Changes for Boxing Day - In: J.Burns Out: M.Marsh

[Mateyman]

I posted in another forum, but he usually plays his best when his back is against the wall. The century against SA, the 50s in the series and the 50s against India haven't been when the team dominated, it's been when the team sort of fell to pieces and his slow style kept him in it.

Before his back-to-back half centuries, he scored 5, 2, 9 & 21. The previous 5 innings were pretty healthy at an average of 50 with his 107 against SA, but then preceded by 4, 1 and 5. Basically, you can summarise his innings as: He either gets out for nothing or not much at all, and he sometimes makes runs. Highest score of 119 in 35 innings, barely averages over 35 and has a SR under 50. He's made 50 or more in 11 innings with 4 centuries (11% of innings, 36% conversion rate). Take away those innings and he averages an appalling 26 in 31 innings.

Is he the 2nd best opening batsman in Australia? I Weep for our cricket future.

TL;DR: Take away all his good scores and his average drops alarmingly low

 

[The Swans Blog]

I'm not sure what period you're referring to here.

Mike Hussey and Brad Hodge made their Test debuts in the same series, against the West Indies in 2005. They were both 30 years old at the time so I don't think you could argue there was a youth policy in place. If anything, Australia were keen to top up with ready-made experienced batsmen to extend their reign at the top for a few more years.

And surely the selectors got it absolutely right with Hussey. He had a spectacular start to his Test career and ended up with 6000 runs at 50-plus.

As for Katich, he was another guy who was jerked around by selectors. But if you want to make it about FC records, Katich actually has Hodge covered. Quite comfortably. More runs, higher average.

Why are those the only two options?

Referring to the last 3-4 years when there was a concerted effort from the CA selectors to pick younger players headed by Chappel. It's definitely hurt the team, playing Hughes and Cowan as wall as Khawaja together who weren't up to it at that time, but could have got away with it if someone like Rogers was holding down the other end, or at least a different opener. People talk about Ponting staying on too long, but the players he had at the end of his career would have made any man gray early.
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/chappell-defends-youth-20130827-2soc7.html
http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/02/01/blind-bailey-buggers-up-brad-hodges-comeback/

 

[The Swans Blog]

TL;DR: Take away all his good scores and his average drops alarmingly low

It isn't like he has a good average to begin with. I just took away his centuries. I bet if you compared him to some other past and present players (take away their centuries), especially openers, he wouldn't get close.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Referring to the last 3-4 years when there was a concerted effort from the CA selectors to pick younger players headed by Chappel.

OK, but that's got nothing to do with Mike Hussey and Simon Katich.

You're saying Hodge should have been picked some time post-2010 despite being 35-36 by then. Is that right?

It's definitely hurt the team, playing Hughes and Cowan as wall as Khawaja together who weren't up to it at that time, but could have got away with it if someone like Rogers was holding down the other end, or at least a different opener.

Surely it makes sense to promote young players when feasible. You can't seize on the guys who didn't work out and use that as evidence that Hodge should have been picked as a 36-year-old instead.

Should we have picked Hodge ahead of Warner and Smith? Where would we be now if that had happened?

 

[theyellowsash]

since the ashes haddin has the average of a bowler. any random batsman that can keep a bit would be better. the media is talking like he somehow had an impact on whether the batsmen knicked the ball or not during his amazing record breaking innings of standing behind the stumps.

 

[The Swans Blog]

OK, but that's got nothing to do with Mike Hussey and Simon Katich.

You're saying Hodge should have been picked some time post-2010 despite being 35-36 by then. Is that right?

Surely it makes sense to promote young players when feasible. You can't seize on the guys who didn't work out and use that as evidence that Hodge should have been picked as a 36-year-old instead.

Should we have picked Hodge ahead of Warner and Smith? Where would we be now if that had happened?

