Lehmann left out of Australian touring squad

[SJS]

But with Gillespie and Lee also likely to be around, what do you want the selectors to do? Discard clearly superior players in the hope that someone with talent in their little finger turns into a world-beater? I don't see a point in that.

The Australian selectors have by-and-large done an excellent job in seemless transitions over a number of years now. While I'm disappointed to see Boof go, Mike Hussey offers the side another 4 to 6 years of service, and the ability to bat a number of places in the order and bowl decent medium pace. 29 certainly isn't old in cricketing terms, and even if he does last only 4 years, the young prodigy of today that people are calling for ahead of Mike will be far closer to the complete product as a cricketer that is required and expected to take their place in the Australian side.

If anyone can give me a reason to select a young player at the detriment of the side, I'm interested to hear it. At the end of the day, the selectors are paid to do a job - pick the best avaliable squad for each and every match. They do a fair job of this, as their records suggest. Because, you see, if that young player of tomorrow is showing the talent to be a superstar, let him show it over a number of seasons... International cricket is all about consistency. Had Clarke been thrown into the Test side before India, it is fair to say he certainly would not have been such an outstanding success because he turned out a better player for the time he was out of the side - he learnt to bide his time and tightened his game significantly - even from his ODI debut, he looks a significantly more complete batsman now.

If you look through some of the recent top cricketers in the Australian side, their time in the wilderness ensured they returned as fitter, hungier and most importantly better and more polished cricketers - take Steve Waugh, Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Martyn (the ideal case-in point of not selecting a youngster with oodles of talent before his time), Lehmann, Katich, Kasprowicz, Bichel, Symonds, Lehmann, Harvey and possibly even Brett Lee to name a few off the top of my head.

Once these men returned to the side, they were all in the best XI because they were within those XI best players in the country - and in my opinion, the day that the Australian selectors stop selecting the best avaliable players in the country is the day that the much - (overly, pedantically, irrationally) hyped slide will come into place.

BTW: Australian cricket was never supposed to survive the retirement of the Waugh brothers, was it?

Very well said Andre.

Discrimination on the basis of age is as bad as any other form of discrimination. Merit has to be the only criteria.

Age, experience, inexperiense (read youth) have all been used by vested interests to push the claims of various players at different times and the goal post keeps changing.

I remember Mohinder Amarnath being dropped and not included for a long time early in his career with the selectors saying he was still young and his time would come.

Later in his career he was dropped when in peak form saying he was not young and youth should be given a chance.

Whenever criteria other than merit is offered, vested intersts take over and objectivity is the first casualty.

 

[marc71178]

Ok i am from afghanistan

was little when i traveled to india then i came here when i was at my young age around 7

And that answers my question how?

 

[cricket player]

And that answers my question how?

DIdnt you said what are you?

 

[marc71178]

No, I said "You what" as in what on Earth are you talking about regarding Hayden.

 

[cricket player]

you just might want to read this damn topic to believe me. on cricinfo.

cricinfo



A big man with his own tasty cookbook, Hayden spent most of the 1990s gorging on interstate runs in an effort to prove himself to Australia's selectors. Once he returned to the national team for the third time in 1999-2000 he chewed with his mouth open in a feast that brought him 20 centuries in his first 55 Tests, and a frightening limited-overs partnership with Adam Gilchrist.

 

[Langeveldt]

Whats the point in One day cricket if all it serves to do is act as a preparing ground for the next world cup? Shame it has so little value on its own...

Sad to see Boof go.. i reckon he is a league above Katich, anyway I will miss watching the guy..

 

[marc71178]

you just might want to read this damn topic to believe me. on cricinfo.

cricinfo



A big man with his own tasty cookbook, Hayden spent most of the 1990s gorging on interstate runs in an effort to prove himself to Australia's selectors. Once he returned to the national team for the third time in 1999-2000 he chewed with his mouth open in a feast that brought him 20 centuries in his first 55 Tests, and a frightening limited-overs partnership with Adam Gilchrist.

So how does that make him more impressive when he was young?

 

[duffer]

Australia need some youngster but Mike Hussey isn't a youngster anymore, i think he is 29 or something. I'm sure in a couple year we will be saying the same thing that we are saying about Lehmann, he is too old and needs to be replaced. Where are all these youngsters in Australia, the same age as Clarke. I see some massive problems in Australia cricket after the next WC when most of their side retires or is past their best. Even the new guys coming into the Australian team aren't young. All guys like Mike Hussey will be are short term fixes for a long term problem. I think this might of be an oppurtunity to blood another young guy the age of Clarke. Guys like North are probably not ready but either was Clarke when he first got a go. The Australian selectors missed a big oppuritunity that they might regret later on.

