Should Katich have been picked?

[achancely]

Michael Clarke debuted in a unique set of circumstances.

Firstly, he had been playing ODIs for 18 months and had been averaging 40. So he was a long way ahead of someone like Pomersbach or White.

From the man who rabbits on about ODI form not being relevant to Tests, suddenly they are.

He was in India with the ODI squad and Boof got injured. The timing was crucial, and he basically got lucky.

Very wrong. He played the first Test WITH Boof.

Dear oh dear.

 

[hujsh]

He's unlikely to play, but he's undoubtedly part of our best squad, and that's all that matters.

He's the form batsman in the country. There is no better option as the reserve bat.

Australia's greatest asset in recent years has been experience. That's what wins series. When was the last time opting for experience backfired?

If David Hussey was named as the reserve instead of Katich, would you still be whinging about the need to "plan for the future"? I doubt it.

White's FC record is nothing special. It's certainly not impressive enough to warrant selection for this tour.

If White had been picked ahead of Katich, it would have been an absolute sham.

It would have completely undermined the notion that if you score enough runs domestically, you'll get your chance.

White's 24 years old. He's got plenty of time. If he goes back to Victoria and scores a stack of runs, he'll get his shot. There's no need to swing the pendulum and select him before he deserves it.

Again, Katich probably isn't going to play unless there's an injury.

But if someone does get injured, we want the most accomplished, most capable bat ready to step in. At the moment, that batsman is Katich. No two ways about it.

As for "planning for the future", we've got at least 2-3 years before we need to replace Hussey, Ponting and Symonds - if Roy lasts that long. There's no immediate need to fast-track an undeserving kid. The domestic competition is where young batsmen develop. By the time they're playing for Australia, they need to be at the very top of the tree. If they're 30+ when they get there, so be it.

Part of the strength of the Australian side lies in having world-class players on the fringes. A vacancy opens up, and it is quckly filled by Mike Hussey, Phil Jaques, Brad Haddin or Stuart Clark, who were ready-made Test cricketers because they had to wait. Your youth policy would have seen these guys overlooked for a kid still finding his feet. That would have sucked, wouldn't it?

Imagine if we had given Cosgrove a cap after one good season. That would have been a mistake, but people like you would have justified it on the grounds that we were "planning for the future".

Again, when was the last time opting for experience backfired?

If White and Pomersbach have another good season or two, they'll be knocking on the door. They'll be better for the wait and the team will be in a stronger position.

It's not meant to be easy to get into the Australian Test team, but you want to promote kids for the sake of it, even if they haven't earnt their opportunity. That's bad news.

Hussey is 3 years younger than Katich and hasn't had a shot. He's just young enough but that will change soon. Hodge is a fairer comparison but you ignored him.

Did you pick Shaun Udal for England in 05? You must be that guy.

Stop using Cosgrove as a point of reference. He has his own issues with fitness that is affecting his game.

White has improved his batting every season and has been in good form before and after his injury. One of the top performed batsmen this season.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

From the man who rabbits on about ODI form not being relevant to Tests, suddenly they are.

I don't rabbit on about that at all.

Solid ODI form will regularly put someone in line for Test selection. Look at Mike Hussey.

Very wrong. He played the first Test WITH Boof.

Fair call - it was Ponting's injury that allowed him to debut.

My mistake.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Because our team can't afford short-sighted silliness like that. We have to start offering squad spots (not first XI spots) based on potential. Because we're going to need those potentials very soon.

As you said - Katich is unlikely to play. Hence, he is a waste of a spot and it should be given to someone who is being groomed. I don't see how anyone who cares about Australian cricket doesn't agree with this.

This is just repetitive.

You've yet to make a compelling case for any particular player ahead of Katich.

It's just a wishy-washy youth policy. The problem is that there's no young player sufficiently deserving.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Hussey is 3 years younger than Katich and hasn't had a shot. He's just young enough but that will change soon. Hodge is a fairer comparison but you ignored him.

If Hodge had played as well as Katich has, he would also be an irresistible selection.

I don't see the point of that hypothetical.

Did you pick Shaun Udal for England in 05? You must be that guy.

Pfffttt...

Is this your best effort?

Keep trying.

 

[vtown]

I agree with Gunnar Longshanks.
- why not pick your best XI over some younger players who haven't warranted a baggy green.
- White is nowhere near the mix for test selection
- Katich by far had a stand out season and deserves everything he gets.

but also on another note, who do you think would deserve a test selection, Katich or D.Hussey, on merit that is (who is the better player)?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I agree with Gunnar Longshanks.
- why not pick your best XI over some younger players who haven't warranted a baggy green.
- White is nowhere near the mix for test selection
- Katich by far had a stand out season and deserves everything he gets.

but also on another note, who do you think would deserve a test selection, Katich or D.Hussey, on merit that is (who is the better player)?

