Another young batsman to challenge Clarke? [Archive]

Wicked Lester

14 Jan 2004, 07:40

They say perception is everything.

Michael Clarke is undoubtedly a rare talent who looks to me to be something who thrives on the big stage. It has been noted by some on this board however that his first class record is not yet in the same leagiue as some of his competition.

For what its worth, Clarke has played 35 first class matches for 2,316 runs at 39.25 with 8 centuries and 9 fifties. Importantly he will be 23 in April which is the key difference between him and his competition - Lehmann, Love, Hodge, Hussey (M) etc. all of whom are either approaching 30 or past that number. Clearly most of these players have superior records to Clarke but do not represent long term options for selectors keen to avoid a possible flurry of retirements (forced or otherwise) occuring too frequently over the next 2-4 years.

In this respect Clarke represents a future face of the Australian batting line up, the sort of middle order batsman you could expect to have a ten to fifteen year career, play over 100 tests and build a future team around - the next Ponting or Waugh if you like.

But IMHO there is another who warrants more discussion. Not necessarily an alternative to Clarke but an additional young turk who will be 23 in June (2 months Clarke's junior). Yet he is rarely talked about as a test possiblilty at this stage.

Perhaps he's not as exciting as Clarke, with a more orthodox and straight style. Perhaps also its because the perception is he's an all-rounder.

Shane Watson has played 22 first class matches for 1,379 runs at 41.75 with four centuries and seven fifties. Not a bad first class record - with an average that's actually higher than Clarke's.
That he also has 49 first class wickets at 25.38 could be regarded as a bonus.

So my question is, is Shane Watson paying the price for being perceived as an all-rounder when in actual fact we should see him as a batsman capable of pushing for higher honours? Should higher in the pecking order? Perhaps he is, but the media haven't noticed? Could the selectors spring a surprise at some point over the next year, opting to play him as a batsman?

Thoughts?

fatmike

14 Jan 2004, 07:48

I agree.

Watson is a much better batsman than he is given credit for. His performances with the bat have been particularly good this year. He has shown an ability to knuckle down and play a stabilising innings batting at number 3 for his state.

People also tend to forget that he hit a century playing his first Australian XI match in South Africa.

ViperV10

14 Jan 2004, 08:40

The thing that has been pushing Watson out of people's minds would be Clarkes blistering form in the one-dayers....they are definately both test prospects.

The main issue with Watson would whether he can overcome his back problems (he has had them since he was young...and continually seems to get problems every 2-3 years). If he can change his action to put less pressure on him....and I believe he is doing that...then he is definately promising, and the fact that he can bowl decent pace gives him an advantage over Clarke.

The side can accommodate both of them in the future though.

Wicked Lester

14 Jan 2004, 08:53

Originally posted by ViperV10
The thing that has been pushing Watson out of people's minds would be Clarkes blistering form in the one-dayers....they are definately both test prospects.

The main issue with Watson would whether he can overcome his back problems (he has had them since he was young...and continually seems to get problems every 2-3 years). If he can change his action to put less pressure on him....and I believe he is doing that...then he is definately promising, and the fact that he can bowl decent pace gives him an advantage over Clarke.

The side can accommodate both of them in the future though.

I don't disagree with you. I guess the point I was making was that sometimes we label players - in this case I wonder if Watson has been labelled an all-rounder, and therefore not assessed on his merits as a pure batsman, as perhaps he should be.

Former players have suffered similar. Greg Matthews possibly sufferred by being perceived as an off-spinner who could bat. The reverse probably should have applied - he was a batsman who could bowl useful off spin. His test batting record was actually superior to a number of others who played far longer.

IMHO the fact Watson can bowl should be out of our thoughts. His batting alone is very promising, he has a good technique and an ability to build an innings in the classic test mould. He may not be the excitement machine that Clarke is, but may provide the perfect foil in the middle order. Both should be marked for higher duties and 'tested' sooner rather than later.

Great test teams are built on a core group of 10-15 year players. And these two represent that opportunity. The last thing we need is one or both of them languishing in first class ranks til their late twenties.

dan warna

14 Jan 2004, 09:04

Watson suffers from being not from NSW so he is leapfrogged by clarke and katich, neither of whom are as accomplished as he is.

same with that second rate pie tosser bracken, and lee cant get a wicket for 3 years.

jacqui9

14 Jan 2004, 09:31

Originally posted by dan warna
Watson suffers from being not from NSW so he is leapfrogged by clarke and katich, neither of whom are as accomplished as he is.

same with that second rate pie tosser bracken, and lee cant get a wicket for 3 years.

I honestly and totally agree with that.

Watson being Tasmanian wouldnt help either. Ricky Ponting is an exception and aside from him and David Boon, I cant recall anyone other Tasmanians who have played in an Australian test side.

Wicked Lester

14 Jan 2004, 09:32

CatManDo

14 Jan 2004, 09:33

Originally posted by dan warna
Watson suffers from being not from NSW so he is leapfrogged by clarke and katich, neither of whom are as accomplished as he is.

same with that second rate pie tosser bracken, and lee cant get a wicket for 3 years.

Sometimes, people take the whole NSW paranoia to stupid levels. This is an example.

I think Watson's batting has only improved to that point very recently, has it not? Before that, I think he was a genuine all rounder. His batting has matured. Ive no doubt that the selectors have him in mind. But I think they'd wait to see his first class batting improve further before selecting him just as a batsman. Given his history of injury I wonder if he will ever be a genuine all rounder again.

Michael Clarke's average over the last 12-16 months has been very good - well above 39, so yes, perception is everything. He is and should be in front of Watson for a place in the test side.

