Lehmann left out of Australian touring squad

[marc71178]

Mistakes based on what exactly?

Your own view?

 

[Richard]

Mine and God-knows-how-many others, in fact.
How many people have lambasted the dropping of Lehmann, Bevan, Bichel (not that I'm amongst them) and suchlike?
How many have lamented the non-selection of Kasprowicz (and the fact that it's blatantly obvious that a bad game or two will see him dumped again) and the like?
How many have crucified the selection of Clarke, Bracken, Williams, MacGill, Lee and the like?
Quite a few, and that's just on here.

 

[tooextracool]

No I am not.

I simply don't see how Australian selectors can be a joke yet the team is constantly winning yet can be blasted as poor.

why on earth not? if the WI selectors back in the 80s had not picked marshall and picked any of the bowlers on the bench, i still wouldnt be surprised if they had a similar amount of success, because the quality of players playing domestic cricket was extremely high. fact is that with the standard of australian domestic cricket and the coaching, almost anyone who is successful in domestic cricket, invariably ends up being successful in tests. what i cant stand is that australian selectors manage to pick the ones that are so obviously not going to be successful in test cricket over ones that are so obviously are.

As for Williams and Bracken, did it not occur to you that Australia were going through some heavy injuries among their bowlers and one suspended (his own fault), so therefore they had to pick the next best available players, which they were.

did it not occur to you that there were far better options, and bracken never ever ever looked like being test class? the selection of bracken was understandable because, he at least looked capable, but the non selection of kasparowicz for that series and for god knows how long before that despite his consistent performances is simply ludicrous.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

How many people have lambasted the dropping of Lehmann, Bevan, Bichel (not that I'm amongst them) and suchlike?

All good decisions, under the circumstances.

How many have lamented the non-selection of Kasprowicz (and the fact that it's blatantly obvious that a bad game or two will see him dumped again) and the like?

That depends which "non-selection" you are talking about. If you are talking about him being ignored for Williams and co in 2003, certainly it was a poor decision. If you are talking about him being rotated in and out of the ODI side to give Lee a go... well given Lee's recent performances how exactly could you argue against it? He was the best player in the VB series, after all.

How many have crucified the selection of Clarke, Bracken, Williams, MacGill, Lee and the like?
Quite a few, and that's just on here.

Plenty complained about Clarke being selected, and obviously they were absolutely wrong as he has had one of the most successful starts to his international career in recent memory. Bracken and Williams had excellent tours of India and were poor after that, at the least Kasprowicz should have been selected above them for the 2003 Indian series, but given the form they had shown against the same opposition just weeks earlier, can you blame the selectors for giving them another go? Macgill is the second best spinner in Australia and deserves his spot when a second spinner is picked... who would you prefer to have in his place? Brad Hogg or Nathan Hauritz? Lee is a quality bowler and deserves to be the first in line should an opening appear in the Australian side as it currently stands.

 

[Richard]

All good decisions, under the circumstances.

Yet plenty are willing to label them otherwise - not just me.

That depends which "non-selection" you are talking about. If you are talking about him being ignored for Williams and co in 2003, certainly it was a poor decision. If you are talking about him being rotated in and out of the ODI side to give Lee a go... well given Lee's recent performances how exactly could you argue against it? He was the best player in the VB series, after all.

I'm talking about him being ignored in 2003\04.

Plenty complained about Clarke being selected, and obviously they were absolutely wrong as he has had one of the most successful starts to his international career in recent memory.

Whether or not he has been a success does not change the fact that to select him was a poor decision.
There were candidates that any fool could see were more deserving.

Bracken and Williams had excellent tours of India

In ODIs.

Macgill is the second best spinner in Australia and deserves his spot when a second spinner is picked... who would you prefer to have in his place? Brad Hogg or Nathan Hauritz?

No, I'd just say that to pick a second spinner is a wholly stupid decision if the best they can do is one of those 3.

Lee is a quality bowler and deserves to be the first in line should an opening appear in the Australian side as it currently stands.