I don't know how to measure "merit".

But I can assess performances, and on that score Katich would edge Hussey out.

In 12 months time, that may be reversed, and we'll have people whinging about Hussey getting picked ahead of an undeserving kid.

 

[achancely]

I don't rabbit on about that at all.

Solid ODI form will regularly put someone in line for Test selection. Look at Mike Hussey.

You have regularly said ODI form shouldn't influence Test selection. Particularly in your denigration of Symonds.

 

[achancely]

This is just repetitive.

You've yet to make a compelling for case for any particular player ahead of Katich.

It's just a wishy-washy youth policy. The problem is that there's no young player sufficiently deserving.

No, this is just a weak cop-out to avoid a valid argument.

The 'best available' side argument is weak and short-sighted, as pointed out, and given Katich's previous long-term proof he is not a suitable international, particularly relevant.

You haven't even managed to address the problem of our side needing a youth injection with upcoming retirements.

Don't try and brush off others by repeating the same thing again, it's immature and pre-school tactics.

 

[hujsh]

This is just repetitive.

You've yet to make a compelling for case for any particular player ahead of Katich.

It's just a wishy-washy youth policy. The problem is that there's no young player sufficiently deserving.

How about the fact that (as someone else has said) selectors have to pick players who they think will take the step up to test level. Some people are just born to play domestic cricket and when it comes to test cricket they can't handle it.


Just ask guys like Mark Ramprakash

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

You have regularly said ODI form shouldn't influence Test selection. Particularly in your denigration of Symonds.

ODI form is a factor in Test selection.

I've never said otherwise. I challenge you to find a direct quote where I've said "ODI form should have zero bearing on Test selection". There are limits on its importance, but it is definitely a factor.

I've not "denigrated" Symonds. I've merely questioned whether he was our best option at #6 - a legitimate question.

And past ODI performances can't be expected to keep Symonds in the Test side if he doesn't score runs in that form. To his credit, he appeared to have settled in the role this past summer.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

The 'best available' side argument is weak and short-sighted, as pointed out, and given Katich's previous long-term proof he is not a suitable international, particularly relevant.

It is neither weak nor short-sighted.

It is straightforward and entirely sensible.

The Test team isn't a development squad. The players in that side should be the pick of the crop.

If there was a young player deserving of selection, then I'd have no problem with selecting them at some stage. But there simply aren't any who have done enough to shade Katich.

I suppose you're pushing for Pomersbach or White instead?

You haven't even managed to address the problem of our side needing a youth injection with upcoming retirements.

Er, yeah - I have.

I addressed that in an earlier post:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10550989&postcount=48

There is not an immediate need to bring in a young player who hasn't earnt selection. It's not like there are a rash of retirements looming in the next 18 months.

Don't try and brush off others by repeating the same thing again, it's immature and pre-school tactics.

You're the one going over and over the same half-baked arguments - if you can even call them that.

I've made my case pretty thoroughly.

You just keep falling back on cliches and hyperbolic doomsday scenarios.

For your argument to succeed, you need to demonstrate that one particular player should have been included ahead of Katich. You simply haven't done that.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

How about the fact that (as someone else has said) selectors have to pick players who they think will take the step up to test level.

Er, what about it?

Your line of argument totally devalues strong FC performances over the journey.

"Forget about who's performed consistently for their state. Let's just pick a kid who played a handful of nice innings last season."

Just ask guys like Mark Ramprakash

What's your point?

Because Ramprakash struggled at Test level, we should pick an undeserving player over Katich?

That makes so much sense.

 

[hujsh]

Er, what about it?

Your line of argument totally devalues strong FC performances over the journey.

"Forget about who's performed consistently for their state. Let's just pick a kid who played a handful of nice innings last season."

What's your point?

Becuase Ramprakash struggled at Test level, we should pick an undeserving player over Katich?

That makes so much sense.

Domestic performance doesn't make a test quality player. It is up to the selectors to figure out who will perform given the opportunity, guys like Clarke. While players who have been good at domestic level (Katich Ramprakash) have not been able to step up.

Stop devaluing the performances of guys like White and Pomers. White had a very good season that was only hampered by an injury.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Domestic performance doesn't make a test quality player.

No, but they are a major criteria for selection.

Besides, on the previous page, you were banging on about how White's great FC season had put him in the mix. Now you're saying domestic performances aren't even that important.

