Should Katich have been picked?

[Gunnar Longshanks]

We didn't expect McGrath, Warne, Martyn, Langer and Gilchrist to retire all so suddenly either.

It's not particularly relevant to the topic, but we had every reason to expect those retirements.

How old were these guys when they pulled the pin? 36? 37?

Hardly a surprise for a 36-year-old cricketer to retire.

I've demonstrated Pomersbach should have been.

No.

You absolutely haven't.

Pomersbach hasn't done enough. If he's your only candidate, then it's easy to see why Katich got the nod.

I think you're exaggerating the peril facing the Australian side. You talk about impending retirements as though they're 6 months away.

The reality is that Hayden will probably be next to go, and that will be after the 2009 Ashes. After that, there mightn't be another retirement for at least two years.

So it's not like we're going to lose many players in the immediate future. Any exodus would be 2-3 years off. Let's be clear on that. In that time, we need some younger players to show they're ready to play for Australia. But at the moment, those players haven't done enough. That's why we've picked Katich. He's the form batsman in the country, and those players in their 20s need to do more.

There will come a time when we need to pick some younger players. But that need is not upon us yet, and none of the candidates, except Hussey who is next in line, have done enough to deserve selection. That's why we've picked Katich.

You can have the last word. But repeating yourself over and over about "eyes on the future" won't convince anyone.

 

[johnnyhoward]

That killed off any chance D. Hussey had of getting into the side, well done Kato. He's got the runs on the board this season so should have been picked. We've seen the runs record broken 3 times in the past few years by older players - first Elliott, then Bevan, now Katich - hopefully Katich will have more success if he returns.

 

[achancely]

It's not particularly relevant to the topic, but we had every reason to expect those retirements.

How old were these guys when they pulled the pin? 36? 37?

Hardly a surprise for a 36-year-old cricketer to retire.

Don't be revisionist. No one was expecting them all to retire so suddenly. All signs pointed to the next Ashes.

No.

You absolutely haven't.

Pomersbach hasn't done enough. If he's your only candidate, then it's easy to see why Katich got the nod.

Not at all, unless you look only at raw numbers.

I think you're exaggerating the peril facing the Australian side. You talk about impending retirements as though they're 6 months away.

The reality is that Hayden will probably be next to go, and that will be after the 2009 Ashes. After that, there mightn't be another retirement for at least two years.

Are you so sure? That's what we thought about the players mentioned above.

So it's not like we're going to lose many players in the immediate future. Any exodus would be 2-3 years off. Let's be clear on that.

This isn't a fact, and don't state it as such. Referring to your own argument at proof is a weak tactic.

In that time, we need some younger players to show they're ready to play for Australia. But at the moment, those players haven't done enough. That's why we've picked Katich. He's the form batsman in the country, and those players in their 20s need to do more.

Again - so was Elliott. So was Lehmann. So was Bevan. It means nothing.

There will come a time when we need to pick some younger players. But that need is not upon us yet, and none of the candidates, except Hussey who is next in line, have done enough to deserve selection. That's why we've picked Katich.

Clarke didn't deserve selection either. Sometimes you have to take a gamble. You have yet to refute this, nor have you refuted our need to regenerate, nor have you refuted the fact we are playing the Windies.

Poor attempt to finish up an argument with a call to the higher ground as below then...

You can have the last word. But repeating yourself over and over about "eyes on the future" won't convince anyone.

Because repeating 'Katich broke the record!' isn't convincing either.

 

[hujsh]

When's the cricket start

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Don't be revisionist. No one was expecting them all to retire so suddenly. All signs pointed to the next Ashes.

Are you kidding? What signs?

Warne maybe. But none of the others were going to last to 2009.

If you expected Langer and McGrath to last that long, you were kidding yourself. I don't think many shared those illusions.

Are you so sure? That's what we thought about the players mentioned above.

Look at the ages of the players we're talking about.

The guys who retired were 35-37. How could anyone be surprised when a player that age retires?

The oldest guys currently in the side, apart from Hayden, are 32-33. That gives them all at least two more years. I think that's pretty reasonable.

This isn't a fact, and don't state it as such. Referring to your own argument at proof is a weak tactic.

Pffffttt...

Whatever, champ.

You keep talking about this rash of impending retirements, but, Hayden aside, our oldest bats could quite easily stick around for another 3 years.

You can disagree with that, but don't just huff and puff about an entirely reasonable observation.

Again - so was Elliott. So was Lehmann. So was Bevan. It means nothing.

That Katich is the best candidate means nothing?

Those other guys were overlooked because they were either too old or there were better options when they were in their peak.

It's bad luck for them, but ultimately they were victims of timing. Katich has produced a great season when there aren't as many viable candidates for the reserve batting spot.

So he gets picked. Simple.