Unwritten_Law

14 Jan 2004, 09:34

Something else that I think has harmed him a little, in regards to the long form of the game, is that he was originally picked in the one day squad because of his pura cup form, his ING record is nothing special. He is an immensely better 4 day player but is in danger of being pigeon holed as a one day player, the impression I get anyway. I suppose we will see if he is in the selectors minds, for tests, come the tour matches next season.

Fall Out Boy

14 Jan 2004, 09:36

Originally posted by CatManDo
Sometimes, people take the whole NSW paranoia to stupid levels. This is an example.

What he said.

Unwritten_Law

14 Jan 2004, 09:38

Originally posted by jacqui9
Watson being Tasmanian wouldnt help either. Ricky Ponting is an exception and aside from him and David Boon, I cant recall anyone other Tasmanians who have played in an Australian test side.

Boon is on the selection panel, Ponting is now captain.

Watson is not Tasmanian, he is a Queenslander we poached(hello Stuart Law :D), so AB can help out as well ;)

ViperV10

14 Jan 2004, 09:51

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
I don't disagree with you. I guess the point I was making was that sometimes we label players - in this case I wonder if Watson has been labelled an all-rounder, and therefore not assessed on his merits as a pure batsman, as perhaps he should be.

I agree with you too. The mere fact that Watson can't bowl at the moment makes him a Batsman...however people's judgement has been clouded by the fact that he has been reasonably handy with the ball in the past. I am one of those people.

At the moment I would consider him a batsman, however because he can bowl (not at the moment obviously)...when he makes it back into the aus side I think it will be because of that fact...that he is an all-rounder. Something I don't have a problem with. If he can make it in because he is good with the bat and ball then good on him. The simple fact that if he has a bad run with one of his abilities, but the other one keeps strong means he should be in the team for a long time.

I think I may have just confused everyone, I dont apologise if I have :D

spanna

14 Jan 2004, 10:15

Sometimes, people take the whole NSW paranoia to stupid levels. This is an example.

Here, here. Anyone would think that there is a selection panel of 12 full-blooded NSWelshmen, with an intense Victorian hatred.

Bottom line is, players get selected on their form and future potential. The Selectors do what they think is best for Australian Cricket.

I'm not a MacGill fan by any stretch, but if he wasn't such a f***wit, and not from NSW, he would be perceived very differently to what he currently is.

dan warna

14 Jan 2004, 10:15

even on the form of the past 12 months there are at leat 10 batsmen AHEAD of clarke.

also funky miller was a tassie player when he got selected for aus (although originally a victorian).

lamby29

14 Jan 2004, 10:27

Originally posted by dan warna
even on the form of the past 12 months there are at leat 10 batsmen AHEAD of clarke.

I really do doubt that.

Fall Out Boy

14 Jan 2004, 10:29

Originally posted by spanna
Here, here. Anyone would think that there is a selection panel of 12 full-blooded NSWelshmen, with an intense Victorian hatred.

Bottom line is, players get selected on their form and future potential. The Selectors do what they think is best for Australian Cricket.

Let's not go nuts.

A few guys are going overboard with the NSW thing, but it is a genuine issue. The NSW Mafia is well and truly in effect.

Fall Out Boy

14 Jan 2004, 10:31

Originally posted by lamby29
I really do doubt that.

I agree, but please don't ask him to name those 10 players, otherwise we'll see names like Jason Arnberger.

spanna

14 Jan 2004, 10:35

A few guys are going overboard with the NSW thing, but it is a genuine issue. The NSW Mafia is well and truly in effect.

I wouldn't say Mafia, but I suppose a couple of their decisions in regards to NSW players has been quite baffling.

It's happened becasue NSW cricket has been so strong over the last 10-20 years. That doesn't make it right though.

dan warna

14 Jan 2004, 10:37

All these batsmen are averaging OVER 50 currently in the Pura cup which is frankly almost as good as international cricket and a damn site harder than flogging the zimmers and bangers (300 runs minimum)
Mat I NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50 Ct St Team
SM Katich 4 8 3 570 182* 114.00 67.93 2 3 6 - NSW

MG Bevan 2 4 0 392 216 98.00 51.51 2 1 - - NSW

DJ Marsh 5 9 3 498 111* 83.00 75.91 2 2 7 - TAS
DJ Hussey 5 7 1 494 160* 82.33 70.97 3 1 6 - VIC
MW Goodwin 5 10 2 597 201* 74.62 65.10 2 3 1 - WA
J Moss 5 7 1 441 172* 73.50 56.61 1 3 2 - VIC
ML Love 4 7 1 418 300* 69.66 53.58 1 - 5 - QLD
MJ Di Venuto 5 8 1 420 174* 60.00 56.07 1 2 6 - TAS
MTG Elliott 5 9 0 517 182 57.44 48.36 2 2 5 - VIC
CJL Rogers 3 6 0 342 120 57.00 67.19 2 1 2 - WA
BJ Hodge 4 8 2 326 111* 54.33 51.99 2 - - - VIC
GS Blewett 5 10 1 478 171 53.11 51.90 1 3 2 - SOA
SR Watson 5 9 0 460 157 51.11 43.35 2 - 4 - TAS

(cameron white has also gone past 300 runs at an average of 52)

CatManDo

14 Jan 2004, 10:39

Originally posted by spanna
I'm not a MacGill fan by any stretch, but if he wasn't such a f***wit, and not from NSW, he would be perceived very differently to what he currently is.

:confused:

And if he was an expert at diplomatic relations he may well be an Australian Ambassador.

DaveW

14 Jan 2004, 10:42

I've wondered from the start when Watson was touted as a geuine all-rounder (the next Keith Miller, blah, blah...) what would become of him. For some reason Australia doesn't tend to produce genuine all-rounders these days.

