View Full Version : Martyn up the order?
usalion
29 Dec 2004, 06:07
With the other thread pushing for Dizzy to #8, what about moving Marto up to #3? With his current form, we need to take advantage of him, rather than letting others have a go. I'd think he'd handle it well- only problem is stepping on Punter's toes- let's see how much of a captain he is- maybe he needs to go down the order a bit.
Why do people insist upon changing the most successful team in the land? Martyn's making runs at 4, leave him there.
crowsfan2004
29 Dec 2004, 06:13
Why do people insist upon changing the most successful team in the land? Martyn's making runs at 4, leave him there.
Agreed. Martyn might end up facing the new ball is hayden of langer goes early. Leave it as it is atm.Ponting is doing a good job at #3 IMO
bunsen burner
29 Dec 2004, 06:56
Why do 90% of people who post here know next to nothing about cricket? It's embarassing how stupid most people are on the cricket board.
Martyn would be a bunny at number 3...
Why do 90% of people who post here know next to nothing about cricket? It's embarassing how stupid most people are on the cricket board.
The scary thing is they THINK they know about cricket which always worries me.
usalion
29 Dec 2004, 08:28
Martyn would be a bunny at number 3...
Why? How much different is there batting at 3 and batting at 4? Punter isn't having the greatest run- with Marto's form, WHY would he fail at 3? I'm not suggesting he open- just thinking a move up the order might produce more opportunity for him- get to work with Langer.Hayden (more likely Langer, on current form).
Looking to maximise the strength of the Aussie order- is it going to screw up chemistry all that much? Isn't there a (good) chance that the batting would go even better?
With a probable dead rubber coming up in Sydney, why not experiement a bit and see what happens. Good grief, it isn't like I'm making wholesale changes- simply suggesting a slightly different order that MIGHT work- OK, if an opener goes quickly, he might get a freesh quick- but CAN he handle that, especially in the current form he has?
Cassius_Clay
29 Dec 2004, 08:40
With the other thread pushing for Dizzy to #8, what about moving Marto up to #3? With his current form, we need to take advantage of him, rather than letting others have a go. I'd think he'd handle it well- only problem is stepping on Punter's toes- let's see how much of a captain he is- maybe he needs to go down the order a bit.
why would you do that for? Martyn is making plenty of runs at number 4. There is no need to move him at all. Would you move dizzy above lehmann??
Bombers_Forever
29 Dec 2004, 08:44
Why do people insist upon changing the most successful team in the land? Martyn's making runs at 4, leave him there.
Yep. WHile Ponting has not been on fire, don't move Martyn now. No reason for it.
crowsfan2004
29 Dec 2004, 08:47
Yep when martyn was batting poorly, he wasnt dropped to #6 in the order. No point in moving him up the order.. #4 is a very important batting slot anyways
usalion
29 Dec 2004, 09:17
Yep when martyn was batting poorly, he wasnt dropped to #6 in the order. No point in moving him up the order.. #4 is a very important batting slot anyways
Agreed- but might the team not be better with 3 and 4 reversed? I get the point about not changing things, but really- is #4 that much different from #3, apart from getting more balls to look at in an innings? Again, a simple suggestion, especially as we may be facing a dead rubber. Why not try a couple of small changes to the order and see what happens? If it works, great- you may then have some reasonable options down the road- if not, have you REALLY lost anything?
bunsen burner
29 Dec 2004, 10:02
Why? How much different is there batting at 3 and batting at 4? Punter isn't having the greatest run- with Marto's form, WHY would he fail at 3? Don't know much about cricket do you? I hope for your sake that you've only just started following it. That would be excusable.
bunsen burner
29 Dec 2004, 10:08
but really- is #4 that much different from #3Very different.
Very hard to find a quality #3. Our last good #3 was before Ponting was David Boon. In between we tried many players without success including Justin Langer. When you find a player who can play #3 you don't tinker with it. Ponting might be going through a lean trough but it won't last. This is a guy who just a season or two ago hit 1500 runs in a calendar year at a 100 average.
