Your Aussie World Cup side

[BW]

1. A.Gilchrist
2. M.Hayden
3. R.Ponting
4. D.Martyn
5. J.Maher
6. M.Bevan
7. S.Watson
8. B.Lee
9. S.Warne
10. J.Gillespie
11. G.McGrath

12. B.Hogg
13. A.Noffke
14. D.Lehmann
15. S.Waugh

 

[bluechampion]

conceded

Bunsen, I concede.

I have nothing but a personal preference for Bevan to bat at 4. The only thing I have is a belief that He's scored half his centuries when at 4 (the others scored at 6 or 7).

Oh, the shame.

Also, i believe that Maher scores faster than Martyn only because that is how they appear. Statisitcs probably do not back this up. It's simple perception, and as I've said, i simply don't rate Martyn very highly.

But to casue further discussion, I'm of the opinion that Australia should select Cameron White in the 5th Test - just to see how he goes.

 

[Zombie]

Why the hell would anyone want Jimmy Maher in their WC squad let alone starting 11? What he did in the 'A' match was disgusting and proved to me how much of a tos ser he is, I mean racing your captain to the non danger end and then diving into the crease to make sure you don't get out even though it was the other guys call is pretty low.

Personally I think he is an average bat, he wouldn't bring anything to the squad that isn't already there. As for dropping Martyn for him, that is just stupid, Martyn is twice the batsmen Maher is.

 

[roostersgal4eva]

1. Hayden
2. Gilchrist
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. Lehmann
6. Blewett
7. Bevan
8. Warne(Hauriz if warne unavalable)
9. Lee
10. Gillespie
11. McGrath
------------------------------------
12. Bichel
13. Watson - Been put in far too early, making a mess of his delevopment imho
14. Maher
15. Williams

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: conceded

Originally posted by bluechampion

But to casue further discussion, I'm of the opinion that Australia should select Cameron White in the 5th Test - just to see how he goes.

I haven't seen enough of White to make an proper opinion, but I suspect that it would be a gamble. I would prefer MacGill play in both tests to give the selectors a chance to have a look at him before the WC. Any blooding of new players should be left until after the WC (except maybe Hauritz in the ODIs).

BTW. I really don't like MacGill as a person (went to school with him), but I don't take that into account when weighing up his talent. I just think he has that extra bit of talent and tunnel-visioned desire that hauritz and Co lack.

 

[Nige_Bix]

Originally posted by RoosLuver
Ricky Ponting - C
Adam Gilchrist - VC
Michael Bevan
Andy Bichel
Ryan Campbell
Jason Gillespie
Nathan Hauritz
Matty Hayden
Brett Lee
Darren Lehmann
Jimmy Maher
Damien Martyn
Glenn McGrath
Shane Warne - I reckon he will make it
Shane Watson

Opinions welcome!!

I'd agree - almost - but with Hogg getting the nod over Hauritz i'd say he might sneak in.

McGill for the tests but dont think Hohns & Co want him in ODI's.

 

[Jaymin]

My squad:

1. Hayden
2. Gilchrist
3. Ponting
4. Martyn
5. Lehmann
6. Bevan
7. Blewett
8. Lee
9. Hogg
10. Gillespie
11. McGrath

12. Maher
13. Hauritz
14. Bichel
15. Watson

Warne won't make it....not fully fit anyway...so don't play him.

 

[Portmanteau]

Matthew Hayden
Adam Gilchrist
Ricky Ponting
Damien Martyn
Darren Lehmann
Michael Bevan
Jimmy Maher
Brett Lee
Jason Gillespie
Stuart MacGill
Glenn McGrath

Greg Blewett
Andy Bichel
Shane Watson
Justin Langer

 

[hourn]

1. Adam Gilchrist
2. Matt Hayden
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Michael Bevan
5. Damien Martyn
6. Darren Lehmann
7. Shane Watson
8. Shane Warne (if fit)
9. Brett Lee
10. Jason Gillespie
11. Glenn McGrath

12. Jimmy Maher
13. Andy Symonds
14. Nathan Hauritz
15. Ashley Noffke

(if Warne is unfit go MacGill in the starting 11 - need an attacking spinner, and if there is a situation where Australia wants to play 2 spinners use both Hauritz and MacGill)

Bunsen Burner,

Bevan's average batting at 4 is 60.00 and his average at 6 is 60.44. You can't pull straws and say, "exactly, he's got a higher average at 6" because we all know the difference between 60.00 and 60.44 is negligable.