I've always suspected Watson go from an all-rounder to more of a batsman, a la Steve Waugh. His batting has tended to be his stronger point, and the back injury sustained last season has only exacerbated that.

As for the comparison with Clarke, I think you'll find Watson's batting average has always been superior, and if anything Clarke has closed the gap recently. Clarke started first-class cricket as a raw 18yo, so he still has those modest early performances counting against him. Clarke is the classier bat for mine.

As for the Greg Matthews point, whilst his Test record suggests he was a batting all-rounder (a batting average of 40, and only two 5fers with the ball - both in the tied test); he has a much better domestic record with the ball. He's pretty high up in the all-time Shield wicket takers list, with a batting average 'only' in the 30s.

CatManDo

14 Jan 2004, 10:43

Originally posted by dan warna
All these batsmen are averaging OVER 50 currently in the Pura cup which is frankly almost as good as international cricket and a damn site harder than flogging the zimmers and bangers (300 runs minimum)

Someone please explain to dan that Clarke has not leapfrogged Watson to anything, that he is not even in the Test side yet, and also explain to dan why some of these listed players will not be considered for international cricket again, and that others actually are being considered, along with Clarke, as potential Test team members, based on their selection in Aus A teams. You might also wish to mention that one of them isnt even eligible to play for Australia at present. I cant be bothered. :D

spanna

14 Jan 2004, 10:46

And if he was an expert at diplomatic relations he may well be an Australian Ambassador.

What I'm saying is his career bowling figures are impressive.

CatManDo

14 Jan 2004, 10:52

Originally posted by spanna
What I'm saying is his career bowling figures are impressive.

Yeah, I did understand what you were getting at... your logic just baffled me momentarily. :D I agree too.

I think the anti-MacGill sentiment has little to do with where he's from (originally from WA anyway), and even less to do with the man himself (my opinion is that he's a reasonably humble, easy going guy, based on interviews Ive heard) - and all to do with do with high expectations in the absence of Warne. People have no patience. He is also a handy scapegoat for our below par performance against India. And quite rightly, he was below par too, but yeah sometimes people just like to take things and run with them, without being fair or realistic.

Black Thunder

14 Jan 2004, 10:58

Watson would definetaly be held in the regard of just below the current challengers.

Love, Lehmann, Clarke and Hodge are the four main challengers to the current team.

After that would be guys like Blewett, Bevan, Symonds and Watson.

Watson is more of a long term prospect and such would be above the other three in his bracket due to his age.

spanna

14 Jan 2004, 10:59

I think the anti-MacGill sentiment has little to do with where he's from (originally from WA anyway), and even less to do with the man himself (my opinion is that he's a reasonably humble, easy going guy, based on interviews Ive heard) - and all to do with do with high expectations in the absence of Warne. People have no patience. He is also a handy scapegoat for our below par performance against India. And quite rightly, he was below par too, but yeah sometimes people just like to take things and run with them, without being fair or realistic.

Fully agree.

Having said all that, the bloke needs to be dropped to Bankstown thirds to learn some variation.............................and to learn how to catch!

Fall Out Boy

14 Jan 2004, 11:04

Originally posted by CatManDo

I think the anti-MacGill sentiment has little to do with where he's from (originally from WA anyway), and even less to do with the man himself (my opinion is that he's a reasonably humble, easy going guy, based on interviews Ive heard) - and all to do with do with high expectations in the absence of Warne.

Disagree.

People don't like MacGill because he is a tosser, seriously. The guy is petulant on the field and arrogant off it.

He is a quality bowler, however his attitude is wholly ordinary.

spanna

14 Jan 2004, 11:08

The guy is petulant on the field and arrogant off it.

Petulant on-field yes, arrogant off-field....I don't think so.

Every interview I've heard and seen of him, he has been thoroughly relaxed and down to earth. Even before the India test series, he said that it will most likely be his last series, as he fully expected to be replaced by Warne upon his return. He often refers to Warne as the greatest legspinner to ever play the game.....................doesn't sound like arrogance to me.

Black Thunder

14 Jan 2004, 11:16

I've met MacGill a few times and he's not an arrogant kinda guy but he does come across that one sometimes when he's on the tele.

I think he's typical of a guy who's not really sure how to handle himself infront of the media.

but the fact that he's played about 5 grade clubs in Sydney (North Sydney, Sydney University, Sutherland, St George and i'm pretty sure theres one other club and i think he's at a completely different club again so it could even be 6) does show that he may have a few personality issues.

I know he had a massive personality clash with Rodney Davison (another guys whos had more clubs than Greg Norman).

CatManDo

14 Jan 2004, 11:17

Originally posted by phatandphreaky
Disagree.

People don't like MacGill because he is a tosser, seriously. The guy is petulant on the field and arrogant off it.

He is a quality bowler, however his attitude is wholly ordinary.

I never judge someone based on their on-field actions - its usually way off the mark. Cant say Ive heard a lot from him off the field this season either.

I agree though that his attitude was limp and uninterested on the field for most of the test series... he's definitely got to change his approach.

Still, I think many of the judgements of his ability have been unecessarily harsh and uninformed.

Black Thunder

14 Jan 2004, 11:19

Originally posted by CatManDo

Still, I think many of the judgements of his ability have been unecessarily harsh and uninformed.

definetaly agree.

He's ability is only matched (and his overall record backs this up) by the absolute great leg spinners to have walked this planet (Grimmet, O'Reilly, Warne, Kumble etc,. etc,.)

jacqui9

14 Jan 2004, 11:19

Originally posted by Unwritten_Law
Boon is on the selection panel, Ponting is now captain.

Watson is not Tasmanian, he is a Queenslander we poached(hello Stuart Law :D), so AB can help out as well ;)

I should of rephrased that to Playing for Tasmania.

