Martin Love

[CarterS]

With his batting and brilliant slips fielding I think he will be the man who comes into the test side when Steve Waugh hangs up the baggy green. He has grabbed his opportunity and has done well with it.

At the very least he has guaranteed his ticket to the West Indies. Also noticed in the first innings the only Aussies I saw clapping him off at the decleration were fellow QLD'ers Hayden and Bichel.

 

[Catman]

I think it will take Martin a little while to fit in to the side, because most of them have been living with each other for years. But he has showed with his 4 excellent catches and solid 62 that he should be a regular in the side.
I felt he should have got in before Lehmann in the first place, but hopefully Steve Waugh will see the light and retire after the Sydney test and Love will become Australia's No. 5 or 6.

 

[Nige_Bix]

Originally posted by Catman
... but hopefully Steve Waugh will see the light and retire after the Sydney test and Love will become Australia's No. 5 or 6.

I agree - and then it will interesting to see who shows up as the next batsmen if any of the others string a few failures together -I'd say Clarke will get the nod because of his age and maybe has that "golden=boy" image with the selectors.

dzm

 

[Catman]

Originally posted by dezzmo
I agree - and then it will interesting to see who shows up as the next batsmen if any of the others string a few failures together -I'd say Clarke will get the nod because of his age and maybe has that "golden=boy" image with the selectors.

dzm

Yep, your right, he is the new love child. Mainly because he's from NSW. His performances are average but one century and all of a sudden he's our next Test batsmen.

 

[TheMase]

Originally posted by Catman
Yep, your right, he is the new love child. Mainly because he's from NSW. His performances are average but one century and all of a sudden he's our next Test batsmen.

Well he is averaging over 50 at domestic level.

I wouldn't say that his performances were average if thats the case.

 

[The Ewok]

Originally posted by TheMase
Well he is averaging over 50 at domestic level.

So are a dozen other players

A 50 average over a handful of games this season proves nothing, look at his career average, it is poor

 

[CarterS]

Originally posted by TheMase
Well he is averaging over 50 at domestic level.

I wouldn't say that his performances were average if thats the case.

Well Martin Love is averaging 130 so it shows the gap between the 2 players.

 

[vergs]

I think Martin Love done a great job on debut. He looks so relaxed and composed at the crease, and his slips fielding was sensational, especially to MacGill. These two things combined should she him gain a spot for the West Indies tour. Personally, I would like to see him pushed up the order in the near future, maybe to No 4. I know that one good performance doesn't usually warrant a promotion, but the Ashes is wrapped up already and I don't see much harm in it, especially after considering his form against England.

 

[Becker]

If Steve Waugh is made to step down, I would like our top 6 batting spots to read as thus:

1 Langer
2 Hayden
3 Love
4 Ponting
5 Lehmann
6 Martyn

Langer and Hayden select themselves, I think Love is a natural No.3 and I would like to see Ponting walking in at 4 against a slightly older ball. Lehmann can bat anywhere, and Martyn is better value at No.6.

 

[Perty4]

What Hope putting lehmann above Martyn. Martyn has made the 10th most of ALL batsmen this calendar year, behind hayden ponting gilchrist etc, why on earth would u have lehmann ahead of him.
of course Martyn is better value, but what about his own development. He'll be 20* and if gilly goes quickly he has to bat with the tail. Thats not fair.

 

[Catman]

Originally posted by The Ewok
A 50 average over a handful of games this season proves nothing, look at his career average, it is poor

That's what I was referring to. His overall career average is just that, average.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by Becker
If Steve Waugh is made to step down, I would like our top 6 batting spots to read as thus:

1 Langer
2 Hayden
3 Love
4 Ponting
5 Lehmann
6 Martyn

Langer and Hayden select themselves, I think Love is a natural No.3 and I would like to see Ponting walking in at 4 against a slightly older ball. Lehmann can bat anywhere, and Martyn is better value at No.6.