Stop devaluing the performances of guys like White and Pomers. White had a very good season that was only hampered by an injury.

Well, is domestic performance important or not?

In the previous paragrpah, you've just said it's not the be-all and end-all. But now you're straight back into spruiking White's past domestic season.

Make up your mind.

It seems like you're happy to focus on White's domestic performances, while playing down Katich's superior achievements in the same competition.

I don't devalue the performances of White and Pomersbach.

They both had good domestic seasons. But players need more than that to push into the Australian side, especially when another player - in this case Katich - has been so dominant domestically.

 

[hujsh]

Let's just pick a kid who played a handful of nice innings last season."

No, but they are a major criteria for selection.

Besides, on the previous page, you were banging on about how White's great FC season had put him in the mix. Now you're saying domestic performances aren't even that important.

Well, is domestic performance important or not?

In the previous paragrpah, you've just said it's not the be-all and end-all. But now you're straight back into spruiking White's past domestic season.

Make up your mind.

It seems like you're happy to focus on White's domestic performances, while playing down Katich's superior achievements in the same competition.

I don't devalue the performances of White and Pomersbach.

They both had good domestic seasons. But players need more than that to push into the Australian side, especially when another player - in this case Katich - has been so dominant domestically.

Sounded like it to me. But if you didn't mean that then I'll take it back.

When Katich has failed at test level and looks like he just can't cut it his domestic performances become less important since he is not so likely to become a good test player at 33 after playing only 3 years ago.

White and Pomers have the mix of potential/talent and domestic performances that make them better selections in my eyes.

 

[achancely]

It is neither weak nor short-sighted.

It is straightforward and entirely sensible.

The Test team isn't a development squad. The players in that side should be the pick of the crop.

This is a silly view rooted in an era when Australia was dominant and could afford to not develop youngsters. When we had serious talent in our domestic ranks.

If there was a young player deserving of selection, then I'd have no problem with selecting them at some stage. But there simply aren't any who have done enough to shade Katich.

I suppose you're pushing for Pomersbach or White instead?

Not White. He's nowhere near it. Pomers maybe. Katich has proven he is not a fit for the Test side. And it hasn't changed.

Er, yeah - I have.

I addressed that in an earlier post:

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10550989&postcount=48

There is not an immediate need to bring in a young player who hasn't earnt selection. It's not like there are a rash of retirements looming in the next 18 months.

Amazingly short-sighted view. We didn't expect McGrath, Warne, Martyn, Langer and Gilchrist to retire all so suddenly either. You really are still stuck in the past.

You're the one going over and over the same half-baked arguments - if you can even call them that.

I've made my case pretty thoroughly.

You haven't made a thorough case at all. Repeating 'We must pick the best side' is not a case.

You just keep falling back on cliches and hyperbolic doomsday scenarios.

The only cliche is yours - 'we must pick the best side possible!'.

For your argument to succeed, you need to demonstrate that one particular player should have been included ahead of Katich. You simply haven't done that.

I've demonstrated Pomersbach should have been.

You also haven't explained why it would have been a disaster to give Cosgrove a cap. In fact, you haven't answered any questions whatsoever - just rabbited your cliche again and again.

 

[DIG]

hmmm, such a wacky idea to pick the best side available isn't it. Ridiculous strategy, wtf are the selectors thinking?? In fact, the selectors have publicly stated they will always pick the best side available with, yes, an eye on the future.

Katich probably won't even play this tour but if he does and then subsequently cements a spot on the team we could get another FIVE years out of him, not 1 or 2. It's not like he's 35 or 36, he wouldn't have been picked.

People so obsessed with playing kids should think hard about whether we can really afford to discard a batsman now in his prime who has previously squandered his chance, hit rock bottom, and now forced his way back with brilliant consistent cricket. Langer, Martyn, Waugh, Hayden - imagine if they had all been written off after being dropped!

But some would say, no, ignore his form. So should we turf him out 32? Can Australian cricket really afford to just discard the best domestic player of the summer?!

A player younger than Ponting, Symonds and Hussey, averaging nearly a hundred this summer, 5 centuries including a triple, with no serious younger alternative....please, seriously, this thread shouldn't have gone beyond the first page!

 

[achancely]

hmmm, such a wacky idea to pick the best side available isn't it. Ridiculous strategy, wtf are the selectors thinking?? In fact, the selectors have publicly stated they will always pick the best side available with, yes, an eye on the future.

Katich is not an 'eye on the future'. He's s tep back, a struggler at international level because he has no self-belief.

