Australia Test squad - 2014

[Mateyman]

Can you please stop repeating ridiculous platitudes as though we haven't already established the difference between live matches and dead rubbers?

You accept this distinct, right? So why keep cycling back to pretend it doesn't exist?

This is pretty obviously a bogus analogy. The H&A season is what allows a team to play finals, so those matches are of obvious importance. They are a necessary precursor to playing finals. In cricket, the dead rubbers come after the important stuff has been decided.

I'm not a big fan of cross-sports analogies - the reality is that the contests are formatted differently. But I'll humour the point: dead rubbers in cricket are more like the end-of-season exhibition matches in the UK. Sure, fans still take an interest in the result but there's no longer a great deal at stake.

Agreed. Watson has averaged 31 since the start of 2011, which is pretty bloody ordinary. And too few of those runs have come when it mattered. That's my argument in a nutshell.

My point was that you were talking up Watson's performance in England when he was basically on par with Hughes, who got dropped and hasn't been recalled.

More pointedly, he was averaging mid-20s so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up like it's a good thing.

If the incumbent doesn't measure up, you have to give other guys an opportunity. You can't just rule them out on a hunch and stick with the guy who hasn't really done the job, despite having a shitload of opportunities.

There is no hunch. If you have people performing worse in a worse level competition (i.e. Faulkner's FC batting average), why on earth do they deserve a place over someone performing at a higher level in a higher competition?
Also, all cricket matches contribute to world rankings, and there was enough pride on the line for both teams so that while it may not have "mattered" in the context of the series, it mattered to the players playing. Why did Graeme Smith come out with a broken hand against Mitch Johnson in a dead rubber and a pretty bad match situation? Because he just wanted to risk further damage for fun in a game which didn't "matter"?

 

[Ian Dargie]

There is no hunch. If you have people performing worse in a worse level competition (i.e. Faulkner's FC batting average), why on earth do they deserve a place over someone performing at a higher level in a higher competition?

It doesn't have to be Faulkner. Maxwell and Henriques would also be in the mix. Or have you drawn a line through them as well?

Again, it comes down to whether or not the incumbent is doing well enough to keep his spot. Watson has been short of runs for a long time. Why not give someone else an opportunity?

Also, all cricket matches contribute to world rankings, and there was enough pride on the line for both teams so that while it may not have "mattered" in the context of the series, it mattered to the players playing.

Like I said, too few of Watson's runs have come when it's mattered. You don't seriously dispute that so why bother quibbling about rankings?

 

[Mateyman]

It doesn't have to be Faulkner. Maxwell and Henriques would also be in the mix. or have you drawn a line through them as well?

Again, though, it comes down to whether or not the incumbent is doing well enough to keep his spot. Watson has been short of runs for a long time. Why not give someone else an opportunity?

Like I said, too few of Watson's runs have come when it's mattered. You don't seriously dispute that so why bother quibbling about rankings?

Because "Player A hasn't done well enough" is not justification to include player B who is worse. Wouldn't be against Maxwell in the UAE truth told, but I also think Watson's reverse may be important in the UAE. As I've said, my point is that all matches matter. Why would players risk injury like Graeme Smith if it "didn't matter". It's because they do matter. the opposition were trying just as hard to get him out, ergo the runs were just as difficult to get.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Because "Player A hasn't done well enough" is not justification to include player B who is worse.

It is absolutely a justification to drop Player A and give someone else an opportunity. Watson's performance has been sufficiently ordinary that we should be willing to look at another all-rounder.

As for Player B being worse, you don't know that until you give them a go. So don't pretend it's a given.

Wouldn't be against Maxwell in the UAE truth told, but I also think Watson's reverse may be important in the UAE.

So you consider Watson an automatic selection but would consider replacing him for the next series?

That's a funny kind of automatic selection.

As I've said, my point is that all matches matter.

Are you back to pretending that you don't grasp the distinction between dead rubbers and live matches?

 

[Mateyman]

It is absolutely a justification to drop Player A and give someone else an opportunity. Watson's performance has been sufficiently ordinary that we should be willing to look at another all-rounder.

As for Player B being worse, you don't know that until you give them a go. So don't pretend it's a given.

So you consider Watson an automatic selection but would consider replacing him for the next series?

That's a funny kind of automatic selection.

Are you back to pretending that you don't grasp the distinction between dead rubbers and live matches?

No, I'm saying you place too much importance on the former by completely disregarding performances in "dead rubbers"

 

[Mateyman]

It is absolutely a justification to drop Player A and give someone else an opportunity. Watson's performance has been sufficiently ordinary that we should be willing to look at another all-rounder.

