View Full Version : Is our no.4 'problem' solved?
Adrian Shelton
4 Feb 2004, 15:19
Is Goodwin the answer here for any length of time?(seeing he's eligble for Aus in a few months)
The invisible mullet
4 Feb 2004, 15:27
Was thinking the same thing. A year or 2 younger than Martyn - in career best form and already has 4 test centuries
Fall Out Boy
4 Feb 2004, 15:38
Issue came up a few months back, and the general consensus was that there's no point selecting Goodwin, given his age and nationality given there are younger Aussies with a very similar first class record.
dan warna
4 Feb 2004, 15:50
geez not goodwin.
love, hussey snr, hussey jnr, lehmann, hodge, Watson, heck even give Blewett another shot.
we have australian batting talent dripping off like gold dust, our batsmen held up to the indians and every other attack.
its just with two duds in the bowling line up in Lee and Brocken we can't get anyone out, and you can throw McGilla into the scrap heap there too.
There aint nothing wrong with our batting.
we need a decent attack.
looking at the talent we have rofe going great guns, any of the vic bowlers, young tait shown some form but wtf is wrong with our batting?
hayden and langer both world class, but langer looks ordinary compared with the haydos (but who doesn't?)
punter and Gilchrist are also world class.
Martyn in a form slump averageing just 40 in his last 10/20 tests, way down on his career ave of 45...still going ok.
boof on 49, katich the new boy seems to be holding his own. love close to 50, add the reserve talent and what do we need a pensioner turncoat for?
He's behind Lehmann, Love, Clarke, Hodge and the Husseys IMO in line for a Test spot. About the same for a ODI berth.
Kane McGoodwin
4 Feb 2004, 18:53
If Boof doesn't return to the Australian side & bat at #4, the selectors have rocks ine their heads!
Fall Out Boy
4 Feb 2004, 18:59
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
If Boof doesn't return to the Australian side & bat at #4, the selectors have rocks ine their heads!
I'm a huge fan of Boof, but i'd also like to think that a player of his age, injury status and body type, would need to do a lot more than he's done before being taken on such a tour.
He isn't ready.
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
I'm a huge fan of Boof, but i'd also like to think that a player of his age, injury status and body type, would need to do a lot more than he's done before being taken on such a tour.
He isn't ready.
I hope you've got your heavy duty flame-proof suit on, phat, as I'm predicting that the rabid SA henchmen will be queing-up to give you a mauling quicker than you can grab a brewski during an ad break.
Fall Out Boy
4 Feb 2004, 19:04
Originally posted by nicko18
I hope you've got your heavy duty flame-proof suit on, phat, as I'm predicting that the rabid SA henchmen will be queing-up to give you a mauling quicker than you can grab a brewski during an ad break.
Probably mate.
Even the South Aussies would have to acknowledge that i'm a massive rap for Boof, he simply hasn't done enough to prove that he'll get through a tough tour of Sri Lanka.
Kane McGoodwin
4 Feb 2004, 19:07
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
I'm a huge fan of Boof, but i'd also like to think that a player of his age, injury status and body type, would need to do a lot more than he's done before being taken on such a tour.
He isn't ready.
Phatty, fortunately the selectors think otherwise. Boof will go on tour (barring an injury) & will make you eat your words.
Fall Out Boy
4 Feb 2004, 19:15
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Phatty, fortunately the selectors think otherwise. Boof will go on tour (barring an injury) & will make you eat your words.
What words would they be?
I've not said he won't perform should he go, merely said that he needs to do more to justify selection.
No need to be so defensive about Boof, Kane, i love the bloke.
OldSchool
4 Feb 2004, 19:22
Originally posted by Adrian Shelton
Is Goodwin the answer here for any length of time?(seeing he's eligble for Aus in a few months)
It would be a poor reflection of Aust cricket if we played him.
He is in good form and good luck to him but there are plenty of players ahead of him.
Kane McGoodwin
4 Feb 2004, 20:16
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
What words would they be?
I've not said he won't perform should he go, merely said that he needs to do more to justify selection.
No need to be so defensive about Boof, Kane, i love the bloke.
Phatty, you said he isn't ready for a tough tour. I disagree & reckon Boof will prove you wrong. Boof has proved his fitness for the Pura Cup & doesn't need to do anything more to get a recall to the Australian team. He has proved himself more times than necessary over his career!
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Boof has proved his fitness for the Pura Cup & doesn't need to do anything more to get a recall to the Australian team. ! which admittedly is far more than Warne has done.
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Phatty, you said he isn't ready for a tough tour. I disagree & reckon Boof will prove you wrong. Boof has proved his fitness for the Pura Cup & doesn't need to do anything more to get a recall to the Australian team. He has proved himself more times than necessary over his career! Trever Hohns said a few weeks ago the squad would be announced tomorrow, we may find out then?
Fall Out Boy
4 Feb 2004, 21:00
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
Boof has proved his fitness for the Pura Cup
How so?
Getting through a single match proves nothing.
