Should Katich have been picked? [Archive]

LIONS then DAYLIGHT

2 Apr 2008, 18:25

We need batsmen for the future - Katich is not the answer.
BTW,this thread was started by a South Australian,so don't go slagging off Vics for it.

We have batsmen everywhere coming up through the ranks, batting will not be a problem for us into the future.

Spin bowling will be, that is undeniable.

That is why Mcgain wasn't picked, Katich could still give us 2 - 3 years of service if his required for Australian duties, that is a lot of time for younger batsmen to build there game at FC level.

Casson is a left-field and smart selection, picking Mcgain was only ever going to happen if Macgill wasn't fit, Casson would then have been picked with Mcgain.

There is no point taking Macgill and McGain, that is a selection bushranger would be happy with but not people who know cricket.

I feel confident our batting stocks are good as well as our bowling stocks, however, the spin bowling department is a concern.

The selectors are trying to address this.

Romeo

2 Apr 2008, 19:12

Chappelli was just on radio and said that none of the youngsters were knocking on the selection door with the performances with the bat this summer. He thinks with most of the best bowlers on test duty, good batsmen should be able to make heaps of runs over the course of the season with Katich showing how it should be done. He also believes now that extras don't get tour matches, you might as well take your best team for the present, unlike years ago when you could blood youngsters in the tour games.

Adrian Shelton

2 Apr 2008, 19:23

Bevo and Boofs non reselections were mistakes, along with Hayden coming back to the 1 day team this makes up for it a little. I dont care if they are 45 yrs old, pick whoevers making lotsa runs

Gunnar Longshanks

2 Apr 2008, 21:20

It's all well and good that he scored a lot of runs this season.

So did Michael Bevan. So did Darren Lehmann. They didn't get their spots back.

Katich is 32 going on 33, is a short-term option only and has shown in previous international stints that he is slow, inconsistent and lacks self-belief at Test level. The only thing he did consistently was drain our side of momentum.

David Hussey was a perfect option - a big season, and has been waiting in the wings for a while.

Why didn't Katich deserve the same treatment as Bevo and Boof?Michael Bevan was a long way gone from the Test frame when he had that season and Boof was a fair bit older than Katich is now. I'm not sure Boof was even available for Australia at that stage.

Those players' situations were different to Katich's. Hence the different outcome.

I don't see how anyone can whinge about Katich's selection.

He's been picked as the reserve batsman for a three-Test series. Big deal. He probably won't even play a match.

But his past domestic season totally justifies that call.

Gunnar Longshanks

2 Apr 2008, 21:25

If they're looking to the future,which is the excuse for Casson's selection over McGain,then pick a young guy like Shaun Marsh.Why do we have to take the same approach to picking spinners that we've taken to picking batsmen?

They're different parts of the team and there are different levels of talent available.

Besides, we're still taking 37-year-old MacGill, so you can't exactly say, "we've punted on youth with the spinners."

And what has Shaun Marsh done to justify a spot in the Test squad?

This whole "looking to the future" line is a bit overcooked. We're still trying to pick the best side available to us at the moment. The fact that we have zero emerging spinners means that we have to take a bit of a risk in that department.

When it comes to the batting, we don't need to take that kind of risk, because we've got such solid back-up that we may as well use it.

achancely

2 Apr 2008, 21:26

Michael Bevan was a long way gone from the Test frame when he had that season and Boof was a fair bit older than Katich is now. I'm not sure Boof was even available for Australia at that stage.

Those players' situations were different to Katich's. Hence the different outcome.

I don't see how anyone can whinge about Katich's selection.

He's been picked as the reserve batsman for a three-Test series. Big deal. He probably won't even play a match.

But his past domestic season totally justifies that call.

Katich has been out of the side for quite a while.

Lehmann was not picked (before his eventual recall at 33) after several record-breaking seasons.

My point was whether a record-breaking season really means that much, and, given the age of our side, whether it wouldn't have been better to blood a younger or more game-turning batsman (ie Hussey).

Gunnar Longshanks

2 Apr 2008, 21:27

We need batsmen for the future - Katich is not the answer.Oh, wow - why didn't we just fast-track Phillip Hughes, then?

Get a grip.

Gunnar Longshanks

2 Apr 2008, 21:35

Katich has been out of the side for quite a while.

Lehmann was not picked (before his eventual recall at 33) after several record-breaking seasons.

My point was whether a record-breaking season really means that much, and, given the age of our side, whether it wouldn't have been better to blood a younger or more game-turning batsman (ie Hussey).Lehmann was overlooked for a long time, and that's bad luck for Lehmann. But that was the result of having the Waugh twins as fixtures in the middle order. How many "record-breaking seasons" did he actually have?

This whole Lehmann vs Katich comparison is pretty erroneous. Selection depends entirely on opportunity. It's not just about how many runs a player scores. It's about the form of the players ahead of him as well. Different situations will produce different outcomes for different players. You can't just compare Katich's record with Lehmann's record and say, "Well, why didn't Lehmann get recalled the way Katich has been?"

It's a three-Test series and Katich probably won't even play, so let's not get too wound up about it. He and Dave Hussey were the only legitimate contenders for the reserve spot and Katich's superior domestic season got him the nod. It's that simple.

You talk about blooding a young bat, but there aren't any who really demanded a look. Pomersbach will be at the top of most lists, but he's had one good season. That's not enough.

Romeo

2 Apr 2008, 23:15

Very well put Gunnar.:thumbsu:

LIONS then DAYLIGHT

2 Apr 2008, 23:21

Lehmann was overlooked for a long time, and that's bad luck for Lehmann. But that was the result of having the Waugh twins as fixtures in the middle order. How many "record-breaking seasons" did he actually have?

This whole Lehmann vs Katich comparison is pretty erroneous. Selection depends entirely on opportunity. It's not just about how many runs a player scores. It's about the form of the players ahead of him as well. Different situations will produce different outcomes for different players. You can't just compare Katich's record with Lehmann's record and say, "Well, why didn't Lehmann get recalled the way Katich has been?"

It's a three-Test series and Katich probably won't even play, so let's not get too wound up about it. He and Dave Hussey were the only legitimate contenders for the reserve spot and Katich's superior domestic season got him the nod. It's that simple.

You talk about blooding a young bat, but there aren't any who really demanded a look. Pomersbach will be at the top of most lists, but he's had one good season. That's not enough.

Very well put Mr Longshanks,

Batsmen have to earn selection, other countries such as England were notorious for handing our selections to guys that weren't deserving and as such they dug a bigger hole by having an absurd amount of people passing into and out of the team.

Clarke is there fore the next 10 years, Punter has 3 - 4 years left, Jacques is there for the long haul, Haddin is there for 3 - 4 years, as is Hussey and Symonds, the batting is very solid on paper, if one of those rolls his ankle or tears a hammy then Katich can fill the breach, there is no point taking a youngster that doesn't merit selection just for the sake of it especially as they probably wont get a game at all.

hujsh

3 Apr 2008, 16:12

Clarke is there fore the next 10 years, Punter has 3 - 4 years left, Jacques is there for the long haul, Haddin is there for 3 - 4 years, as is Hussey and Symonds, the batting is very solid on paper, if one of those rolls his ankle or tears a hammy then Katich can fill the breach, there is no point taking a youngster that doesn't merit selection just for the sake of it especially as they probably wont get a game at all.

So give Katich another cap? For what reason? Surely in the long term someone else would be better off getting a debut.

What about White 748 at 49.86 or Pomersbach 743 at 61.91.

If the batting is solid and we're playing the West Indies then this is the perfect opportunity to give someone a taste to show them the level required at Test level.

I bet Jaques taking Langers spot against the Proteas helped him.

Gunnar Longshanks

3 Apr 2008, 21:44

So give Katich another cap? For what reason? Surely in the long term someone else would be better off getting a debut.Firstly, Katich probably won't even play.

Secondly, if someone does get injured, Katich is the form batsman in the country, and he is best-equipped to step into the side and contribute.

People bang on about the long-term, but our #1 priority is to pick the best side for the next series. That includes picking Katich, the form batsman of the summer, as the reserve.

What about White 748 at 49.86 or Pomersbach 743 at 61.91.What about them?

Katich's output smashes those guys'.

Pomersbach has had one good season. You need more than that to force your way into a Test squad. Especially when there are more accomplished bats in irresistible form.

White isn't even on the radar.

If the batting is solid and we're playing the West Indies then this is the perfect opportunity to give someone a taste to show them the level required at Test level.What are you talking about?

I repeat, we should be picking our best squad. That includes Katich as the reserve.

What is this about "giving people a taste"?

If the Test side is now a development squad, we may as well start picking Philip Hughes just to "give him a taste".

Maybe we should have named Moises Henriques as well.

I bet Jaques taking Langers spot against the Proteas helped him.Er, yeah - it probably did.

But Jaques was also the form domestic batsman at the time and totally deserved that selection.