Moving Ponting from #3? A risk that shouldn't be experimented until the lineup settles. When Waugh is gone and Love is solid at #5 or #6, then it is worth a try to experiment. If too many changes are made at once, then you can't pinpoint the problem if something goes wrong.

If you make one change and it doesn't work, you just change back.

 

[CharlieG]

Originally posted by TheMase
Well he is averaging over 50 at domestic level.

I wouldn't say that his performances were average if thats the case.

Michael Clarke's stats at First class level:
Matches: 27
Innnings: 48
NO: 2
Runs: 1646
Highest score: 134
Average: 35.78
Strike rate: 48.51
100's: 5
50's: 7

He's not averaging anywhere near fifty. He isn't at Test level yet, although he'll probably get there in a couple of years. Katich, Hussey, Maher and Hodge are probably all ahead of him at the moment.

Charlie

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Becker
If Steve Waugh is made to step down, I would like our top 6 batting spots to read as thus:

1 Langer
2 Hayden
3 Love
4 Ponting
5 Lehmann
6 Martyn

Langer and Hayden select themselves, I think Love is a natural No.3 and I would like to see Ponting walking in at 4 against a slightly older ball. Lehmann can bat anywhere, and Martyn is better value at No.6.

I totally agree & was thinking along the same lines. Ponting is more than capable @ #3, but I see him more valuable @ #4 as out premier batsman doing a Mark Waugh type role. Also, Love is better suited up the order to see off the new ball as he isn't the guy you want accelerating the innings @ #6. Martyn has struggled a little @ #4, whereas he has had a better record since coming back into the side @ #6.

 

[Navy Master]

Re. Clarke, why do you have to wait till a batsmen has passed his peak before he plays for Australia, the kid can bat and is a hell of a lot better than Victoria's batsmen (afterall, Arnberger and Rummans are from NSW)

 

[DaveW]

Originally posted by Navy Master
Re. Clarke, why do you have to wait till a batsmen has passed his peak before he plays for Australia, the kid can bat and is a hell of a lot better than Victoria's batsmen (afterall, Arnberger and Rummans are from NSW)

I agree this bloke has a future. But is he currently amoung Australia's best six batsmen?

 

[Darky]

Originally posted by DaveW
I agree this bloke has a future. But is he currently amoung Australia's best six batsmen?

I think ideally he is still two years away from Test cricket, but with there being more professionalism (ie. money) in cricket, players tend to hang on a bit longer, so we find the Australian side is mostly on the wrong side of 30, with the youngest players being Lee & Gillespie at 25/26ish, Ponting and Love at around 28, the rest into their 30s.

The best batsmen at domestic level are all in the same boat (and this includes Love to an extent) - they've played in an era of Asutralian international dominance, and extreme batting riches, and have played at the same time as some very long-serving players.

If experienced ("ready" or "deserving") players were picked based on the form of say the last four to five years, they'd come from Lehmann, Love, Bevan, Cox, Maher, Blewett, Elliott, Hussey and maybe Katich and Hodge.

Five of those are in their 30s already, and the rest 28 or older this year, and several have had fairly lengthy but mediocre stints in the side.

Apart from Love, the youngest players of the above group (still all 28+ so hardly green) are probably also the poorest performed in terms of career consistency.

Maybe Clarke's name is being hyped up because the Australian team is so strong at the moment, that they can ease in a player without results being compromised. It hasn't seemed to hurt at ODI level where Watson, Hauritz and Bracken have played their cricket mostly in winning sides.

 

[Becker]

I've got a radical idea, it just might work. Why not just select the best 12 cricketers in Australia regardless of age, or which state they play for etc?
Why are we obsessed with bloody players who may or may not be good enough in 2-3 years time? Anyone would think we are just going to run out of talent all of a sudden.
The theory seems to be, "let's lose a few matches now so we can win a few in 3 years' time". I simply cannot understand that point of view, and even if a player was 45 years old, if he is still among the best 12 players in the country he should be playing for Australia.