He'd played what, 10 days of cricket, and until this week, felt the need to bat himself at 6.
All this on top of his age and body shape, doesn't auger well.
I believe he would need to get through another 2 full four-day games before anyone could justify say he's proved his fitness.
On past form, he'd be a walk up start, that isn't the concern, his fitness is.
Kane McGoodwin
4 Feb 2004, 21:21
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
How so?
Getting through a single match proves nothing.
He'd played what, 10 days of cricket, and until this week, felt the need to bat himself at 6.
All this on top of his age and body shape, doesn't auger well.
I believe he would need to get through another 2 full four-day games before anyone could justify say he's proved his fitness.
On past form, he'd be a walk up start, that isn't the concern, his fitness is.
Boof has got through several games now & has also bowled a bit. Has done enough to show he has recovered. Still has a few more games to get under his belt too. He is a certainty to tour IMO.
xfactor23
4 Feb 2004, 21:22
how about north?
surely he is ahead of his team-mate in the line for an aussie berth?
his form of late has been superb...
worth a shot if the selectors are serious about the long term stuff
CatManDo
4 Feb 2004, 22:17
Originally posted by xfactor23
how about north?
surely he is ahead of his team-mate in the line for an aussie berth?
his form of late has been superb...
worth a shot if the selectors are serious about the long term stuff
He's got a long way to go before he gets a look in for the Test team.... wouldnt be too far from the selectors minds for the one day side though.
Black Thunder
4 Feb 2004, 22:20
Provided Lehmann isn't injured, he will line up at number 4 for Australia in the first test v Sri Lanka. simple as that.
Black Thunder
4 Feb 2004, 22:22
Originally posted by Russian
Trever Hohns said a few weeks ago the squad would be announced tomorrow, we may find out then?
i think that is for the one dayers in Sri Lanka.
personally, i 'd rather leave Boof here for the longer version stuff rather than play out some meaningless one dayers.
ViperV10
5 Feb 2004, 10:27
Goodwin could do well for Australia at number 4....however he would have to do a fair bit more than he has at the moment (not to say he isn't doing bloody well) for the selectors to consider him. He is over 30, and we need to look for long term prospects in the batting department....that would rule out anyone over 30. Tough call, but he shouldn't get the chance even if he continues to rip apart the state level bowling attacks.
Black Thunder
5 Feb 2004, 10:37
Originally posted by ViperV10
we need to look for long term prospects in the batting department....that would rule out anyone over 30.
i would never subscribe to that theory, especially in a sport like cricket.
unlike a lot of sports, cricket is one where you can play at full level to your about 35.
Although not a proffesional (although a lot of people in Sydney grade circles would consider him to be the best player to have not had a distinguished NSW career in the past two decades - played half a dozen one dayers in the mid 90's), the captain of our cricket club is now 37 and is playing better cricket than he ever has. He would be a walk up start in the Blues team had he been batting this well at 27.
and Steve Waugh has been striking the ball better than he has for 3 seasons over the past 12 or so months.
And don' tbe suprised if Matty Hayden (generally regarded as the fittest guy in the Australian squad, behind Brett Lee) to be playing FC cricket, and possibly international cricket, till he's very close to 40 years old.
But yes, we do need to look to the future, but a 30 year old batsmen could easily be around in the team for the better part of 5 years, which is pretty long term.
I always subsrcibe to the theory, if your good enough your young enough. And likewise, if your good enough, your old enough.
Originally posted by Black Thunder
I always subsrcibe to the theory, if your good enough your young enough. And likewise, if your good enough, your old enough.
I second that. Great post.
You dont get rewarded for the future in cricket for finishing last, you also dont have limited development pools and list management.
You should pick your best team for now every time. Giving up a victory today, for a possible victory next year, is pointless.
The only competition where it is remotely useful is developing a team for the world cup every 4 years. Test cricket you should never put in people that aren't ready, and don't have the form on the board, in place of players who do.
Originally posted by phatandphreaky
How so?
Getting through a single match proves nothing.
He'd played what, 10 days of cricket, and until this week, felt the need to bat himself at 6.
All this on top of his age and body shape, doesn't auger well.
I believe he would need to get through another 2 full four-day games before anyone could justify say he's proved his fitness.
On past form, he'd be a walk up start, that isn't the concern, his fitness is.
He's played two Pura Cup games and three one dayers and by the time the test squad is announced he will have played another couple of four dayers.
He batted at four in this game and five in the last pura cup game and has not batted at six
He will go to Sri Lanka
Originally posted by Jars458
and has not batted at six
Correction. He batted at six in his first game back an ING cup game agains Tassie where he made 83 off 88 balls and took two wickets.
Wicked Lester
5 Feb 2004, 12:08
Originally posted by Black Thunder
I always subsrcibe to the theory, if your good enough your young enough. And likewise, if your good enough, your old enough.
Its fine in theory, but its not how things really work and its not how the selectors think.
Firstly different people age at different rates. Not every player is going to be able to play at the highest level until they're 38 (ala Tugga - and even he was clearly not the player he was 5-10 years back). For every player who can successfully sustain their performance til nearly 40, there are many more who taper off around 35.