Just like Katich totally deserves to be included as the reserve against the West Indies.

I honestly don't see how people can take umbridge at Katich's inclusion. The suggestion that Pomersbach or White should have been preferred is ridiculous.

hujsh

3 Apr 2008, 23:44

Firstly, Katich probably won't even play.

Secondly, if someone does get injured, Katich is the form batsman in the country, and he is best-equipped to step into the side and contribute.

People bang on about the long-term, but our #1 priority is to pick the best side for the next series. That includes picking Katich, the form batsman of the summer, as the reserve.

What about them?

Katich's output smashes those guys'.

Pomersbach has had one good season. You need more than that to force your way into a Test squad. Especially when there are more accomplished bats in irresistible form.

White isn't even on the radar.

What are you talking about?

I repeat, we should be picking our best squad. That includes Katich as the reserve.

What is this about "giving people a taste"?

If the Test side is now a development squad, we may as well start picking Philip Hughes just to "give him a taste".

Maybe we should have named Moises Henriques as well.

Er, yeah - it probably did.

But Jaques was also the form domestic batsman at the time and totally deserved that selection.

Just like Katich totally deserves to be included as the reserve against the West Indies.

I honestly don't see how people can take umbridge at Katich's inclusion. The suggestion that Pomersbach or White should have been preferred is ridiculous.

What I'm talking about is that if we have a solid batting team then we shouldn't need 33 year olds as backups against a weak squad.

Does nothing for the team if we play Katich. He plays potentially 1-3 matches then goes off to never be seen again. I'd rather see a 23-25 year old who may not be as good yet but could be better than Katich at test level when we are playing the WEST INDIES.

So what if he has done well. We could almost not play a 6th batsman against this side so lets do something useful and give young batsman who performed very well this season a shot. There is more upside to these 2 playing a test.

We didn't pick Bevan when he had a record breaking Summer and we shouldn't have picked Katich

Gunnar Longshanks

4 Apr 2008, 00:29

What I'm talking about is that if we have a solid batting team then we shouldn't need 33 year olds as backups against a weak squad.It's not about what we need or don't need.

It's about picking our best squad.

Our best squad includes Katich as the reserve. Period.

Does nothing for the team if we play Katich. He plays potentially 1-3 matches then goes off to never be seen again.
It means we have the best available squad.

Believe it or not, but that's actually the #1 priority. You seem to have lost sight of that in your determination to blood a young player for the sake of blooding a young player.

So what if he has done well. We could almost not play a 6th batsman against this side so lets do something useful and give young batsman who performed very well this season a shot.It's not meant to be easy to get into the Australian side.

How many top-notch innings did Pomersbach and White actually play this season? Do you really think that 5-6 good knocks should be enough to catapult a kid into the Test side?

You might want to see a new face for the sake of novelty, but it is a far better policy to reward consistency.

If White and Pomersbach can keep scoring runs, they'll get their chance. Making them wait isn't going to damage them. They're not going to forget how to bat if we don't pick them just yet.

People like you would have been falling over themselves to hand Cosgrove a baggy green a few years back. Good thing we waited for him to back up his one good season, isn't it?

We didn't pick Bevan when he had a record breaking Summer and we shouldn't have picked KatichThe fact we didn't recall Bevan does not mean we shouldn't recall Katich. I don't know where this half-baked precedent crap comes from.

Bevan was overlooked because there were better candidates in front of him. That is not true of Katich.

Our best squad includes Katich as the reserve. That's all that matters.

All this other stuff about taking a punt on a kid is puffery. Katich deserves his recall and he is part of our best squad. That completely overshadows any arguments for picking a kid who's had one good season.

linda

4 Apr 2008, 00:57

Im really surprised he got the call up .Surely Aus have an older batsman than Katich hes only 32.

And you called us Dads Army :rolleyes:

Whenever I saw him play for Derbyshire he was a top player

Mr Unrealistic

4 Apr 2008, 01:01

I would rather have my toenails pulled out with a pair of pliers than watch katich bat

PHX

4 Apr 2008, 01:02

Yes he should have been.

Cant deny it.

achancely

4 Apr 2008, 06:43

I repeat, we should be picking our best squad. That includes Katich as the reserve.

What is this about "giving people a taste"?

This is bad logic in our current state.

Part of being a selector is looking forward. We're at a tipping point right now - a wealth of retirements have weakened us considerably, fortunately not enough that we shouldn't still beat the Windies comfortably.

Katich offers nothing if he is going as the reserve batsman. We need to recognise we are looking towards regenerating the side, and given our relative strength against the West Indies it was the right time to pick a young batsman who we expect to be a future middle-order bat as the reserve batsman. Get them into the team environment.

Put them into the team after an injury, they may fail, they may (a la the desperately domestically average Michael Clarke before his debut) succeed fantastically. Either way we are good enough vis a vis the West Indies to afford that.

Picking the 'best available' squad is a short-sighted, dogmatic and poorly thought out logic given our current situation. Katich is not necessary, not needed and won't be there long-term. A younger player probably will.

Perfect time.

hujsh

4 Apr 2008, 15:51

It's not about what we need or don't need.

It's about picking our best squad.

Our best squad includes Katich as the reserve. Period.

It means we have the best available squad.

Believe it or not, but that's actually the #1 priority. You seem to have lost sight of that in your determination to blood a young player for the sake of blooding a young player.

It's not meant to be easy to get into the Australian side.

How many top-notch innings did Pomersbach and White actually play this season? Do you really think that 5-6 good knocks should be enough to catapult a kid into the Test side?

You might want to see a new face for the sake of novelty, but it is a far better policy to reward consistency.

If White and Pomersbach can keep scoring runs, they'll get their chance. Making them wait isn't going to damage them. They're not going to forget how to bat if we don't pick them just yet.

People like you would have been falling over themselves to hand Cosgrove a baggy green a few years back. Good thing we waited for him to back up his one good season, isn't it?

The fact we didn't recall Bevan does not mean we shouldn't recall Katich. I don't know where this half-baked precedent crap comes from.

Bevan was overlooked because there were better candidates in front of him. That is not true of Katich.

Our best squad includes Katich as the reserve. That's all that matters.

All this other stuff about taking a punt on a kid is puffery. Katich deserves his recall and he is part of our best squad. That completely overshadows any arguments for picking a kid who's had one good season.

Fine...when Hussey (32) Ponting (33) Symonds (32) Lee (31) and Clark (32) all retire in the space of 2 years or so we'll bring in dubutants.

Then It'll really look great that guys like Katich (32) were all getting spots against weak sides.

Gunnar Longshanks

4 Apr 2008, 19:46

Picking the 'best available' squad is a short-sighted, dogmatic and poorly thought out logic given our current situation. Katich is not necessary, not needed and won't be there long-term. A younger player probably will.
Picking the best squad remains our #1 priority. I don't see how you can disagree with that.

If there was a young player really pushing for a spot, I'd be more amenable to squeezing him into the squad. But there simply aren't any young bats who have done enough to warrant selection. Pomersbach has had one good season - that just isn't enough. Who else?

Besides, we don't need to push a young bat into the mix right now. It makes complete sense to expect Pomersbach and whoever else to back up their break-out seasons before offering national honours.

We don't need to panic and start picking young guys before they're ready or before they're genuinely deserving.

Gunnar Longshanks

4 Apr 2008, 19:49

Fine...when Hussey (32) Ponting (33) Symonds (32) Lee (31) and Clark (32) all retire in the space of 2 years or so we'll bring in dubutants.

Then It'll really look great that guys like Katich (32) were all getting spots against weak sides.Well, Lee and Clark are bowlers, so they've got bugger-all to do with Katich.

That aside, there's no doubt that there will come a time when we have to replace ageing players.

But we've got 3-4 years to manage that transition. Why panic and start picking young guys who haven't earned their spot?

The worst thing Australia could do would be to swing our pendulum so far in favour of youth that we lose sight of actually picking our best available squad.

Bourky23

4 Apr 2008, 19:51

yes, he had to be picked. feel sorry for big dave though

hujsh

5 Apr 2008, 00:41

Well, Lee and Clark are bowlers, so they've got bugger-all to do with Katich.

That aside, there's no doubt that there will come a time when we have to replace ageing players.

But we've got 3-4 years to manage that transition. Why panic and start picking young guys who haven't earned their spot?

The worst thing Australia could do would be to swing our pendulum so far in favour of youth that we lose sight of actually picking our best available squad.

Means we have holes in the batting and bowling. If were introducing a few batsmen you want a reliable bowling attack and vice versa.

I just think that it would be foolish to not keep one eye on the future to ensure that we don't slide too far or at all.

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 00:54

Means we have holes in the batting and bowling. If were introducing a few batsmen you want a reliable bowling attack and vice versa.Whatever you reckon, champ.

You're basically saying that you want good players throughout the team. No kidding.

But you don't start blooding young bats when your bowlers are ageing, and you don't start blooding young bowlers when your bats are ageing. It would be completely illogical to argue otherwise.