I think the way the system is now in Australia is excellent. Why bring in a talented 20-21 year old when they aren't ready for all challenges of Test cricket. By bringing in players like Hussey and Katich in their late 20's we see talented cricketers at the peak of their game, ready for the big stage and with enough tough domestic cricket under their belts to not get too overwhelmed by it all.

These guys can play 5-6 or more years at the top level which could amount to 50 or more Test matches. Superstars like Michael Clarke will always find a way to break the mould but all in all it's a working system which the selectors and administrators should be commended for.

 

[Richard]

Whats the point in One day cricket if all it serves to do is act as a preparing ground for the next world cup? Shame it has so little value on its own...

A shame in a way, but that's always the way it's been.
Never seen any point in playing unless you're aiming for the next WC myself - hence I was glad with the large-scale retirement after WC2003 (Stewart, Hussain, Caddick, Knight - even though I'm not sure he's not still gonna be playing in 2007), it provided the opportunity for a "fresh start".
Sadly we haven't got very far yet - and if the evidence of the last 3 WCs is worth anything we're not going to get much further...

 

[tooextracool]

Hayden was dropped from the team before Lehmann you goose.

yes mr chimp, he was dropped and reselected despite failing in how many ODIs again? as opposed to lehmanns 3.

He has been retained in the squad because they can see that he is only one good innings away from a good score and is younger than Lehmann, at least he hasn't played immature innings like Lehmann.

so now you drop players based on immature innings? so you would rather have someone who fails for 10 games as opposed to someone who wins 1 game and fails immaturely in 3? brilliant.

And I must agree that the Aussie selectors are a joke considering we have won the last 2 World Cups and made the final of the one before and have (IIRC) beaten every test team away and home (except India at home which was a draw).

and maybe just maybe it might be because of the vast talent and resources they have in the country?

 

[Zinzan]

yes mr chimp, he was dropped and reselected despite failing in how many ODIs again? as opposed to lehmanns 3.

Maybe it's time to get off Hayden's back ...the poor guy's been one of the great players of his era....IMO better than any English batsmen in the last 20 years. After scoring 1000 + test runs in the last 4 years (record in itself) the guys has a modest time of it for 5 games or so and you call for his head..

Plse name a better English batsmen in the last 20 years??

 

[tooextracool]

Maybe it's time to get off Hayden's back ...the poor guy's been one of the great players of his era....IMO better than any English batsmen in the last 20 years. After scoring 1000 + test runs in the last 4 years (record in itself) the guys has a modest time of it for 5 games or so and you call for his head..

Plse name a better English batsmen in the last 20 years??

when you learn the difference between test and ODIs let me know.

 

[Craig]

another reason why the aussie selectors are a joke.....it takes them 3 bad games to drop lehmann, and an infinite number of games to drop hayden.

It is it me or didn't Hayden get dropped for the VB Series finals and Lehmann played? Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me at a young age.

And besides if the Aussie selectors are a complete joke, wouldn't they not be winning all the time? I bet the Pakistani, West Indies etc. selectors would not being a complete joke?

James Hopes fair enough, he earnt it. Funnily enough he was on the brink of being dropped by his state side Queensland because of a certain Shane Watson coming home, and has been good for us. Besides being the favourite of David Boon must be advantage?

Will be interesting if Matt Hayden will be ruled out of the NZ tour or not because of his ill health.

 

[Craig]

The day Cameron White plays for Australia will be a sure sign the crown has slipped!

I wouldn't say that, he may very well slot into the ODI team at some point, he is a good middle, lower order batsman.

Could become a batting all-rounder.

 

[Mister Wright]

yes mr chimp, he was dropped and reselected despite failing in how many ODIs again? as opposed to lehmanns 3.

Mr Chimp - lol. How many times does it have to be said, that Lehmann will not be around in 2007, he cannot afford a form slump, in particular immature innings. He has shown a weakness against spin all summer (which is usually the strongest part of his game). He has been walking accross the crease and playing ridiculous shots - he even got bowled around his legs in a club game by an off spinner. Whereas Hayden has just looked out of touch, he hasn't been doing anything ridiculous. Add to the fact he has been carrying, what now seems to be a major illness all summer - there is more to it than it appears.

so now you drop players based on immature innings? so you would rather have someone who fails for 10 games as opposed to someone who wins 1 game and fails immaturely in 3? brilliant.

See above comment.

and maybe just maybe it might be because of the vast talent and resources they have in the country?

So what? Mark Waugh was dropped after inconsistency and Damien Martyn has filled that spot with excellence, far better than Mark Waugh was doing in his twighlight. Then the no. 6 spot was filled by Lehmann, are you saying he shouldn't have been selected? The selectors have also chosen Katich & Love & now Clarke who all have excellent records at test level - should they not have been chosen? MacGill comes back for one test and gets MOTM - should he not have been chosen? Kasprowicz fills the void left by the injury of McGrath & Lee, performs well above what was expected and almost took Austrlaia's ODI player of the year, should he not have been selected? Please tell me when any of these selections should not have been made. Yes, they have been controversial (and I have opposed some) but does that mean that selectors have got it easy, just because they have a vast talent pool? I think not.

