Haddin for Gilchrist in ODI

[Richard]

But why? If a player is still performing at top level cricket, enjoying himself, and doing a good job for his country then it doesn't make sense to retire.

It does if ODIs are the subject-matter IMO, because all ODIs should be geared towards building a team for the next World Cup, and when that Cup's 4 years away, you're doing a bad job for your country in the grand scheme, even if a good one in the immediately obvious, by playing on when you're not going to be around for it.

 

[Richard]

Yeah Gilly is in that stage of his career where he can think like that, anyways even at this stage of his career he is miles ahead of any Gilchrist- wannabe in world cricket.
As i said he is legend and should be treated like one, he played the game in his own very unique style, and he has every right to decide when is right time for him to go, he will always put Australian cricket ahead of himself and when he feels the team is suffering because of him he will decide that its time for him to go.

I don't dispute any of this for a second, but I think he should have decided that the WC final was the time to go, personally.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm sure it does, but as I say, I think he's probably going to do more harm than good by continuing to play now. Unless Gilchrist feels very confident of playing in WC2011, IMO it'd be best for Australia to get Haddin in now, and then IF he doesn't go as well as expected then they can look at someone else in as much time as possible.

Bearing in mind this and the chance to finish with a WC final 149, I think that would've been the perfect time to call it a day from ODIs. I can understand Ganguly, Dravid and Tendulkar not retiring after the Cup because of the way it went.

TBH, not everyone is forever obsessed with building for the next World Cup like you are, when the last one has just finished. It's not about finishing on a high note, or looking ahead four years, it is about what Gilchrist wants to do. It's not his decision to decide whether he's the best option for his team or not - that is up to the selectors IMO. It's his decision to decide whether he wants to play or not. Nothing more. If he wants to play, he should make himself available. If he doesn't, then he shouldn't. What his last score was and whether people think he should be in the team or not is IMO completely irrelevant to what decision he has to make.

 

[Prince EWS]

It does if ODIs are the subject-matter IMO, because all ODIs should be geared towards building a team for the next World Cup, and when that Cup's 4 years away, you're doing a bad job for your country in the grand scheme, even if a good one in the immediately obvious, by playing on when you're not going to be around for it.

That isn't his call though, IMO.

 

[Perm]

It does if ODIs are the subject-matter IMO, because all ODIs should be geared towards building a team for the next World Cup, and when that Cup's 4 years away, you're doing a bad job for your country in the grand scheme, even if a good one in the immediately obvious, by playing on when you're not going to be around for it.

Not all ODI's are used to develop and build for the next World Cup, again a very basic concept that you have failed to grasp. If a player is still winning games for his country he shouldn't retire, especically if the player in question is still enjoying top level cricket.

 

[Flem274*]

At hte risk of getting into another argument with Richard, Richard Shane Bond won't be around next WC either, are you suggesting we should drop him and proceed to get obliterated in ODI's?

Oh and I think Gilchrist should be kept unless he underperforms.

 

[Richard]

TBH, not everyone is forever obsessed with building for the next World Cup like you are, when the last one has just finished. It's not about finishing on a high note, or looking ahead four years

Not everyone is, no, but plenty are, all of players, selectors and pundits. I'm well aware that we differ on the point of a ODI - I feel there'd be no point in playing them if there wasn't a World Cup, you don't. But many players, from many countries, have stood down once they know they're not going to be around for a Cup, unless they've got loose ends to tie.

it is about what Gilchrist wants to do. It's not his decision to decide whether he's the best option for his team or not - that is up to the selectors IMO.

Why? Why should a player not do what is best for his team, regarding any issue? Any player who's retired from ODIs - and as I say there have been many of them - because "I won't be around for the next Cup" has done it for precisely this reason.

It's his decision to decide whether he wants to play or not. Nothing more. If he wants to play, he should make himself available. If he doesn't, then he shouldn't. What his last score was and whether people think he should be in the team or not is IMO completely irrelevant to what decision he has to make.

Obviously his last score is irrelevant if he still feels he has things he wants to do, but I can't really see what they'd be TBH. Gilchrist has achieved everything he could possibly want to in ODIs from what I can see, and an innings like that couldn't have been a better way to draw down the curtain.

 

[Richard]

Not all ODI's are used to develop and build for the next World Cup, again a very basic concept that you have failed to grasp. If a player is still winning games for his country he shouldn't retire, especically if the player in question is still enjoying top level cricket.

My opinion is that there's no point winning ODIs if you then lose badly in a World Cup, it's not a basic concept I've failed to grasp, it's a polarised issue that different people take different standpoints on. Every single ODI of the previous 4 years, even Champions Trophy ones, is pretty much forgotten when a World Cup comes around. One's performance in a World Cup is never, ever forgotten - Pakistan, England and New Zealand will all always treasure the 1992 World Cup. This is not true of the result of almost any ODI in between, certainly not bilateral series (as some tournaments do remain memorable, such as NWS 2002).