The ages of Lee and Clark have nothing to do with the merits of Katich's recall.

I just think that it would be foolish to not keep one eye on the future to ensure that we don't slide too far or at all.Yeah, that's what you keep saying.

And I have no problem picking a young bat once there's one who deserves it. At the moment, there are no young bats pushing hard enough. That's the bottom line.

So picking Katich, the form bat in the country, is an easy decision.

hujsh

5 Apr 2008, 01:24

Whatever you reckon, champ.

You're basically saying that you want good players throughout the team. No kidding.

But you don't start blooding young bats when your bowlers are ageing, and you don't start blooding young bowlers when your bats are ageing. It would be completely illogical to argue otherwise.

The ages of Lee and Clark have nothing to do with the merits of Katich's recall.

Yeah, that's what you keep saying.

And I have no problem picking a young bat once there's one who deserves it. At the moment, there are no young bats pushing hard enough. That's the bottom line.

So picking Katich, the form bat in the country, is an easy decision.

It's to do with the teams future.

You say no young player deserves a spot. I bet people said about Clarke that before he got a cap but he lifted and did better than Hodge (an older more seasoned domestic player) would of. I think White would be a very good selection and not just because he's a Vic. Didn't have as good a season as Katich but Katich had a few shots and couldn't cement a spot when it came to test level cricket.

If Hodge did exactly what Katich has done this season i wouldn't want him in the team either so it's not a Katich thing (if you think that)

And I'm sick of this "we have to pick the best team" crap. We actually don't. It's the West Indies, not South Africa. I'm sure we'll be fine without Katich.

hujsh

5 Apr 2008, 01:27

Whatever you reckon, champ.

You're basically saying that you want good players throughout the team. No kidding.

But you don't start blooding young bats when your bowlers are ageing, and you don't start blooding young bowlers when your bats are ageing. It would be completely illogical to argue otherwise.

The ages of Lee and Clark have nothing to do with the merits of Katich's recall.

Yeah, that's what you keep saying.

And I have no problem picking a young bat once there's one who deserves it. At the moment, there are no young bats pushing hard enough. That's the bottom line.

So picking Katich, the form bat in the country, is an easy decision.

It's to do with the teams future.

You say no young player deserves a spot. I bet people said about Clarke that before he got a cap but he lifted and did better than Hodge (an older more seasoned domestic player) would of. I think White would be a very good selection and not just because he's a Vic. Didn't have as good a season as Katich but Katich had a few shots and couldn't cement a spot when it came to test level cricket.

If Hodge did exactly what Katich has done this season i wouldn't want him in the team either so it's not a Katich thing (if you think that)

" You're basically saying that you want good players throughout the team. No kidding."
WTF. I'm saying that you don't want to be introducing new bowlers the same time as new batsmen. So at least one part of your game is settled.

And I'm sick of this "we have to pick the best team" crap. We actually don't. It's the West Indies, not South Africa. I'm sure we'll be fine without Katich.

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 01:35

You say no young player deserves a spot. I bet people said about Clarke that before he got a cap but he lifted and did better than Hodge (an older more seasoned domestic player) would of.Michael Clarke debuted in a unique set of circumstances.

Firstly, he had been playing ODIs for 18 months and had been averaging 40. So he was a long way ahead of someone like Pomersbach or White.

Secondly, he was in the right place at the right time. He was in India with the ODI squad and Boof got injured. The timing was crucial, and he basically got lucky. And then he scored two centuries, ensuring he would never be too far from the mix.

None of that means we should start picking young players who haven't truly earnt it.

I think White would be a very good selection and not just because he's a Vic. Didn't have as good a season as Katich but Katich had a few shots and couldn't cement a spot when it came to test level cricket.If you actually think Cam White should be picked in the Test squad, you're on another planet.

He has done nowhere near enough to warrant selection.

Not even in the frame.

And I'm sick of this "we have to pick the best team" crap. We actually don't.I reckon we should pick our best available team.

You don't.

What you're suggesting is a fundamental departure from our enduring selection policy. We pick our best available side. Anything else would devalue the baggy green and make a mockery of the guys slugging it out domestically.

Why don't we just send our U20 World Cup team instead? We can "give them a taste" while "looking to the future". Apparently that's our new #1 priority.

hujsh

5 Apr 2008, 03:15

Michael Clarke debuted in a unique set of circumstances.

Firstly, he had been playing ODIs for 18 months and had been averaging 40. So he was a long way ahead of someone like Pomersbach or White.

Secondly, he was in the right place at the right time. He was in India with the ODI squad and Boof got injured. The timing was crucial, and he basically got lucky. And then he scored two centuries, ensuring he would never be too far from the mix.

None of that means we should start picking young players who haven't truly earnt it.

If you actually think Cam White should be picked in the Test squad, you're on another planet.

He has done nowhere near enough to warrant selection.

Not even in the frame.

I reckon we should pick our best available team.

You don't.

What you're suggesting is a fundamental departure from our enduring selection policy. We pick our best available side. Anything else would devalue the baggy green and make a mockery of the guys slugging it out domestically.

Why don't we just send our U20 World Cup team instead? We can "give them a taste" while "looking to the future". Apparently that's our new #1 priority.

If you think Katich can add anything different to the team then you're high. Don't underestimate the value of a few youthful players.

White's done enough IMO. Experienced, talented, decent First class record (as many of our test cricketers had before picked), averaged just under 50 this season and only 22 runs and he's the 5th highest run scorer this season.

But obviously you seem happy for us to slip down from being the number 1 side in the world due to lack of planning for the future. If we win and find out that White is ready for test cricket if needed, then we really gain something from this tour. If Katich does well then we can say "nice for him" but that's about it.

But maybe Katich can stuff up us there like he did in so many one-day matches.

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 04:21

If you think Katich can add anything different to the team then you're high. Don't underestimate the value of a few youthful players.He's unlikely to play, but he's undoubtedly part of our best squad, and that's all that matters.

He's the form batsman in the country. There is no better option as the reserve bat.

Australia's greatest asset in recent years has been experience. That's what wins series. When was the last time opting for experience backfired?

If David Hussey was named as the reserve instead of Katich, would you still be whinging about the need to "plan for the future"? I doubt it.

White's done enough IMO. Experienced, talented, decent First class record (as many of our test cricketers had before picked), averaged just under 50 this season and only 22 runs and he's the 5th highest run scorer this season.White's FC record is nothing special. It's certainly not impressive enough to warrant selection for this tour.

If White had been picked ahead of Katich, it would have been an absolute sham.

It would have completely undermined the notion that if you score enough runs domestically, you'll get your chance.

White's 24 years old. He's got plenty of time. If he goes back to Victoria and scores a stack of runs, he'll get his shot. There's no need to swing the pendulum and select him before he deserves it.

But obviously you seem happy for us to slip down from being the number 1 side in the world due to lack of planning for the future. If we win and find out that White is ready for test cricket if needed, then we really gain something from this tour. If Katich does well then we can say "nice for him" but that's about it.

But maybe Katich can stuff up us there like he did in so many one-day matches.Again, Katich probably isn't going to play unless there's an injury.

But if someone does get injured, we want the most accomplished, most capable bat ready to step in. At the moment, that batsman is Katich. No two ways about it.

As for "planning for the future", we've got at least 2-3 years before we need to replace Hussey, Ponting and Symonds - if Roy lasts that long. There's no immediate need to fast-track an undeserving kid. The domestic competition is where young batsmen develop. By the time they're playing for Australia, they need to be at the very top of the tree. If they're 30+ when they get there, so be it.

Part of the strength of the Australian side lies in having world-class players on the fringes. A vacancy opens up, and it is quckly filled by Mike Hussey, Phil Jaques, Brad Haddin or Stuart Clark, who were ready-made Test cricketers because they had to wait. Your youth policy would have seen these guys overlooked for a kid still finding his feet. That would have sucked, wouldn't it?

Imagine if we had given Cosgrove a cap after one good season. That would have been a mistake, but people like you would have justified it on the grounds that we were "planning for the future".

Again, when was the last time opting for experience backfired?

If White and Pomersbach have another good season or two, they'll be knocking on the door. They'll be better for the wait and the team will be in a stronger position.

It's not meant to be easy to get into the Australian Test team, but you want to promote kids for the sake of it, even if they haven't earnt their opportunity. That's bad news.

achancely

5 Apr 2008, 14:35

Picking the best squad remains our #1 priority.

Only if you're not looking to the future.

I don't see how you can disagree with that.

Very easily, because it is incredibly simplistic.

If there was a young player really pushing for a spot, I'd be more amenable to squeezing him into the squad. But there simply aren't any young bats who have done enough to warrant selection. Pomersbach has had one good season - that just isn't enough. Who else?

Pomersbach has had two good seasons, and has shown plenty against touring sides previously.

In addition, he's performing far better than Clarke did when he was picked. Do you disagree Clarke should have been picked for India.