 

[tooextracool]

Mr Chimp - lol. How many times does it have to be said, that Lehmann will not be around in 2007, he cannot afford a form slump, in particular immature innings.

so why pick him ITFP? they should have dropped him immediately after wc 2003, if they knew he had no future in the aussie side. to use 3 poor games as an excuse to drop someone is quite frankly the stupidest idea ive ever heard off.

He has shown a weakness against spin all summer (which is usually the strongest part of his game).

or rather 2 games against india. which was in fact in the winter.

He has been walking accross the crease and playing ridiculous shots - he even got bowled around his legs in a club game by an off spinner.

yes clearly it is a disgrace ot get bowled around your legs, considering the number of times that lara has shuffled across and gotten bowled.

Whereas Hayden has just looked out of touch, he hasn't been doing anything ridiculous. Add to the fact he has been carrying, what now seems to be a major illness all summer - there is more to it than it appears..

oh yes now theres an excuse for his poor performances too.

So what? Mark Waugh was dropped after inconsistency

hold on a second here, mark waugh was dropped for 'inconsistency'? so howcome hayden is still in the squad despite showing the same inconsistency in ODIs?

and Damien Martyn has filled that spot with excellence, far better than Mark Waugh was doing in his twighlight.

even though martyn has been a regular feature and has performed consistently in both tests and ODIs since 99/00?
the man that replaced waugh, was surprise surprise- darren lehmann.

Then the no. 6 spot was filled by Lehmann, are you saying he shouldn't have been selected? The selectors have also chosen Katich & Love & now Clarke who all have excellent records at test level - should they not have been chosen? MacGill comes back for one test and gets MOTM - should he not have been chosen? Kasprowicz fills the void left by the injury of McGrath & Lee, performs well above what was expected and almost took Austrlaia's ODI player of the year, should he not have been selected? Please tell me when any of these selections should not have been made. Yes, they have been controversial (and I have opposed some) but does that mean that selectors have got it easy, just because they have a vast talent pool? I think not.

you've explained it yourself, it doesnt take a smart a** to make most of those selections. picking katich and love( and dont even start on how they've mistreated both of them despite their being impressive) and clarke based on good domestic performances doesnt require a great IQ. and you want controversial selections? let me hear you explain convincingly to me how kaspa didnt play in the ODI final despite having the best record amongst all the bowlers in the previous year. explain to me how they managed to pick those phenomenal bowlers in williams and bracken since these selectors are supposed to be oh so very brilliant. please give me the names of the geniuses that decide to pick symonds on the tour of SL ahead of katich despite his match saving efforts in his previous game. no they have the easiest job in the world, because the standard of domestic cricket is so good, most players who have successful domestic records almost invariably succeed at the international level(or at least amongst the batsmen). when it comes to the bowlers-mcgrath,warne and gillespie are certainities anyways, kaspa should be, but unfortunately because the selectors decide who they like and who they dont, they decide that his place in contested with lee.

 

[tooextracool]

It is it me or didn't Hayden get dropped for the VB Series finals and Lehmann played? Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me at a young age.

no im referring to the current squad, hayden is in it, lehmann isnt. which clearly explains that hayden wasnt 'dropped' for the finals. more like 'rested'.

And besides if the Aussie selectors are a complete joke, wouldn't they not be winning all the time? I bet the Pakistani, West Indies etc. selectors would not being a complete joke?

so your saying that if a team does well the selectors are invariably doing a brilliant job? if you are saying that then let me also hear you say with a straight face that the english selectors have been doing a brilliant job with the current test side. no while the australian selectors arent nearly as bad as the ones in england, india and pakistan, it doesnt change the fact the fact that they are still poor.

 

[Swervy]

Maybe it's time to get off Hayden's back ...the poor guy's been one of the great players of his era....IMO better than any English batsmen in the last 20 years. After scoring 1000 + test runs in the last 4 years (record in itself) the guys has a modest time of it for 5 games or so and you call for his head..

Plse name a better English batsmen in the last 20 years??

why do i get the feeling you dont like England too much???

 

[SJS]

why do i get the feeling you dont like England too much???

Name one person outside of England who does (and 15 inside England)

Kidding

 

[Monty]

Hey i am an aussie who likes england i would prefer to play test cricket for england than australia
any way here is what i think the side for the first odi should look like
1. Gilchrist (WK)
2. Clarke
3. Ponting
4. MArtyn
5. Hussey
6. Symonds
7.Hogg
8.Gillespie
9. Lee
10. Kasprowicz
11.MCgrath
this would be a wicked side batsman down to number 9 and a six pronged attack with a mix of pace and spin