Still pretty tough to get a break however.

Although I now live in Adelaide, I still support the Tigers 100%

spanna

14 Jan 2004, 11:20

Anyway, let's not turn this into yet another anti-MacGill thread!

Fall Out Boy

14 Jan 2004, 11:27

Originally posted by spanna
Petulant on-field yes, arrogant off-field....I don't think so.

He has had far too many clashes with people for it to be merely coincidence.

Just because a bloke comes across as nice in interviews, does not mean he is a great bloke.

Fall Out Boy

14 Jan 2004, 11:29

Originally posted by spanna
Anyway, let's not turn this into yet another anti-MacGill thread!

Fair enough, but you cannot expect those that disagree with you to merely accept your views on him.

Discussion is good.

spanna

14 Jan 2004, 11:36

Just because a bloke comes across as nice in interviews, does not mean he is a great bloke.

Correct...............just ask the great Dean Jones.

Fair enough, but you cannot expect those that disagree with you to merely accept your views on him.
Discussion is good.

Correct again. Unfortunately, the name MacGill brings the worst out in most people.

ViperV10

14 Jan 2004, 11:51

Originally posted by dan warna
All these batsmen are averaging OVER 50 currently in the Pura cup which is frankly almost as good as international cricket and a damn site harder than flogging the zimmers and bangers (300 runs minimum)
SM Katich
MG Bevan
DJ Marsh
DJ Hussey
MW Goodwin
J Moss
ML Love
MJ Di Venuto
MTG Elliott
CJL Rogers
BJ Hodge
GS Blewett
SR Watson

Ok, lets look at this list.
Katich - already in the team.
Bevan - didn't show enough in his chance at test level to really be considered...and is getting on in years.
Marsh - would personally love to see him in the Aus team, but it isn't going to happen any time soon I wouldn't think. Is also getting on in years I think.
Hussey - future prospect...but has only really performed this year from what I know (please feel free to correct me)...so I don't know if he is ready.
Goodwin -isn't aussie...don't think he qualifies.
Moss - again don't think he is test material....don't know too much about him though.
Love - in the mix.
Di Venuto - I don't think anyone seriously thinks he should be in ahead of Clarke...his international career was over long ago.
Elliott - finished internationally, and is only an opener.
Rogers - can't remember how old he is...if young may be a future prospect, has been performing of late well enough though.
Hodge - should be in the mix.
Blewett - finished internationally.
Watson - should be in the mix.

All in all...out of your list only 4 or 5 realistically should be considered with Clarke...not ahead of Clarke. Clarke has proved himself internationally at one-day level and even if he does a Bevan at test level, at least we have tried someone young at Test level.

P76

14 Jan 2004, 12:06

ViperV10, I couldn't agree more - not quite sure what dan warna is thinking about, isn't this thread based around who should play for Australia in the test side?

In that case, averages aren't everything (as the selectors obviously have shown) - other things need to be taken into account. I think Wicked Lester at the start of the thread pointed out that what the Aus side needs now is a couple of 10 year players, which rules out Bevan, Marsh, Goodwin, Moss, Love, Di Venuto, Elliott, Hodge and Blewett.

And as Viper points out, Bevan and Blewett have had their chance at the top, and failed. So a 50 average in the shield at the moment does not (and never has, of course) given an entree into the side.

Clarke is a definite prospect, has a touch of the young Ponting about his game. Whilst Wicked Lester's point about Watson is interesting, I think Clarke will and should get a guernsey ahead of Watson. If Watson can get his bowling back though he should go into the side as well, how long has it been since we've had a real all-rounder in the side? (and don't give me the bullsh*t about Gilchrist, he's a keeper, not an allrounder).

And yes, Wicked, I remember Greg Campbell, how could one forget?

dan warna

14 Jan 2004, 12:18

gilly is a keeper, with a batting average in excess of 55, that puts him in the top class of batsmen, playing in the same category of tendulkar, hutton, richards, g. chappel etc.

sure bevan and devo have missed there opportunities and elliot was unfairly dumped by the NSW media to give slater another go at failing or abusing an opponent, or getting drunk in public etc.

but of the serious contenders, hodge, north, watson, etc all have creditionals SUPERIOR to clarkes, over the long term, and most have superior creditionals on the short term too.

white, watson, north and hussey are between 20 and 25 and have averaged 50 plus this season.

and watson, marsh, north, hussey have played at least 2 to 5 seasons at first class level.

you can argue short term, you can argue long term, you can argue youth, you can argue experience, but there are players who SHOULD be ahead of clarke.

No doubt clarke is good enough to play international cricket by he seems to be getting an easier ride than other players NOT from NSW.

a batsmen aged 21 from say SA or tassie who has a career average of 39 in his second season would NOT walk into the test side...look at Jamie Cox, love, siddons etc, all passed over or given cursory glances.

I think Clarke is getting 'special' treatment. It must INFURIATE the good cricketers in Australia at this dodgy behavious.

CatManDo

14 Jan 2004, 12:20

Viper: Just to go off topic a little more... Dan Marsh is an interesting one - do you see him a chance of a one day gig at all? He's not getting any younger, but he could stake a reasonable claim for a spot I would think.

CatManDo

14 Jan 2004, 12:27

Originally posted by dan warna
but of the serious contenders, hodge, north, watson, etc all have creditionals SUPERIOR to clarkes, over the long term, and most have superior creditionals on the short term too.

white, watson, north and hussey are between 20 and 25 and have averaged 50 plus this season.

and watson, marsh, north, hussey have played at least 2 to 5 seasons at first class level.

North: behind Clarke, no question about it.

