View Full Version : Australia are Ageing
lamby29
23 Oct 2002, 20:43
Hayden: 31 years old
Langer: 32
Ponting: 27
M Waugh: 37
S Waugh: 37
Martyn: 31
Gilchrist: 30
Warne: 32
Lee: 25
Gillespie: 27
McGrath: 32
Bichel: 32
The majority of our current team will be gone in five years!
So what.
Most teams have a majority of their players between 25-34. Look at England and you will find Stewart still running around at 39. Batsmen can go on quite easily till they're in the mid 30s and bowlers it is a question of who well the body is holding up.
dr nick
23 Oct 2002, 21:03
interesting fact:
for the first test, australia fielded a side that had a combined total of 716 test caps. that is the most in the history of the game from any team.
i think of the current side, only 4 have made their debut post 1993!!! not a bad effort, still going strong, best side ever IMO.
Langer - Debut: 1993 Caps: 52
Hayden - Debut: 1993 Caps: 31
Ponting - Debut: 1995 Caps: 57
M Waugh - Debut: 1991 Caps: 126
S Waugh - Debut: 1985 Caps: 149
Martyn - Debut: 1992 Caps: 26
Gilchrist - Debut: 1999 Caps: 32
Warne - Debut: 1992 Caps: 102
Lee - Debut: 1999 Caps: 22
Gillespie - Debut: 1996 Caps: 34
McGrath - Debut: 1993 Caps: 85
dr nick
23 Oct 2002, 21:05
talk about a tough side to get into
dr nick
23 Oct 2002, 21:06
Originally posted by Slax
So what.
Most teams have a majority of their players between 25-34. Look at England and you will find Stewart still running around at 39. Batsmen can go on quite easily till they're in the mid 30s and bowlers it is a question of who well the body is holding up.
alec stewart?? when was this posted... august last year??
Originally posted by nicko18
alec stewart?? when was this posted... august last year??
:confused: :confused:
i dont see the problem with the Australian team getting old. It will simply mean that first class will continually be old, and people won't start making their test debuts anymore (except in very rare cases of talent) until they're at least 25.
There is nothing wrong with that, its just a thing.
Cricket is the type of sport where you can play at a very high level well into your thirties.
As this is the first generation of first class cricketers to come through as professionals, we have seen a lot of players stick around when in other era's they would've thought it's time to move on and give someone else a go. Nowadays they dont wanna do this. Who wouldn't wanna get paid to play cricket??
This hasn't done anything to the standard of the First Class competition - look at the test team. It's just pushed the age of first class crickets (and in suit, test cricketers) higher than what it usually is and it's simply pushed the first class careers of the generation of cricketers who are now around 25-26-27-28 back by a few years (both the start and finish of their careers).
If you can understand what i'm trynig to say there than thats cool, if you can't just say so and i'll try and explain it better. It is a bit vague.
lamby29
23 Oct 2002, 21:43
I hope Gilchrist plays til he is 40. :)
Originally posted by nicko18
talk about a tough side to get into
Its also a hard side to get out of,as Mark Waugh has proven.
dr nick
23 Oct 2002, 23:03
Originally posted by JUBJUB
Its also a hard side to get out of,as Mark Waugh has proven.
geez, a less than spectacular 12 months really has the hounds out in force... are you forgetting the last ashes series played in england??
