What is it with the Australian selectors and freakin' Simon Katich???????????

[The Baconator]

Before the Malaysia series I thought he was doing a pretty good job (admittedly have not followed things too closely) but after seeing his stats this series he does seem to be going unusefully slowly and needs to speed things up if the Australian selectors decide to keep faith with him.

 

[open365]

I agree with you sqwerty, from an outsiders point of view, i'm sure England would much rather face Katich and Gilchrist opening than Hayden and Gilchrist(feel free to swap gilchrist,im just making a point)

 

[marc71178]

Before the Malaysia series I thought he was doing a pretty good job (admittedly have not followed things too closely) but after seeing his stats this series he does seem to be going unusefully slowly and needs to speed things up if the Australian selectors decide to keep faith with him.

However it can be pointed out that the overall scoring rate was far lower than in other recent series, as conditions weren't batsman perfect.

 

[sqwerty]

What has Matt Hayden done wrong that he's not a regular in ODI's anymore? He's surely more productive than Katich, isn't he?

Beats me!....there are that many better options (I'd even have Alfie Langer in there before him - at least he'd have a go and he can knuckle down if necessary).....

I would have thought guys like Hussey, Clarke, Haddin etc have proven that you don't need to be a deadbat to anchor or rebuild an innings. These blokes do it and still score at a run a ball.

Apparently Punter is a big fan of Katich's too ! Why??....I'm sure it's just because he's a nice bloke.

and surely fielding isn't a determining factor as to why Katich gets in over the likes of some of the other options.

 

[kwigibo]

Apparently Punter is a big fan of Katich's too ! Why??....I'm sure it's just because he's a nice bloke.

Yeah, this attitude is wearing a little thin. They're not there to play with their mates, they're there to make up the best cricket team Australia can field, and with Katich there they're not doing that (One or two other players getting games aren't the best choices either).

I've always said it's not the quantity of runs that matters with Katich, it's the manner in which he scores them. Even if the team wins when he scores runs, you can't infer a cause and effect relationship. He could hit a hundred every game, but if it's a 100(150) the team will lose more often than not. And the number of run outs that occur when he's out there is troubling.

And the theory behind all this works opposite to intention, otherwise consistent batsmen trying to lift the rate at the other end get out playing and running too aggressively in an attempt to nullify the effect of Katich's belaboured mess at the top.

Even if you must have an anchor, and they mustn't, why is he opening? What good does that do? Why do they think the fielding restrictions come at the beginning, so Katich has more guys in the circle to hit it at? Any anchor really should be at 4 or 5, to stonewall after an early collapse, and only if it's early.

The only batsman he's protecting by playing this way is himself. The best way to avoid collapses is to get runs on the board early and take the pressure off the middle order and put it on the opposition. That is the tried and proven, again and again, way to win an ODI. The theory is nonsense, and even more so in practice. That the team is still winning speaks to the opposition.

How do you expect to run with the wolves come night, when you spend all day sparring with the puppies? When the opposition finally does bring its A game consistently, this stupidity will be exposed.

 

[Alysum]

Pomting always backing players out of form and that will get dropped....

Hayden scored 49 and a 50 surely he deserves to partner gilchrist again ??

 

[sqwerty]

Yeah, this attitude is wearing a little thin. They're not there to play with their mates, they're there to make up the best cricket team Australia can field, and with Katich there they're not doing that (One or two other players getting games aren't the best choices either).

I've always said it's not the quantity of runs that matters with Katich, it's the manner in which he scores them. Even if the team wins when he scores runs, you can't infer a cause and effect relationship. He could hit a hundred every game, but if it's a 100(150) the team will lose more often than not. And the number of run outs that occur when he's out there is troubling.

And the theory behind all this works opposite to intention, otherwise consistent batsmen trying to lift the rate at the other end get out playing and running too aggressively in an attempt to nullify the effect of Katich's belaboured mess at the top.

Even if you must have an anchor, and they mustn't, why is he opening? What good does that do? Why do they think the fielding restrictions come at the beginning, so Katich has more guys in the circle to hit it at? Any anchor really should be at 4 or 5, to stonewall after an early collapse, and only if it's early.

The only batsman he's protecting by playing this way is himself. The best way to avoid collapses is to get runs on the board early and take the pressure off the middle order and put it on the opposition. That is the tried and proven, again and again, way to win an ODI. The theory is nonsense, and even more so in practice. That the team is still winning speaks to the opposition.

How do you expect to run with the wolves come night, when you spend all day sparring with the puppies? When the opposition finally does bring its A game consistently, this stupidity will be exposed.

well said

 

[Top_Cat]

My opinion is that he's being geared up to be slotted back into the Test side and quietly booted from the ODI side with Jacques the long-term option to be developed for the Test side as I think the selectors believe he's not ready to open the Test batting yet. If the selectors wanted him gone, he'd have been gone and on present form, they'd have enough justification to do so (I thought he batted fine last summer). Haydos is a fine fielder so there's no issue there and Jacques, as much as I don't rate him at the top level yet, is in awesome touch.

So it's possible either they've said "Last chance Simon", "You're safe until the WC" or "Get some runs behind you and we'll slot you in at 5 in the Test side". I get the feeling that he's being looked at as the dead-bat Test option because with so many blazing guns in the top-order, there's a theory that someone would need to stem the tide in the event of a collapse. I also get the feeling they'd want someone like Kat there because they're worried about Gilchrist's long-term form and Watson's temperament in a tough situation. So Kat seems the logical option for the mid-lower order nurdler at 4/100-odd because I can't think of anyone else paying cricket in Australia who would fit the bill. We've got a lot of shot players coming through the FC ranks, replete with strokes but with suspect 'outside off-stump' techniques. I strongly suspect Michael Clarke has the temperament but technique is where he needs much work right now. Plus, I get the feeling he's the long-term number 3 anyway.

 

[aussie]

interesting thoughts CC its could probably be the reason why Australia are keeping him, but i think in Hussey Australia do have a man who can bat @ 5/6 who can be that dead-bat player in the middle-order player even though he can be as destructive as any member of the top order in the test side.

 

[Mister Wright]

interesting thoughts CC its could probably be the reason why Australia are keeping him, but i think in Hussey Australia do have a man who can bat @ 5/6 who can be that dead-bat player in the middle-order player even though he can be as destructive as any member of the top order in the test side.

Exactly. Katich won't play at test level again while Hussey is in the team (which will be until he retires).

 

[huckelberry]

It just seems to foolish to have him in a team where there isnt really even a need for an accumulator. With the depth of talent in the australian line-up the number of times where they have been dismissed for utterly dismal scores (something along the lines of the 113 made by WI) is almost not worth mentioning. Surely as this is the case its better to have someone at the top of the order who wont just chew up overs for no good reason. Perhaps an out and out belter isnt the best option but someone who can atleast put a ball into the fence once in a while like hayden or watson must be sonsidered.