I'd say there are about 5 who deserve to be in front of him, because it's been proven time and again over several years and lots of Test-matches that he's nowhere near good enough.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Whether or not he has been a success does not change the fact that to select him was a poor decision.
There were candidates that any fool could see were more deserving.

The fact that Clarke was selected over said candidates is exactly why the selectors are doing an excellent job. They saw his talent and selected him over other players who, while more experienced and better tested in domestic cricket, would most likely not have been as successful. How you can claim that picking a young, unproven talent who goes on to be a monster success is a bad decision is beyond me. It is such decisions which good selectors have to make.

In ODIs.

ODIs do not exist in a seperate universe to tests. Obviously the games are different, but there is a reason that selectorial policies often revolve around testing players in the less intensive one day format before promoting them to the test squad. In retrospect Bracken and Williams were not able to handle a top quality bowling lineup in tests on flat wickets, but that doesn't mean they weren't worth a shot after their great performances against the same opposition just prior to the Indian tour.

No, I'd just say that to pick a second spinner is a wholly stupid decision if the best they can do is one of those 3.

Yes, because the Warne/Macgill combination has been such a dismal failure every time it has been tried, hasn't it?

I'd say there are about 5 who deserve to be in front of him, because it's been proven time and again over several years and lots of Test-matches that he's nowhere near good enough.

Ludicrous. Lee had a spectacular start to his test career for a reason, and it's the same reason he is consistently top class in ODIs, which is that he is a quality bowler. No, he isn't yet at the standard of McGrath or Gillespie, and no over the 12 months leading up to the recent VB series he shouldn't have been selected in the test side ahead of Kasprowicz, but he is a quality bowler and has obviously improved dramatically in recent times. He will get another test opportunity, and there is no other bowler in Australian cricket who deserves it ahead of him.

 

[Richard]

The fact that Clarke was selected over said candidates is exactly why the selectors are doing an excellent job. They saw his talent and selected him over other players who, while more experienced and better tested in domestic cricket, would most likely not have been as successful. How you can claim that picking a young, unproven talent who goes on to be a monster success is a bad decision is beyond me. It is such decisions which good selectors have to make.

I hardly see that he's been a monster success, averaging 48.53. It's good, yes, but by current standards it's nothing more than that. Most Australians have been averaging in that region over the last 5 years or so.
Who on Earth is to say that the better-qualified candidates wouldn't have done just as well? I'd certainly think they would have.

ODIs do not exist in a seperate universe to tests. Obviously the games are different, but there is a reason that selectorial policies often revolve around testing players in the less intensive one day format before promoting them to the test squad.

Yes - because they don't realise that the two games actually have plenty of large, very significant differences. Just because you can bowl well in one form doesn't mean you can in the other. Testing players in the supposedly less intensive ODI format (hardly the case in the subcontinent - ODIs are so much more intense than Tests it's untrue) with mind to bringing them into the Test-side is a very stupid idea unless they've shown pedigree at both forms at the domestic level. Otherwise you'll just get a misleading impression - either that they're not up to it in Tests because they weren't in ODIs, or that they might be up to it in Tests because they are in ODIs. And there are countless times I've seen people either discarded simply because they aren't very good one-day players and have been picked for ODIs and failed; or be picked for Tests because they are good one-day players and have excelled at ODI level, and fail miserably.

In retrospect Bracken and Williams were not able to handle a top quality bowling lineup in tests on flat wickets, but that doesn't mean they weren't worth a shot after their great performances against the same opposition just prior to the Indian tour.

The same opposition? I didn't notice Australia playing the Indian Test side that winter. There were several bowlers more worth a shot, and how Williams ever did so well that TVS Cup (mostly against New Zealand, I might add - in his 4 games against India he went at 5.33-an-over, taking 2 wickets at 80) anyway I'll never know.

Yes, because the Warne/Macgill combination has been such a dismal failure every time it has been tried, hasn't it?

Often, for whatever reason, it's resulted in Warne bowling very poorly.