dr nick
23 Oct 2002, 23:07
Mark Waugh:
1st v Eng - 49
2nd v Eng - 108 & 0*
3rd v Eng - 15 & 42*
4th v Eng - 72 & 24*
5th v Eng - 120
430 runs @ 86.00
only bettered by his brother, Steve - 321 runs @ 107.00
not a bad effort last time he played the poms
http://statserver.cricket.org/perl/sdb/sdb_player.pl?playerid=1985&class=testplayer&filter=advanced&team=0&opposition=0¬opposition=0&homeaway=0&continent=0&country=0¬country=0&groundid=0&season=0&startdefault=1991-01-25&start=1999-03-01&enddefault=2002-10-22&end=2002-10-22&tourneyid=0&finals=0&daynight=0&toss=0&scheduleddays=0&scheduledovers=0&innings=0&followon=0&result=0&seriesresult=0&captain=0&keeper=0&dnp=0&recent=&viewtype=bat_series&runslow=&runshigh=&batposition=0&dismissal=0&bowposition=0&ballslow=&ballshigh=&bpof=0&overslow=&overshigh=&conclow=&conchigh=&wicketslow=&wicketshigh=&dismissalslow=&dismissalshigh=&caughtlow=&caughthigh=&caughttype=0&stumpedlow=&stumpedhigh=&csearch=&submit=1
Mark Waugh's performance from March 1999 onwards. Not terribly impressive.
dr nick
23 Oct 2002, 23:30
but obviously he relishes the pommie attack.
go figure how damien martyn escapes the firing line with recent scores of:
2,0,11,0,67,20,34,0
not terribly impressive at all
he clobbred Zimbabwe once :D:D
nah in all seriousness he is sturggling, and he has had the occasional good series (v New Zealand, West Indies and England). He seriously needs to be doing more than that.
Originally posted by nicko18
but obviously he relishes the pommie attack.
go figure how damien martyn escapes the firing line with recent scores of:
2,0,11,0,67,20,34,0
not terribly impressive at all
he is struggling but it is not as sustained as absence from runs as Mark Waugh.
Plus the innings before that streak of Martyn's was a ton, as wa the innings two before that one.
dr nick
23 Oct 2002, 23:45
Originally posted by hourn
he is struggling but it is not as sustained as absence from runs as Mark Waugh.
Plus the innings before that streak of Martyn's was a ton, as wa the innings two before that one.
ok, here is a stat you wont find on cricinfo, but is also a useful guide to how a player is going
mark waugh's innings (in the last 12 months) are centred around 25, i.e. 50% of his scores are below 25, and 50% are above, wheras damian martyn's are centred around 20.
sure, martyn has got a couple of tons, but his scores are consistently lower than Marks, as mark waugh always seems to get a start, whereas martyn harldy ever does.
the difference between 25 and 20 is very minimal and is really picking hairs so to speak.
You can just tell by looking at Mark Waugh that he isn't as good as he was. His footwork is terrible early on now. It used to be lazy at times, but now he's just too slow. As Steve Waugh has been, but he seems to have played his way back into form,l or at least hopefully he has.
Damien Martyn's isn't any other problem than the fact he is just playing the wrong shots at the wrong time. That wil turn around. Martyn is a class act, he'll prove it as well.
bunsen burner
23 Oct 2002, 23:59
Originally posted by DaveW
and? I don't know what Lamby is getting at, but I think it is a concern. Most of those players are replaceable, except 2 of them, and that is the problem. Warne and McGrath are getting on we need replacements to come through in the next 2-4 years. Not easy to replace someone who has been voted as one of Wisden's top 5 cricketers of the century.
Originally posted by nicko18
ok, here is a stat you wont find on cricinfo, but is also a useful guide to how a player is going
mark waugh's innings (in the last 12 months) are centred around 25, i.e. 50% of his scores are below 25, and 50% are above, wheras damian martyn's are centred around 20.
sure, martyn has got a couple of tons, but his scores are consistently lower than Marks, as mark waugh always seems to get a start, whereas martyn harldy ever does.
Sure you can find it on cricinfo.
Put the player's name into StatsGuru search. Go to their test player profile. Click advanced filter. Plug in a start date / end date. Choose innings by innings list in the batting formats. Click submit. On the next page click the 'Runs' subtitle. You have an ordering of all their scores over that time period. Finally (here's where you have to do some of the work), work halfway down the list to their median score. Simple :)
It is interesting Martyn has made seven (one not out) single-figure scores in the time Waugh has made four. But at the other end Martyn three triple figure scores in that time to Waugh's none.
wagstaff
24 Oct 2002, 01:16
I think some are underestimating the issue of the ageing Australian side.