Also, when you take into account the fact Bevan has a much higher percantage of not outs batting number 6 then batting number 4, you could say that he is perhaps a better number 4 batsmen then number 6.

Also, someone like Lehmann is much more suited to a down the order type role where he can come in with 15-20 overs to go and get moving from the start, whereas Bevan usually takes a good 30 to 40 balls before he starts getting his scoring rate along, which at times can be too late in the innings, while batting at number 4 gives him time to get settled.

Perhaps the more pressing concern for Bevan is that his form has dropped dramatically this year, only averaging a tad over 30, and doesn't seem to be getting better. If it keeps going much longer he'll get the pressure put on him, but he will be there for a while still cause he is arguably the best ODI player ever.

My squad is a pretty stock standard squad, the current 11 starting players who i reckon are doing a pretty good job, with a backup batsmen in Jimmy Maher. I also wouldn't mind experimenting with Maher opening and batting Hayden at 5/6/7.

Andy Symonds the backup batting all rounder and Hauritz the backup spinner, who can bat a bit and Noffke is the choice of quick bowler at the moment, although Bracken is the next man in the picture for mine.

 

[hourn]

Also, further adding to my reasons behind Bevan at 4, is that if he comes in at 2/10, he can settle the innings down then, instead of coming in and we're say 4/30 and by then its too late to get the innings back on track.

Although i agree if Gilly, Hayden or Ponting go berserk like in the last game, then there is no point in bringing in Bevan with 10 overs to go because he will slow the inninsg down - at the point momentum is needed and someone like Lehmann should come out then and Bevan should move down the list until there are no options left who can score quickly early on.

 

[bunsen burner]

They're pretty good reasons, but I am still adamant that he is miles better than anyone else at 6, but not miles better than anyone else at 4.

BTW. where did you get your stats for his averages at positions 4 & 6? I was going by memory of a commentary box discussion a few years ago and concluded that bevan's average is much higher at #6.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

From Left field

...or maybe from the past.

What do we need at the World cup?

A guy who can bat the innings, with big hitting late = Hayden/Watson
A guy who can pace the entire innings, without taking too many risks = Ponting/Bevan/Martyn
A guy who can score at a run-a-ball from go = Lehmann
A guy who can go the big hit from go = Gilchrist

Hmm...first 15 overs we want a big hitter....last 10 have been a let-down for us (others seem to push 80+, we make 60-70).

What about:

Hayden (batting aggressively but normally)
Watson/Symonds (Going the tonk, over-the-top early on)
Martyn (batting aggressively, but normally)
Ponting (batting aggressively, but normally)
Bevan (batting aggressively, but normally)
Lehmann (batting aggressively, but normally)
Gilchrist (Going the tonk, over-the-top early on)
...
Bowlers

Basically, Hayden and Watson (or Symonds) open. Target is 70-80 after 10, with Watson have 50 off 30, Hayden run-a-ball. Martyn at three (run-a-ball), then Ponting. Depending on the situation, either Bevan (if earlier than 30 overs), Lehmann (30-40), or Gilchrist (post 40 overs).

Hayden/Watson/Martyn = overs 0-10
Ponting = 10-20
Bevan = 20-30
Lehmann = 30-40
Gilchrist = 40-50

This removes some pressure from Watson in the all-rounder position (removing the 'reliance' on him - if he fails others can do the work), whilst ensuring our 'best' option is going in at the right time.

And having Gilchrist up your sleeve can only be good.

(If we choose to go with 5 bowlers (unlikely IMO), then Martyn would open).

 

[bunsen burner]

Re: From Left field

Originally posted by Simon_Nesbit


What do we need at the World cup?

A guy who can bat the innings, with big hitting late = Hayden/Watson
A guy who can pace the entire innings, without taking too many risks = Ponting/Bevan/Martyn
A guy who can score at a run-a-ball from go = Lehmann
A guy who can go the big hit from go = Gilchrist

and...

A guy who can win a match off his own back when we are desperate. You can't do this batting at #4.

 

[EagleBlue]

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Lehmann
Martyn
Bevan
Watson
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

12. Blewett
13. Bichel
14. Maher
15. Hauritz

If Warne not fit. Play Hauritz. Add McGill to squad

 

[hourn]

I got those stats from CricInfo - Bevan - ODI player that particular position stat is towards the middle-bottom area.

