Ferguson out for 6-12 months

[pasag]

Can't see how it isn't a big loss for Australia. He's performed really well in the ODI squad and has been absolutely key in getting Australia to a credible total in a fair few games. Having him down the order is nice security, and the guy's only 24. I'd definitely say it's quite a big loss for the one day team.

Yep, HUGE loss for our ODI middle order already reeling from losing Symonds and who knows how long Hussey will keep playing that format also, good chance he won't even be there in 6 months.

 

[Richard]

Symonds was a) recovering from injury and b) undergoing disciplinary proceedings for comments made on radio about Brendon McCullum when Ferguson made his debut, so no, Symonds wasn't an option.

Around the time of the ODI series against South Africa and New Zealand Australia had been weakened significantly in their batting - Marsh was injured, as was Watson, Gilchrist retired after the India series, Hayden had retired - there was plenty of space available in the line up for a newcomer. Why not give a chance to a young player who at the time of his selection was very much in form domestically?

The fact that several players were injured (and I'll say it again - I'm absolutely sure Ferguson was given a position initially as a fill-in for a game or two when one of the big three, Ponting, Hussey and Clarke - not sure which - was rested) is precisely what I'm on about. But for the proliferation of injuries, and the odd requirement to rest, it's very possible Ferguson would still never have played a ODI yet. And if he hadn't, no-one could say it was an injustice.

 

[four_or_six]

How on Earth did you deduce that from anything I've said so far? I said Ferguson deserves full credit for taking the chances offered him, but that the chances weren't really earned.

Adam Voges, to name just one, should have played before he did.

Adam Voges did pull out of a tour to the UAE for his wedding in April (at which point Ferguson had only played 10 ODIs) so it's not as if they were far away from each other in terms of getting an opportunity.

 

[Richard]

My point is that when Ferguson was called in for his debut, Voges should've been rather than him. There might well be one or two others as well, Voges is just the most obvious name to come to my mind. It's criminal how he's never got the slightest shot at ODIs while David Hussey has had several gos.

 

[Furball]

The fact that several players were injured (and I'll say it again - I'm absolutely sure Ferguson was given a position initially as a fill-in for a game or two when one of the big three, Ponting, Hussey and Clarke - not sure which - was rested) is precisely what I'm on about. But for the proliferation of injuries, and the odd requirement to rest, it's very possible Ferguson would still never have played a ODI yet. And if he hadn't, no-one could say it was an injustice.

wtf that has to do with anything is beyond me.

 

[SeamUp]

To me its extremely vital to have a good mixture of youth and experience. Just think the Katich, Ponting and Hussey are already mid 30's. It was vital to bring the next generation of batsmen like White, Ferguson, Hughes and Marsh to get exposure.

As a Saffer supporter I think White and Ferguson aren't the most talented but know their game well and know the areas they hit the ball well in and have done fairly successful.

Just think the of the line-up and I think Hughes will be back.

KATICH
HUGHES
PONTING
CLARKE
M.HUSSEY
NORTH

only 2 are under 30 there.

Therefore its good to have Watson, White, Marsh and Ferguson next in line.

People like Rogers and Jaques shouldn't really be selected because you cannot let a team get to old together and when Ponting retires you want the new younger batsman to have gained experience and produce match-winning knocks.

 

[Top_Cat]

My point is that when Ferguson was called in for his debut, Voges should've been rather than him. There might well be one or two others as well, Voges is just the most obvious name to come to my mind. It's criminal how he's never got the slightest shot at ODIs while David Hussey has had several gos.

No-one who's seen him bat would say that. Pretty limited player. They picked Hussey and he hasn't lived up to their expectations. It's not the selector's fault that a bloke who averages 50+ in FC hasn't taken the chances given him.

 

[Richard]

Well Hussey D hasn't played a Test so his FC record is irrelevant but isn't it considerably better over here than in Aus? I thought it was only OD that he had excelled consistently in over there. And UIMM Voges has done better in OD than HussD, so however limited he may appear on the face of things he deserves a chance more.

BTW I'm not saying HussD was a bad pick for ODIs, just that if he deserves a chance, Voges definately does.

 

[Richard]

wtf that has to do with anything is beyond me.