While you rightly point out that players are playing longer these days, many are still showing the signs of slightly slower reflexes or a propensity to be injured more regularly as they approach their mid thirties.
You're quite right in that Hayden may well play til his late thirties, but the point I'm trying to make here is that not all will. While its easy to say age is not important in individual selections, it is important when trying to build a team that will have sustained success over a period of time.
The selectors would be negligent in their duty if they did not force the issue occasionally, and have one eye for the future in their selections. Sadly age does, and must come into it for the sake of strategic planning.
As a balding 35 year old, it pains me to say it - due to my age* it now appears unlikely I will play for Australia.
*I have neglected to comment that ability may also play a part in my non-selection.
Black Thunder
5 Feb 2004, 12:27
agreed that you do need to keep an eye on the future, but the FC system is in place and doing a great job for that.
The Australian team is old, but that is not a bad thing. Physically they're all as fit and as strong as any other team, but experience wise this Aussie team has it over them all.
And experience doesn't just come from playing test cricket. Test cricket is harder than FC cricket, but at the end of the day, it's all cricket.
The whole idea of a FC competition is to get a cricket match simulated in intensity as closely as possible to test cricket. the Australian comp is better than any other at doing this.
If you look at the Australian team and the main replacements and how long they could be around for. note that i haven't bothered to check ages, but all would be no more than 2 years out. most will be correct. predictions on how long they've got left are just based on current age, past fitness and injury worries - i would consider them to be fairly accurate.
Hayden (32) - 4 to 6 years left
Langer (33) - 2 to 3 years left
Ponting (29) - 6 or so years left
Lehmann (34) - 2 years left max
Martyn (30) - 3 to 4 years left
Katich (29) - 5 or so years left
Gilchrist (32) - 3 years left max
Clarke (23) - at least another decade
Love (30) - 3 to 5 years left
Hodge (29) - 3 to 5 years left
Hussey M (28) - at least 5 years left
Hussey D (26) - long time, possibly upto another decade
Watson (23) - at least a decade
Warne (33) - who knows, probably 2 years at least. maybe more.
Lee (28) - 3 to 4 years left
Gillespie (29) - 3 to 4 years left
McGrath (34) - 2 years max
MacGill (31) - 3 to 4 years left
Bichel (34) - 1 year max
Williams (29) - 3 to 4 years left
Bracken (27) - 5 to 6 years left
Inness (27) - he could play for quite a bit longer than the other quicks. just seems injury free generally.
Rofe (23) - got the best part of a decade left, maybe longer
Noffke (27) - 4 to 5 years left
Kasprowicz (31) - 2 to 3 years left
Harvey (30) - 2 to 3 years left
long term in test cricket, shouldn't be considered as 5 years down the track in my book. long term is really no more than 3 years down the track, and that's an absolute maximum.
I don't think we'll have the massive glut of retirement in quick time that some have predicted. I just think the big problem is that McGrath and Warne are going to retire very close to each other, and probably Gilchrist.
for mine the Aussie team is going down the right track.
Over the next three years, probably changes, given current form (which could change greatly over 36 months):
I think the selectors would be looking at M Hussey to take over from Langer in a couple of years.
Clarke will take over from Lehmann at a similar point.
There's a host of guys waiting to take over from Martyn - Hodge, D Hussey, Love and who knows what other guys (such as Marsh, North, Cosgrove etc,.) will come through.
Gilly is a tough one but there are guys like Clingellefer and abit younger is Crosthwaite.
McGrath and Warne is the tough one though.
There is no doubting we'll go through the most changing period an Australian team has had since about 1993, over the coming 2-3 years, but i think we'll still be as strong as ever.
Wicked Lester
5 Feb 2004, 12:40
On paper your theory is fine, but things rarely work out the way you expect.
What is not accounted for in this analysis are:
Injuries that suddenly destroy, setback or curtail careers.
Inexplicable losses of form.
Ageing impacting on some players far sooner than you might otherwise expect.
And most importantly the likelihood that a number of players that we assume will cut the mustard at test level simply don't. Remember for all those who carve out a successful test career there are several more (I suspect the ratio is about 4 to 1, perhaps higher) that don't.
In the early 80's Martin Kent had class stamped all over him. In most experts eyes there had rarely been a more certain test cricketer. My ABC cricket guide from 81/82 has him in the team in front of Border and Kim Hughes. What happened?
Furthermore a number of players listed are adequate fill-ins at best. They are not players that will take cover the loss of a Mcgrath, Warne or Gilchrist.
Adrian Shelton
5 Feb 2004, 13:17
A crook back took care of Martin Kents career, i think he was done at 26-27 because of it.
Martyn will be retaned at 4, Punter loves him!
Clarke will bat 6, with Katich at 5 in Tuggers spot
Lehmann shouldn't go, simple as that
If selectors take Kasper to Sri Lanka, they've got rocks in their head, go for youth - ie; Tait, Rofe etc