The reason why #3 is harder than #4 is that it is much more often that a #3 has to go in against a new ball with the bowlers' confidence up. It's the hardest spot to bat.
OldSchool
29 Dec 2004, 10:34
With the other thread pushing for Dizzy to #8, what about moving Marto up to #3? With his current form, we need to take advantage of him, rather than letting others have a go. I'd think he'd handle it well- only problem is stepping on Punter's toes- let's see how much of a captain he is- maybe he needs to go down the order a bit.
This is not a valid argument. Martyn and Ponting are picked as batsman whereas Gillespie and Warne and in on their bowling form.
There is no need to change the batting order for Ponting or Martyn.
snap-shot
29 Dec 2004, 10:46
The reason why #3 is harder than #4 is that it is much more often that a #3 has to go in against a new ball with the bowlers' confidence up. It's the hardest spot to bat.
Spot on. Even though #4 is right after #3 in number order, doesn't mean the its the same. Could be hours before #4 gets a bat (if #3 is doing well). Meaning as bunsen burner stated - the new ball might not be that new anymore, and confidence of the bowlers would be wearing out.
IMO I wouldn't move him, the lad is doing well at his spot now.
Very hard to find a quality #3. Our last good #3 was before Ponting was David Boon. In between we tried many players without success including Justin Langer. When you find a player who can play #3 you don't tinker with it. Ponting might be going through a lean trough but it won't last. This is a guy who just a season or two ago hit 1500 runs in a calendar year at a 100 average.
Great point. Was just thinking that myself (about Boony being our last decent no 3) as I read thru this thread. It is the most difficult spot so why would you move Punter from there?
Total Package
29 Dec 2004, 11:37
Martyn would be a bunny at number 3...
The way Ponting's been batting he is basically coming in at number 3 anyway.
usalion
29 Dec 2004, 11:55
The way Ponting's been batting he is basically coming in at number 3 anyway.
My point exactly- thanks for the comment on the difference on #3 and #4- and yes, BB, I have followed cricket for a whuile- go back and read my posts- all I'm suggesting is to give something a little shake- we've won the series- maybe going at four would help Punter. Would it really affect Marto that much? The way he's batting, I dunno....Is it going to thoroughly screw up the order? Nope, don't think so, especially if Buck talked to both Ponting and Martyn....
Why not work on flexibility when you get a chance? All I'm asking- I'm not saying make a permanent change
The way Ponting's been batting he is basically coming in at number 3 anyway.
yeah right. he just made a terrific 60 not out today, plus just missed on a century last test.
maybe if we swapped them over it wouldn't make much difference, but there's just no reason to try it. Marto's had the year of his career at no 4, leave him there.
I'll try an explain this as clearly as I can. Players get a "Feel" fpr where they are in a particular order. A lot of Martyn's success would be due to the fact he feels comfortable padding up after Ponting. When he sees Ponting walk out, that's when he would tune in and start thinking about his innings. It's working, don't spoil it.
This argument about him being a "virtual" 3 due to Ponting not batting well simply doesn't wash. I recall Ian Chappell walking in many times at 1/0, 2nd or 3rd ball of the day and going on to make 100s. Many people said he was virtually an opener, so the selectors decided to try him there. Total disaster, and to this day Chappell explains the different "feel" between opening and walking in at 1/0.
Unless you have played the game, and played in a settled team environment, it's probably hard to understand. The game is full of players who did well at 5 but failed at 4, etc. It's just one of those wonderful things about the game.
bunsen burner
29 Dec 2004, 13:14
I'll try an explain this as clearly as I can. Players get a "Feel" fpr where they are in a particular order. A lot of Martyn's success would be due to the fact he feels comfortable padding up after Ponting. When he sees Ponting walk out, that's when he would tune in and start thinking about his innings. It's working, don't spoil it.