It has everything to do with everything I've been saying throughout this thread. But for a few coincidences of circumstance Ferguson might never have played an international match yet. In which case not that many people outside SA would be batting an eyelid at this news. Precious few outside Aus would.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ferguson's always been one of those players who's had to do just that bit less than everyone else to get huge wraps, just because he looks so good. He had rave reviews when coming into South Australia's team originally despite not even completely earning his selection in it through the Grade cricket system, and the Australian selectors have basically just been sweating on him to do something so they could pick him ever since. He's been playing for South Australia since 2002/03 and had never even had a season in which he averaged 30 in one day cricket before 2008/09, but of course actually scoring runs consistently is secondary if you can remind people of Greg Blewett on the rare occasion you actually do something.

Despite all that, even I myself have always had high hopes for Ferguson - mainly because it so often seems that the quality of bowling his facing has such little relevance. He's rarely actually beaten by good bowling - he usually loses concentration and finds a way to get himself out once set - so there's a belief (one that I'm actually somewhat open to) that he'll produce extremely similar returns regardless of the level he plays at. The rise in the quality of the bowling probably won't effect him much as his biggest demon is so often himself. After watching him play for South Australia just before his selection, I had little doubt he could do a good job for Australia in the short-term - my concern was and still is his ability to back it consistently after his form levelled out if he kept his place in the team. The selectors were vindicated in their choice to pick him in the one day team and I didn't even really mind the selection when it happened, but the thought of him in the Test team genuinely grinds my gears.

My main gripe with having him in the Test frame isn't so much to do with his ability, but the message it sends to the entire system, and indeed Ferguson himself. For as long as I've followed Ferguson's career he's been selected in teams based on how he looks rather than how many runs he's scored, and I get the feeling that probably happened a fair bit through the junior ranks as well. I don't want a situation created where he thinks that looking like you'll score runs is as successful as scoring them as the same could well happen at the top, as well as obviously having a negative impact on the actual goals of those batsmen playing domestic cricket.

People have accused me in the past of having some agenda against him, but I'd actually love nothing more than to see him come into the Test team in a few years time with a gut full of runs in the Shield to his name. I really enjoy watching him bat; he's right up my ally from an aesthetic point of view. What I have an agenda against is the queue-hopping that undermines the entire system - Australia are certainly not desperate when it comes to Test middle order batting options so there's no reason at all to turn to this bloke before he actually strings a couple of noteworthy seasons together.


.........


And even given all that, I still think Richard's claim that this injury could be a good thing for him and/or Australia in the long run is nothing short of absurd.

 

[Jamee999]

Knee reconstruction is a seriously dodgy business, there's no way it can ever be good. Only positive would be that it's his back knee, perhaps? Not the knee he's committing weight to on the drive.

Big blow to Australia though, obviously, this guy's looked like a seriously good batsman to me.

 

[Uppercut]

Ferguson's always been one of those players who's had to do just that bit less than everyone else to get huge wraps, just because he looks so good. He had rave reviews when coming into South Australia's team originally despite not even completely earning his selection in it through the Grade cricket system, and the Australian selectors have basically just been sweating on him to do something so they could pick him ever since. He's been playing for South Australia since 2002/03 and had never even had a season in which he averaged 30 in one day cricket before 2008/09, but of course actually scoring runs consistently is secondary if you can remind people of Greg Blewett on the rare occasion you actually do something.

Despite all that, even I myself have always had high hopes for Ferguson - mainly because it so often seems that the quality of bowling his facing has such little relevance. He's rarely actually beaten by good bowling - he usually loses concentration and finds a way to get himself out once set - so there's a belief (one that I'm actually somewhat open to) that he'll produce extremely similar returns regardless of the level he plays at. The rise in the quality of the bowling probably won't effect him much as his biggest demon is so often himself. After watching him play for South Australia just before his selection, I had little doubt he could do a good job for Australia in the short-term - my concern was and still is his ability to back it consistently after his form levelled out if he kept his place in the team. The selectors were vindicated in their choice to pick him in the one day team and I didn't even really mind the selection when it happened, but the thought of him in the Test team genuinely grinds my gears.

