is concerned, and yet he was dropped in the next series. He should have got a look-in ahead of Siddle, and was value even as a third seamer.

 

[susudear]

I'm not even sure that's true TBH. Haddin has so far in his career been better than Gilchrist was for almost all the time between 2003/04 and 2007/08. And they didn't even really miss the Gilchrist of 1999/2000-2003 all that much, as they won virtually everything even after his decline. Clearly, though, a good wicketkeeper who can average all but 60 with the bat would make EVERY Test team IN HISTORY better.

However having the thought that Gilchrist was coming in at No.7 was a comforting factor for the batsmen preceding him, and demoralising for the opponents.

Besides Gilchrist's bad form really started post Ashes 2005. That was with the bat. He was solid as far as keeping is concerned.

No doubt, he is way better in both aspects than Haddin.

 

[Richard]

No doubt, Gilchrist of 1999/2000-2003 was a way superior batsman to Haddin.

However, Gilchrist of 2003/04-2007/08 isn't as good as Haddin currently appears to be.

It's true that Gilchrist's own calibre isn't all there is to his presence in the side - the reason that, despite mostly poor form, he retained his worth of a place was because of the fact he provided comfort to batsmen above him and fear-ish to bowlers. But nonetheless, performance counts, and Haddin can't be said to be inferior to the Gilchrist who played in the second half of his career.

 

[Richard]

He was the best pace bowler from Australia in that series and stats doesnt show how unlucky he was at times. In fact he was the only one who really looked like taking wickets.

Watson didn't bowl that well that series. He was OK, and that's it. Certainly didn't bowl well enough to demand to go from a reserve to a first-choice.

That is not the point. Symonds got a chance ahead of Watson despite the latter having shown how well his bowling skills have consolidated. Australia obviously should have realised that their problems lie in the bowling department than batting and accordingly seen Watson as the better option than Symonds.

Here's the chronology. Watson plays ahead of Symonds in 2005/06; Watson gets injured, so Symonds plays. Symonds is dropped for not-good-enough performance. Martyn then retires in 2006/07, Hodge is injured, so Symonds returns and good luck means he scores highly. Watson only comes back in in place of Symonds because Symonds is dropped for a disciplinary breach. Therefore, when Symonds is brought back after serving his time, Watson drops-out.

Australia, for whatever reason, go in with seven batsmen and four bowlers. They do not pick six batsmen and five bowlers. This, to my mind, is the correct approach. If Watson wishes to play ahead of Symonds, it must be if he's a better batsman, which currently he has not shown himself to be.

Yes, no doubt luck has played a big part in Symonds' test career so far. However the exclusion of Watson after being the best bowler apart from Krejza in India, probably the most horrible of conditions as far as a fast bowler is concerned, and yet he was dropped in the next series. He should have got a look-in ahead of Siddle, and was value even as a third seamer.

Watson ahead of Siddle is arguable; Watson ahead of Symonds is not. There was never any case for that once it'd been decided that Symonds had served his time.

 

[susudear]

You're joking score-card reader

Watson didn't bowl that well that series. He was OK, and that's it. Certainly didn't bowl well enough to demand to go from a reserve to a first-choice.

I guess you made that "verdict" based on score card reading?

While Johnson took his wickets by way of batsmen gifting them, Watson bowled a superb line and length most of the time. Did you watch the series, my friend?

 

[Chimpdaddy]

Australia, for whatever reason, go in with seven batsmen and four bowlers. They do not pick six batsmen and five bowlers. This, to my mind, is the correct approach. If Watson wishes to play ahead of Symonds, it must be if he's a better batsman, which currently he has not shown himself to be.

Watson ahead of Siddle is arguable; Watson ahead of Symonds is not. There was never any case for that once it'd been decided that Symonds had served his time.

That approach has to change. No Warne or McGrath means the bowling attack lacks potency. Bowling was the problem in the series against South Africa, and will continue to be a problem while the Australian attack doesn't look like getting 20 wickets. If that means sacrificing a batting-allrounder in place of a bowling-allrounder then so be it! Watson vs Symonds to me is a no brainer. Watson all the way.

-Chimpdaddy-

 

[Richard]

I guess you made that "verdict" based on score card reading?

While Johnson took his wickets by way of batsmen gifting them, Watson bowled a superb line and length most of the time. Did you watch the series, my friend?

Yes. Watson may have bowled decently, but he did not bowl outstandingly. He was notably below the level achieved by Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma, for example.

 

[Richard]

That approach has to change. No Warne or McGrath means the bowling attack lacks potency. Bowling was the problem in the series against South Africa, and will continue to be a problem while the Australian attack doesn't look like getting 20 wickets. If that means sacrificing a batting-allrounder in place of a bowling-allrounder then so be it! Watson vs Symonds to me is a no brainer. Watson all the way.

That requires Watson actually showing he can be a front-line bowler of note, something that to the current time still seems unlikely.

 

[susudear]

However

Yes. Watson may have bowled decently, but he did not bowl outstandingly. He was notably below the level achieved by Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma, for example.

Z Khan and Ishant don't play for Australia. He bowled better than any Australian pacer and that's what counts.

 

[Richard]

He may have bowled better than any Australian seamer but that's simply because most of them were very poor. Watson was merely less than abysmal.

 

[susudear]

Wrong

He may have bowled better than any Australian seamer but that's simply because most of them were very poor. Watson was merely less than abysmal.

He was quite brilliant in some spells. Given the conditions he was bowling in, he was quite awesome and impressive.

 

[Richard]

It isn't wrong, really. Watson was OK. No more than that. And I'm not going to waste time repeating myself TBH. If he'd been brilliant, he'd have taken wickets in more than just his first and last spells of the series, however little there was for seam in the pitches.

 

[susudear]

Yeah

It isn't wrong, really. Watson was OK. No more than that. And I'm not going to waste time repeating myself TBH. If he'd been brilliant, he'd have taken wickets in more than just his first and last spells of the series, however little there was for seam in the pitches.

It wouldn't be wrong to say Watson excelled than Johnson, and perhaps set up the wickets for Johnson. Look at his run rate. It is one of the best in that entire series. Fact remains no batsman did dominate him for an extended period in that series.

In short, Watson sowed, Johnson reaped. Krejza cashed in in the last test.