We picked Rogers because the experiment fell flat and we were free falling down the rankings. We were turkey slapped by England, India, South African and New Zealand. If we didn't do the youth policy, which was idiotic in the first place, we would probably have the same team, if not slightly different to what we have now, without looking like a pack of campaigners for 4 years.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

Warner
Rogers
Watson
Smith
Marsh
Henriques/M Marsh
Wade
Johnson
Harris
Lyon
Hazelwood

Watson aint gonna get dropped no matter what happens.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

We picked Rogers because the experiment fell flat and we were free falling down the rankings.

How is that relevant?

We recalled Rogers last year. Should we have picked Hodge instead, despite the fact he played his last FC match in 2009?

We were turkey slapped by England, India, South African and New Zealand. If we didn't do the youth policy, which was idiotic in the first place, we would probably have the same team, if not slightly different to what we have now, without looking like a pack of campaigners for 4 years.

So when should Hodge have been picked?

You're talking about a period after the 2010-11 Ashes when Australia tried to blood some new batsmen. But Hodge played his last FC match in 2009 so how could they pick him?

Was it idiotic to pick Warner and Smith?

 

[The Swans Blog]

How is that relevant?

We recalled Rogers last year. Should we have picked Hodge instead, despite the fact he played his last FC match in 2009?

So when should Hodge have been picked?

You're talking about a period after the 2010-11 Ashes when Australia tried to blood some new batsmen. But Hodge played his last FC match in 2009 so how could they pick him?

Was it idiotic to pick Warner and Smith?

No, because their FC was OK but their ODI form (especially Warner) was great and demanded selection. My gripe was not picking him before he retired from FC cricket 5 years ago. But ahh well, I'm not the only one out there who thinks that Hodge was ripped off for a few s**t batsman that I've already mentioned.

I think Rogers being one of our highest run scores in the last year is an indictment on the test team. His average has been decent at around 40, but so many other players have been so bad.

 

[BluesMan]

Haddin wont be dropped, lets be realistic

 

[Ducky Tie]

Haddin's reintroduction was undoubtedly a success. He was brought in at a time when he was in great form and the fact that his presence and leadership was such a valuable addition made it pretty simple really. However his selection can no longer be justified. There is no possible way his leadership makes up for his abysmal batting since the Ashes. His batting lacks discipline and the supposed maturity that he so importantly brings to the table. To be fair, his keeping has been very sharp, aside from some patchy glovework in the UAE. I also don't buy the argument that we have to wait til Whiteman is ready to move on from Haddin. It's just not true. Putting all our eggs in one basket and hoping that everything works out well with Whiteman is risky and a great unknown. There is no harm in putting in the current best option, likely Nevill or Wade and judge as they go. If a point in time did come where Whiteman was ready, a call could then be made to bring him in. It basically boils down to whether the selectors are willing to make the tough calls on veterans of the Australian team. As has been the case for most of our history, they will likely not. Haddin will retain his spot, as will Watson (but that's a whole additional matter). Seeing as he doesn't appear to be going anywhere anytime soon, hopefully some waves of form are found.

 

[maelcoluim]

Warner
Rogers
Watson
Smith
Marsh
Henriques/M Marsh
Wade
Johnson
Harris
Lyon
Hazelwood

Watson aint gonna get dropped no matter what happens.

This is the lineup I think we should go in with as well. Haddin should be dropped on the basis of his current form, averaging less than 10 runs for the calendar year in tests is unacceptable. There aren't any other wk/batsman screaming to be picked but Wade would be likely to perform much better. Watson's batting is dodgy but his bowling showed enough to keep him in the team for now I think.

It's an interesting Australian lineup at the moment, the specialist bats look rather flaky but it's a team that bats right down the list, been a real strength of Australia in the last few years.

 

[Zarrix]

Only 128 to chase but Watson and Haddin still find time to fail yet again.

Watson is in more for his bowling these days and needs to be down the order. Otherwise as a no.3 should be immediately dropped

Haddin in for Whiteman please. Blood the future instead of giving this campaigner more games.

Harris comes in for Starc. Starc is like early career Johnson mk.II. Touted as a tearaway quick but almost provides as much with the bat as he does with his inconsistent bowling.

Hazelwood looks so promising though and much better than Starc, he must play Boxing Day.

