***Official*** 2nd Test at the Adelaide Oval

[Matt79]

When was Martyn ever averaging that or doing anything of the sort?

When he wasn't a regular in the team, but was getting games here and there due to injuries in the top 6. He had a string of matches in a row where he was a temporary replacement at 6 either got 50s or was not out and it briefing boosted his average to ridiculous levels. Obviously it came down again once he began playing regularly.

It would have been around 1999.

 

[Matt79]

From cricinfo.com

1st Test v NZ in NZ 1999/00 at Auckland [1488]
17 -
36

2nd Test v NZ in NZ 1999/00 at Wellington [1491]
78
17*

3rd Test v NZ in NZ 1999/00 at Hamilton [1493]
89*
4

Makes way for returning regular

3rd Test v WI in Aus 2000/01 at Adelaide [1523]
46*
34*

Makes way for returning regular

Then got a regular slot for the tour of England in 2001.

So a slight exaggeration in terms of how long it was going on for, but yeah, his average was pretty high there for a while...

 

[Mister Wright]

Given Clarke's relative success, especially when compared to Martyn, could we see him dropped and Clarke (or even Watson) promoted to four? I doubt it personally, but it's hard to drop someone who hit a 50 in his comeback match.

100 maybe, but not 50.

 

[marc71178]

When he wasn't a regular in the team, but was getting games here and there due to injuries in the top 6. He had a string of matches in a row where he was a temporary replacement at 6 either got 50s or was not out and it briefing boosted his average to ridiculous levels. Obviously it came down again once he began playing regularly.

It would have been around 1999.

His average has never got above 57, and aside from the post Ashes drop, he was never averaging above the mid 30's when left out of the side...

 

[Matt79]

Whatever, who cares?

 

[superkingdave]

So if Macgill plays, who makes way? Clark or Lee?

 

[Johnners]

So if Macgill plays, who makes way? Clark or Lee?

Don't play Macgill imo.

 

[silentstriker]

So Stuart Clark now a certainty for test #2. You can't drop him now, can you? Him, along with McGrath accounted for 14/20 wickets...so dropping him can't be an option. MacGill might have to sit out.

 

[Laurrz]

Langer
Hayden
Ponting*
Martyn
Hussey
Gilchrist+
Lee
Warne
Clark
MacGill
McGrath

a bit worried about Gilchrist batting at 6... but i think 5 bowlers is the way to go in Adelaide... Watsons bowling i feel now will prolly put some of their batsmen in form
also Warne Lee Clark can all hold a bat for sure
then again i don't want to drop Clarke coz he seems to be in good touch...gonna be another really tough decision ...most likely tho they'll jsut pick the same side ... but i just think 4 bowlers in Adelaide and with Englands batting doing good now...

with England, i think with Anderson bowling so **** they need two spinners... but who knows they might bring Mahmood... or in Adelaide it swings sometimes a bit and maybe stick with Anderson

-----------------------

anyway i think we could be in for a real close match this time...hopefully not like Edgbaston.. my heart don't like that lol

anyways a lot of similarities with the Gabba game and Lords :O

1) England folded in the first innings
2) in that first innings McGrath dominated
3) England did a lot better in the second innings
4) England have a shocking record at Lords... and Australia have a terrific record at the Gabba

prolly one big difference was..... the English bowlers looked so threatening... and i think took 20 wickets

this time though, they took 9 .... and they'l have to turn it around heaps if they want to take 20 in Adelaide on a flatter wicket

and hopefully McGrath doesn't tred on a ball and we bat first :P

 

[silentstriker]

Well, an in-form Gilchrist can bat wherever the hell he wants. But can he regain his form and work out his around the wicket problems?

 

[Laurrz]

Well, an in-form Gilchrist can bat wherever the hell he wants.

i agree

the form bit is my concern

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Nah, don't go with 5. What's the point? One bowler gets severely under-bowled and you weaken the batting significantly.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

There's no way they will pick five bowlers, it'd be stupid.

There's two options as far as I can see, which are to go in with the same team, or to drop a batsman and a bowler for Watson and MacGill. Clarke and Clark the obvious choices to go, but it's plausible that they'd get rid of Martyn or Lee.

I doubt they'll bring in Watson without the second spinner after Clarke made runs, though they would have picked him without MacGill in Brisbane. Personally I'm leaning towards them keeping the same side.

 

[pasag]

Yep, they'll stick with the same side imo. They have decided already I think, when do we find out?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'd play Watson with MacGill in Adelaide. There's an argument for dropping Lee and keeping Clark, but Adelaide won't crack up like Brisbane.

In any case, whoever isn't picked for the 11 is hard done by IMO. Everyone in consideration deserves to play.

 

[Johnners]

I'd be keeping the same side, with perhaps Watson coming in (depending on fitness of course) for either Clarke or Martyn.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I'd play Watson with MacGill in Adelaide. There's an argument for dropping Lee and keeping Clark, but Adelaide won't crack up like Brisbane.

In any case, whoever isn't picked for the 11 is hard done by IMO. Everyone in consideration deserves to play.

Yeah I agree. It'll be unlucky for Clark, Lee, Watson and Clarke if any of them miss out, but one of them has to. Then there's MacGill, who is always unlucky.

 

[silentstriker]

Maybe its because I am not Australian but I don't see how you can drop a guy that just took seven wickets for you - pitch or not. I mean, I don't know why that would even be an option.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Maybe its because I am not Australian but I don't see how you can drop a guy that just took seven wickets for you - pitch or not. I mean, I don't know why that would even be an option.

Horses for courses, simply. It'd be like if Stuart MacGill took 7 wickets in Adelaide, and the WACA looked to be a traditional Perth wicket and was rock hard and quick and offered nothing for the spinners. They'd drop him for someone like Clark.

Obviously Clark will be unlucky to get dropped, but if they want to pick MacGill because of the surface they have to drop someone, and it'd be extremely harsh to drop Lee after one poor test when he led the attack last summer in McGrath's absence. I'm pretty sure Clark knows that he's done enough to keep himself in the minds of the selectors now, and if he gets dropped for MacGill it'll only be a temporary thing.

 

[shortpitched713]

Maybe its because I am not Australian but I don't see how you can drop a guy that just took seven wickets for you - pitch or not. I mean, I don't know why that would even be an option.

Not quick enough, imo. Bring in Tait!

Seriously though, I think they're just going to bring in Watson for Clarke, as Clarke really didn't seize his opportunity ala Clark and Langer.