And as you said - he won't even play. So why not give a youngster like Pomersbach some time with the team?

Katich probably won't even play this tour but if he does and then subsequently cements a spot on the team we could get another FIVE years out of him, not 1 or 2.

Five years? When was the last time anyone played until 38 other than Swaugh?

Talk about ridiculous claims.

People so obsessed with playing kids should think hard about whether we can really afford to discard a batsman now in his prime who has previously squandered his chance, hit rock bottom, and now forced his way back with brilliant consistent cricket. Langer, Martyn, Waugh, Hayden - all had very similar stories, and became greats of the game.

Lol. Comparing Katich to those guys...all of whom came back earlier than 33 anyway.

But some would say, no, ignore his form. So should we turf him out 32? Can Australian cricket really afford that?!

The better question is: can Australia afford to avoid regenerating the team?

A player younger than Ponting, Symonds and Hussey,

Hardly. That's spin as good as it gets. Picking a player likely to be turfed at a similar time to those three...

averaging nearly a hundred this summer, 5 centuries including a triple,

Bevan. Lehmann. Siddons. Etc.

with no serious younger alternative

Hussey. Pomersbach.

....please, seriously, this thread shouldn't have gone beyond the first page!

Only if you think trying to spin your way out of things is acceptable.

 

[DIG]

Katich is not an 'eye on the future'. He's s tep back, a struggler at international level because he has no self-belief.

And as you said - he won't even play. So why not give a youngster like Pomersbach some time with the team?



Five years? When was the last time anyone played until 38 other than Swaugh?

Talk about ridiculous claims.




Lol. Comparing Katich to those guys...all of whom came back earlier than 33 anyway.



The better question is: can Australia afford to avoid regenerating the team?



Hardly. That's spin as good as it gets. Picking a player likely to be turfed at a similar time to those three...



Bevan. Lehmann. Siddons. Etc.



Hussey. Pomersbach.



Only if you think trying to spin your way out of things is acceptable.

lol - not a clue. You fail to justify how turfing out the best batsman outside the test team at 32, is so brilliant a move when our batting stocks are already thinner than a couple of years ago. Clearly you're blinded by your grudge against him.

His self-belief's back by the way if you'd actually watched him play.

"Regenerate the team" - o please, who's reeling out the cliches now?

Selectors obviously agree with me, not you - so this is a bit of a defunct debate don't you think?

 

[achancely]

lol - not a clue. You fail to justify how turfing out the best batsman outside the test team at 32, is so brilliant a move when our batting stocks are already thinner than a couple of years ago. Clearly you're blinded by your grudge against him.

Er, I justified it completely. You just ignored everything. I've explained quite clearly why we should bring in a young player.

His self-belief's back by the way if you'd actually watched him play.

He has always had self-belief at domestic level.

"Regenerate the team" - o please, who's reeling out the cliches now?

You think we can keep wheeling out 30-plus and stay competitive?

Sure, let's just turn over the team every couple of years, eh?

Selectors obviously agree with me, not you - so this is a bit of a defunct debate don't you think?

Wow, that's the ultimate line of the mindless.

Many things happen without our consent or approval, let's never debate them, eh?

 

[DIG]

Er, I justified it completely. You just ignored everything. I've explained quite clearly why we should bring in a young player.



He has always had self-belief at domestic level.



You think we can keep wheeling out 30-plus and stay competitive?

Sure, let's just turn over the team every couple of years, eh?



Wow, that's the ultimate line of the mindless.

Many things happen without our consent or approval, let's never debate them, eh?

Marsh, White will be touring with the odi side where they have more chance of maybe actually getting a run. Casson and Hilf will be there for the test tour. That's not enough?

If anything goes wrong with our starting XI, injury, illness or otherwise Katich is the immediate best replacement. Otherwise he sits in the shed and does nothing. Who gives a sh1t?

But what if instead we're forced to actually play someone younger who's there for the experience and he fails (see Nathan Hauritz last Indian test tour) or worse, it costs us the match. You just don't hand out baggygreens on a platter to give young-uns experience.

In a couple of years, i'd be shaking my head with you too but at 32, yes he could play for a few more years (btw 32 + 5 = 38??)

A few years back we had more than half the test team the same age at 33, did we collapse when they all retired? No, they all left at different times and we've handled the transition well by blooding the next generation through the one day side first - Huss, Pup, Roy. This strategy will continue where appropriate.

And I don't need to spin anything about his batting form, it's not like he's scored slightly more than Pomers or Dussey, he's MILES ahead.