Hodge - probably just in front for a Test berth, but his hopes are fading.

Watson: His recent batting record would be worse than Clarkes I would say, so how do you find a case for him being more credentialled?

White: Completely different player, and behind Clarke in the pecking order. I have no idea how you feel he should be in front of clarke.

Hussey: Just come into the equation. He could challenge Clarke. Fair call. No way he is more credentialled though.

dan, your whole argument is based on Test selection is it not? Clarke hasnt played a Test for your information. He's in the mix, nothing more, nothing less.

P76

14 Jan 2004, 12:29

dan, over the years HEAPS and HEAPS of good cricketers have been overlooked, possibly unfairly. Whilst I am a firm believer in the NSW conspiracy, I have to disagree with you - Clarke should be first in the line-up. His averages are half the story - I think he has 3 centuries and 4 fifties, that tells a bit of a story about the lad. Seeing him play, you can tell that there is something about him, as I said before, similar to a young Ponting (who I seem to recall also did not have the best Shield average, and leapfrogged many more established players into the side).

Having seen all the other players on your list quite a few times (except for Rogers, who is therefore excluded, and Goodwin, who isn't eligible), none of them have that je ne sais quoi, something oh so special that Clarke seems to have.

spanna

14 Jan 2004, 12:30

elliot was unfairly dumped by the NSW media to give slater another go at failing or abusing an opponent, or getting drunk in public etc.

You're a clown.

I think Clarke is getting 'special' treatment. It must INFURIATE the good cricketers in Australia at this dodgy behavious.

You musn't have seen any Australia one day games, or Australia A games, and are therefore oblivious of Clarke's talent and temperament.

P76

14 Jan 2004, 12:31

Originally posted by CatManDo
Viper: Just to go off topic a little more... Dan Marsh is an interesting one - do you see him a chance of a one day gig at all? He's not getting any younger, but he could stake a reasonable claim for a spot I would think.

I think Dan has missed the boat, which is a great shame I reckon, an underrated player, who has stuck in the Vics throat on more than one occasion in the past few years.

ViperV10

14 Jan 2004, 12:34

Firstly dan warna:

I don't think Clarke is getting special treatment...it isn't the NSW mafia pushing for him this time. I think it is coincidental this time that Clarke happens to be a New South Welshman...but he has shown that he could really damage the opposition at international level via his form in the one-day game. These glimpses alone are a sign that he should be considered with players like Watson, North, Hodge even if he doesn't have the average yet. These 3 mentioned haven't shown the ability to turn a game based on their batting performance alone...Clarke is showing that.

CatManDo:

Dan Marsh could definately play for aus I think in the one-dayers. He has a fountain of experience...is going very well for tassie, and has been for some years and can even at times bowl his cheeky little spin. He effectively takes Tassie to a somewhat respectable score in the one-dayer each game because he is the only one who seems to know how to play the short game. Watson is now pitching in...but Marsh has been carrying them for years.

Would like to see him at least get a chance for aus...but his age would probably see him kept back. Unfortunate.

Black Thunder

14 Jan 2004, 13:52

Originally posted by CatManDo
Viper: Just to go off topic a little more... Dan Marsh is an interesting one - do you see him a chance of a one day gig at all? He's not getting any younger, but he could stake a reasonable claim for a spot I would think.

Marsh is capable of holding a spot in the aus one day team (not test team) but unfortunately hes missed hes chance.

He started off as a spinner who batted reasonably well, but has turned into a batsmen who bowls occasionally.

But he is now in hes 30's, and still is behind a lot of guys in the pecking order.

dan warna

14 Jan 2004, 14:11

concur about dan marsh, he's in the elliot category, time has slipped by.

probably eventually be one of tassies all time greats, and a go the way of siddons, hodge, cox, etc of what might have been.

would have been a walk up start in 1983/4, in the post lillee/chappel/marsh era we were burdened with phillips, ritchie and others of ordinary talent and temperpent.

only jones, border, for while kim hughes offered much in the way of talent from the batting line up, and as for our bowlers.

Geoff lawson barely held his own, reid was very good by ravaged by injuries, mike whiteney was too bent to perform, etc

Cupido13

14 Jan 2004, 14:20

Originally posted by dan warna
Watson suffers from being not from NSW so he is leapfrogged by clarke and katich, neither of whom are as accomplished as he is.

same with that second rate pie tosser bracken, and lee cant get a wicket for 3 years.

FIRST-CLASS
(1996/97 - 2003/04; last updated 13/01/2004)
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
Batting & Fielding 110 192 30 8481 228* 52.35 25 43 114 0

O M R W Ave BBI 5 10 SR Econ
Bowling 740.5 105 2647 73 36.26 7-130 3 0 60.8 3.57

LIST A LIMITED OVERS
(1995/96 - 2003/04; last updated 13/01/2004)
M I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 Ct St
Batting & Fielding 119 115 16 3947 136* 39.86 6 29 63 0

O M R W Ave BBI 4w 5w SR Econ
Bowling 133.1 2 729 24 30.37 3-21 0 0 33.2 5.47

These are Simon Katich's stats. So, before you go making ridiculous statements about him having done nothing, you need to read these. I think you need to aknowledge that Katich is a good player who had a fantastic start to his career, his stats since moving over to NSW have dropped off marginally, but, he has certainly accomplished more than Shane Watson has so far.

Cupido13

14 Jan 2004, 14:22

Originally posted by jacqui9
I honestly and totally agree with that.

Watson being Tasmanian wouldnt help either. Ricky Ponting is an exception and aside from him and David Boon, I cant recall anyone other Tasmanians who have played in an Australian test side.

Do you care to tell me the Tasmanians that should have played Test cricket, and more importantly, when they would have played Test cricket and who they would have played in front of.

