Should Katich have been picked?

[Gunnar Longshanks]

This argument is bad, flawed and short-sighted.

New players - whether young or old rarely do a Mike Hussey and take to Test cricket as soon as they start out. There is almost always an adjutment period.

Sometimes it is best to pick a young player in an otherwise strong side where they can find their feet and any (expected) low scores/poor bowling performances are not overall damaging to the side.

Waiting until a bunch of players retire and picking some 'well-performing' Shield players, who will still take their time finding their feet, is a flawed strategy - as this India tour has proven. White has been hopeless, although Watson has done reasonably well.

Recognising a changing team and having the foresight to plan for it is the mark of good cricket selectors. Your dullard argument leads us to thrashings like the 2nd Test. A bunch of desperation picks who, despite strong first-class consistency, are too new to Test cricket.

Your opposition to blooding youngsters is horribly thoughtless.

I don't obect to blooding all youngsters in all situations.

I object to picking a player who hasn't earned his stripes when there is a more deserving, more acomplished candidate pushing for the same spot.

Do you still think it was a mistake to pick Katich? Should we have picked Pomersbach instead?

 

[achancely]

I don't obect to blooding all youngsters in all situations.

I object to picking a player who hasn't earned his stripes when there is a more deserving, more acomplished candidate pushing for the same spot.

Do you still think it was a mistake to pick Katich? Should we have picked Pomersbach instead?

In the West Indies, yes. As I said at the time.

In India, with a side in trouble and Symonds AWOL? No, it wasn't a mistake to pick Katich. But then, I also think there was room for both. Katich is a better spinner than White, and Pomersbach could therefore have played in White's spot if he'd done well in West Indies.

We'd lose nothing by playing Pomersbach over White. We'd gain in batting and Katich would get more overs, which is preferable.

 

[BluesMan]

Yes katich should of been picked, he has been quite consistent, now has a chance at a ton + today!

 

[blackhead&boil]

This argument is bad, flawed and short-sighted.

New players - whether young or old rarely do a Mike Hussey and take to Test cricket as soon as they start out. There is almost always an adjutment period.

Sometimes it is best to pick a young player in an otherwise strong side where they can find their feet and any (expected) low scores/poor bowling performances are not overall damaging to the side.

Waiting until a bunch of players retire and picking some 'well-performing' Shield players, who will still take their time finding their feet, is a flawed strategy - as this India tour has proven. White has been hopeless, although Watson has done reasonably well.

Recognising a changing team and having the foresight to plan for it is the mark of good cricket selectors. Your dullard argument leads us to thrashings like the 2nd Test. A bunch of desperation picks who, despite strong first-class consistency, are too new to Test cricket.

Your opposition to blooding youngsters is horribly thoughtless.

except that they didn't just wait until a bunch of established players retired, and they have been blooding youngsters.

katich has been around for quite a while. he has a few test tons under his belt, and a couple of tours, as well. as for the younger players, they have been gradually introduced through one-day cricket and some (clarke and johnson) have been in the side for a while.

basically, you need two things. 1, you need a combination of youth and experience. 2, you need to pick the best youth and the best experience. you can't have a side full only of young players or old players, just as you can't have all dashers or all stodgers. but they key element in any selection is that you are picking the best quality. there's no point in picking young players who just won't make it...

*coughwhitecough*