For INDIA. And this is the...West Indies.

Besides, we don't need to push a young bat into the mix right now. It makes complete sense to expect Pomersbach and whoever else to back up their break-out seasons before offering national honours.

We don't need to panic and start picking young guys before they're ready or before they're genuinely deserving.

Because our team can't afford short-sighted silliness like that. We have to start offering squad spots (not first XI spots) based on potential. Because we're going to need those potentials very soon.

As you said - Katich is unlikely to play. Hence, he is a waste of a spot and it should be given to someone who is being groomed. I don't see how anyone who cares about Australian cricket doesn't agree with this.

achancely

5 Apr 2008, 14:38

Part of the strength of the Australian side lies in having world-class players on the fringes.

Not anymore. You're living in the past.

Imagine if we had given Cosgrove a cap after one good season. That would have been a mistake,

Would it? Are you so sure?

achancely

5 Apr 2008, 14:39

Michael Clarke debuted in a unique set of circumstances.

Firstly, he had been playing ODIs for 18 months and had been averaging 40. So he was a long way ahead of someone like Pomersbach or White.

From the man who rabbits on about ODI form not being relevant to Tests, suddenly they are.

He was in India with the ODI squad and Boof got injured. The timing was crucial, and he basically got lucky.

Very wrong. He played the first Test WITH Boof.

Dear oh dear.

hujsh

5 Apr 2008, 17:24

He's unlikely to play, but he's undoubtedly part of our best squad, and that's all that matters.

He's the form batsman in the country. There is no better option as the reserve bat.

Australia's greatest asset in recent years has been experience. That's what wins series. When was the last time opting for experience backfired?

If David Hussey was named as the reserve instead of Katich, would you still be whinging about the need to "plan for the future"? I doubt it.

White's FC record is nothing special. It's certainly not impressive enough to warrant selection for this tour.

If White had been picked ahead of Katich, it would have been an absolute sham.

It would have completely undermined the notion that if you score enough runs domestically, you'll get your chance.

White's 24 years old. He's got plenty of time. If he goes back to Victoria and scores a stack of runs, he'll get his shot. There's no need to swing the pendulum and select him before he deserves it.

Again, Katich probably isn't going to play unless there's an injury.

But if someone does get injured, we want the most accomplished, most capable bat ready to step in. At the moment, that batsman is Katich. No two ways about it.

As for "planning for the future", we've got at least 2-3 years before we need to replace Hussey, Ponting and Symonds - if Roy lasts that long. There's no immediate need to fast-track an undeserving kid. The domestic competition is where young batsmen develop. By the time they're playing for Australia, they need to be at the very top of the tree. If they're 30+ when they get there, so be it.

Part of the strength of the Australian side lies in having world-class players on the fringes. A vacancy opens up, and it is quckly filled by Mike Hussey, Phil Jaques, Brad Haddin or Stuart Clark, who were ready-made Test cricketers because they had to wait. Your youth policy would have seen these guys overlooked for a kid still finding his feet. That would have sucked, wouldn't it?

Imagine if we had given Cosgrove a cap after one good season. That would have been a mistake, but people like you would have justified it on the grounds that we were "planning for the future".

Again, when was the last time opting for experience backfired?

If White and Pomersbach have another good season or two, they'll be knocking on the door. They'll be better for the wait and the team will be in a stronger position.

It's not meant to be easy to get into the Australian Test team, but you want to promote kids for the sake of it, even if they haven't earnt their opportunity. That's bad news.

Hussey is 3 years younger than Katich and hasn't had a shot. He's just young enough but that will change soon. Hodge is a fairer comparison but you ignored him.

Did you pick Shaun Udal for England in 05? You must be that guy.

Stop using Cosgrove as a point of reference. He has his own issues with fitness that is affecting his game.

White has improved his batting every season and has been in good form before and after his injury. One of the top performed batsmen this season.

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 18:09

From the man who rabbits on about ODI form not being relevant to Tests, suddenly they are.I don't rabbit on about that at all.

Solid ODI form will regularly put someone in line for Test selection. Look at Mike Hussey.

Very wrong. He played the first Test WITH Boof.Fair call - it was Ponting's injury that allowed him to debut.

My mistake.

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 18:25

Because our team can't afford short-sighted silliness like that. We have to start offering squad spots (not first XI spots) based on potential. Because we're going to need those potentials very soon.

As you said - Katich is unlikely to play. Hence, he is a waste of a spot and it should be given to someone who is being groomed. I don't see how anyone who cares about Australian cricket doesn't agree with this.This is just repetitive.

You've yet to make a compelling case for any particular player ahead of Katich.

It's just a wishy-washy youth policy. The problem is that there's no young player sufficiently deserving.

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 18:27

Hussey is 3 years younger than Katich and hasn't had a shot. He's just young enough but that will change soon. Hodge is a fairer comparison but you ignored him.If Hodge had played as well as Katich has, he would also be an irresistible selection.

I don't see the point of that hypothetical.

Did you pick Shaun Udal for England in 05? You must be that guy.Pfffttt...

Is this your best effort?

Keep trying.

vtown

5 Apr 2008, 18:57

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 20:03

I agree with Gunnar Longshanks.
- why not pick your best XI over some younger players who haven't warranted a baggy green.
- White is nowhere near the mix for test selection
- Katich by far had a stand out season and deserves everything he gets.

but also on another note, who do you think would deserve a test selection, Katich or D.Hussey, on merit that is (who is the better player)?
I don't know how to measure "merit".

But I can assess performances, and on that score Katich would edge Hussey out.

In 12 months time, that may be reversed, and we'll have people whinging about Hussey getting picked ahead of an undeserving kid.

achancely

5 Apr 2008, 21:51

I don't rabbit on about that at all.

Solid ODI form will regularly put someone in line for Test selection. Look at Mike Hussey.

You have regularly said ODI form shouldn't influence Test selection. Particularly in your denigration of Symonds.

achancely

5 Apr 2008, 21:54

This is just repetitive.

You've yet to make a compelling for case for any particular player ahead of Katich.

It's just a wishy-washy youth policy. The problem is that there's no young player sufficiently deserving.

No, this is just a weak cop-out to avoid a valid argument.

The 'best available' side argument is weak and short-sighted, as pointed out, and given Katich's previous long-term proof he is not a suitable international, particularly relevant.

You haven't even managed to address the problem of our side needing a youth injection with upcoming retirements.

Don't try and brush off others by repeating the same thing again, it's immature and pre-school tactics.

hujsh

5 Apr 2008, 22:33

This is just repetitive.

You've yet to make a compelling for case for any particular player ahead of Katich.

It's just a wishy-washy youth policy. The problem is that there's no young player sufficiently deserving.

How about the fact that (as someone else has said) selectors have to pick players who they think will take the step up to test level. Some people are just born to play domestic cricket and when it comes to test cricket they can't handle it.

Just ask guys like Mark Ramprakash

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 22:35

You have regularly said ODI form shouldn't influence Test selection. Particularly in your denigration of Symonds.
ODI form is a factor in Test selection.

I've never said otherwise. I challenge you to find a direct quote where I've said "ODI form should have zero bearing on Test selection". There are limits on its importance, but it is definitely a factor.

I've not "denigrated" Symonds. I've merely questioned whether he was our best option at #6 - a legitimate question.

And past ODI performances can't be expected to keep Symonds in the Test side if he doesn't score runs in that form. To his credit, he appeared to have settled in the role this past summer.

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 22:41

The 'best available' side argument is weak and short-sighted, as pointed out, and given Katich's previous long-term proof he is not a suitable international, particularly relevant.It is neither weak nor short-sighted.

It is straightforward and entirely sensible.

The Test team isn't a development squad. The players in that side should be the pick of the crop.

If there was a young player deserving of selection, then I'd have no problem with selecting them at some stage. But there simply aren't any who have done enough to shade Katich.

I suppose you're pushing for Pomersbach or White instead?

You haven't even managed to address the problem of our side needing a youth injection with upcoming retirements.Er, yeah - I have.

I addressed that in an earlier post:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10550989&postcount=48

There is not an immediate need to bring in a young player who hasn't earnt selection. It's not like there are a rash of retirements looming in the next 18 months.

Don't try and brush off others by repeating the same thing again, it's immature and pre-school tactics.You're the one going over and over the same half-baked arguments - if you can even call them that.

I've made my case pretty thoroughly.

You just keep falling back on cliches and hyperbolic doomsday scenarios.

For your argument to succeed, you need to demonstrate that one particular player should have been included ahead of Katich. You simply haven't done that.

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 22:45

How about the fact that (as someone else has said) selectors have to pick players who they think will take the step up to test level.Er, what about it?

Your line of argument totally devalues strong FC performances over the journey.

"Forget about who's performed consistently for their state. Let's just pick a kid who played a handful of nice innings last season."

Just ask guys like Mark RamprakashWhat's your point?

Because Ramprakash struggled at Test level, we should pick an undeserving player over Katich?