The main problem isn't the high average age of the Australian side, but that many of the players on the fringe of selection aren't any younger.
Michael Bevan is 32 years, 5 months
Stuart MacGill will be 32 in February (less of a factor as he's a spinner, but close in age to Warne)
Michael Slater will be 33 in February
Andy Bichel turned 32 in August
Michael Kasprowicz turns 31 in February
Greg Blewett turns 31 later this month
Darren Lehmann turns 33 next February
Jamie Cox turned 33 earlier this month
Matthew Elliott turned 31 last month
Damien Fleming turns 32 last April
Ian Harvey turned 30 last April
Ryan Campbell turns 31 next February
Certainly there are others below 30 playing domestic cricket who can and will replace the current side, but I wouldn't say there are too many standouts coming through the ranks. Even Rod Marsh a year or so ago commented on the lack of talented young batsmen coming through the system.
bunsen burner
24 Oct 2002, 01:57
Originally posted by wagstaff
I think some are underestimating the issue of the ageing Australian side.
The main problem isn't the high average age of the Australian side, but that many of the players on the fringe of selection aren't any younger.
Michael Bevan is 32 years, 5 months
Stuart MacGill will be 32 in February (less of a factor as he's a spinner, but close in age to Warne)
Michael Slater will be 33 in February
Andy Bichel turned 32 in August
Michael Kasprowicz turns 31 in February
Greg Blewett turns 31 later this month
Darren Lehmann turns 33 next February
Jamie Cox turned 33 earlier this month
Matthew Elliott turned 31 last month
Damien Fleming turns 32 last April
Ian Harvey turned 30 last April
Ryan Campbell turns 31 next February
Certainly there are others below 30 playing domestic cricket who can and will replace the current side, but I wouldn't say there are too many standouts coming through the ranks. Even Rod Marsh a year or so ago commented on the lack of talented young batsmen coming through the system.
And you would be over estimating it. Most of the above players aren't even in the picture.
Slater, Blewett, Bevan, Elliott, Fleming, and Kasprowicz are more or less finished and won't play for Australia again (I'm assuming we are talking about test cricket here). MacGill is only a stand in for Warne, and Bichel has always been a bit-part player anyway. Cox, Harvey and Campbell will never play test cricket for Australia, and Lehmann is a short term option.
You have basically made a worst-case scenario. The problem lies in the up and coming 'future' players. Katich (probably the biggest hope) is already 27 and has only played 1 test. Maher and Love and Hodge are all 28, and Hussey is 27. These are decent ages to start a test career, but I'm a bit worried that we have no standout 21-24 year olds.
dr nick
24 Oct 2002, 09:10
Originally posted by hourn
the difference between 25 and 20 is very minimal and is really picking hairs so to speak.
which further adds to the mystery of why martyn escapes headlines... might be something to do with the fact he is younger??
dr nick
24 Oct 2002, 09:11
Originally posted by DaveW
Sure you can find it on cricinfo.
Put the player's name into StatsGuru search. Go to their test player profile. Click advanced filter. Plug in a start date / end date. Choose innings by innings list in the batting formats. Click submit. On the next page click the 'Runs' subtitle. You have an ordering of all their scores over that time period. Finally (here's where you have to do some of the work), work halfway down the list to their median score. Simple :)
It is interesting Martyn has made seven (one not out) single-figure scores in the time Waugh has made four. But at the other end Martyn three triple figure scores in that time to Waugh's none.
thanks dave, handy tip ;)
dr nick
24 Oct 2002, 09:13
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Katich (probably the biggest hope) .
that must explain why he's not under contract by the ACB.
Wagstaff,
as i explained before, that is just the way that first class cricket is heading - players are getting older.
That has been sparked by this generation all hanging on the their careers abit longer which has prolonged the debuts (and retirements) of the younger guys coming through. The reason they've held on longer is because of the money.