 

[Matt79]

We'd only start looking at the 2011 WC after the next CT. The immediate aim is to retain the number 1 ICC ranking for the entirety of the next 4 years until the next WC.

 

[Richard]

At hte risk of getting into another argument with Richard, Richard Shane Bond won't be around next WC either, are you suggesting we should drop him and proceed to get obliterated in ODI's?

It's going to happen eventually, what difference does it make if it happens now or in 2 years' time? Who's really going to remember what New Zealand's ODI performances were like in 2007 and 2008 in 2015? Pretty much no-one, I'd bet.

That said, nor would I bet against Bond making 2011. He's, what, 32? He hasn't fallen down for a fair while now, and most top-notch bowlers (which Bond beyond question is, especially in ODIs) are still perfectly good enough at 36. So I'd hope he can make it, personally.

 

[Richard]

We'd only start looking at the 2011 WC after the next CT. The immediate aim is to retain the number 1 ICC ranking for the entirety of the next 4 years until the next WC.

See, that surprises me. I honestly couldn't give a stuff about ODI rankings, and I rarely if ever hear anyone else mention them either.

Just pointless high-level maths that most people won't even have the slightest desire, never mind skill, to understand.

 

[Matt79]

Matters to us, as much as anything except the WC does. I can understand not caring if you're 6th or 7th, but being number 1 is special.

 

[Athlai]

I think Richard's got a bit of a point really. While at the moment its not whats most important, replacing him with someone who is potentially just as good as him would be the right thing to do. Letting a player have that much time to establish themselves in the side could really make a difference to how their overall position in the team spans out.

In ODI's everything in the long run is about the WC, while most teams won't prepare for it until it's 2 years or less away I believe that retiring players out of cricket in the period prior to that would probably be a standard act.

 

[Matt79]

To elaborate, when SA briefly overtook us as #1 in ODIs, there was quite a bit of comment on it and the team and fans were genuinely put out as they felt it misrepresented the situation. It definitely added to their motivation.

The view that only the WC matters is an extreme ideological standpoint that very few people share Rich. The expectation for this Australian team now, from the fans, media and even selectors, is that we basically should win every single match we play, and in as much as we recognise that's unrealistic, we should certainly win every tournament we play, even a little one like this Freedom Cup. People were unhappy about losing the Chappell-Hadlee, and the only reason that wasn't a big stink was because the WC was so close.

 

[Matt79]

I think Richard's got a bit of a point really. While at the moment its not whats most important, replacing him with someone who is potentially just as good as him would be the right thing to do. Letting a player have that much time to establish themselves in the side could really make a difference to how their overall position in the team spans out.

In ODI's everything in the long run is about the WC, while most teams won't prepare for it until it's 2 years or less away I believe that retiring players out of cricket in the period prior to that would probably be a standard act.

Agree, but as you say, and as I said, two years is a more realistic time frame to start a build up than four.

 

[Athlai]

Agree, but as you say, and as I said, two years is a more realistic time frame to start a build up than four.

Yeah I think the main point of doing it now is that Australia's not really losing anything when they bring Haddin in for him as he is also a very good player.

 

[Richard]

To elaborate, when SA briefly overtook us as #1 in ODIs, there was quite a bit of comment on it and the team and fans were genuinely put out as they felt it misrepresented the situation. It definitely added to their motivation.

The view that only the WC matters is an extreme ideological standpoint that very few people share Rich. The expectation for this Australian team now, from the fans, media and even selectors, is that we basically should win every single match we play, and in as much as we recognise that's unrealistic, we should certainly win every tournament we play, even a little one like this Freedom Cup. People were unhappy about losing the Chappell-Hadlee, and the only reason that wasn't a big stink was because the WC was so close.

I have noticed that aiming for the next Cup immediately after the last one is less common in Australia than anywhere else, yes, even when the team is down in the lower reaches of ODI calibre (ie, in the time from about 1992 to about 1999).

It's interesting. Very interesting.

Nonetheless, I think losing a few ODI tournaments would be pretty easily forgotten if World Cup success followed in 2 years' time. I'd be astonished if the hurt of the early exit in WC92 EVER fades, though, regardless of anything that has followed.

 

[Matt79]

There are no players and few administrators/team management types from 1992 still involved in any level of the sport today, so directly it would have, but as part of the general cultural heritage, it is there - but probably no more significant that getting done by Zimbabwe in the first WC.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, no-one involved in the setup, but people who watched it still talk about it loads (and not just gloating Brits)

 

[Matt79]

Noone I know. Haven't heard it mentioned as something that bothers anyone since the 96 WC, or at the latest the 99WC...