That makes so much sense.

hujsh

5 Apr 2008, 22:51

Er, what about it?

Your line of argument totally devalues strong FC performances over the journey.

"Forget about who's performed consistently for their state. Let's just pick a kid who played a handful of nice innings last season."

What's your point?

Becuase Ramprakash struggled at Test level, we should pick an undeserving player over Katich?

That makes so much sense.

Domestic performance doesn't make a test quality player. It is up to the selectors to figure out who will perform given the opportunity, guys like Clarke. While players who have been good at domestic level (Katich Ramprakash) have not been able to step up.

Stop devaluing the performances of guys like White and Pomers. White had a very good season that was only hampered by an injury.

Gunnar Longshanks

5 Apr 2008, 22:56

Domestic performance doesn't make a test quality player.No, but they are a major criteria for selection.

Besides, on the previous page, you were banging on about how White's great FC season had put him in the mix. Now you're saying domestic performances aren't even that important.

Stop devaluing the performances of guys like White and Pomers. White had a very good season that was only hampered by an injury.Well, is domestic performance important or not?

In the previous paragrpah, you've just said it's not the be-all and end-all. But now you're straight back into spruiking White's past domestic season.

Make up your mind.

It seems like you're happy to focus on White's domestic performances, while playing down Katich's superior achievements in the same competition.

I don't devalue the performances of White and Pomersbach.

They both had good domestic seasons. But players need more than that to push into the Australian side, especially when another player - in this case Katich - has been so dominant domestically.

hujsh

5 Apr 2008, 23:04

Let's just pick a kid who played a handful of nice innings last season."

No, but they are a major criteria for selection.

Besides, on the previous page, you were banging on about how White's great FC season had put him in the mix. Now you're saying domestic performances aren't even that important.

Well, is domestic performance important or not?

In the previous paragrpah, you've just said it's not the be-all and end-all. But now you're straight back into spruiking White's past domestic season.

Make up your mind.

It seems like you're happy to focus on White's domestic performances, while playing down Katich's superior achievements in the same competition.

I don't devalue the performances of White and Pomersbach.

They both had good domestic seasons. But players need more than that to push into the Australian side, especially when another player - in this case Katich - has been so dominant domestically.

Sounded like it to me. But if you didn't mean that then I'll take it back.

When Katich has failed at test level and looks like he just can't cut it his domestic performances become less important since he is not so likely to become a good test player at 33 after playing only 3 years ago.

White and Pomers have the mix of potential/talent and domestic performances that make them better selections in my eyes.

achancely

5 Apr 2008, 23:35

It is neither weak nor short-sighted.

It is straightforward and entirely sensible.

The Test team isn't a development squad. The players in that side should be the pick of the crop.

This is a silly view rooted in an era when Australia was dominant and could afford to not develop youngsters. When we had serious talent in our domestic ranks.

If there was a young player deserving of selection, then I'd have no problem with selecting them at some stage. But there simply aren't any who have done enough to shade Katich.

I suppose you're pushing for Pomersbach or White instead?

Not White. He's nowhere near it. Pomers maybe. Katich has proven he is not a fit for the Test side. And it hasn't changed.

Er, yeah - I have.

I addressed that in an earlier post:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10550989&postcount=48

There is not an immediate need to bring in a young player who hasn't earnt selection. It's not like there are a rash of retirements looming in the next 18 months.

Amazingly short-sighted view. We didn't expect McGrath, Warne, Martyn, Langer and Gilchrist to retire all so suddenly either. You really are still stuck in the past.

You're the one going over and over the same half-baked arguments - if you can even call them that.

I've made my case pretty thoroughly.

You haven't made a thorough case at all. Repeating 'We must pick the best side' is not a case.

You just keep falling back on cliches and hyperbolic doomsday scenarios.

The only cliche is yours - 'we must pick the best side possible!'.

For your argument to succeed, you need to demonstrate that one particular player should have been included ahead of Katich. You simply haven't done that.

I've demonstrated Pomersbach should have been.

You also haven't explained why it would have been a disaster to give Cosgrove a cap. In fact, you haven't answered any questions whatsoever - just rabbited your cliche again and again.

DIG

6 Apr 2008, 10:23

achancely

6 Apr 2008, 10:30

hmmm, such a wacky idea to pick the best side available isn't it. Ridiculous strategy, wtf are the selectors thinking?? :rolleyes: In fact, the selectors have publicly stated they will always pick the best side available with, yes, an eye on the future.

Katich is not an 'eye on the future'. He's s tep back, a struggler at international level because he has no self-belief.

And as you said - he won't even play. So why not give a youngster like Pomersbach some time with the team?

Katich probably won't even play this tour but if he does and then subsequently cements a spot on the team we could get another FIVE years out of him, not 1 or 2.

Five years? When was the last time anyone played until 38 other than Swaugh?

Talk about ridiculous claims.

People so obsessed with playing kids should think hard about whether we can really afford to discard a batsman now in his prime who has previously squandered his chance, hit rock bottom, and now forced his way back with brilliant consistent cricket. Langer, Martyn, Waugh, Hayden - all had very similar stories, and became greats of the game.

Lol. Comparing Katich to those guys...all of whom came back earlier than 33 anyway.

But some would say, no, ignore his form. So should we turf him out 32? Can Australian cricket really afford that?!

The better question is: can Australia afford to avoid regenerating the team?

A player younger than Ponting, Symonds and Hussey,

Hardly. That's spin as good as it gets. Picking a player likely to be turfed at a similar time to those three...

averaging nearly a hundred this summer, 5 centuries including a triple,

Bevan. Lehmann. Siddons. Etc.

with no serious younger alternative

Hussey. Pomersbach.

....please, seriously, this thread shouldn't have gone beyond the first page!

Only if you think trying to spin your way out of things is acceptable. :rolleyes:

DIG

6 Apr 2008, 10:52

Katich is not an 'eye on the future'. He's s tep back, a struggler at international level because he has no self-belief.

And as you said - he won't even play. So why not give a youngster like Pomersbach some time with the team?

Five years? When was the last time anyone played until 38 other than Swaugh?

Talk about ridiculous claims.

Lol. Comparing Katich to those guys...all of whom came back earlier than 33 anyway.

The better question is: can Australia afford to avoid regenerating the team?

Hardly. That's spin as good as it gets. Picking a player likely to be turfed at a similar time to those three...

Bevan. Lehmann. Siddons. Etc.

Hussey. Pomersbach.

Only if you think trying to spin your way out of things is acceptable. :rolleyes:
lol - not a clue. You fail to justify how turfing out the best batsman outside the test team at 32, is so brilliant a move when our batting stocks are already thinner than a couple of years ago. Clearly you're blinded by your grudge against him.

His self-belief's back by the way if you'd actually watched him play.

"Regenerate the team" - o please, who's reeling out the cliches now?

Selectors obviously agree with me, not you - so this is a bit of a defunct debate don't you think? :cool:

achancely

6 Apr 2008, 12:06

lol - not a clue. You fail to justify how turfing out the best batsman outside the test team at 32, is so brilliant a move when our batting stocks are already thinner than a couple of years ago. Clearly you're blinded by your grudge against him.

Er, I justified it completely. You just ignored everything. I've explained quite clearly why we should bring in a young player.

His self-belief's back by the way if you'd actually watched him play.

He has always had self-belief at domestic level.

"Regenerate the team" - o please, who's reeling out the cliches now?

You think we can keep wheeling out 30-plus and stay competitive? :eek:

Sure, let's just turn over the team every couple of years, eh?

Selectors obviously agree with me, not you - so this is a bit of a defunct debate don't you think? :cool:

Wow, that's the ultimate line of the mindless.

Many things happen without our consent or approval, let's never debate them, eh? :rolleyes:

DIG

6 Apr 2008, 12:46

Er, I justified it completely. You just ignored everything. I've explained quite clearly why we should bring in a young player.

He has always had self-belief at domestic level.

You think we can keep wheeling out 30-plus and stay competitive? :eek:

Sure, let's just turn over the team every couple of years, eh?

Wow, that's the ultimate line of the mindless.

Many things happen without our consent or approval, let's never debate them, eh? :rolleyes:
Marsh, White will be touring with the odi side where they have more chance of maybe actually getting a run. Casson and Hilf will be there for the test tour. That's not enough?

If anything goes wrong with our starting XI, injury, illness or otherwise Katich is the immediate best replacement. Otherwise he sits in the shed and does nothing. Who gives a sh1t?

But what if instead we're forced to actually play someone younger who's there for the experience and he fails (see Nathan Hauritz last Indian test tour) or worse, it costs us the match. You just don't hand out baggygreens on a platter to give young-uns experience.

In a couple of years, i'd be shaking my head with you too but at 32, yes he could play for a few more years (btw 32 + 5 = 38??)

A few years back we had more than half the test team the same age at 33, did we collapse when they all retired? No, they all left at different times and we've handled the transition well by blooding the next generation through the one day side first - Huss, Pup, Roy. This strategy will continue where appropriate.

