Everyone a hundred....except Steve

[Yianni]

I know he's only batted once, but I don't like the fact that every batsman has gotten a hundred on tour so far except Waugh.

Not good signs for Steven. I'm a big fan but I think that this might be the excuse the selectors needed to drop him at the end of the series, especially if we win this test.

If we lose and he makes some runs in the 3rd Test then he might get a reprieve, but the way the tests have gone (i.e. us batting so well!) it's almost as if he's surplus to requirements.

Interesting situation...

 

[Wicked Lester]

Quite right.

I've been arguing this exact point.

IF Australia go on to win this test then Tugga's contribution to retaining the Frank Worrell trophy will have been 25 runs. Any runs he scores in the 3rd or 4th test matches will then be made in 'dead' tests. His last decent contribution in a live test was 90 made in the second test versus New Zealand (or was it South Africa?) at the end of 2001.

Ceasing to contribute in live matches was part of the rationale used end the careers of both Jones and Boon. And lets face it the selectors are looking for a reason to hand over to Ponting.

With Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Lehmann and Gilchrist there's a wealth of experience and talent. The "Lehmann hasn't proven himself" argument is now finished - at least for the moment. Love is a handy reserve and the seletors are itching to play Michael Clark and most importantly Ponting is now a proven captain.

Now I'm not trying to bag the guy, he is after all a legend, but given the pressure he must know he is under, it just makes it all the more bewildering why he didn't bat himself in the first innings to demonstrate his hunger for runs......?

 

[dr nick]

so under the same rationale, when we beat bangladesh by 9 wickets, we should be dropping Lehmann coz he didnt contribute?

 

[dr nick]

and if that is your point, do you think we should be playing 4 batsman?

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
it just makes it all the more bewildering why he didn't bat himself in the first innings to demonstrate his hunger for runs......?

he was sitting padded up for some 4-5 hours and he was getting tired and losing concentration. he asked Gilchrist to put the pads on for a while so he could have a break. its a change in shift. an innovative move if you ask me. no good sticking to the same batting order regardless of the situation as other one dimensional captains might do.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Originally posted by nicko18
he was sitting padded up for some 4-5 hours and he was getting tired and losing concentration. he asked Gilchrist to put the pads on for a while so he could have a break. its a change in shift. an innovative move if you ask me. no good sticking to the same batting order regardless of the situation as other one dimensional captains might do.

Yes I understand all that and agree with your point. Changing the order to avoid one person sitting padded up all day has been done before and is a sensible approach.

But I don't think you can overlook the fact the Steve needs runs and needs to make them at the pointy end of a series. I'm not trying to have a go at him nor micro-analyse the specific circumstances of his batting on a test by test basis.

On the contrary I am trying to suggest that looking at his batting contributions over a two year period from the perspective of selectors it becomes obvious that he needs to make runs at important times. We know this is so, Hohns has said so.

He runs the risk of standing accused of making his runs in dead matches. If Australia win this match then contributions in the third or fourth test may well not be as highly regarded by the selectors.

Its not a personal attack on the great man - merely an observation that he's under pressure and, consistent with the past two years, may not have contributed runs to a series win. It may give the selectors the ammunition they are looking for.

 

[red+black]

i can't be too critical of the guy. one at bat, although you could argue that he should have batted rather than Hogg in this test. he also could have made a quick 20 or 30 in the second innings, but these are minor issues.

what i will say is what i have said before. this tour should be the end of his career. is he to contnue playing until he reaches 170 tests, 180 tests, 200 tests? enough is enough. just because the team is winning isn't reason alone to keep him. yes, he's been a great servant of the game, but he is on the decline. i think he realises that he will never get his average back up to 50.00, and his desperately trying to ensure that it doesn't fall even more than it already has.

another point re his brother. for how long did he struggle to get his average up? he never could do it. compare that to ponting now who has his at 51. a marvellous effort. and mark never really could make the big scores.

the time has come. thanks steve. hopefully you can replace Tony Greig in the box.