I dont see the problem with the competition getting older. It's not football where it becomes very hard as you get older. Sure cricket will get older, but not to the extent it does in footy.
bunsen burner
24 Oct 2002, 11:14
Originally posted by nicko18
that must explain why he's not under contract by the ACB. He's one of the few non-current test players that have been earmarked for a huge international career. It was only a few years ago that he was touted as a possible future test captain.
He may have fallen out of favour now, but don't let that trick you into thinking that he is out of the mix. There are many people who think he has what it takes long term.
lamby29
24 Oct 2002, 16:36
I guess what I was trying to say is that in 5 years I don't think we will be a very good test side because the majority of our team will be gone, and that our fringe players (Lehmann, Elliot, Blewett etc) aren't much younger. Let's just hope that Shane Watson and Nathan Hauritz step up when most of our team retires.
bunsen burner
24 Oct 2002, 17:05
Originally posted by lamby29
I guess what I was trying to say is that in 5 years I don't think we will be a very good test side because the majority of our team will be gone, and that our fringe players (Lehmann, Elliot, Blewett etc) aren't much younger. Let's just hope that Shane Watson and Nathan Hauritz step up when most of our team retires. I don't consider Blewett and Elliott as fringe players. Their international careers are long gone. Lehmann yes, because he is still in the mix. I consider the fringe players to be Maher, Katich, Hauritz, Bracken, Hodge, Hussey, Nofke etc. I guess it all means the same thing - there is no one who is in the 19-23 yo age bracken who has demanded attention recently. Rofe and Clingleffer llok like good prospects. heopefully they cen continue development.
wagstaff
24 Oct 2002, 18:59
Originally posted by hourn
Wagstaff,
as i explained before, that is just the way that first class cricket is heading - players are getting older.
That has been sparked by this generation all hanging on the their careers abit longer which has prolonged the debuts (and retirements) of the younger guys coming through. The reason they've held on longer is because of the money.
I dont see the problem with the competition getting older. It's not football where it becomes very hard as you get older. Sure cricket will get older, but not to the extent it does in footy.
I can see where you're coming from on this issue but I would have to disagree with you.
It's significant how the Australian cricket estabilshment used to deride English cricket's tendency to have many players over 40 in their county, and occasionally in their Test system. The English touring side were derided in 1994/95 for picking Gatting and Gooch to tour Australia when both were in their late 30s at least. Yet now it has all been turned on its head.
I'm not so sure about your claim that first-class cricketers are tending to get older. In fact, I would assume the tendency has been the opposite in the last generation or so..... something this current Australian side is bucking the trend of.
The current Australian lineup reminds me of the dominant West Indian sides of the late 1980s and early 1990s. They had been the best side going around for so long that complacency inevitably tends to set in, and there's the general assumption that because you're the best going around, you can justify any particular feature of your side's set-up
One of the keys to the downfall of the Windies was their rigid reliance on four fast bowlers for far too long. It turned from a major strength to a major weakness because not only did the quality of the fast bowlers in the 1990s decline, but when forced to choose between a pace bowler and a slightly better quality spinner, the Windies would choose the paceman every time.
Also, the Windies sides played too many of their great players past their prime and/or when they were well into their late 30s. They put no planning in for the next generation of Windies stars and before they knew it, they had a very medicore team on their hands.
I don't think Australia is going to have as major a downfall as the Windies did, but the signs of complacency and smugness are there and are growing, especially the oft-told claim that a 2nd or 3rd XI would match it with other international sides in the world.
Also, I don't see too many players in the 20-30 age bracket in Oz domestic cricket who, like a Ponting did from a young age, already have the makings of being an international class player. Sure, there are good players like Love and Katich who could probably do the job, but they are both well over 25 but most of the players in the current Australian lineup made their Test debuts when they were under 25.