As for Player B being worse, you don't know that until you give them a go. So don't pretend it's a given.

I don't see how you could expect allayer to average more at test level than in FC.

 

[Mateyman]

So you consider Watson an automatic selection but would consider replacing him for the next series?

That's a funny kind of automatic selection.

1. Would only drop due to the circumstance, kind of like playing 4 pacemen at the WACA if you choose to go that way
2. I would personally keep Watson AND Maxwell in the team, depending on Maxwell's performance in the tour games.

 

[Ian Dargie]

No, I'm saying you place too much importance on the former by completely disregarding performances in "dead rubbers"

Sorry, what? I place too much importance on performances in live Tests?

Hey everyone, just chill out. Don't worry if the series has already been lost. We've still got the dead rubbers. They matter too.

I don't see how you could expect allayer to average more at test level than in FC.

In the case of Maxwell and Henriques, that wouldn't be necessary for them to at least match Watson's recent output.

2. I would personally keep Watson AND Maxwell in the team, depending on Maxwell's performance in the tour games.

Is that right?

So what would that top six look like?

 

[Mateyman]

Sorry, what? I place too much importance on performances in live Tests?

Hey everyone, just chill out. Don't worry if the series has already been lost. We've still got the dead rubbers. They matter too.

Nah, more just, "Let's not pack up our bags and go home given we're 3-0 up. 5-0 looks much better than 3-2."

 

[Ian Dargie]

Nah, more just, "Let's not pack up our bags and go home given we're 3-0 up. 5-0 looks much better than 3-2."

You want to give Watson a gold star for making runs after the series was decided, and let slide the fact he didn't fire a shot when it mattered.

That's up to you. The important part is that you don't actually dispute those facts.

 

[Mateyman]

You want to give Watson a gold star for making runs after the series was decided, and let slide the face he didn't fire a shot when it mattered.

That's up to you. The important part is that you don't actually dispute those facts.

I go off the fact that all these matches are against world class opposition. So long as both teams are giving their best performances (i.e. NOT the Oval 2013, and probably even the 2nd innings of the 3rd test), I see runs made as important.
Wouldn't consider replacing Watson with a fast bowling all-rounder as things stand, given their respective FC batting performances.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I go off the fact that all these matches are against world class opposition. So long as both teams are giving their best performances (i.e. NOT the Oval 2013, and probably even the 2nd innings of the 3rd test), I see runs made as important.

So we're back to you pretending there's no difference between live matches and dead rubbers.

If you want to insist that all Test matches are equally important, that's up to you. Frankly, I find that suggestion absurd.

Wouldn't consider replacing Watson with a fast bowling all-rounder as things stand, given their respective FC batting performances.

Watson's FC average is irrelevant. He's averaging 31 in Tests since the start of 2011. That's the issue.

Are you so sure none of the alternatives could improve on that?

 

[frankrizzo]

Dead rubbers aren't as big as live games but they do mean more than in past era's, we don't win that ashes 5-0 then that epic series victory in SA doesn't take us back to number 1 in the world.

 

[Mateyman]

So we're back to you pretending there's no difference between live matches and dead rubbers.

If you want to insist that all Test matches are equally important, that's up to you. Frankly, I find that suggestion absurd.

Well, I haven't said that - basic level comprehension should tell you that. This perfectly explains it:

Dead rubbers aren't as big as live games but they do mean more than in past era's, we don't win that ashes 5-0 then that epic series victory in SA doesn't take us back to number 1 in the world.

Watson's FC average is irrelevant. He's averaging 31 in Tests since the start of 2011. That's the issue.

Are you so sure none of the alternatives could improve on that?

I'm not talking about his FC average. As it stands, he has a better TEST average than Faulkner and Henriques have FC average.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Well, I haven't said that - basic level comprehension should tell you that.

So stop minimising the difference when everyone understands that live matches are more important than dead rubbers.

I'm not talking about his FC average. As it stands, he has a better TEST average than Faulkner and Henriques have FC average.

Again, Watson has averaged 31 since the start of 2011.

That sets the bar pretty low. Why are you so sure none of the alternatives could improve on that?

 

[Mego Red]

So stop minimising the difference when everyone understands that live matches are more important than dead rubbers.

Again, Watson has averaged 31 since the start of 2011.

That sets the bar pretty low. Why are you so sure none of the alternatives could improve on that?

You pretty much make these threads unreadable by being such a dickhead.

Repeating things constantly doesn't mean people are going to start agreeing with you.

And Watson stays. You don't drop him when we're winning.

 

[Mateyman]

So stop minimising the difference when everyone understands that live matches are more important than dead rubbers.