And I don't need to spin anything about his batting form, it's not like he's scored slightly more than Pomers or Dussey, he's MILES ahead.

Still, I understand why you'd prefer Pomers - hey if he did fill in and score a ton, it'd be awesome, and i understand your concern with the age of the side, but it just doesn't worry me as much for the reasons i've stated.

Clearly, nothing's going to change some people's views on Katich regardless, but i've made my point - and imo he's too far ahead of the rest, but at the same time not too old, to make his selection as a backup bat for this tour anything but an absolute no-brainer.

achancely

6 Apr 2008, 14:39

Marsh, White will be touring with the odi side where they have more chance of maybe actually getting a run. Casson and Hilf will be there for the test tour. That's not enough?

Casson and Hilf are bowlers.

If anything goes wrong with our starting XI, injury, illness or otherwise Katich is the immediate best replacement. Otherwise he sits in the shed and does nothing. Who gives a sh1t?

Given its the West Indies, why not bring Pomersbach along?

But what if instead we're forced to actually play someone younger who's there for the experience and he fails (see Nathan Hauritz last Indian test tour)

Are you clueless? Hauritz did very well on debut. He's not worth persisting with, but he got plaudits for that performance.

or worse, it costs us the match. You just don't hand out baggygreens on a platter to give young-uns experience.

When it's the West Indies and we still have a side strong enough to afford it, you do. We've done it before when we were rebuilding, and it is time to do it again.

In a couple of years, i'd be shaking my head with you too but at 32, yes he could play for a few more years (btw 32 + 5 = 38??)

5 more years? And he's almost 33, let's not pretend.

A few years back we had more than half the test team the same age at 33, did we collapse when they all retired? No, they all left at different times and we've handled the transition well by blooding the next generation through the one day side first - Huss, Pup, Roy. This strategy will continue where appropriate.

You do realise we were in a golden era then in terms of talent in and around the side? You're living in the past.

And I don't need to spin anything about his batting form, it's not like he's scored slightly more than Pomers or Dussey, he's MILES ahead.

Both are younger and better fits. Katich has proven he is not international class.

Still, I understand why you'd prefer Pomers - hey if he did fill in and score a ton, it'd be awesome, and i understand your concern with the age of the side, but it just doesn't worry me as much for the reasons i've stated.

Unlike you, I don't believe we have the luxury we had a few years back. Our peripheral players and domestic performers are considerably weaker now, as India proved.

Clearly, nothing's going to change some people's views on Katich regardless, but i've made my point - and imo he's too far ahead of the rest, but at the same time not too old, to make his selection as a backup bat for this tour anything but an absolute no-brainer.

If it was India, I might agree. As it is the West Crappies, it was the perfect time to blood a Pomersbach or Dussey.

DIG

6 Apr 2008, 22:30

Casson and Hilf are bowlers.

Er, i know that. My point was how many younger players do we bring for experience, or should we turn this into an Under 19s tour, just cos it's the windies.

Are you clueless? Hauritz did very well on debut. He's not worth persisting with, but he got plaudits for that performance.

Bollocks - he bowled well at times, but it was a spinners paradise and in the 2nd innings when the game was on the line, his long hops got carted while the part-timer, Clarke took 6/9. Nothing against Hauritz, they just ____ed up not taking MacGill as backup and being forced to use the work-experience kid instead.

When it's the West Indies and we still have a side strong enough to afford it, you do. We've done it before when we were rebuilding, and it is time to do it again.

I disagree, until Pomers or Dussey have mounted similar figures to Katich - even if they were somewhere close to him then we do, but not yet. Besides we're sending other youngsters to the Windies with a view to the future, and Dussey himself will probably work his way in through the one-day side, like Mike did.

Both are younger and better fits. Katich has proven he is not international class.

How are they better fits? Cos of their age? What a crock, Katich has done everything asked of him to force his way back.

Our peripheral players and domestic performers are considerably weaker now, as India proved.

Well exactly - so why one earth would we just discard the next batsman in line? Would be insanity.

If it was India, I might agree. As it is the West Crappies, it was the perfect time to blood a Pomersbach or Dussey.

Again i disagree, and you're not going to be able to change my mind on this.
You've written off Katich based on his past. There's so so many examples of players coming back better, Hopes probably our most recent. Believe it or not i've never liked Katich much either, but his recent form, especially this summer just could not be ignored by the selectors, and so it wasn't. If he does find a spot, cements it and helps us win crucial coming series vs India, SAF and then retain the Ashes that'd be brilliant. For this tour, the selectors felt they were looking to the future enough through the several other young selections they made in both test and one-day squads, no need to axe Katich - with 16 man squads they got the best of both worlds.

achancely

7 Apr 2008, 07:20

I don't think we're going to change each other's mind. Respect your opinion, but disagree. Think we need to look forward, not stagnate.

Gunnar Longshanks

8 Apr 2008, 20:10

We didn't expect McGrath, Warne, Martyn, Langer and Gilchrist to retire all so suddenly either.It's not particularly relevant to the topic, but we had every reason to expect those retirements.

How old were these guys when they pulled the pin? 36? 37?

Hardly a surprise for a 36-year-old cricketer to retire.

I've demonstrated Pomersbach should have been.No.

You absolutely haven't.

Pomersbach hasn't done enough. If he's your only candidate, then it's easy to see why Katich got the nod.

I think you're exaggerating the peril facing the Australian side. You talk about impending retirements as though they're 6 months away.

The reality is that Hayden will probably be next to go, and that will be after the 2009 Ashes. After that, there mightn't be another retirement for at least two years.

So it's not like we're going to lose many players in the immediate future. Any exodus would be 2-3 years off. Let's be clear on that. In that time, we need some younger players to show they're ready to play for Australia. But at the moment, those players haven't done enough. That's why we've picked Katich. He's the form batsman in the country, and those players in their 20s need to do more.

There will come a time when we need to pick some younger players. But that need is not upon us yet, and none of the candidates, except Hussey who is next in line, have done enough to deserve selection. That's why we've picked Katich.

You can have the last word. But repeating yourself over and over about "eyes on the future" won't convince anyone.

johnnyhoward

8 Apr 2008, 20:25

That killed off any chance D. Hussey had of getting into the side, well done Kato. He's got the runs on the board this season so should have been picked. We've seen the runs record broken 3 times in the past few years by older players - first Elliott, then Bevan, now Katich - hopefully Katich will have more success if he returns.

achancely

9 Apr 2008, 08:15

It's not particularly relevant to the topic, but we had every reason to expect those retirements.

How old were these guys when they pulled the pin? 36? 37?

Hardly a surprise for a 36-year-old cricketer to retire.

Don't be revisionist. No one was expecting them all to retire so suddenly. All signs pointed to the next Ashes.

No.

You absolutely haven't.

Pomersbach hasn't done enough. If he's your only candidate, then it's easy to see why Katich got the nod.

Not at all, unless you look only at raw numbers.

I think you're exaggerating the peril facing the Australian side. You talk about impending retirements as though they're 6 months away.

The reality is that Hayden will probably be next to go, and that will be after the 2009 Ashes. After that, there mightn't be another retirement for at least two years.

Are you so sure? That's what we thought about the players mentioned above.

So it's not like we're going to lose many players in the immediate future. Any exodus would be 2-3 years off. Let's be clear on that.

This isn't a fact, and don't state it as such. Referring to your own argument at proof is a weak tactic.

In that time, we need some younger players to show they're ready to play for Australia. But at the moment, those players haven't done enough. That's why we've picked Katich. He's the form batsman in the country, and those players in their 20s need to do more.

Again - so was Elliott. So was Lehmann. So was Bevan. It means nothing.

There will come a time when we need to pick some younger players. But that need is not upon us yet, and none of the candidates, except Hussey who is next in line, have done enough to deserve selection. That's why we've picked Katich.

Clarke didn't deserve selection either. Sometimes you have to take a gamble. You have yet to refute this, nor have you refuted our need to regenerate, nor have you refuted the fact we are playing the Windies.

Poor attempt to finish up an argument with a call to the higher ground as below then...

You can have the last word. But repeating yourself over and over about "eyes on the future" won't convince anyone.

Because repeating 'Katich broke the record!' isn't convincing either.

hujsh

9 Apr 2008, 16:07

When's the cricket start:D

Gunnar Longshanks

9 Apr 2008, 19:29

Don't be revisionist. No one was expecting them all to retire so suddenly. All signs pointed to the next Ashes.Are you kidding? What signs?

Warne maybe. But none of the others were going to last to 2009.

If you expected Langer and McGrath to last that long, you were kidding yourself. I don't think many shared those illusions.

Are you so sure? That's what we thought about the players mentioned above.Look at the ages of the players we're talking about.

The guys who retired were 35-37. How could anyone be surprised when a player that age retires?