Originally posted by nicko18
which further adds to the mystery of why martyn escapes headlines... might be something to do with the fact he is younger??
and possibly the fact that he's averaged about 60 since being recalled to the team in '99...
dr nick
24 Oct 2002, 21:28
Originally posted by scmods
and possibly the fact that he's averaged about 60 since being recalled to the team in '99...
hmmmm and ill bet his performances back in '99 and 2000 will still count towards how he will go v england
besides, i think brett lee is in the most danger when the side is named on monday. lee, martyn then m. waugh in order. time will only tell though
regardless, any side we put on the field will be able to smash the poms, their performance in that tour match was nothing short of disgraceful.
bunsen burner
24 Oct 2002, 21:55
Originally posted by nicko18
hmmmm and ill bet his performances back in '99 and 2000 will still count towards how he will go v england
besides, i think brett lee is in the most danger when the side is named on monday. lee, martyn then m. waugh in order. time will only tell though
regardless, any side we put on the field will be able to smash the poms, their performance in that tour match was nothing short of disgraceful. You're on drugs. Not one person from the media - which includes many cricket experts and former players have mentioned that Martyn's place may be in danger. Plenty of speculation about M.Waugh (and Lee to a lesser degree).
dr nick
24 Oct 2002, 22:20
Originally posted by bunsen burner
You're on drugs. Not one person from the media - which includes many cricket experts and former players have mentioned that Martyn's place may be in danger. Plenty of speculation about M.Waugh (and Lee to a lesser degree).
i think you are the one on drugs (or from WA) which makes it equally as likely. just have a look at his recent scores. your claims that not one person from the media have mentioned martyn are absolute rubbish, and instantly dismiss any credibility that you had.
Originally posted by nicko18
hmmmm and ill bet his performances back in '99 and 2000 will still count towards how he will go v england
nah, they'll probably look more at the 52.1 he's average in 2001 & 2002.
besides, i think brett lee is in the most danger when the side is named on monday.
gotta agree with you there. I think Mark Waugh will get at least 2 tests against England. And I don't really have a problem with that.
I expect Brett Lee will get at least the same. I do have a bit of a problem with that one.
bunsen burner
25 Oct 2002, 00:19
Originally posted by nicko18
just have a look at his recent scores.
avg of 52.1 over last two seasons. You don't drop a guy because he has a lean series where he only batted 4 times. Do you think every batter can have a great series every time - even in a class team like the Aussies?
your claims that not one person from the media have mentioned martyn are absolute rubbish, and instantly dismiss any credibility that you had.
I read the Sydney Telegraph everyday, I watch the nightly news on at least one channel daily, sports tonight every night, Fox Sports news at least once per day and visit baggygreen.com at least once daily during the cricket season . Haven't heard one person mention Martyn's name regarding his form.
I would like to know where you have heard it from? What, on an Internet forum?
I have noticed plenty of people here would rather Lehmann in the team than Martyn. Not one of these people (bar you) have said they think he should be dropped because of form. I suspect these are people who have always thought Lehmann should have been picked instead of Martyn when Slater got the arse.
Santos L Helper
25 Oct 2002, 07:56
Originally posted by nicko18
i think you are the one on drugs (or from WA) which makes it equally as likely. just have a look at his recent scores. your claims that not one person from the media have mentioned martyn are absolute rubbish, and instantly dismiss any credibility that you had.
It's the 'he goes allright against the poms' mentality which is ill informed. Mark Waugh is hopelessly out of touch, can't score runs and has to go. Sentiment only counts if you're from NSW. I believe your opinion and beliefs on Mark Waugh eliminate any credibility you think you had.
dr nick
25 Oct 2002, 08:58
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
It's the 'he goes allright against the poms' mentality which is ill informed. Mark Waugh is hopelessly out of touch, can't score runs and has to go. Sentiment only counts if you're from NSW. I believe your opinion and beliefs on Mark Waugh eliminate any credibility you think you had.
nice to see you leaching my lines again santos, showing up your own credibility (or lack thereof), but anyway, disregarding that the two waughs were the standouts last time we played england, here are m. waugh's recent scores, compared to martyn's in the last 5 test matches
25,16,45,30,55,0,2,23
2,0,11,0,67,20,34,0
and bunsen burner, its about time you started reading the SMH, as opposed to that rag.