This argument about him being a "virtual" 3 due to Ponting not batting well simply doesn't wash. I recall Ian Chappell walking in many times at 1/0, 2nd or 3rd ball of the day and going on to make 100s. Many people said he was virtually an opener, so the selectors decided to try him there. Total disaster, and to this day Chappell explains the different "feel" between opening and walking in at 1/0.
Unless you have played the game, and played in a settled team environment, it's probably hard to understand. The game is full of players who did well at 5 but failed at 4, etc. It's just one of those wonderful things about the game.Spot on. Took Martyn over a year to adjust to #4 and now people want to change him?
Simply not necessary.
Form is temporary and Ponting is still our best batsman.
sinepari
29 Dec 2004, 14:09
Why do 90% of people who post here know next to nothing about cricket? It's embarassing how stupid most people are on the cricket board.
I agree
sinepari
29 Dec 2004, 14:10
My point exactly- thanks for the comment on the difference on #3 and #4- and yes, BB, I have followed cricket for a whuile- go back and read my posts- all I'm suggesting is to give something a little shake- we've won the series- maybe going at four would help Punter. Would it really affect Marto that much? The way he's batting, I dunno....Is it going to thoroughly screw up the order? Nope, don't think so, especially if Buck talked to both Ponting and Martyn....
Why not work on flexibility when you get a chance? All I'm asking- I'm not saying make a permanent change
Ponting is a 3 and martyn is a number 4. Thats all that needs to be said.
Bentleigh
29 Dec 2004, 16:00
Ponting is a 3 and martyn is a number 4. Thats all that needs to be said.
And Boof *5 :)
Cameron_K
29 Dec 2004, 16:30
Wasn't to long ago people on this board wanted Martyn out the side now some idiot is suggesting moving him to 3. Do people not watch cricket at all anymore?
johnnyhoward
29 Dec 2004, 19:34
Why would you want to mess around with batting spots? Obviously if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In the one dayers Marto was played as an opener a couple of times, but that doesn't mean you can change batting spots in Test matches as easily. As Boris said, a player needs to fee 'right' whereever he is batting, along with alot of other mental factors and preparation. An example of this was when Elliott played at no.3 against Sri Lanka. He's played as an opener for most of his career, and putting him in the hardest position in the team didn't help him. Ponting is a master at this position, which is why you can't just throw a master opener in there and expect a result, you need a quality no 3. Although Punter is going through a bad run lately, it's probably because of the extra pressure of being captain. He will turn the corner very soon.
And Boof *5 :)
For another test ;)
I'll try an explain this as clearly as I can. Players get a "Feel" fpr where they are in a particular order. A lot of Martyn's success would be due to the fact he feels comfortable padding up after Ponting. When he sees Ponting walk out, that's when he would tune in and start thinking about his innings. It's working, don't spoil it.
This argument about him being a "virtual" 3 due to Ponting not batting well simply doesn't wash. I recall Ian Chappell walking in many times at 1/0, 2nd or 3rd ball of the day and going on to make 100s. Many people said he was virtually an opener, so the selectors decided to try him there. Total disaster, and to this day Chappell explains the different "feel" between opening and walking in at 1/0.
Unless you have played the game, and played in a settled team environment, it's probably hard to understand. The game is full of players who did well at 5 but failed at 4, etc. It's just one of those wonderful things about the game.
Well said becks...
I remember when they experimented making Langer an opener against the Windies in Perth... Not good...
Luckily he kicked on from there ;)
Why do 90% of people who post here know next to nothing about cricket? It's embarassing how stupid most people are on the cricket board.
Amazingly true. Marto open the batting? Why not get warne to open the bowling at the waca?
