Brad Hogg as a test match option

[Mister Wright]

Understandible. **** of a bloke, seems, in that case. But he could still be a good batsman.

He's a good batsman, don't get me wrong. But, not that much better than Symonds.

 

[Burgey]

What makes you not rate Hodge?

Only thing I don't rate him in is low-ego stakes.

Still got a question mark re. his off stump technique vs pace at test level, imo.

 

[aussie]

Think that so called problem is over-rated even if it is their IMO. I honestly didn't notice it much in the 2005/06 vs the South Africans. I think it was just a stupid excuse given by the selectors for dropping him because they wanted Martyn back for the Ashes which was quickly followed up by a members on CW.

If you want to talk very bad off-stump technique to the quicks Lehmann to me was very bad..

 

[Richard]

Funny how Lehmann averaged all but 60 and Hodge just late 40s, then, isn't it?

Hodge's being dropped in 2005\06 was terrible selection, just as the decision to drop Martyn ITFP was. Neither deserved it.

 

[Pup Clarke]

just as the decision to drop Martyn ITFP was.

But Martyn wasn't getting runs if I remember correctly...

 

[Richard]

For a whole 4 Tests. He should never have been dropped when there were others who'd strugged in those same 4 games without his prior pedigree (don't forget he'd been scoring runs for fun the previous 10 months or so).

Australia shouldn't really have dropped anyone after that series IMO. Gillespie had to go during it, and did, and I suppose there was a case for axing Kasprowicz. But Martyn being dropped was a poor decision IMO.

And this is from someone who's never rated Martyn as much more than a run-of-the-mill Test batsman.

 

[Pup Clarke]

He should never have been dropped when there were others who'd strugged in those same 4 games without his prior pedigree.

Hayden and Langer were never going to be dropped, Ponting was getting runs and so was Clarke and Katich didn't do to badly as well. What batsmen should have got dropped ahead of Martyn because imo he was the worst Australian batsmen in that series?.

 

[Richard]

None of them should have been dropped, that's the point. If someone was to be, Clarke should have been the first at that point in time.

Me, though, I thought the line-up against West Indies should have been Hayden, Hussey (standing in for Langer), Ponting, Martyn, Katich, Clarke, Gilchrist. If Watson had to play, he should have played ahead of Clarke.

 

[Prince EWS]

Funny how Lehmann averaged all but 60 and Hodge just late 40s, then, isn't it?

Hodge's being dropped in 2005\06 was terrible selection, just as the decision to drop Martyn ITFP was. Neither deserved it.

It's not always about what is deserved though. I'd rather players get harshly dropped in the best interests of the team than kept in team when the selectors didn't think they were the best option, just because their recent performances did not deserve a dropping.

Hodge was very good in patches - and scored that double ton. But some of his dismissals were embarressing and it had become fairly obvious that he was being worked out in several different ways at test level. I was in favour of him being dropped then - not because he deserved it, but because I thought Martyn would do a better job against South Africa. Selections don't have to follow set rules of deserved droppings and promotions - they should be based on a simple premise of picking the best team, in the selectors' eyes, for each game.

 

[PhoenixFire]

He's a good batsman, don't get me wrong. But, not that much better than Symonds.

From what I've seen of Hodge, he seems to be a lot better than Symonds. He can actually defend without getting bored and giving his wicket away.

 

[Prince EWS]

He's a good batsman, don't get me wrong. But, not that much better than Symonds.

Yes, yes he is, TBH.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Basically, I couldn't see Symonds scoring a 200, against an attack of Ntini, Pollock, Nel, Langeveldt and Kemp, in what was a pretty low-scoring match.

 

[Prince EWS]

Aussie's side is just not going to happen.

If I were selector, Hussey would be opening and both Symonds and Watson would be playing. But, then I'm a QLD so expect Fuller et al. to say it's bias, but I think Symonds deserves to keep his spot.

What exactly is the point of having Symonds and Watson? Watson's bowling would make Symonds's bowling a mute point, and he certainly isn't good enough to make the side on batting alone.

 

[Prince EWS]

Basically, I couldn't see Symonds scoring a 200, against an attack of Ntini, Pollock, Nel, Langeveldt and Kemp, in what was a pretty low-scoring match.

Or averaging more than 30 in test cricket, even.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Agree with Rob on this one, Symonds isn't a good enough bowler to consistently trouble the top 6 of any decent nation, and his batting is so hit and miss that it can't be relied on. Remember that he would nearly definitely be dropped had he not got that 156 against a downtrodden England in the '06/'07 Ashes.

 

[Richard]

In other words, had he been given lbw when he was - plumb - to MSP on 56 or something.

 

[Richard]

Basically, I couldn't see Symonds scoring a 200, against an attack of Ntini, Pollock, Nel, Langeveldt and Kemp, in what was a pretty low-scoring match.

Even, indeed, if he were to be dropped on 46 (or something like that).

 

[Pup Clarke]

I could see him plundering a few runs off Langeveldt and kemp tbh...Ntini, Pollock and Nel however would be a totally different proposition.

 

[Richard]

It's not always about what is deserved though. I'd rather players get harshly dropped in the best interests of the team than kept in team when the selectors didn't think they were the best option, just because their recent performances did not deserve a dropping.

Hodge was very good in patches - and scored that double ton. But some of his dismissals were embarressing and it had become fairly obvious that he was being worked out in several different ways at test level. I was in favour of him being dropped then - not because he deserved it, but because I thought Martyn would do a better job against South Africa. Selections don't have to follow set rules of deserved droppings and promotions - they should be based on a simple premise of picking the best team, in the selectors' eyes, for each game.

That's all well and good (and, indeed, I'd be in favour of dropping fingerspinners, however good, if the pitch didn't suit them) but you've got to set some stall by output (even regardless of performance - Hodge, for instance, being dropped in that double-century). I don't believe you can justify dropping a batsman because "we don't think he'll do well this game". If you do, it's poor, not good, selection in my book.

Even that aside, I don't think there was any evidence that Martyn would not have been the best bet for the start of the 2005\06 season. Indeed, IMO being dropped from the Test team unhinged him until his recall, and whenever I did see him play that season he seemed not to give a flying **** whether he succeeded or not, and this was backed-up by his comments around the time. He's always seemed rather volatile mentally, to me, in any case.

 

[Burgey]

In other words, had he been given lbw when he was - plumb - to MSP on 56 or something.

Just as Martyn was pineappled in 05 three times. Ended up costing him his spot for the better part of a year.