 

[dr nick]

call me a traditionalist, but i'd like to think that the 4th and 5th test matches are not dead test matches. this is not world series baseball, but yes, steve hasnt made too many runs in the first couple of tests in a series, but then again, the series have never been in the balance so you really can't use the thinking he's not performing under pressure. it would be more pressure if say england had just been pumped in 4 tests and the "dead" 5th test was in the balance.

 

[Nige_Bix]

I thought that in the 1st innings at least he was avoiding batting because of his hand.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Originally posted by dezzmo
I thought that in the 1st innings at least he was avoiding batting because of his hand.

He quite possibly was and in the context of this test match that may have been fair enough. My argument is that the selectors wont be assessing his future selection on the basis of looking at the circumstances prevailing in each individual test match. They look at things over say a two year period - and on that measurement I suspect he needs to do more and quickly - if its not already too late.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Wicked Lester
They look at things over say a two year period

yes, and that includes recent pura cup matches

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by dezzmo
I thought that in the 1st innings at least he was avoiding batting because of his hand.

Then why select a batsman whose hand is too crook to bat with? Surely he's not in the side for his ten overs of medium pace.

 

[red+black]

i agree with nicko's sentiment that since we returned from the 2-1 loss in india, every single test that we have played since then has been a dead test. the next two against bangladesh are dead tests, as are the two against zimbabwe. the four against india at christmas may not be dead, but you could say that they are rushing to hospital in a critical state.

 

[Nige_Bix]

Maybe the theory that he likes to preserve his avarage is coming out. I'm not too sure though.

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by Darky
Then why select a batsman whose hand is too crook to bat with? Surely he's not in the side for his ten overs of medium pace.

does it have to be spelt out for you?

do you think under the situation it was imperative he should bat? do you even think we need 11 players?

 

[Wicked Lester]

Originally posted by nicko18
yes, and that includes recent pura cup matches

Somehow I doubt the selectors will take domestic form into account in deciding whether a long term player's international career is going to be ended.

First class performances are important for someone trying to break into the team and Steve's form in the Milk Cup may well have helped him retain his spot but when the selectors sit down to map out future planning for the test team there will only a few things they'll look at in respect to Steve Waugh:

a) runs in test matches over a period of time;
b) whether the team will be significantly weakened by his omission;
c) whether their is/are ready made replacements;
d) whether his retention for a certain additional period of time may be detrimental in respect to the timing of other likely retirements or exclusions from the team due to age/form decline or injury.

Australia has pensioned off one long term player per year (whether they liked it or not) for the last ten years - Marsh, Jones, Hughes, Boon, Border, McDermott, Taylor, Healy, Mark Waugh, Miller. This is one of the reasons they have stayed near or on top in world cricket. The last thing the selectors will want is to have for arguments sake is Steve Waugh, McGrath and Langer all retiring at the same time followed by Lehmann, Warne and Hayden shortly after with no replacements blooded through 20-30 odd tests experience in the meantime.

So I keep coming back to the point that logic suggests the selectors are looking for a reason to hand over to Ponting. If Steve wants to hang on to his place I'd have thought he needs to ensure the selectors have no ammunition to do so. The best way would have been to demonstrate a hunger for runs at test level and particularly during those important tests that decide whether test series are won or lost.

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by nicko18
does it have to be spelt out for you?

do you think under the situation it was imperative he should bat? do you even think we need 11 players?

I was specifically answering dezzmo's post.

Perhaps instead of throwing out the old rolleyes, you could answer the question.

If he is preserving the hand, why is he being picked?

If he can't come in for a quick 20 runs, what makes you think he's any better to come in and play an extended innings (which is what every batsman would be selected for)?

As for the reasoning that he'd had the pads on in the rooms for all those hours... how often do you see a batting order changed because of a big partnership? I'm sure he takes the pads off during the breaks too, so it can't be THAT bad. Besides, Hogg came in relatively early on the second day, so Waugh wouldn't have been sitting with the pads on for too long.

