Time for change

[Slax]

It's time for the selectors to bite the bullet and drop Mark Waugh and Brett Lee.

Brett Lee averaged a pathetic 46.80 in a series where McGrath and Warne averaged 10.85 and 12.66 respectively. His career average has risen to almost 28 and he is not taking wickets with any consistency.

Mark Waugh again averaged below his Test average of 41 with a meager 20.00. It has been a long time since Waugh average more than his career average in a series and he has been given more than enough chances to turn this around.

Test cricket is about winning matches. I don't care if players are popular or a marketing tool for some company or the ACB if they don't perform they must be dropped.

 

[Slax]

Also the most expensive of the strike bowlers in ODI with an economy rating of 4.81. Not what is needed heading towards a world cup.

 

[London Dave]

Lee yes, Waugh No!

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Originally posted by Slax
It's time for the selectors to bite the bullet and drop Mark Waugh and Brett Lee.

Test cricket is about winning matches. I don't care if players are popular or a marketing tool for some company or the ACB if they don't perform they must be dropped.

If winning matches is what it's all about, then why change the team? They've been winning.

 

[DaveW]

Re: Re: Time for change

Originally posted by Adelaide Hawk


If winning matches is what it's all about, then why change the team? They've been winning.

I can't stand this attitude. As it is the job is being left to some, rather than all of the side. Australia's batting has relied on a lot on Matthew Hayden over the last year or more. How many middle order batting collapses did we see last summer (esp against NZ)? Only they were disguised by superb performances at the top order. There is no room for passengers in the Australian side. The third test against South Africa in South Africa proved that if the players you rely on don't play to form, and you don't have a solid side of contributors, then there may be no one to back you up. Remember too Australia were looking very shaky in the first test against Pakistan, getting home by the skin of their teeth. Why? Because the work was left to too few.

Waugh and Lee should consider themselves fortunate that others are doing the job for them, for the time being.

 

[hourn]

yes I think Mark Waugh may have seen his time in the time.

The question who is the replacement.

I would go for Martin Love - I reckon he is the best of the rest, just infront of Lehmann. Clarke is still a while to go and I wouldn't look at Hodge too seriously until he puts together another solid season of Shield Cricket to prove last season wasn't a one-hit wonder.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Re: Re: Re: Time for change

Originally posted by DaveW


I can't stand this attitude. As it is the job is being left to some, rather than all of the side. Australia's batting has relied on a lot on Matthew Hayden over the last year or more. How many middle order batting collapses did we see last summer (esp against NZ)? Only they were disguised by superb performances at the top order. There is no room for passengers in the Australian side. The third test against South Africa in South Africa proved that if the players you rely on don't play to form, and you don't have a solid side of contributors, then there may be no one to back you up. Remember too Australia were looking very shaky in the first test against Pakistan, getting home by the skin of their teeth. Why? Because the work was left to too few.

Waugh and Lee should consider themselves fortunate that others are doing the job for them, for the time being.

And at what time in cricket history have Australia ever had all 11 players at the peak of their form? Every test side I can recall had at least one or two players who were having a run of "outs".
This is what good teams do ... when a couple of players are out of touch, those in form lift a cog and make up for it.
If you can't tollerate players playing below their ability then I don't think you will ever be happy with the side, no matter what they do.
Why people insist upon breaking up winning combinations I just cannot comprehend. I know this isn't cricket, but look at the Adelaide 36ers basketball team this season. They broke up a winning squad, brought in Rogers and Cattalini. Everyone said they will be a better team .... they are currently 0-4 and on the bottom of the ladder. An improvement in personel, but a drop in performance.
This is England we are playing, always the true test of Australian cricket strength. The time to make wholesale changes to the team is not just before an ashes series, but after we have beaten them.

 

[wagstaff]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Time for change

Originally posted by Adelaide Hawk


And at what time in cricket history have Australia ever had all 11 players at the peak of their form? Every test side I can recall had at least one or two players who were having a run of "outs".
This is what good teams do ... when a couple of players are out of touch, those in form lift a cog and make up for it.
If you can't tollerate players playing below their ability then I don't think you will ever be happy with the side, no matter what they do.

Brett Lee hasn't been having a run of poor form for just this series - his form has been well below par at Test level for the last 17 Tests he's played since the start of last year's Ashes tour. He would've only performed well in 3 or 4 of these matches in this period of time.

If you reason that Lee shouldn't be dropped because the Team is winning, then you could've argued more conclusively that Scott Muller shouldn't have been dropped after the two Tests that he played. His record in those matches, was if anything, better then Lee's has been in his last 17.

This is England we are playing, always the true test of Australian cricket strength. The time to make wholesale changes to the team is not just before an ashes series, but after we have beaten them.

Completely disagree. Firstly, if you're playing in the 'ulitmate test of strength', then you would want to have your best side on the field, not be carrying any players who are struggling.

Secondly, suggesting that England is the ultimate test of Australian cricket strength is an outdated notion. The ultimate Test of strength is playing against the best oppostion in the world and/or winning in a country you haven't won in recently. From that perspective, Australia's greatest challange is to win in the unconquered territories of Sri Lanka and India.