 

[Scotland]

Warner
Rogers
Watson
Smith
S Marsh
M Marsh
Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Lyon
Hazlewood

It's a funny XI. Clouds over Warner and M Marsh, neither of whom would be dropped on form.

I'd drop Starc for Harris and only make forced changes if the two guys above can't get up. If Warner goes out, Watson should open. He stinks at #3, and for whatever reason playing as an opener is the only time he has made any runs. Bat S Marsh at 3 and slot whoever comes in into the middle order. I'd bring in Voges. He's 35 and unlikely to forge a long test career from here on in, but he is in form in the shield and has performed well in ODI/T20I cricket. He'd be a Martin Love selection. Cowan's scoring runs for fun also, but he was pretty underwhelming when he batted in the top order previously.

If M Marsh goes out, I'd bring in Faulkner. He's a bowling all rounder better suited to 7 or 8, but he's been top shelf in ODI cricket and didn't look out of place in the one test he played. Perfect opportunity to see if he can make it as a number 6. Alternatively, we can just bat Watson at 6 and bring in another top order player.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, because their FC was OK but their ODI form (especially Warner) was great and demanded selection.

But you could make that argument for many of the younger players you now say should never have been picked.

My gripe was not picking him before he retired from FC cricket 5 years ago.

OK. When exactly?

At one point, he was vying with Ponting, Hussey, Martyn, Clarke and Katich for a spot in the middle order. Do you think he should have been picked ahead of those guys?

Then Martyn retired at the end of 2006. That period from 2007-2009 was, in my view, the period when Hodge had the best case for a recall. But, at that point, we had Ponting, Hussey and Clarke at 3-5 and our bowling attack had been weakened by the retirements of Warne and McGrath, so there was a preference for an all-rounder, with the likes of Watson, Symonds and McDonald picked to reinforce the bowling while also batting in the middle order.

Then, in 2009, Symonds lost his marbles, McDonald was discarded and Watson was recast as an opener. Hodge could have been picked at No.6, but North was preferred. And, in the early stages of his Test career, he vindicated that selection.

By the time North was axed at the end of 2010, Hodge had quit FC cricket and the pendulum had swung toward youth, which was understandable given Ponting, Katich and Hussey were 35.

So yes, Hodge was unlucky. But he was more a victim of circumstance than, as you've suggested, any concerted 'black balling' or hidden agenda.

But ahh well, I'm not the only one out there who thinks that Hodge was ripped off for a few s**t batsman that I've already mentioned.

Who are you talking about?

In his prime, Hodge was kept out of the side by some very good batsmen. When you talk about 's**t batsmen' I can only assume you're talking about the period post-2010, when we picked some younger guys who didn't work out. But Hodge had quit FC cricket by then so wasn't in the mix.

I think Rogers being one of our highest run scores in the last year is an indictment on the test team. His average has been decent at around 40, but so many other players have been so bad.

In the past 12 months, Australia has whitewashed England and beaten South Africa in their own backyard.

That is a remarkable resurgence given where the team was in early 2013.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Warner
Rogers
Watson
Smith
Marsh
Henriques/M Marsh
Wade
Johnson
Harris
Lyon
Hazelwood

Watson aint gonna get dropped no matter what happens.

Why not play Watson at No.6. Last chance saloon. And try someone else at No.3?

Because we're going to have to find another first drop sooner rather than later.

 

[Zarrix]

Warner
Rogers
Smith
S Marsh
M Marsh
Watson
Whiteman
Johnson
Harris
Lyon
Hazlewood

Watson can no longer bat at no.3. He is still viable as an all rounder but not as a batsman who can bowl a bit.

Johnson, Harris and Hazlewood looks superb though

And cmon selectors, make a big call by dropping haddin and giving Whiteman a start.

 

[The Swans Blog]

In the past 12 months, Australia has whitewashed England and beaten South Africa in their own backyard.

That is a remarkable resurgence given where the team was in early 2013.