Given that another batsman was sent out to get 17 runs with red ink, I think dezzmo is right in saying Waugh was protecting his hand by not batting.

So why was he picked at all?

 

[red+black]

i disagree re your comments about long partnerships. changing the order because of a long partnership should happen more often, it just makes sense. but yes, i think that he really should have batted instead of hogg.

i think the same people that wondered why he was dropped from one-day cricket are the same as those that want him to remain in test cricket ad infinitum.

we didn't exactly struggle in the recent world cup without him.

and we'll do just fine without him in the 5 day arena (well, it's more like a 3 or 4 day arena these days)

 

[DaveW]

One point. Win, lose or draw the second test, the third test will NOT be a dead test. Stuff the Frank Worrell Trophy, the ICC Test championship is on the line. Nothing less than a series win will get it back in Australia's hands.

 

[red+black]

Originally posted by DaveW
One point. Win, lose or draw the second test, the third test will NOT be a dead test. Stuff the Frank Worrell Trophy, the ICC Test championship is on the line. Nothing less than a series win will get it back in Australia's hands.

I disagree mate. This is the Australian cricket team we are talking about. As I said earlier, virtually every test we play is a dead test, including the first, second, third and fourth tests of this series.

The result of each test, and the series has been known long ago.

 

[Demon3]

Steve Waugh is a champ and should be playing. Did we actually get bowled out in the first 2 tests, from memory we didn't and when Langer and Hayden and others before Steve are scoring Tons its hard to make runs fromt he dressing room. If Steve had batted a couple more times he would have made big runs. He is in form.

 

[red+black]

on what basis is Steve in solid international form?

he has two tests left in what has been a fine career.

 

[Wicked Lester]

Demon3 - no-one is denying the guy is a champion and legend of the game.

Whether he is in form or not in domestic matches is a moot point. At this point in his career they will be assessing his international form.

The point being made (refer earlier posts) is that the selectors appear to be looking for a reason to hand over to Ponting (ie ease Stephen out of the team).

The fact our innings have been declared closed and he didn't have an opportunity to bat may be regarded as largely irrelevant as it may simply reinforce in the minds of the selectors that Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Lehmann and Gilchrist (add Martyn) can all do the job required and that consequently the time is right to blood Clark or give Love an extended run.

Hohns has said that Waugh will now be assessed on the basis of his batting contributions - that is, the fact he is captian will no longer be taken into account.

Despite his protests the issue of his age is relevant. Quite simply if a 38 year old has an extended run of poor form it is questionable as to how many more years of service he will provide when, and if, the form slump ends. A 28 year old and even a 32 year old will probably be persisted with for longer due to their potential to contribute for a longer time going forward.

So is Steve out of form? Well no, not on the basis of his past two or three tests. But look at it over a two year period as the selectors do in deciding on ending the career of a long term player and anyone would have to concede he is no longer the middle order stalwart around which we build an innings.

Does that mean he should be dropped? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is certain. When the selectors are looking carefully at you the best way of rebuttal is to get out there and make runs. That's why I thought it odd that he didn't take the opportunity to demonstrate his hunger for runs in the second test - when the series was up for grabs!

 

[dr nick]

Originally posted by red+black
on what basis is Steve in solid international form?

he has two tests left in what has been a fine career.

you havent got a clue. you dont think one can judge form by the pura cup competition, which may i remind you is the strongest domestic comp in the world, and a damn sight better than what a lot of test nations could throw up?

he recently scored a 50 in adelaide, a 50 in melbourne and 100 in sydney. he has scored several hundreds already this year including a double century and one on tour. so if you think you can judge form on the back of a 25 in guyana, then i suggest you need to rethink your whole "i know what im talking about" attitude

 

[Darky]

So if Waugh is in such great form, and his hand is fine, why did Hogg and Gilly bat ahead of him, and why did he declare when he was due to bat in the second innings?