Ludicrous. Lee had a spectacular start to his test career for a reason, and it's the same reason he is consistently top class in ODIs, which is that he is a quality bowler. No, he isn't yet at the standard of McGrath or Gillespie, and no over the 12 months leading up to the recent VB series he shouldn't have been selected in the test side ahead of Kasprowicz, but he is a quality bowler and has obviously improved dramatically in recent times. He will get another test opportunity, and there is no other bowler in Australian cricket who deserves it ahead of him.

Let's have a look at the evidence of this dramatic improvement, shall we?
These are his figures for this season.
These are his figures for the 2002\03 season (where he bowled so magnificently well in Tests that he took 35 wickets at 36.02).
Now unless I'm very much mistaken there's a pretty similar pattern there, no? Which suggests to me that it's not a case of Lee bowling any better, just that he hasn't been seen for a while, so it's easily forgotten how little has changed. Added, of course, to the fact that straws are regularly clutched at by those who are so desperate for Lee to be the quality bowler he so very clearly isn't.

 

[James90]

The selectors haven't done too badly. The picking of Watson and MacGill for Sydney was strange but I could see where they were coming from. However Katich has been very poorly done by. Being dropped for Symonds was disgraceful. Also I would have dropped Lehmann for the New Zealand series rather than Katich. However I think they've done some things right like bringing Clarke into test cricket and bringing Martyn back threw the Ashes in England. Mark Waugh being dropped from the one-day team was another big mistake.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Now unless I'm very much mistaken there's a pretty similar pattern there, no? Which suggests to me that it's not a case of Lee bowling any better, just that he hasn't been seen for a while, so it's easily forgotten how little has changed. Added, of course, to the fact that straws are regularly clutched at by those who are so desperate for Lee to be the quality bowler he so very clearly isn't.

He is bowling better, the figures are not what I was talking about. Quite simply, his accuracy is the best it has ever been and that has been his main downfall so far in his test career. He is a quality bowler and will get further test opportunities and I consider it likely that he will do well in them. If the selectors feel the same way (and I believe they do) it is not a poor decision to keep him around the side for when any of McGrath, Gillespie or Kasprowicz have a drop-off in form or an injury.

 

[Richard]

He is bowling better, the figures are not what I was talking about. Quite simply, his accuracy is the best it has ever been and that has been his main downfall so far in his test career.

Like it or not, accuracy is very seldom not borne-out by figures in ODIs.
Lee's still been expensive more often than not - and anyhow, I've watched him as I watched him last winter - and if you ask me he's no more accurate than he was then, he just hasn't been seen for a while so people are more keen to heap praise on him.

 

[tooextracool]

The fact that Clarke was selected over said candidates is exactly why the selectors are doing an excellent job. They saw his talent and selected him over other players who, while more experienced and better tested in domestic cricket, would most likely not have been as successful. How you can claim that picking a young, unproven talent who goes on to be a monster success is a bad decision is beyond me. It is such decisions which good selectors have to make..

im yet to be convinced about clarke in tests. for you to claim that hes been a monstrous success is quite ludicrous, IMO katich should be playing ahead of him.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

im yet to be convinced about clarke in tests. for you to claim that hes been a monstrous success is quite ludicrous, IMO katich should be playing ahead of him.

Just a few weeks back you claimed that he was good in tests but no good in ODIs, then he has a great VB series and all of a sudden he's shoddy in tests again. He was Australia's second best batsman in India in his trial by fire debut, and was good against New Zealand as well. For someone many people claimed didn't deserve a go, that's a monsterous success.

 

[tooextracool]

Just a few weeks back you claimed that he was good in tests but no good in ODIs, then he has a great VB series and all of a sudden he's shoddy in tests again. He was Australia's second best batsman in India in his trial by fire debut, and was good against New Zealand as well. For someone many people claimed didn't deserve a go, that's a monsterous success.

no its not, for someone to be a monstrous success, he shouldnt have looked completely out of depth, as he did against pakistan, which was really the only time he was tested against anywhere near quality pace bowling. and just to clarify this, ive always claimed that clarke had potential in both forms of the game, but certainly calling his success as monstrous despite clear failures, isnt really very smart.