and by the way... do newsreaders on tv ever express opinions about who should be in the side?
bunsen burner
25 Oct 2002, 11:04
Originally posted by nicko18
nice to see you leaching my lines again santos, showing up your own credibility (or lack thereof), but anyway, disregarding that the two waughs were the standouts last time we played england, here are m. waugh's recent scores, compared to martyn's in the last 5 test matches
25,16,45,30,55,0,2,23
2,0,11,0,67,20,34,0
You don't drop a player with an average of 50 who has had a lean 5 tests. However, a player who is 37/38 who has had a lean 17 tests should come under much more scrutiny.
and bunsen burner, its about time you started reading the SMH, as opposed to that rag.
Irrelevant what paper I read. I have seen enough of the media to make the judgement that know one is questioning Martyn's place in the side yet.
and by the way... do newsreaders on tv ever express opinions about who should be in the side? [/B]You idiot. The newsreaders don't, but the journos who go to the airport and hound Mark Waugh do.
Sorry, your argument has no substance. We will wait until the team is announced. Waugh and Lee may/may not get dropped - I won't guaruntee that. I will however guarantee that Martyn will be in the side.
dr nick
25 Oct 2002, 18:59
Originally posted by bunsen burner
Sorry, your argument has no substance. We will wait until the team is announced. Waugh and Lee may/may not get dropped - I won't guaruntee that. I will however guarantee that Martyn will be in the side.
look, lets just wait till monday. if mark waugh gets dropped then i will stand corrected.
im backing lee will be having a spell for the blues over the next few months though.
from what border was saying on 2UE, he was saying how mark waugh's pet side is the english, and referred to his excellent series last time in england. he didnt really mention lee's name.
dr nick
25 Oct 2002, 19:05
imagine if michael clarke was to replace mark waugh sometime during this ashes series. that would mean under a full strength NSW side, that he would have to be selected over mark waugh. that means with steve waugh, bevan and clarke in the side, katich and M.Waugh would be fighting for the remaining middle order position. amazing if one of these two were to get dropped from the state side.
Great_Unknown
25 Oct 2002, 19:54
Originally posted by Santos L Helper
It's the 'he goes allright against the poms' mentality which is ill informed. Mark Waugh is hopelessly out of touch, can't score runs and has to go. Sentiment only counts if you're from NSW. I believe your opinion and beliefs on Mark Waugh eliminate any credibility you think you had.
I couldn't agree more! The NSW bias always seems to shine right through when the chips are down. Honestly, how many chances has this guy had? The last time he was dropped was about '92-93 I think and that form lapse was less dramatic as his last 3 seasons. Surely if sanity prevails the selectors will choose between M.Clarke, D.Lehmann or J.Maher for the #4 spot... Oh that's right, Buch doesn't have a say on the selection panel does he?
dr nick
25 Oct 2002, 20:13
Originally posted by Great_Unknown
Oh that's right, Buch doesn't have a say on the selection panel does he?
im not sure what this means, buchanan wants mark waugh in the side
I've known coaches to want things before from the selection plannel and not get them.
dr nick
25 Oct 2002, 21:58
Originally posted by Slax
I've known coaches to want things before from the selection plannel and not get them.
of course... i remember a few years ago when the coach (i think it must have been marshy touring the carribean) and buchanan (last year) also said that warney was too unfit and didnt want him in the side. steve waugh and the selectors thought otherwise.
and correct me if im mistaken, but the coach and captain do not get a say in selections now, when a few years ago (at least on tour) they used to have 1/3rd say
davers11
25 Oct 2002, 22:43
The fact of the matter is that there is no need for a change at present! The amazing thing about a champion side is that when one player is down another steps up to take his place. Mark Waugh will fight back he always does, he is a champion. Mark will go out on his own terms and i firmly believe he will call it quits at the end of the ashes, after he tears the poms apart. Martyn is going nowhere, and brett lee is as safe as houses.