It certainly hasn't been off the back of stellar batting performances, rather very good bowling attack headed by Johnson and Lyon. Johnson alone beat England. Heck, we could have fielded 11 Johnson's and still have beaten England - they were beat before the boarded the boat. South Africa again, Johnson dominated and he won us matches off the back of his bowling. We still had to bat some - some good, some bad.

Rogers some good performances, some average performances, but he did OK. He has a tendency to do average/poor, average/poor, good innings, poor innings, rinse-repeat. I don't look at him to score runs, I don't even look at him to last long. I look at him to be first out within the first 10 overs and if he lasts then well he's usually not going to score much, so whatever, good luck to the fella.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

It certainly hasn't been off the back of stellar batting performances, rather very good bowling attack headed by Johnson and Lyon.

There have been some excellent batting performances.

Smith and Warner, for example, have both averaged 60-plus since the start of the home ashes in Australia.

Johnson alone beat England. Heck, we could have fielded 11 Johnson's and still have beaten England - they were beat before the boarded the boat. South Africa again, Johnson dominated and he won us matches off the back of his bowling. We still had to bat some - some good, some bad.

That is a jarring over-simplification.

Before the home ashes series, no one thought England were beaten before they boarded the boat. It's all very well to say that now after the fact. But Australia were underdogs.

Look at the deciding Test against South Africa - one of the biggest and best wins by an Australian side for many years - and tell me that was all Johnson on his own. Sure, Johnson was excellent. But there was some fantastic batting in both innings and then Harris got us over the line on one leg.

I don't know why you'd minimise that.

Rogers some good performances, some average performances, but he did OK. He has a tendency to do average/poor, average/poor, good innings, poor innings, rinse-repeat. I don't look at him to score runs, I don't even look at him to last long. I look at him to be first out within the first 10 overs and if he lasts then well he's usually not going to score much, so whatever, good luck to the fella.

What's your point, exactly? Who should replace him?

 

[The Casey Cat]

selectors just don't think he has what it takes to be a test cricketer.

The same selectors who persevere with Watson and S Marsh? And picked Glen ******* Maxwell? None of that lot have test match temperament with the bat. Cowan does.

 

[Yoda_]

Looking over our XO from this test, think we need to be realistic about how many changes we will make to the line up.

1. David Warner - Fully expect him to pull up fine for Box Day.

2. Chris Rogers - Back - to - back 50's will allow Buck to see out the summer.

3. Shane Watson (Ed Cowan) - Watson stays if Marsh is fit.

4. Stephen Smith (captain) - remarkable debut as captain. Can see something special in him

5. Shaun Marsh - A couple of starts will see the selectors want to stick with a balanced line up and not make too many changes.

6. Mitch Marsh (Shane Watson) - If Marsh misses, (in form Shield batsmen) Ed Cowan comes in and bats at number 3, Watson moves to 6.

7. Brad Haddin (vice captain) - Experienced vice captain will see him retain his place after a stellar 8 catches in this test.

8. Mitch Johnson - Strike bowler, one of the worlds best on his day. Nuff said

9. Josh Hazelwood - Incredible debut, think you'll find a promotion in the batting order too.

10. Ryan Harris - Direct swap for Mitch Starc

10 - Nathan Lyon - Really impressive this summer from the perennial whipping boy.


IN: Ryan Harris, (Ed Cowan)

OUT: Mitch Starc, (Mitch Marsh)

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Minor detail, but no way will Hazlewood bat above Harris.

 

[Lebbo73]

Brad Hodge an average of 55 after 6 tests. He never got a fair shake of it and could have proven to be an excellent middle order batsman when we had so many poor batsman.
David Hussey

No doubt there's more.

Yeah, they must of shagged the selectors wife's.

 

[gandaal]

Yeah, they must of shagged the selectors wife's.

While the Marsh brothers shagged the selector.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Sadly I can't see Watson or Haddin getting the chop this summer. If Warner is out I'd like to see Cowan or Burns come in. If Marsh is out I'd like Burns to come in and bat 6. Watson will need to bowl a few more overs if Marsh is out. Starc can go back to the BBL and Harris can come back in as well.