Wicked Lester

14 Jan 2004, 14:27

Originally posted by dan warna
Dan Marsh would have been a walk up start in 1983/4

Its pedantic I know but you probably mean 1984/85 through to about 1987/88.

In 1983/84 we still had Greg Chappell, Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh (they retired at the end of that series), an inform Kim Hughes, the irrepresible Alan Border, Graham Yallop (at the peak of his form - he was seriously injured during the pyjama series that followed the test series and never regained the same form) Kepler Wessels and Wayne Phillips.

Our bowling stocks looked ok too - along with Lillee, Geoff Lawson who at that point looked likely to lead the attack for many years, a youngish Carl Rackemann coming through and Terry alderman expected to return from a serious knee injury incurred the year before when tackling a spectator.

Greg Matthews made his debut that series also.

In fact even taking into account the retirement of Chappell G, and Lillee at the end of the test series and Marsh following the one day series, the depths to which Australian cricket subsenquently plummeted were not predicatble.

I suppose it just goes to show how the unexpected can impact - a loss of form (Hughes), injury (Lawson, Rackemann), retirements and then the Rebel Tour to South Africa.

Anyway - Marsh has a similar record as a batsman and far lesser record as a bowler than Matthews at first class level so I'm not sure he'd have been a shoe in even then.

P76

14 Jan 2004, 14:51

Originally posted by Wicked Lester

Our bowling stocks looked ok too - along with Lillee, Geoff Lawson who at that point looked likely to lead the attack for many years, a youngish Carl Rackemann coming through and Terry alderman expected to return from a serious knee injury incurred the year before when tackling a spectator.

Wicked, he had a shoulder injury, not a knee, I'm sure that's just a typo on your part :D

However, I would agree with you that I'm not sure Danny Marsh would have got into the side then, perhaps a bit later when we were picking the likes of Gilbert and Hogan, as to my eyes at least Marsh is the better player than those two.

I think the point is there are horses for courses, and the selectors (one hopes) knows what's best for team balance. I guess they are usually on the right track. Remember the "Peter who" headlines, and the furore when Marsh G was dumped - good decisions in retrospect. (Awaits brickbats......)

Wicked Lester

14 Jan 2004, 15:22

P76 - you are of course correct. Alderman's tackle on a spectator resulted in a shoulder inury not knee. IIRC Yallop was the one that did his knee sliding into the fence.

Looking at their first class records even Tom Hogan (who I didn't rate) had a far better record than Dan Marsh as a bowler.

As a batsman Marsh wins hands down.

But in the bowling stakes Hogan took 209 wickets from 80 games at an average of 36. He averaged 20 with the bat.

Marsh has only 137 wickets from 93 matches at 44 each. Lets face it, he's a batsman who can role the arm over and pick up useful wickets occasionally.

As a spinner Hogan was far more penetrative - and that's faint praise.

I'm not really knocking Marsh. I think he's been a great servant of Tasmanian cricket. But lets retain some perspective - he's a successful journeyman whose improved with age as he's become aware of his limitations. He would not have been a shoe in for test or OD selection in any era of Australian cricket.

Mog

14 Jan 2004, 15:25

It's happened becasue NSW cricket has been so strong over the last 10-20 years. That doesn't make it right though.

So shouldn't we have a Queensland mafia operating right now? Or shortly anyway...

Darky

14 Jan 2004, 17:57

Originally posted by dan warna
All these batsmen are averaging OVER 50 currently in the Pura cup which is frankly almost as good as international cricket and a damn site harder than flogging the zimmers and bangers (300 runs minimum)
Mat I NO Runs HS Ave SR 100 50 Ct St Team
SM Katich 4 8 3 570 182* 114.00 67.93 2 3 6 - NSW

MG Bevan 2 4 0 392 216 98.00 51.51 2 1 - - NSW

DJ Marsh 5 9 3 498 111* 83.00 75.91 2 2 7 - TAS
DJ Hussey 5 7 1 494 160* 82.33 70.97 3 1 6 - VIC
MW Goodwin 5 10 2 597 201* 74.62 65.10 2 3 1 - WA
J Moss 5 7 1 441 172* 73.50 56.61 1 3 2 - VIC
ML Love 4 7 1 418 300* 69.66 53.58 1 - 5 - QLD
MJ Di Venuto 5 8 1 420 174* 60.00 56.07 1 2 6 - TAS
MTG Elliott 5 9 0 517 182 57.44 48.36 2 2 5 - VIC
CJL Rogers 3 6 0 342 120 57.00 67.19 2 1 2 - WA
BJ Hodge 4 8 2 326 111* 54.33 51.99 2 - - - VIC
GS Blewett 5 10 1 478 171 53.11 51.90 1 3 2 - SOA
SR Watson 5 9 0 460 157 51.11 43.35 2 - 4 - TAS

The top two are NSWmen, and one is not in the Test side. Now how's that bias argument looking again? Clarke was unavailable for the first couple of Pura Cup games, so he doesn't have the 300 run qualification, but you'd have to admit his form in the one-dayers has been good.

Throw in Katich's Test form, and a couple more domestic one-day tons, and he has been this seasons best-performed batsman with well over 1000 runs.

Originally posted by dan warna
gilly is a keeper, with a batting average in excess of 55, that puts him in the top class of batsmen, playing in the same category of tendulkar, hutton, richards, g. chappel etc.

And he's a NSWman too! But he had to move to WA to get into the Test side. Bloody WA bias.

Originally posted by dan warna

sure bevan and devo have missed there opportunities and elliot was unfairly dumped by the NSW media to give slater another go at failing or abusing an opponent, or getting drunk in public etc..