In my belief i feel that Simon Katich will replace Mark Waugh when he retires and Michael Clark (NSW) will replace Steve, and Hussey will be the borderline batsman. That is the way it should happen as the rest of the 30-35 year olds are simply not of Test calibre, if they were they would of been playing long ago!!
Thats all from me i think most would agree
FreoGirl
26 Oct 2002, 02:04
All is not lost! :)
My 4 year old son started playing Have a Go Cricket today!! :D
http://www.thebabycorner.com/sites/webs/kanga/crick.JPG
Kenny_01
26 Oct 2002, 02:12
Am I the only one that wants the current squad to be left as it is?
Kenny_01
26 Oct 2002, 02:14
Originally posted by FreoGirl
All is not lost! :)
My 4 year old son started playing Have a Go Cricket today!! :D
http://www.thebabycorner.com/sites/webs/kanga/crick.JPG
cute :)
I think some people have identified the problem. The current test team is great, there's no denying that. Talking about whether we replace Mark Waugh, Martyn or Lee in the near future is beside the point.
The point is, where is all the young talent? I count Michael Clarke, Watson and maybe Hauritz as genuine prospects, and Rofe, Bracken, Clingeleffer and Noffke as marginal prospects (at this stage). There may be others (Cameron White springs to mind), but nobody's out there saying 'pick me, pick me!' apart from Clarke right now.
Pretty much the entire current test team had shown us their wares before they'd turned 25. Ponting was a real standout. And the vast majority of candidates to replace the current lot are nearly as old as them anyway. That's the problem - not an immediate one, but not far around the corner. We are the second oldest test team going around - only Alec Stewart's continued presence in the England side is keeping us from that honour. And I'd say our second eleven would be pushing an average age of 30.
It took Hayden, Langer and Martyn - not to mention Steve Waugh himself - a long time to establish themselves as quality test batsmen. The next generation - who probably won't be as talented to start with - won't get the luxury of playing themselves in. Not unless we start blooding them now.
There are two reasons Mark Waugh, Martyn and Lee are escaping scrutiny. The first is the success of the test team. Obviously. The second is that they simply don't have anyone breathing down their necks; we need young guns desperate for a test career and impatient to start. Just at the moment we have very few of them.
Santos L Helper
27 Oct 2002, 00:56
Originally posted by Kenny_01
Am I the only one that wants the current squad to be left as it is?
Yes, this squad is two players short of unbeatable.
Drop M Waugh and B Lee and we're on the right track.
bunsen burner
27 Oct 2002, 12:43
Originally posted by davers11
and brett lee is as safe as houses.
???????? That is just clearly not true. Regardless whether he stays or goes, the selectors must at least be talking about him.
Whilst I believe M.Waugh is 50/50 to get dropped, I would be surprised if they picked Lee ahead of Bichel for the Brisbane test.
dr nick
27 Oct 2002, 13:04
id say mark waugh is about 20/80 of getting dropped, whereas lee is about 40/60
actually, seeing its at the gabba, lengthen lee's odds to about 60/40
davers11
27 Oct 2002, 14:10
I know who i would rather face, and its not Brett Lee!
Surely there is no comparison Brett Lee is a lot better bowler who has just been out of luck at late, Bichel is a good trier but he is still a battler.
dr nick
27 Oct 2002, 14:15
Originally posted by davers11
I know who i would rather face, and its not Brett Lee!
Surely there is no comparison Brett Lee is a lot better bowler who has just been out of luck at late, Bichel is a good trier but he is still a battler.
assuming your not some gun cricketer who has had the experience of facing bowlers anywhere near that quick, im not surprised you'd rather face bichel.
but to the average test cricketer, the choice is really between a guy who bowls a couple of half trackers or half volleys an over and gives you plenty of width, compared to a guy whose line and length is far more consistent, coupled with a beauty of an outswinger.