How can a player not win a game off his back from number 4. There is more chance of doing so because a batsmen gets more time to get settled and pace his innings before going for it at the end like Bevan tends to do.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by hourn


How can a player not win a game off his back from number 4. There is more chance of doing so because a batsmen gets more time to get settled and pace his innings before going for it at the end like Bevan tends to do.

I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

Just answer me this question:

If Australia are 5/87 after 20 overs chasing 219, who would you prefer to be at the crease? You can pick any batsmen in the world.

 

[hourn]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say.

Just answer me this question:

If Australia are 5/87 after 20 overs chasing 219, who would you prefer to be at the crease? You can pick any batsmen in the world.

Obviousbly Bevan.

But if Australia are 2/30 i'd like Bevan to come in then and stop the rut at that point rather than let it go onto 5/87 when things are just about to impossible to curb. Don't you think that would be a little more ideal??

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by hourn
Obviousbly Bevan.

But if Australia are 2/30 i'd like Bevan to come in then and stop the rut at that point rather than let it go onto 5/87 when things are just about to impossible to curb. Don't you think that would be a little more ideal??

Do you really think if we put Martyn in at #4, we would be risking losing the game? But you want to put Bevan in at #4 and risk losing the games where the top 5 don't fire?


By putting Bevan at #4 we probably wouldn't win extra games - we would just lose more of the games when the top five fail. I fail to see a profit here.

We're not really any better off with bevan at #4. Not only are we not better off, but we are in fact worse off.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by hourn
Obviousbly Bevan.

But if Australia are 2/30 i'd like Bevan to come in then and stop the rut at that point rather than let it go onto 5/87 when things are just about to impossible to curb. Don't you think that would be a little more ideal??

- Do you think that Bevan can stop the rut every time?

- What happens when it is 5/87 and Bevan is in the pavillion?

- You can't avoid these situations, and God help us if it is in a knockout WC match. This is why Bevan has to bat down the order. We would be mad to have that luxury and not use it.

 

[hourn]

Originally posted by bunsen burner
Do you really think if we put Martyn in at #4, we would be risking losing the game? But you want to put Bevan in at #4 and risk losing the games where the top 5 don't fire?


By putting Bevan at #4 we probably wouldn't win extra games - we would just lose more of the games when the top five fail. I fail to see a profit here.

We're not really any better off with bevan at #4. Not only are we not better off, but we are in fact worse off.

If the top 5 fail then it doesn't matter who you've got - your going to struggle to win.

By putting Bevan at 4 my theory is it simply gives us something to fall back on earlier and to stop the rut earlier. I think in the end we'd probably have teh same results, as there may be times when Bevan gets out and were 3for not much and in all soughts, but there may be other times where Bevan gets himself stuck in and guides us to a good score if you know what i mean.

I dont think it would change too much and the end "net" result would be basically the same.

 

[bunsen burner]

Originally posted by hourn
If the top 5 fail then it doesn't matter who you've got - your going to struggle to win.

This is my whole point. You seem to have forgotten the times that Bevan has won us a game from this position.

Any other situation won't really matter whether Martyn or Bevan goes in - like you said the result will be roundabout the same. But those few times when we are in a rut, it is better to have Bevan in the centre rather than the pavillion. It only takes one WC knockout match to make it worthwhile bevan batting at #6.

Now let's see if you can follow this logic:

99% of games = no real difference if Bevan or Martyn bat at #4. Over time we would be likely to win about the same amount of games.

1% of games = If Bevan bats at #4 at gets out, we have a very distinguishable higher chance of losing. If he bats at #6, we have a chance of winning - BECAUSE HE HAS DONE MORE TIMES THAN ANY OTHER PLAYER.

What if this 1%er was a WC qtr final, semi final, or final? Would it be worth batting Bevan at #4 all summer to risk a higher chance of losing an important game?

 

[bunsen burner]

One more question:

Everyone thinks Ricky Ponting and Dean Jones are great ODI cricketers. But can you pinpoint specific deeds in specific matches that make them great? Probably not. You could single out Ponting's fielding and Jones ball placement, but you can't pinpoint certain matches.

Everyone thinks Michael Bevan is a great ODI cricketer. But can you pinpoint specific deeds in specific matches that make them great? YES. Nearly every person in the country associates Bevan with those two innings where he won matches from unwinnable positions - off his own bat.

This is what Bevan made his name on. This is his strength. This is also a strength of the team.

And you want to ignore that and play him at #4???????