Snickers
30 Dec 2004, 15:07
i think clarke should move up to number 5
bunsen burner
30 Dec 2004, 20:21
Amazingly true. Marto open the batting? Why not get warne to open the bowling at the waca?Here's a few more gems from this board over recent years:
1. Ian Harvey to play test cricket
2. Ian Harvey to open the bowling in ODI's
3. Hayden to be dropped
4. Break our successful opening pair so Elliott can get a game
5. Select people in the test team based on their ODI form
6. Shane Warne isn't a great player because he's a lout off the field
And that's just a few off the top of my head.
bunsen burner
30 Dec 2004, 20:22
i think clarke should move up to number 5How about he get comfortable with #6 first?
Here's a few more gems from this board over recent years:
1. Ian Harvey to play test cricket
2. Ian Harvey to open the bowling in ODI's
3. Hayden to be dropped
4. Break our successful opening pair so Elliott can get a game
5. Select people in the test team based on their ODI form
6. Shane Warne isn't a great player because he's a lout off the field
And that's just a few off the top of my head.
7. Cameron White can bowl Leg-Spin
eddiesmith
30 Dec 2004, 20:30
Here's a few more gems from this board over recent years:
1. Ian Harvey to play test cricket
2. Ian Harvey to open the bowling in ODI's
3. Hayden to be dropped
4. Break our successful opening pair so Elliott can get a game
5. Select people in the test team based on their ODI form
6. Shane Warne isn't a great player because he's a lout off the field
And that's just a few off the top of my head.
Well those 2 have actually happened
8. Select players based on net form
Why do 90% of people who post here know next to nothing about cricket? It's embarassing how stupid most people are on the cricket board.
Ease up ol' son, I think everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Except for this bloke:
With the other thread pushing for Dizzy to #8, what about moving Marto up to #3? With his current form, we need to take advantage of him, rather than letting others have a go. I'd think he'd handle it well- only problem is stepping on Punter's toes- let's see how much of a captain he is- maybe he needs to go down the order a bit.
:cool: :p
bunsen burner
30 Dec 2004, 20:38
Ease up ol' son, I think everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Never said they weren't. Just made a point that the majority of people here have NFI about cricket. Feel free to disagree and endorse any of those points I have mentioned.
bunsen burner
30 Dec 2004, 20:41
Well those 2 have actually happened
8. Select players based on net formHow many times has Harvey opened the bowling?
How many players have been selected on their ODI form? Name them and provide proof that their ODI form was the main reason for their selection. Some people have been known to advocate that Ian Harvey and other ODI specialists be picked on their ODI form. You'll find that it only plays a small part.
eddiesmith
30 Dec 2004, 20:52
I can remember Harvs opening the bowling once atleast
Michael Clarke was picked solely on ODI performances and 'potential'
eddiesmith
30 Dec 2004, 20:52
Andrew Symonds is another one
bunsen burner
30 Dec 2004, 21:00
I can remember Harvs opening the bowling once atleastWhat, like twice? I'm talking about people who think harvey should be a permanent opening bowler.
Michael Clarke was picked solely on ODI performances and 'potential'
So was he solely picked on ODI or was it also potential as well? How about you make up your mind because you're having a bet each way there.
Clarke was primarily picked on potential. He was the best young thing for some time. His ODI performances just highlighted to the selectors that he could play at the top level. To suggest he was rewarded primarily for his form is false.
Clarke was always going to play test cricket. It was just a matter of having a spot available. Once there was a spot, he got his chance.
bunsen burner
30 Dec 2004, 21:03
Andrew Symonds is another oneODI form had more to do with his selection than anyone else I can remember, but he was havng a good Pura Cup season too.