I could just as easily say stop maximising the difference. I believe you overstate that difference. Doesn't mean I'm going to try and force this opinion down your throat.

Again, Watson has averaged 31 since the start of 2011.

That sets the bar pretty low. Why are you so sure none of the alternatives could improve on that?

Because they average even lower than this at FIRST CLASS level. WHy is this so hard to understand?

 

[Ian Dargie]

You pretty much make these threads unreadable by being such a dickhead.

Where does this come from?

Why go straight to name-calling without even trying to make an argument?

Repeating things constantly doesn't mean people are going to start agreeing with you.

I never suggested otherwise.

If I've repeated certain arguments, it's because some people seem to make the same flawed points in Watson's defence.

And Watson stays. You don't drop him when we're winning.

That's ridiculous.

Should we have kept picking George Bailey because we were winning?

 

[Ian Dargie]

I could just as easily say stop maximising the difference. I believe you overstate that difference.

Not at all. Live matches make the difference between winning and losing a series. Dead rubbers do not. That's the difference.

You don't dispute that. Yet you are keen to downplay this difference because it makes it easier to defend Watson being MIA when series are up for grabs, then padding his numbers once they've been won or lost.

It says a lot about how ordinary Watson has been in live matches that, in defending him, people like you are obliged to make the counter-intuitive case that dead rubbers aren't really less important.

Because they average even lower than this at FIRST CLASS level. WHy is this so hard to understand?

BEcause it's not TRUE.

Henriques and Maxwell don't average lower than 31 at FC level. And, thanks to his 94 for Australia A today, neither does Faulkner.

Maxwell averages 41. Henriques averages 32, but that skyrockets to 61 if you look at his past two seasons. Also, Henriques managed to average 31 in India, on a disastrous tour to one of the tougher destinations for Australian batsmen. So is it really unreasonable to suggest he could improve on that given more opportunities?

 

[Ian Dargie]

I'd take a bloke that has only scored cheap test 100's over a bloke that can't even score a FC hundred.

Six runs short today, batting at No.5 again.

 

[Mateyman]

BEcause it's not TRUE.

Henriques and Maxwell don't average lower than 31 at FC level. And, thanks to his 94 for Australia A today, neither does Faulkner.

Maxwell averages 41. Henriques averages 32, but that skyrockets to 61 if you look at his past two seasons. Also, Henriques managed to average 31 in India, on a disastrous tour to one of the tougher destinations for Australian batsmen. So is it really unreasonable to suggest he could improve on that given more opportunities?

Ok, so if you cherry pick statistics (like choosing Watson's worst period), then Faulkner and Henriques (who isn't a test match bowling threat but anyway), still average the same amount... at a lower level. I'll take Watson thanks.
Maxwell as I've said I would maybe give an opportunity, but only in the SC ATM, because I don't think his bowling is really better than part-timer, nor do I think he would improve on Watson's outside the SC. Maxwell is really the only one I would consider at this stage.
If Faulkner scores a few more 94's, he would definitely be in the frame though.

 

[bird_man]

Six runs short today, batting at No.5 again.

Haha, glad your happy to pick a bloke to bat at 6 off one score of 94.

 

[Bingle_21]

[QUOTE="...
Maxwell averages 41. Henriques averages 32, but that skyrockets to 61 if you look at his past two seasons. Also, Henriques managed to average 31 in India, on a disastrous tour to one of the tougher destinations for Australian batsmen. So is it really unreasonable to suggest he could improve on that given more opportunities?[/QUOTE]

Hang on, dont only figures dating back to 2011 count when assessing a batsman's figures?

 

[The_Reaper]

[QUOTE="...
Maxwell averages 41. Henriques averages 32, but that skyrockets to 61 if you look at his past two seasons. Also, Henriques managed to average 31 in India, on a disastrous tour to one of the tougher destinations for Australian batsmen. So is it really unreasonable to suggest he could improve on that given more opportunities?

Hang on, dont only figures dating back to 2011 count when assessing a batsman's figures?[/QUOTE]

Henriques averages over 50 in first class cricket over the last three seasons.

He is bitsa but he's a better player than most people on this board give him credit for

 

[Ian Dargie]

Ok, so if you cherry pick statistics (like choosing Watson's worst period), then Faulkner and Henriques (who isn't a test match bowling threat but anyway), still average the same amount... at a lower level. I'll take Watson thanks.

It's not cherry-picking to point to the last three-and-a-half years of Watson's Test career. That is a pretty decent sample size and it shows he has been short of runs for a long time.

You don't want to give anyone else a chance, even though Watson has been struggling. Why not? Why are you so convinced none of the alternatives could improve on Watson's modest recent output?