 

[howardj]

no its not, for someone to be a monstrous success, he shouldnt have looked completely out of depth, as he did against pakistan, which was really the only time he was tested against anywhere near quality pace bowling. and just to clarify this, ive always claimed that clarke had potential in both forms of the game, but certainly calling his success as monstrous despite clear failures, isnt really very smart.

Couldnt agree more. The praise that Clarke has received has been way over the top. It's as though the media have to have a 'golden boy' - someone they crow endlessly about and insist is the greatest young player ever.

This role was formerly the domain of Brett Lee. Since he was exposed, it's been filled by Clarke. Clarke has great potential, and is a good batsman against certain attacks. However most seasoned, objective observers would agree that he has major deficiencies against fast bowling.

That he averaged just 21 against Pakistan, and averages below 40 in First Class Cricket demonstrates my point. For Australian cricket's sake hopefully he recognises his deficiencies, rather than listening to observers who want to tell him how great he is, when his First Class and recent Test averages would suggest otherwise.

 

[SJS]

Couldnt agree more. The praise that Clarke has received has been way over the top. It's as though the media have to have a 'golden boy' - someone they crow endlessly about and insist is the greatest young player ever.

This role was formerly the domain of Brett Lee. Since he was exposed, it's been filled by Clarke. Clarke has great potential, and is a good batsman against certain attacks. However most seasoned, objective observers would agree that he has major deficiencies against fast bowling.

That he averaged just 21 against Pakistan, and averages below 40 in First Class Cricket demonstrates my point. For Australian cricket's sake hopefully he recognises his deficiencies, rather than listening to observers who want to tell him how great he is, when his First Class and recent Test averages would suggest otherwise.

I am one of those who thinks Clarke has the game to be a "great" and said so on this forum before he had played his first test.

I stand by it. Just watch.

Except for his experience (obviously) , I cant see where Lehmann scores over Clarke. The fact that this argument persists, particularly amongst Aussie fans, is proof of the high regard in whish Lehmann is held by Australians. For some reason, the same is not shared by most cricket followers elsewhere. Wonder why ?

 

[howardj]

I am one of those who thinks Clarke has the game to be a "great" and said so on this forum before he had played his first test.

I stand by it. Just watch.

Except for his experience (obviously) , I cant see where Lehmann scores over Clarke. The fact that this argument persists, particularly amongst Aussie fans, is proof of the high regard in whish Lehmann is held by Australians. For some reason, the same is not shared by most cricket followers elsewhere. Wonder why ?

Nowhere have I read that Lehmann should be in ahead of Clarke. I think you'll find most people critical of Clarke are just pointing out that there is a significant chasm between the hype, and the results he has delivered to date in First Class Cricket.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Except for his experience (obviously) , I cant see where Lehmann scores over Clarke. The fact that this argument persists, particularly amongst Aussie fans, is proof of the high regard in whish Lehmann is held by Australians. For some reason, the same is not shared by most cricket followers elsewhere. Wonder why ?

Probably his amazing domestic record. You will find that many English cricket fans also hold Lehmann in high regard for this reason. Lehmann was perhaps the most unlucky of all Australian players (ahead of Martyn and Hayden, even) to miss out on an extensive test career through the 90s. He was consistently among the top 5 batsmen in Australian domestic cricket, year after year. Just look at the Allan Border medal, where Lehmann won the domestic player of the year award something like the first four times it was ever given.

 

[SJS]

Probably his amazing domestic record. You will find that many English cricket fans also hold Lehmann in high regard for this reason. Lehmann was perhaps the most unlucky of all Australian players (ahead of Martyn and Hayden, even) to miss out on an extensive test career through the 90s. He was consistently among the top 5 batsmen in Australian domestic cricket, year after year. Just look at the Allan Border medal, where Lehmann won the domestic player of the year award something like the first four times it was ever given.

You maybe right. We dont get much coverage of the Australian first class season as we do of the English.

 

[Richard]

Lehmann has scored stacks of runs at the ground that routinely produces the most difficult pitches in The World.
If Clarke played his Test-cricket at Headingley all the time, I'd back him to be cut to ribbons.

 

[chris.hinton]

Lehmann is a good cricketer but i was Suprised he in the Aussies team for so long