Care to name any others? Test and ODI cricket are different games and player's form in one is not often a major consideration in being picked in the other. Just recenty someone has suggested Boof be kept in the test team because his ODI form. It's not really taken into account.
eddiesmith
30 Dec 2004, 21:04
But Boof has been doing the same thing in Tests yet gets lost with others making bigger scores yet people remember when he was the lone hand in the ODI
Stafford678
30 Dec 2004, 21:25
7. Cameron White can bowl Leg-Spin
good call
bunsen burner
30 Dec 2004, 21:40
But Boof has been doing the same thing in Tests yet gets lost with others making bigger scores yet people remember when he was the lone hand in the ODIPeople remembering him playing the lone hand in ODI is just that - ODI. Has nothing to do with test cricket. People on here have suggested he shouldn't be dropped based on past ODI heroics. never heard anything more stupid. Well I have, quite a bit recently actually, but nevertheless stupid.
eddiesmith
30 Dec 2004, 21:41
But he has made similar scores in Test matches but people dont remember that, thats what I was saying
bunsen burner
30 Dec 2004, 21:53
But he has made similar scores in Test matches but people dont remember that, thats what I was sayingThat was a while ago though. Forget his statistics and have a look at how he's playing. His form isn't good enough to bat like he's batting. Walking across your stumps is a great idea to upset a bowler's rythm providing your form can pull it off. Lehmann's form isn't good enough though. He's not only playing risky shots, he looks all at sea.
Those good test match innings you talk about aren't enough to carry him. Every player builds up a cache of chips. Hayden, Ponting, and Gilchrist have stacks of them. They can last longer periods of form loss due to their exceptional past feats and past consistencies. Lehmann doesn't have a big pile of chips. Along with his ageing mind and body he hasn't had prolonged periods of international brilliance and consistency.
This is why players like Langer and Martyn sway from can't be dropped to will be dropped soon if they don't perform. They too don't have a big cache of chips. Lehmann's clearly in the latter group rather than the former and his time is fast running out.
edit in bold
eddiesmith
30 Dec 2004, 22:02
Lehman has made as many half centuries in test cricket as he has made in one day cricket in the last 3 months. Its not like he has totally failed in every innings, the one time his age showed was when he probably would have gone on and made a 100 he did his hammie. He may not be getting regular starts but he has made 2 decent scores in the last 2 series
Add Nathan Bracken as another one who came into the Test side because of his one-day performances.
Arguably Martyn too. His return to the Tests side a few years back followed some good one-day innings, but guys like Lehmann and Bevan had better first-class form.
bunsen burner
30 Dec 2004, 22:14
Add Nathan Bracken as another one who came into the Test side because of his one-day performances
Arguably Martyn too. His return to the Tests side a few years back followed some good one-day innings, but guys like Lehmann and Bevan had better first-class form.My point was more about people who felt Lehmann should be retained due to his ODI heroics or people who think Ian Harvey should play test cricket, or people who thought Bevan should have been picked more for test cricket based on his ODI form.
Some people have a real problem separating the two games where they need to be separated.
to be honest ive been a guy who's been against martyn because of his poor efforts , but i would say that the indian tour has proved himself that he can be a great batsmen , however moving him up the order id say is maybe dreaming because i respect damo but he's know were near as good a cricketer as either Hayden, Langer or pointing plus if we but him up the order then he might have to get you's to face the openers in quicker time....what do u guys think?!?!?!?!
Add Nathan Bracken as another one who came into the Test side because of his one-day performances.
Arguably Martyn too. His return to the Tests side a few years back followed some good one-day innings, but guys like Lehmann and Bevan had better first-class form.
Adam Gilchrist is another.
Yes ODIs are a different form of cricket from tests but form in ODIs is quite often a selection factor.
Works the other way sometimes too. Hayden's brilliant test performances in India in '01 earnt him an immediate recall to the ODI team and he hasn't looked back. Unfortunately, as we know, when they tried to do the same thing with Symonds but the other way (after his excellent ODI tour of SL) he failed in the tests.
Often however a batsman who's seeing them like beachballs in one form of the game, is unlikely to be hopelessly out of touch in the other.
Just because someone makes runs it doesn't mean that they should go up the order.
Thats just like saying warne gets a couple 10 wicket hauls. It doesn't give him a right to open the bowling with his leggies.