bunsen burner
27 Oct 2002, 16:17
Originally posted by davers11
Surely there is no comparison Brett Lee is a lot better bowler who has just been out of luck at late, Bichel is a good trier but he is still a battler. I agree completely. I've always thought that Bichel is not up to international standard and Lee is. BUT, Lee is out of touch and Bichel is bowling well. It's not like Lee's career will be over. If he gets dropped, he will play some Pura Cup, regain his form and get reselected. The fact that the first test is in Brisbane (Bichel's home ground), surely must be in Bichel's favour.
wagstaff
27 Oct 2002, 16:32
Originally posted by bunsen burner
I agree completely. I've always thought that Bichel is not up to international standard and Lee is. BUT, Lee is out of touch and Bichel is bowling well. It's not like Lee's career will be over. If he gets dropped, he will play some Pura Cup, regain his form and get reselected. The fact that the first test is in Brisbane (Bichel's home ground), surely must be in Bichel's favour.
Lee could also do with a demotion to domestic level so his ego doesn't grow to record proportions. One of his greatest problems is that he hardly ever acknowledges that he isn't bowling that well. Either he's just been unlucky (after Pakistan series) or he focuses on how much pace he's getting (after the away South African series).
Steve Waugh's policy of backing players in the side and showing enormous faith in them has benefitted many players of the current lineup, but I think it has been to Lee's detriment. Lee just can't acknowledge that his Test performances over the last 18 months have been sub-standard and have covered up by other members of the team.
davers11
27 Oct 2002, 16:47
Originally posted by nicko18
assuming your not some gun cricketer who has had the experience of facing bowlers anywhere near that quick, im not surprised you'd rather face bichel.
but to the average test cricketer, the choice is really between a guy who bowls a couple of half trackers or half volleys an over and gives you plenty of width, compared to a guy whose line and length is far more consistent, coupled with a beauty of an outswinger.
Have faced both in nets, Lee is a very danerous customer, while Bichel toils on a line and length and waits for the batsmen to make a mistake rather than get them out. Its frustrating to lesser batsmen but test batsmen are another story.
Also faced Harmison and Jones in england over the winter, Jones is deceptively sharp and will trouble the Aussies if he is fit, while Harmison could be anything if he bowled a better line.
Jim Boy
27 Oct 2002, 17:40
Here's a little stat to compare Bichel and Lee
Average prior to 1/1/2001
Lee 16.07
Bichel 46.77
Average after 1/1/2001
Lee 38.55
Bichel 16.83
Draw your own conclusions.
dr nick
27 Oct 2002, 22:07
Originally posted by davers11
Have faced both in nets, Lee is a very danerous customer, while Bichel toils on a line and length and waits for the batsmen to make a mistake rather than get them out. Its frustrating to lesser batsmen but test batsmen are another story.
Also faced Harmison and Jones in england over the winter, Jones is deceptively sharp and will trouble the Aussies if he is fit, while Harmison could be anything if he bowled a better line.
which grade club do you play for?
dr nick
27 Oct 2002, 22:08
Originally posted by Jim Boy
Here's a little stat to compare Bichel and Lee
Average prior to 1/1/2001
Lee 16.07
Bichel 46.77
Average after 1/1/2001
Lee 38.55
Bichel 16.83
Draw your own conclusions.
is this a test average?? if so, bichel would have only played a handful of matches, making these stats less relevant (but still alarming)
davers11
27 Oct 2002, 23:15
Originally posted by nicko18
which grade club do you play for?
In England i trained at Durham, filled in for a few 2nd XI games but played the season in the North East Premier League for Gateshead Fell.
Jim Boy
28 Oct 2002, 01:39
Originally posted by nicko18
is this a test average?? if so, bichel would have only played a handful of matches, making these stats less relevant (but still alarming) Yeah, they're test averages. True enough Bichels average is not that relevant, 2 matches in UAE and 1 match against south Africa in Melbourne would never pass statistical scrutiny. For the same three matches, Lee averaged 18.875. I think the main issue though is Lee's average since the Melbourne Test in 2000 (his last test that summer) is not good. The fact that his best innings haul is still his first is a worry, inviting comparisons with Bob Massie, who actually had a test average of 34 when you discount his first test.