Bevan created his own bad luck, yet Elliott's was down to the NSW media. Idiot.

By the way, Slater's record in Tests is much better than Elliott's, maybe that had a say in things too.

Originally posted by dan warna

but of the serious contenders, hodge, north, watson, etc all have creditionals SUPERIOR to clarkes, over the long term, and most have superior creditionals on the short term too.

white, watson, north and hussey are between 20 and 25 and have averaged 50 plus this season.

and watson, marsh, north, hussey have played at least 2 to 5 seasons at first class level..

"Long term" White averages 26! And you're mentioning Hussey after saying Clarke hasn't earnt his stripes... and Hussey's only played 10 F/C games!!!! And he'll be 27 this year, not between 20 & 25.

North doesn't have a long term, wasn't even an automatic state selection until last year. Watson was injured and unavailable for much of 2003, and Hodge's long term credentials are quite frankly complete poo compared to his contemporaries. An average of about 44, and 5 out of his 10 Shield seasons have been either ordinary or complete crap.

Lehmann, Bevan, Love, Maher, Blewett average 50 or thereabouts EVERY year. Not 50, then 20, 30, 50, 20, 30, etc.

Originally posted by dan warna

you can argue short term, you can argue long term, you can argue youth, you can argue experience, but there are players who SHOULD be ahead of clarke.

You don't seem to argue any of them coherently.

Originally posted by dan warna

No doubt clarke is good enough to play international cricket by he seems to be getting an easier ride than other players NOT from NSW.

Yet Victorians, and some people high up in Oz cricket are willing to bust their balls to get a convicted drug cheat who hasn't played cricket in a year, straight back into the side without having any idea if he can even bowl?

Originally posted by dan warna

a batsmen aged 21 from say SA or tassie who has a career average of 39 in his second season would NOT walk into the test side...look at Jamie Cox, love, siddons etc, all passed over or given cursory glances.

Clarke is almost 23, and he has not walked into anything. Didn't notice him in the last series against India. Did you watch it at all?

By the way, Cox had a very ordinary record until his late 20s, and Siddons vied for a middle-order spot when Australia's batting stocks were at their strongest ever. Love has been given a go, and is on similar pegging to Clarke so don't discount him by any stretch.

I also challenge you to find a 23 year oldbatsman who not only averages 39 but has 8 centuries after 35 F/C matches, but also averaged 44 in domestic one-dayers (after 59 matches, strike rate 80) and has an even better record in internationals. Can bowl and field well, too.

Originally posted by dan warna

I think Clarke is getting 'special' treatment. It must INFURIATE the good cricketers in Australia at this dodgy behavious.

I'm sure if they could read you carrying on like a complete clown, they'd loosen up a bit.

Darky

14 Jan 2004, 18:06

Originally posted by Wicked Lester

I'm not really knocking Marsh. I think he's been a great servant of Tasmanian cricket. But lets retain some perspective - he's a successful journeyman whose improved with age as he's become aware of his limitations. He would not have been a shoe in for test or OD selection in any era of Australian cricket.

In footy terms, he's a good VFL performer but would struggle to step up.

Not much of a bowler IMHO, even though he started as one when he hit the scene 10 years ago. These days, probably bowls a bit to keep the over rates ticking along, and maybe try to break the odd partnership..

Darky

14 Jan 2004, 18:33

Originally posted by jacqui9
I should of rephrased that to Playing for Tasmania.

Still pretty tough to get a break however.

Although I now live in Adelaide, I still support the Tigers 100%

Tasmania represents approximately 2.5% of Australia's population, if my maths is right. That means out of the 400-odd players to have played Tests for Australia, roughly 10 should be Tasmanians by birth.... possibly even less when you consider that many 19th century players were born in Britain.

Off the top of my head, native Tasmanians to play Test cricket :

Ricky Ponting (current)
David Boon (1980s/90s)
Laurie Nash (1930s)
Max Walker (1970s)
Greg Campbell (1989-90ish)
Roger Woolley (late 70s/early 80s?)
Shaun Young (one Test, late 1990s)
Charles Eady (1890s)
Add Michael DiVenuto for ODIs.

How many have deserved to play international cricket though? Tasmania has been heavily dependent on discards from interstate just to remain competitive. That still applies with Dighton, Wright, Marsh, Denton, Watson and Downton, although it's now less obvious to most as the bulk of these players made their F/C debuts for Tasmania.

Only 9 batsmen have averaged 40+ for Tasmania in Sheffield Shield cricket (minimum 20 innings), and three are not native Tasmanians. And only 2 have averaged more than 42 - one is captain of the Australian side, the other is a Zimbabwean journeyman.

The bowlers aren't even worth mentioning! With the minimum qualification of 2000 balls bowled, no Tasmanian player has averaged under 25 per wicket, not even the imports. In fact going down the list of averages, the first Tasmanian-born player is Greg Campbell with 72 Shield wickets @ 36.01 (120 F/C wickets @ 33.46).

No "tough break" at all, not unfavourable at least.

RogerC

14 Jan 2004, 20:31

My only real concern is with the selectors sticking Clarke into the one-day team and ignoring him for test selection. It plays havoc with technique, and one-day form has an impact on the possibility of playing the real stuff. That's what kept Hayden out of the test team for so long - whoever came up with the bright idea of giving Slater a test berth while Hayden was confined to pyjama cricket ought to have been shot, IMHO. It should have been the other way around.

Clarke already has an issue with hitting the ball in the air rather than along the ground. Assuming our upper order batsmen don't go out cheaply as they did in the first one-dayer, we're going to see a lot more of Clarke throwing his bat around, which I think is unhelpful.