The oldest guys currently in the side, apart from Hayden, are 32-33. That gives them all at least two more years. I think that's pretty reasonable.

This isn't a fact, and don't state it as such. Referring to your own argument at proof is a weak tactic.Pffffttt...

Whatever, champ.

You keep talking about this rash of impending retirements, but, Hayden aside, our oldest bats could quite easily stick around for another 3 years.

You can disagree with that, but don't just huff and puff about an entirely reasonable observation.

Again - so was Elliott. So was Lehmann. So was Bevan. It means nothing.That Katich is the best candidate means nothing?

Those other guys were overlooked because they were either too old or there were better options when they were in their peak.

It's bad luck for them, but ultimately they were victims of timing. Katich has produced a great season when there aren't as many viable candidates for the reserve batting spot.

So he gets picked. Simple.

Clarke didn't deserve selection either. Sometimes you have to take a gamble. You have yet to refute this, nor have you refuted our need to regenerate, nor have you refuted the fact we are playing the Windies.I agree that Clarke was lucky.

But he had been playing ODIs for 18 months. That put him ahead of Pomersbach or whoever else you're pushing for.

I have refuted our "need to regenerate". As outlined again in this post, that need is not so immediate that we should pick bats who haven't earnt selection.

How would I refute the fact we're playing the West Indies? I agree that we're playing the West Indies. I think everyone does. We should still pick our best side.

achancely

9 Apr 2008, 21:44

Are you kidding? What signs?

Warne maybe. But none of the others were going to last to 2009.

If you expected Langer and McGrath to last that long, you were kidding yourself. I don't think many shared those illusions.

Actually, most did. Read the paper.

Look at the ages of the players we're talking about.

The guys who retired were 35-37. How could anyone be surprised when a player that age retires?

The oldest guys currently in the side, apart from Hayden, are 32-33. That gives them all at least two more years. I think that's pretty reasonable.

So you want a rash of retirements in 3 years. Great.

Pffffttt...

Whatever, champ.

You keep talking about this rash of impending retirements, but, Hayden aside, our oldest bats could quite easily stick around for another 3 years.

You can disagree with that, but don't just huff and puff about an entirely reasonable observation.

When you use it as proof of your own argument, I have to.

That Katich is the best candidate means nothing?

Using your argument that he is the best candidate as proof again.

Those other guys were overlooked because they were either too old or there were better options when they were in their peak.

Incorrect. As old as Katich, and by default they were th best option as Katich was. They far outstripped the competition.

Your own argument is shot apart by Bevan, Elliott and Lehmann.

It's bad luck for them, but ultimately they were victims of timing. Katich has produced a great season when there aren't as many viable candidates for the reserve batting spot.

Hussey. Pomersbach.

I have refuted our "need to regenerate". As outlined again in this post, that need is not so immediate that we should pick bats who haven't earnt selection.

you haven't refuted it. You've just pooh-poohed it. That's not the same thing.

How would I refute the fact we're playing the West Indies? I agree that we're playing the West Indies. I think everyone does. We should still pick our best side.

Why waste an opportunity to give a spot to someone who, in your own words, probably won't get a game and give it to someone expected to play a longer term role - so they feel a part of the team and have some squad experience already?

You've yet to come up with a single viable argument refuting this.

Gunnar Longshanks

9 Apr 2008, 22:49

Actually, most did. Read the paper.This does not constitute an argument.

If you think people expected those players to continue, provide something to support that view. Don't expect me to do it for you.

Those players would all be in their late-30s by the time of the 2009 Ashes. The real surprise would have been them lasting that long.

So you want a rash of retirements in 3 years. Great.The point is that these retirements aren't going to happen as soon as you're suggesting.

There is not an immediate need to bring in a young player who hasn't earnt his spot.

We have more time to play with than you've acknowledged.

When you use it as proof of your own argument, I have to.I'm not using it as proof of anything.

It's an entirely reasonable observation, which punctures your doom-and-gloom outlook.

And rather than acknowledge or engage it, you've responded with meaningless lip service. That's totally inadequate.

Using your argument that he is the best candidate as proof again.I'm just responding to your bizarre assertion that Katich being the best candidate is meaningless.

He was the best-performed bat in the domestic comp. That puts him right at the top of the list, especially when the young bats haven't done enough.

Incorrect. As old as Katich, and by default they were th best option as Katich was. They far outstripped the competition.

Your own argument is shot apart by Bevan, Elliott and Lehmann.You actually have to demonstrate this. You can't just flatly state it as though that's sufficient.

At what stage of their careers do you think these guys should have been recalled?

I reckon they were either older than Katich at that point - Katich is only 32 - and/or were behind more candidates than Katich is currently.

Hussey. Pomersbach.Hussey is unlucky, but ultimately Katich was better-performed.

Pomersbach hasn't done enough. He wasn't even offered an ACB contract, so I think that suggests he needs to back it up with another good season before being seriously considered.

Why waste an opportunity to give a spot to someone who, in your own words, probably won't get a game and give it to someone expected to play a longer term role - so they feel a part of the team and have some squad experience already?Simply because there are no young players who have done enough. This is becoming repetitive.

Katich and Hussey were the only two viable options. Katich got the nod because he was better-performed domestically.

achancely

10 Apr 2008, 07:32

This is going round in circles. When you keep hiding from the fact your argument falls apart due to Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan, there's no point continuing. It's just not good enough.

Hass

13 Apr 2008, 22:17

This is going round in circles. When you keep hiding from the fact your argument falls apart due to Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan, there's no point continuing. It's just not good enough.

I find it funny that your argumment places so much weight on Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan not being recalled at similar points in their careers. But it's a furphy.

Lehmann was dropped from the test side in early 1999 as a 28 year-old.

He was recalled to the team in late 2002 as a 32-year-old. Lehmann played for another two years averaging 49. Katich is currently 32-years-old.

Elliott was dropped from the test side as a 27-year-old in 1999. He was recalled in 2004 as a, wait for it... 32-year-old. Unfortunately for him he only scored one run in two innings and Ponting returned from injury in the very next match.

It is true that Michael Bevan never received a recall after being dropped as a 27-year-old. I think that was unfair. But it must be remembered that Bevan did get pigeon-holed as a one-day specialist.

While Bevan had many good seasons in Shield Cricket after being dropped, his presence in the one-day team meant he never got a chance to completely dominate a first-class season. He did so in 2004/5 after he'd departed the one-day scene, but by that stage he was 34 - a couple of years older than Katich, Lehmann and Elliott at the times of their recalls.

Cheers.

Gunnar Longshanks

14 Apr 2008, 18:31

This is going round in circles. When you keep hiding from the fact your argument falls apart due to Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan, there's no point continuing. It's just not good enough.But you haven't provided any detail about Bevan, Lehmann and Elliott.

You've just mentioned their names as though the fact they missed selection somehow proves we shouldn't have picked Katich.

That's inadequate.

If you want to build an argument around these guys, then go ahead. But you haven't done that, you've just mentioned them as though that alone constitutes a valid point.

The reality is that different situations will deliver different outcomes for different players.

At what stage in their careers should these guys have been brought back into the Test side? I would argue that they were either too old to be seriously considered and/or were behind too many other candidates to crack a spot.

Either way, these examples don't directly engage the decision to recall Katich. You're choosing to focus on flawed parallels rather than demonstrating that there is someone currently more deserving of a spot than Katich.

Gunnar Longshanks

14 Apr 2008, 18:33

I find it funny that your argumment places so much weight on Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan not being recalled at similar points in their careers. But it's a furphy.

Lehmann was dropped from the test side in early 1999 as a 28 year-old.

He was recalled to the team in late 2002 as a 32-year-old. Lehmann played for another two years averaging 49. Katich is currently 32-years-old.

Elliott was dropped from the test side as a 27-year-old in 1999. He was recalled in 2004 as a, wait for it... 32-year-old. Unfortunately for him he only scored one run in two innings and Ponting returned from injury in the very next match.

It is true that Michael Bevan never received a recall after being dropped as a 27-year-old. I think that was unfair. But it must be remembered that Bevan did get pigeon-holed as a one-day specialist.

While Bevan had many good seasons in Shield Cricket after being dropped, his presence in the one-day team meant he never got a chance to completely dominate a first-class season. He did so in 2004/5 after he'd departed the one-day scene, but by that stage he was 34 - a couple of years older than Katich, Lehmann and Elliott at the times of their recalls.
That's very interesting.

I await chancely's response.

I think the bottom line with Elliott is that he eventually found himself stuck behind Langer and Hayden, and that was basically curtains for him. No amount of FC runs was going to break that partnership.

As for Lehmann, look at the guys who kept him out of the side. He suffered from having the Waugh twins as fixtures in the middle order. Langer went through there and then Ponting emerged. Boof was unlucky, but there was enough quality in the middle order at that stage to keep him out of the side.

Bevan was too far gone from the Test side to push his way back in aged 34. He was no longer in the frame. It had been 6-7 years since he played a Test? At 34, he was never going to be recalled.