My main gripe with having him in the Test frame isn't so much to do with his ability, but the message it sends to the entire system, and indeed Ferguson himself. For as long as I've followed Ferguson's career he's been selected in teams based on how he looks rather than how many runs he's scored, and I get the feeling that probably happened a fair bit through the junior ranks as well. I don't want a situation created where he thinks that looking like you'll score runs is as successful as scoring them as the same could well happen at the top, as well as obviously having a negative impact on the actual goals of those batsmen playing domestic cricket.

I don't think it's uncommon, tbh. Xavier Marshall was the worst case I can remember in recent history. A single back-foot drive for four was seemingly worth a few thousand runs for Marshall, even being enough to override prior disciplinary issues. He's still never scored a single first-class century!

I need the runs on the board to be convinced of a batsman. For bowlers it's different. If you go to see Graham Onions at Taunton and he's taking quality batting lineups to pieces on the deadest track imaginable, there's no point in waiting for him to do it for two straight years, by which point he's lost form, the place in the side isn't really up for grabs and he's severely disillusioned with the system. What makes a good batsman is generally shown moreso in his figures than in how he looks when he plays IMO.

 

[Richard]

And even given all that, I still think Richard's claim that this injury could be a good thing for him and/or Australia in the long run is nothing short of absurd.

It's, obviously, not likely to stop the looks-cause-queue-hopping phenomena - that, as pointed-out by our Willing friend (sorry, can never resist that one), happens everywhere without irregularity.

However, it might just put a stop to the circle in this particular case.

Obviously it's not likely to be a good thing in the long-run for Ferguson at all (though that isn't beyond the realms of possibility) but it just could have some small degree of benefit for Australia if it stops him from being given an undeserved Test chance.

 

[Richard]

Knee reconstruction is a seriously dodgy business, there's no way it can ever be good. Only positive would be that it's his back knee, perhaps? Not the knee he's committing weight to on the drive.

Obviously no serious injury is ever good from a mechanical POV.

Big blow to Australia though, obviously, this guy's looked like a seriously good batsman to me.

Yup, he has, and not merely looked, so far he has been - doesn't absolutely mean he will continue to be though, because as pointed-out he's been looking good without delivering for a fair while now. And it might be a good thing for Australia that they are prevented from picking him for Tests, where otherwise that error might have been made.

 

[howardj]

I think Ferguson's path is very similar to Michael Clarke's.

Both came to FC young; both look good at the crease; both scoring FC hundreds at age 21-22; neither had outstanding FC records before playing ODIs for Australia but both were able to seamlessly take that step into the international theatre.

Like Clarke, I think Ferguson will make it as a Test batsmen and probably first pull on the Baggygreen (again like Clarke) with a modest FC average behind him.

 

[Richard]

Clarke's premature elevation meant he had a couple of years as a batsman who wasn't up to it in Tests though. Only after scoring 398 for once out in the ol' Shield in 2005/06 did Clarke truly show he had it in him at Test level, and has duly convinced fully since returning in 2006/07.

 

[howardj]

FC Averages are not everything - being able to take that next step into ODIs is sometimes more important when judging whether a batsman is ready to make his Test debut.

 

[howardj]

Clarke's premature elevation meant he had a couple of years as a batsman who wasn't up to it in Tests though. Only after scoring 398 for once out in the ol' Shield in 2005/06 did Clarke truly show he had it in him at Test level, and has duly convinced fully since returning in 2006/07.

Bit like the chicken and the egg though.

I think being elevated accelerated his development.

 

[Richard]

I don't. I think a class player like him was always going to develop sometime, and that time happened in 2005/06.

No way to be certain, obviously, but I didn't see anything to suggest Clarke's shortcomings (exposed in Tests in 2004/05, 2005 and (briefly) early 2005/06; and which had been being exposed in the domestic game for several years before) contributed to his making the necessary adjustments. It's not like they weren't obvious - he should've known what it was that was making him a merely average batsman rather than the outstanding one he always clearly had the potential to be.

It was just a question of waiting until he ironed-out the faults. Or maybe until they ironed themselves out.

 

[howardj]

Disagree.

I think the greats are always promoted probably before their time. I give you Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, McGrath, Warne etc. Most get dropped, but benefit from the exposure and come back better players.

The early exposure accelerates their development, not stifles it.