There's nothing wrong with an established test batsman - or a Bevan or Harvey or Symonds, those unlikely to play any tests in the future - to fill up those middle order spots. But I would much rather have seen Clarke kick-start his international career on the test arena.

Katich, I'm glad to see, is well clear of it.

The way I see it, it's a good thing for bowlers to start out in one-dayers because it teaches them economy, and line-and-length. But for batsmen, especially those chosen in the middle-order, all they're going to learn is how to flail the bat, and how NOT to prize your wicket.

EssJayW

14 Jan 2004, 20:36

Originally posted by dan warna
Watson suffers from being not from NSW so he is leapfrogged by clarke and katich, neither of whom are as accomplished as he is.

Without bagging Watson, who is a good cricketer and I hope for his sake he gets his bowling back, but this comment is utter cow dung.

lozstar

14 Jan 2004, 20:41

I saw Watson bowling in the nets training last week, and it didn't look very pleasent, maybe he should just stick to his batting.

I can't see him bowling for Australia or even Tasmania at the moment.

The invisible mullet

14 Jan 2004, 21:21

If you were looking at form over the last 3 seasons the batsmen most likely to take Steve Waugh's place would be Lehmann, Love, Mike Hussey and Hodge (probably in that order). And if you were looking at form this season and performance at the test level the player would be Murray Goodwin (he's eligible for Australia in July). Lehmann and Goodwin may be regarded as too old but the other 3 are in their late 20s - the period all the current Australian batsmen have come into their prime. Its too early to accept that they won't get another chance (if Martyn flops in Sri Lanka or if Waugh's replacement doesn't measure up there).

That said there's something about Clarke and the way he's grabbed his chance at the ODI level that has him in a good position to get first crack at Waugh's spot.

The younger Hussey's season has been a bolt from the blue and if he continues on his merry way might force his way into contention.

In short the 3 batsmen (other than Ponting) showing the best form are Goodwin, Katich and D. Hussey.

Re Dan Marsh. Brad Hogg has got 4 tests and a bundle of ODIs to his name. There's definitely hope. and he's better than Tom Hogan and Muzza Bennett (good god!)

Towers

14 Jan 2004, 22:57

So all in all was it a good decision by Shane Watson to make the move from queensland to tassie.

The negetive aspects of the move mean that he realistically has less chance in making it into the australian test side ( as history has shown)

However in getting the chance to play a leading role for his state at such a young age meant that he got his foot in the international door by playing a bunch of ODI for aus. And probably still would be if not for that troublesome back.

Cupido13

15 Jan 2004, 06:27

Originally posted by Towers
So all in all was it a good decision by Shane Watson to make the move from queensland to tassie.

The negetive aspects of the move mean that he realistically has less chance in making it into the australian test side ( as history has shown)

This is a ridiculous comment, he has no more or less chance depending on where he is playing/living. It has been proved throughout this thread that no one from Tasmania has deserved the chance at Test cricket (in some cases, they have even got a chance when there record didn't demand it, ie. Campbell and Young).

P76

15 Jan 2004, 06:45

One would also be forgiven for thinking that now a Taswegian is captain, Watson will certainly not be forgotten.....

dan warna

15 Jan 2004, 07:07

Jamie Cox comes to mind as a class batsman who was over looked while other lesser lights, (mark waugh, bevan, etc) were given test berths, i think coxie has had only one or two average years in an otherwise very good first class career.

Cupido13

15 Jan 2004, 07:21

Originally posted by dan warna
Jamie Cox comes to mind as a class batsman who was over looked while other lesser lights, (mark waugh, bevan, etc) were given test berths, i think coxie has had only one or two average years in an otherwise very good first class career.

Mark Waugh came into the Test side in 1991, at that stage no one would have even considered picking Jamie Cox in the Test side. Bevan was averaging about 65 at the time he came into the Test side, so you can sort of forgive the selectors for giving him a chance. I can honestly say that there has been no time when a spot has come up when Jamie Cox has been seriously considered by anyone to fill it. These players always come up who have good careers, are no superstar and then all of a sudden people look back at their stats and say, gee, why didn't they play Test cricket. The only real spot Cox could have filled was the one that was taken by Matt Elliott's second chance at Test cricket.

Cupido13

15 Jan 2004, 07:28

P76

15 Jan 2004, 07:49

We can look back ad infinitum at good batsmen from the last 10-15 years who didn't get a chance to show their wares at the highest level. The fact is that there are 6 spots for batsmen in the test side, and there are at least 42 batsmen tooling around at first-class level every season (6 for each state, 6 for the test side, and those that pop up to cover for dropped / injured players).

Over the last little bit, for whatever reason, there have been more than 6 players worthy of those test spots. The selectors have over that time shown that they are prepared to stick with people showing a drop in form, if, in the selectors opinion, the player has the ability to come back.

When you have the likes of Taylor, Slater, Hayden, Elliott/Langer,
Waugh (M & S), Punter, Boon etc. etc., it means a lot of blokes are going to either miss out or not get a very good go. That's life - not everyone gets what they might deserve.

What we have now is perhaps the biggest moment of flux in the Australian team for some time, with a few spots up for grabs now, and the prospect of quite a few more in the next 3 years or so. What this means is that the selectors need to think very carefully, and they need to bring a mix of players in - some experienced, some inexperienced, some to cover a gap in the short term, and some long term players.

Clarke is clearly being looked at as a long term prospect / possible captain. I would think that White and Watson are looked at in the same vein - White clearly needs some more experience under his belt at Aus A level, as he seemed a bit overawed by the whole thing, and Watson needs to get back to full fitness.

There may be a role for a few of the Hussey's etc. for a couple of years, as bridging players. It certainly is going to be an interesting couple of seasons......Punter is not going to have as easy a time of it as Stevie boy, that's for sure.