These guys missed out either because they were too old or because there were better candidates ahead of them.

That is not the case with Katich. That is why he has been recalled.

LIONS then DAYLIGHT

14 Apr 2008, 18:55

How could anyone make a convincing case for anyone but Katich to be given the nod is beyond me.

Brad Hodge has had his chances at both Test and ODI level and still has a technique that will have him struggle against a attack who can move the ball. At his age, he won't get a gig in the test side unless injuiries hit a few players. His ODI perfomance in October also didn't do him any favours and he offers little in the field.

He is a solid middle order batsmen but i can't see him coming in unless 2 or 3 batsmen get injured or lose form in spectacular fashion.

Katich performed well for us in India in 2004 at number 3, probably the most important position in the batting lineup, those performances are not forgotten by selectors, and while he had an ordinary Ashes tour in 2005, he at stages fought hard and grinded out runs during the tour when other players such as Martyn, Hayden and Clarke either hit a couple of 4's or got out. Thoser performances are not forgotten.

At this time it was clear Katich also had a technical problem involving to much movement at the crease, mainly his pronounced back foot movement which IMO affected his game in several ways

1) Made it harder for him to know where his off stump was (see Ashes 2005, letting a flintoff ball cannon into his off stump, and sparing at balls 2 feet wide of off stump producing easy catchs to the umbrella field)

2) Secondly, this movement ment he was on the move while playing his shots and his head wasn't still, against decent bowling attacks, these 2 flaws spell a form slump.

By all accounts and the opinion from respected judges is that Katich has fixed this flaw and is once again back in the runs against decent domestic judges.

He is more then capable of stepping up if needed IMO, he also offers left arm chinaman and is a capable gully fieldsmen, something that should not be taken lightly considering our fielding efforts of late.

He also appears respected within the team and has touring experience of England, a tour which should be at the apex of our masterplan.

Not to mention his experience of the subcontinent gained during 2004, which will be invaluable considering Jacques, Hussey, Haddin, Symonds have yet to play a test on Indian soil.

Katich is the type of gritty player that we need, in India especially, wickets can fall very quickly, a team can be 0 for 100 and 5 minutes later they can literally be 3 or 4 wickets down. A quick check back through scorecards from our last 2 Indian tours in 2001 and 2004 will reveal that this scenario can happen more often then other venues around the world.

Katich provides a lot to the team, sure other players will also provide certain attributes, but Katich has the experience and the ability to get hard runs, a attribute that we will need our batsmen to have in the coming 18 months.

Gunnar Longshanks

14 Apr 2008, 19:23

How could anyone make a convincing case for anyone but Katich to be given the nod is beyond me.
I agree.

But others believe we should be blooding a younger batsman, especially when Katich is unlikely to play in India.

LIONS then DAYLIGHT

14 Apr 2008, 22:54

I agree.

But others believe we should be blooding a younger batsman, especially when Katich is unlikely to play in India.

This "blooding" talk gives me the shits.

IMO "blooding" suggests that a player is getting a game based on his age and the need to look to the future rather then 100% merit.

Its another one of those terms that people seem to use which really means ____ all.

Today it is obvious that all batsmen and even the bowlers need to make a contribution with the bat, obviously the top 6 batsmen will need to make the bulk of the runs, no team can afford carrying a young batsmen in a test match just to blood them, the very use of the term suggests that in normal circumstances they would not be picked due to the fact that they simply are not good enough at this stage.

ODI's are the place to blood batsmen, Shaun Marsh is a perfect example, in this format players can face an international attack and get used to the surrounds of this form of cricket. This is the perfect place to "blood" a batsmen. Michael Clarke was given a gig in the One day team 2 years before he got his debut.

Over the years the young batsmen who have played in the test team at a young age are Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke. Rod Marsh and Ian Chappel had been saying that Ponting was a gun before he turned 18, they were right, but Ponting had the weapons to combat a good attack, he could pull and cut and drive. Same with Clarke, everyone knew they were stars, and they rightly got the gig after good performances.

There is no young batsmen who deserves to play for Australian Test team at this stage, there is a reasonable chance Katich will play for the Australian test team over the next 18 months if any player gets injured or loses form, especially in a country like India, where players can get gastro and what not.

This talk of Katich being unlikely to play shits me as well, if anything happens and we have a young batsmen who is on tour for "blooding" then what the ____ is going to happen if a player wakes up the morning of a test with bombay belly, remember what happened when Warney cracked his thumb and Hauritz got the gig, everyone back here was screaming how disgraceful it was, and how Macgill should have been on the tour.

Some of you mob have short memories, leave the cricket discussion to the big boys.

hujsh

15 Apr 2008, 16:22

This talk of Katich being unlikely to play shits me as well, if anything happens and we have a young batsmen who is on tour for "blooding" then what the ____ is going to happen if a player wakes up the morning of a test with bombay belly, remember what happened when Warney cracked his thumb and Hauritz got the gig, everyone back here was screaming how disgraceful it was, and how Macgill should have been on the tour.

Main difference is it's our batsmen vs Windies bowlers.

Far different to trying to bowl out the Indians at home on dusty pitches where a spinner would be the main weapon and the young bowler was that spinner.

Gunnar Longshanks

17 Apr 2008, 06:11

Main difference is it's our batsmen vs Windies bowlers.

Far different to trying to bowl out the Indians at home on dusty pitches where a spinner would be the main weapon and the young bowler was that spinner.We're playing the West Indies, who are crap. That's true.

Doesn't mean we start devaluing spots in the side.

Those guys are still playing for their country and we should be picking the best available side.

hujsh

17 Apr 2008, 16:46

We're playing the West Indies, who are crap. That's true.

Doesn't mean we start devaluing spots in the side.

Those guys are still playing for their country and we should be picking the best available side.

There's something about Katich that makes me feel uneasy. Maybe because if only saw him against England and the Windies (who he failed against before being dropped) but i don't get the feeling he will be that reliable even though he has had an excellent season.

This isn't based on any evidence it's just a hunch.

A hypothetical question to you Katich supporters. Should he make some sort of an impression on the series would you reward him with further appearances?
Would you feel we are going backwards and not forwards?
Would you take him to England again?

Gunnar Longshanks

17 Apr 2008, 18:43

There's something about Katich that makes me feel uneasy.Gee - that's compelling!

A hypothetical question to you Katich supporters. Should he make some sort of an impression on the series would you reward him with further appearances? Would you feel we are going backwards and not forwards? Would you take him to England again?What does "backwards or forwards" actually mean? I would pick the best available squad at every opportunity, with a view to winning as many matches and series as possible.

If Katich was among our seven batsmen most likely to score runs, I'd pick him.

If someone like David Hussey goes past Katich, then I'd pick Hussey instead.

There are no rules or timeframes, apart from picking our best available squad.

hujsh

17 Apr 2008, 18:57

Gee - that's compelling!

Sorry my opinion doesn't compell you. That is all i think about. How can i compell you. I must know:rolleyes:

What does "backwards or forwards" actually mean? I would pick the best available squad at every opportunity, with a view to winning as many matches and series as possible.

It's a question I'm done with arguing.

By "backwards or forwards" i mean that he's been done before and and sometimes you need to move on and find new players and keep the squad fresh.

Will anyone else reply? I think both groups have gone on and on and it may be time for this thread to die as about 4 people have done almost everypost.

Gunnar Longshanks

17 Apr 2008, 19:15

Sorry my opinion doesn't compell you. That is all i think about. How can i compell you. I must know:rolleyes:Katich making you "uneasy" isn't even an opinion.

It's nothing.

By "backwards or forwards" i mean that he's been done before and and sometimes you need to move on and find new players and keep the squad fresh.I can't help noticing your tendency to use inane buzzwords and cliches.

"Moving forwards... looking to the future... keeping the squad fresh."

This is all BS. These phrases don't mean anything. They don't plug into what actually happens during a game of cricket. They have nothing to do with performance or winning games. They're nothing but hot air and waffle. Yet they form the entire basis of your argument.

The most important thing is playing our best available squad. If Katich is part of that, then he should be picked. Period.

hujsh

17 Apr 2008, 23:39

Katich making you "uneasy" isn't even an opinion.

It's nothing.

I can't help noticing your tendency to use inane buzzwords and cliches.

"Moving forwards... looking to the future... keeping the squad fresh."

This is all BS. These phrases don't mean anything. They don't plug into what actually happens during a game of cricket. They have nothing to do with performance or winning games. They're nothing but hot air and waffle. Yet they form the entire basis of your argument.

The most important thing is playing our best available squad. If Katich is part of that, then he should be picked. Period.

It's not an argument I'm asking a question. But it seems you would perfer an argument.

If I was arguing i would reply to this

Doesn't mean we start devaluing spots in the side.

with a who cares about devaluing a spot if we're still winning in 10 years time.

But I'm not arguing. And I'll move on from this thread as it goes around in circles and gets booring.