***Official*** Super Series

[JASON]

Because McCullum was retained in the wider 15 man squad, but Sangky was not.

And the results speak for themselves .

 

[howardj]

And the results speak for themselves .

...as does your mocking of Social, even though he was entirely correct

 

[sqwerty]

So the selectors came and told you did they ?

How did you make that out (that Sangakkara was not the second choice , but Mc Cullum ) ?

Its one thing to say thats your opinion , but another thing to imply that it was the selector's view point. An attempt at misrepresenting perhaps .

This is what Sunny Gavaskar stated on 'Inside Cricket' last night....so I guess he's right

 

[Slow Love™]

Sunny Gavaskar denied this on Aus TV last night (Inside Cricket - Foxtel)

Also, whilst there was an argument for selecting Sangakarra, particularly after the event, their second choice wicket-keeper was McMullan from NZ as Kumar's keeping had been "poor" in recent times.

Yeah, but in this instance, I prefer to look at what Gavaskar and his fellow selectors did, rather than what they said (and he's probably feeling defensive over accusations that the strongest team wasn't picked). It seems obvious they were trying to get at least one representative per "major" test nation, and they succeeded in that goal. I don't have much of a problem with that either.

I hadn't noticed that McCullum was the reserve keeper for the test - but yeah, there was certainly plenty of argument that Sanga should be keeping to the two spinners in Sydney before the match.

 

[social]

So the selectors came and told you did they ?

How did you make that out (that Sangakkara was not the second choice , but Mc Cullum ) ?

Its one thing to say thats your opinion , but another thing to imply that it was the selector's view point. An attempt at misrepresenting perhaps .

Sunny Gavaskar was interviewed on Aus tv last night.

 

[JASON]

Sunny Gavaskar was interviewed on Aus tv last night.

Ok . Fair enough .

 

[JASON]

...as does your mocking of Social, even though he was entirely correct

Point Taken .

*eats humble pie*

 

[marc71178]

Because McCullum was retained in the wider 15 man squad, but Sangky was not.

Was he?

I thought it was reduced to 14 with 1 keeper?

 

[Top_Cat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Clarke didn't even captain Australia at U/19 level. Klinger definently skippered him at one stage, Clarke might have played another year of U/19s though.

Geez, Jack I even posted this for you the last time you said this! Pay attention!

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=552263&postcount=7731

 

[Mister Wright]

I can't believe Katich is finding it so hard to adapt to the Test arena. Also, it's funny that there is hardly any pressure on Clarke seeing as he isn't doing any better than Kat IMO.

It's because he's all hype and no performance. A first class average under 40 and now his test average is just as bad. He has gone a whole year without a test hundred and only 2 half centuries in that period. There needs to be some serious questions asked about his place in the side. I don't care how young he is and what he is perceived. He must perform.

 

[Mister Wright]

Another point in favour of Clarke is his ODI performance which has been world class so far throughout his career. He's played 50 odd games now, and averages mid 40s, which is very, very good.

It's true enough that the forms are different, but the selectors do tend to take both into account in some way or another when making selection decisions. Lee forced his way back into the side in the back of great ODI form. Symonds got a look in at the test team in Sri Lanka because he dominated Muralitharan in the ODIs. Clarke moved ahead of Hodge in the pecking order for the test team when Ponting was injured because he had been a solid member of the ODI team for a year. That's the way it works. If Clarke was a dismal failure in tests he would of course be dropped there regardless of his ODI performances, but the fact is that he's not been a dismal failure. He averages 40 odd, and was one of the better Austalian batsmen in the Ashes series. He's done enough so far to keep his place without excelling, just as Katich has. Katich however had a poor Ashes series and isn't a regular member of the ODI team (although he may become one with Hayden's retirement), plus he's 30, so he's under more pressure.

Clarke's test average is not in the forties, it is 38 and his calendar year average is now under 30. I don't know what your definition of failure is, but it's getting close to it.

 

[Dasa]

Clarke's test average is not in the forties, it is 38 and his calendar year average is now under 30. I don't know what your definition of failure is, but it's getting close to it.

I think he was referring to Clarke's ODI average which is about 42...aided by quite a few not outs though.

 

[Mister Wright]

I think he was referring to Clarke's ODI average which is about 42...aided by quite a few not outs though.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to test cricket considering the phrase of his sentence involved talk of the Ashes.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Clarke's test average is not in the forties, it is 38 and his calendar year average is now under 30. I don't know what your definition of failure is, but it's getting close to it.

His ODI average is in the 40s... I said his test average was "40 odd", which it is... I believe it was a fraction over 40 before the last test, now it's a bit under 40. That's not great, but it's not a "complete failure", and neither is Katich's, which is similar. It certainly needs to improve though.

 

[andyc]

Good article this one...
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/superseries/content/story/222426.html

One particular quote--

It's worth remembering that if Bangladesh performed as the World XI did, the calls for them to be slung out of international cricket would have been deafening. In the Test, the World scored 190 and 144; in their last Test against Australia, Bangladesh made 295 and 163. In the three ODIs, the World XI made 162, 273 and 137; the comparative figures for Bangladesh are 250 for 5, 139 and 250 for 8, and they actually won one of those as well.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Good article this one...
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/superseries/content/story/222426.html

One particular quote--

Ha! Judging by the quotes coming from Speed I think the World XI will shortly be the first test-playing entity to lose their status tho!

 

[Slow Love™]

Good article this one...
http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/superseries/content/story/222426.html

One particular quote--

It's worth remembering that if Bangladesh performed as the World XI did, the calls for them to be slung out of international cricket would have been deafening. In the Test, the World scored 190 and 144; in their last Test against Australia, Bangladesh made 295 and 163. In the three ODIs, the World XI made 162, 273 and 137; the comparative figures for Bangladesh are 250 for 5, 139 and 250 for 8, and they actually won one of those as well.

I don't get the comments about Bangladesh, to be honest. I know it's such an easy, pat remark to make, but it misses the whole point - particularly in terms of counting innings totals (????).. On that basis, you could compare any dismal showing in a test (or ODI) to that of Bangladesh and make a pointless analogy. But the point with Bangladesh is their entire record - not whether or not they're poor (or even good!) in one game or another.

A minor point I know, but Williamson's not the first person to tell this story, and it doesn't make any sense.

 

[NZTailender]

Seems to me like if he can keep his place in the side, Katich would make a decent captain - doesn't seem the type to let his batting be affected, seems to think well about the game, doesn't say stupid stuff in the media, and has something of the Steve Waugh about his attitude, if not his batting ability.

He captains NSW (or did at least last season).

Other than these two, and Cameron White..who else could we consider as a future captain?

 

[Pratters]

Because you're talking about his batting...

In the second part i spoke about him speaking more than other people do and not batting. I poke about batting in the first part.

And inconsistent batting (in England) and him speaking more than necessary does contribute together. If he was making runs in England to back his loud mouth, it would be reason for less people having a vendetta against him.

So the points were not at all irrelevent.

 

[honestbharani]

Just letting you know, India and Pakistan haven't always been on the best of terms...

And when one lost to the other, the reactions they got would make what the Aussies got seem like a red carpet welcome.