Still, I understand why you'd prefer Pomers - hey if he did fill in and score a ton, it'd be awesome, and i understand your concern with the age of the side, but it just doesn't worry me as much for the reasons i've stated.

Clearly, nothing's going to change some people's views on Katich regardless, but i've made my point - and imo he's too far ahead of the rest, but at the same time not too old, to make his selection as a backup bat for this tour anything but an absolute no-brainer.

 

[achancely]

Marsh, White will be touring with the odi side where they have more chance of maybe actually getting a run. Casson and Hilf will be there for the test tour. That's not enough?

Casson and Hilf are bowlers.

If anything goes wrong with our starting XI, injury, illness or otherwise Katich is the immediate best replacement. Otherwise he sits in the shed and does nothing. Who gives a sh1t?

Given its the West Indies, why not bring Pomersbach along?

But what if instead we're forced to actually play someone younger who's there for the experience and he fails (see Nathan Hauritz last Indian test tour)

Are you clueless? Hauritz did very well on debut. He's not worth persisting with, but he got plaudits for that performance.

or worse, it costs us the match. You just don't hand out baggygreens on a platter to give young-uns experience.

When it's the West Indies and we still have a side strong enough to afford it, you do. We've done it before when we were rebuilding, and it is time to do it again.

In a couple of years, i'd be shaking my head with you too but at 32, yes he could play for a few more years (btw 32 + 5 = 38??)

5 more years? And he's almost 33, let's not pretend.

A few years back we had more than half the test team the same age at 33, did we collapse when they all retired? No, they all left at different times and we've handled the transition well by blooding the next generation through the one day side first - Huss, Pup, Roy. This strategy will continue where appropriate.

You do realise we were in a golden era then in terms of talent in and around the side? You're living in the past.

And I don't need to spin anything about his batting form, it's not like he's scored slightly more than Pomers or Dussey, he's MILES ahead.

Both are younger and better fits. Katich has proven he is not international class.

Still, I understand why you'd prefer Pomers - hey if he did fill in and score a ton, it'd be awesome, and i understand your concern with the age of the side, but it just doesn't worry me as much for the reasons i've stated.

Unlike you, I don't believe we have the luxury we had a few years back. Our peripheral players and domestic performers are considerably weaker now, as India proved.

Clearly, nothing's going to change some people's views on Katich regardless, but i've made my point - and imo he's too far ahead of the rest, but at the same time not too old, to make his selection as a backup bat for this tour anything but an absolute no-brainer.

If it was India, I might agree. As it is the West Crappies, it was the perfect time to blood a Pomersbach or Dussey.

 

[DIG]

Casson and Hilf are bowlers.

Er, i know that. My point was how many younger players do we bring for experience, or should we turn this into an Under 19s tour, just cos it's the windies.

Are you clueless? Hauritz did very well on debut. He's not worth persisting with, but he got plaudits for that performance.

Bollocks - he bowled well at times, but it was a spinners paradise and in the 2nd innings when the game was on the line, his long hops got carted while the part-timer, Clarke took 6/9. Nothing against Hauritz, they just ____ed up not taking MacGill as backup and being forced to use the work-experience kid instead.

When it's the West Indies and we still have a side strong enough to afford it, you do. We've done it before when we were rebuilding, and it is time to do it again.

I disagree, until Pomers or Dussey have mounted similar figures to Katich - even if they were somewhere close to him then we do, but not yet. Besides we're sending other youngsters to the Windies with a view to the future, and Dussey himself will probably work his way in through the one-day side, like Mike did.

Both are younger and better fits. Katich has proven he is not international class.

How are they better fits? Cos of their age? What a crock, Katich has done everything asked of him to force his way back.

Our peripheral players and domestic performers are considerably weaker now, as India proved.

Well exactly - so why one earth would we just discard the next batsman in line? Would be insanity.

If it was India, I might agree. As it is the West Crappies, it was the perfect time to blood a Pomersbach or Dussey.

Again i disagree, and you're not going to be able to change my mind on this.
You've written off Katich based on his past. There's so so many examples of players coming back better, Hopes probably our most recent. Believe it or not i've never liked Katich much either, but his recent form, especially this summer just could not be ignored by the selectors, and so it wasn't. If he does find a spot, cements it and helps us win crucial coming series vs India, SAF and then retain the Ashes that'd be brilliant. For this tour, the selectors felt they were looking to the future enough through the several other young selections they made in both test and one-day squads, no need to axe Katich - with 16 man squads they got the best of both worlds.

 

[achancely]

I don't think we're going to change each other's mind. Respect your opinion, but disagree. Think we need to look forward, not stagnate.