***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[aussie]

Why pick Hodge?

Symonds is as good a bat in just as good form.

He is a better fieldsman and can bowl.

The presence of Hodge in and around the Aus squad has had me mystified for months.

i dont get it, whats so mystifing about picking Hodge?, i really cant see what the problem could be...

 

[aussie]

On the contrary, I think he's been hot and cold throughout his career. Guys who are going to be really good Test players usually blitz the domestic scene for a few seasons in a row while they are fairly young. Besides, you don't build a great side by having 31 year olds make their debut. To that end, Australia should look at getting Phil Jacques in their side quite soon.

When you think about it, all the top class batsmen of the last ten years - Slater, Hayden, Langer, Martyn, Ponting, SWaugh - made their debuts in their early twenties. Guys need to be exposed to Test cricket early on, and then make the inevitible adjustments to their game while they are still young enough to be recalled. Hodge will be too old to be recalled, and come back a better player, if he gets dropped within two years - as happened to the aforementioned players.

so what about Lehmann, he started in his late 30's as well. But the fact is right now Hodge at least deserve his chance, i know he has been inconsistent for the majority of his FC Career but since India were down under he has been very consisting in FC cricket so he deserves the chance at the highest level

 

[Prince EWS]

in that omly frist class match, but his test form was woeful no doubt...

Yes, but the point is, people are making points about Hodge's good first class form, not his test form. His first class form is about equal to that of Katich, really.

 

[aussie]

Yes, but the point is, people are making points about Hodge's good first class form, not his test form. His first class form is about equal to that of Katich, really.

probably, but at least people should give him a chance to see what he will do before say crazy things like his presence is mystifing & depressing

 

[age_master]

Because Darren Lehmann is better!

not to mention Marto!

 

[marc71178]

a. I dont rate Hoggard at all;

I detect a pattern emerging here.

You don't rate any English players it seems, so must be a bitter pill to swallow that such a side with nobody you rate beat you.

 

[ClownSymonds]

Hodge is pretty worthless, in the context of the Australian test side. Symonds is obviously a better choice. Why would you want someone who is a good first-class batsman and nothing else rather than a guy who is averaging over 60 with numerous centuries and an amazing strike rate in both English and Australian first-class cricket who is also probably the best fielder in the world who is also a versatile and useful bowling option? Hodge has nothing going for him, other than the fact that he might draw pity from the management for being around and never playing. I suppose there's still the issue of Symonds' disciplinary problems, but those really have come to pass and shouldn't be taken into consideration when making a selection.

 

[social]

I detect a pattern emerging here.

You don't rate any English players it seems, so must be a bitter pill to swallow that such a side with nobody you rate beat you.

No, as Ive said countless times before, England has a core group of excellent players that carry some very ordinary ones.

 

[Mike Hussey]

Well Victoria are 8/535, Hodge made 177, Hussey 104, this does not look good.

 

[Eclipse]

Hodge is pretty worthless, in the context of the Australian test side. Symonds is obviously a better choice. Why would you want someone who is a good first-class batsman and nothing else rather than a guy who is averaging over 60 with numerous centuries and an amazing strike rate in both English and Australian first-class cricket who is also probably the best fielder in the world who is also a versatile and useful bowling option? Hodge has nothing going for him, other than the fact that he might draw pity from the management for being around and never playing. I suppose there's still the issue of Symonds' disciplinary problems, but those really have come to pass and shouldn't be taken into consideration when making a selection.

Hodge is a better batsman than Symonds.

 

[social]

i dont get it, whats so mystifing about picking Hodge?, i really cant see what the problem could be...

Hodge is a fine player and definitely looks better organised than Clarke, for example.

If he's ever going to play, it must be next week or the selectors are sending him a clear message that they dont think he's good enough.

What's mystifying is how he's been treated by the selectors.

Good enough for the test squad yet not good enough for ODIs.

Given inside running despite being no more qualified than other contenders.

Taken on an Ashes tour where virtually every batsman failed yet never considered for a test despite scoring runs in tour matches.

Martyn gets dropped for Super Series but Hodge, supposedly the next batsman in line, is not seriously considered as his replacement as selectors want to restructure.

Dropped from squad for 1st test after having been 12 th man for super series.

Reinstated after doing nothing in intervening period except a 70 in Pura Cup.

I say, play him now or drop him for good.

 

[marc71178]

No, as Ive said countless times before, England has a core group of excellent players that carry some very ordinary ones.

Except it seems to be about 5 ordinary players.

So how bad does that make a side that they outplayed?

 

[Josh]

Hodge is pretty worthless, in the context of the Australian test side. Symonds is obviously a better choice. Why would you want someone who is a good first-class batsman and nothing else rather than a guy who is averaging over 60 with numerous centuries and an amazing strike rate in both English and Australian first-class cricket who is also probably the best fielder in the world who is also a versatile and useful bowling option? Hodge has nothing going for him, other than the fact that he might draw pity from the management for being around and never playing. I suppose there's still the issue of Symonds' disciplinary problems, but those really have come to pass and shouldn't be taken into consideration when making a selection.

You sir, are a tool.

 

[howardj]

so what about Lehmann, he started in his late 30's as well.

Yeah and when Lehmann got recalled in 2002 he went on to play about 20 Tests, the last 10 of which he averaged in the mid 30's. I just didnt see the point in replacing a 36 year old MWaugh with a 32 year old Lehmann.

 

[social]

Yeah and when Lehmann got recalled in 2002 he went on to play about 20 Tests, the last 10 of which he averaged in the mid 30's. I just didnt see the point in replacing a 36 year old MWaugh with a 32 year old Lehmann.

Lehmann should've played 3 times the no. of tests that he did and was only given a run when he was coming towards the end of his career.

One of the most talented players in the history of Aus cricket was treated shamefully by the selectors.

 

[age_master]

Except it seems to be about 5 ordinary players.

So how bad does that make a side that they outplayed?

apart from Jones and Giles i wouldn't say England were carrying anyone.

 

[parttimer]

Bell?

 

[aussie]

Yeah and when Lehmann got recalled in 2002 he went on to play about 20 Tests, the last 10 of which he averaged in the mid 30's. I just didnt see the point in replacing a 36 year old MWaugh with a 32 year old Lehmann.

well if you look back at that time selecting Lehmann as Waugh's replacement was the BEST option..

 

[Nate]

Bell?

Woooooord.

 

[Prince EWS]

Bell?

Still though, England were only carrying three.

Australia were carrying Hayden, Katich, Martyn, Gilchrist, Gillespie/Tait and Lee for the majority of the series.