Clarke didn't deserve selection either. Sometimes you have to take a gamble. You have yet to refute this, nor have you refuted our need to regenerate, nor have you refuted the fact we are playing the Windies.

I agree that Clarke was lucky.

But he had been playing ODIs for 18 months. That put him ahead of Pomersbach or whoever else you're pushing for.

I have refuted our "need to regenerate". As outlined again in this post, that need is not so immediate that we should pick bats who haven't earnt selection.

How would I refute the fact we're playing the West Indies? I agree that we're playing the West Indies. I think everyone does. We should still pick our best side.

 

[achancely]

Are you kidding? What signs?

Warne maybe. But none of the others were going to last to 2009.

If you expected Langer and McGrath to last that long, you were kidding yourself. I don't think many shared those illusions.

Actually, most did. Read the paper.

Look at the ages of the players we're talking about.

The guys who retired were 35-37. How could anyone be surprised when a player that age retires?

The oldest guys currently in the side, apart from Hayden, are 32-33. That gives them all at least two more years. I think that's pretty reasonable.

So you want a rash of retirements in 3 years. Great.

Pffffttt...

Whatever, champ.

You keep talking about this rash of impending retirements, but, Hayden aside, our oldest bats could quite easily stick around for another 3 years.

You can disagree with that, but don't just huff and puff about an entirely reasonable observation.

When you use it as proof of your own argument, I have to.

That Katich is the best candidate means nothing?

Using your argument that he is the best candidate as proof again.

Those other guys were overlooked because they were either too old or there were better options when they were in their peak.

Incorrect. As old as Katich, and by default they were th best option as Katich was. They far outstripped the competition.

Your own argument is shot apart by Bevan, Elliott and Lehmann.

It's bad luck for them, but ultimately they were victims of timing. Katich has produced a great season when there aren't as many viable candidates for the reserve batting spot.

Hussey. Pomersbach.

I have refuted our "need to regenerate". As outlined again in this post, that need is not so immediate that we should pick bats who haven't earnt selection.

you haven't refuted it. You've just pooh-poohed it. That's not the same thing.

How would I refute the fact we're playing the West Indies? I agree that we're playing the West Indies. I think everyone does. We should still pick our best side.

Why waste an opportunity to give a spot to someone who, in your own words, probably won't get a game and give it to someone expected to play a longer term role - so they feel a part of the team and have some squad experience already?

You've yet to come up with a single viable argument refuting this.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Actually, most did. Read the paper.

This does not constitute an argument.

If you think people expected those players to continue, provide something to support that view. Don't expect me to do it for you.

Those players would all be in their late-30s by the time of the 2009 Ashes. The real surprise would have been them lasting that long.

So you want a rash of retirements in 3 years. Great.

The point is that these retirements aren't going to happen as soon as you're suggesting.

There is not an immediate need to bring in a young player who hasn't earnt his spot.

We have more time to play with than you've acknowledged.

When you use it as proof of your own argument, I have to.

I'm not using it as proof of anything.

It's an entirely reasonable observation, which punctures your doom-and-gloom outlook.

And rather than acknowledge or engage it, you've responded with meaningless lip service. That's totally inadequate.

Using your argument that he is the best candidate as proof again.

I'm just responding to your bizarre assertion that Katich being the best candidate is meaningless.

He was the best-performed bat in the domestic comp. That puts him right at the top of the list, especially when the young bats haven't done enough.

Incorrect. As old as Katich, and by default they were th best option as Katich was. They far outstripped the competition.

Your own argument is shot apart by Bevan, Elliott and Lehmann.

You actually have to demonstrate this. You can't just flatly state it as though that's sufficient.

At what stage of their careers do you think these guys should have been recalled?

I reckon they were either older than Katich at that point - Katich is only 32 - and/or were behind more candidates than Katich is currently.

Hussey. Pomersbach.

Hussey is unlucky, but ultimately Katich was better-performed.

Pomersbach hasn't done enough. He wasn't even offered an ACB contract, so I think that suggests he needs to back it up with another good season before being seriously considered.

Why waste an opportunity to give a spot to someone who, in your own words, probably won't get a game and give it to someone expected to play a longer term role - so they feel a part of the team and have some squad experience already?

Simply because there are no young players who have done enough. This is becoming repetitive.

Katich and Hussey were the only two viable options. Katich got the nod because he was better-performed domestically.

 

[achancely]

This is going round in circles. When you keep hiding from the fact your argument falls apart due to Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan, there's no point continuing. It's just not good enough.

 

[Hass]

This is going round in circles. When you keep hiding from the fact your argument falls apart due to Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan, there's no point continuing. It's just not good enough.

I find it funny that your argumment places so much weight on Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan not being recalled at similar points in their careers. But it's a furphy.

Lehmann was dropped from the test side in early 1999 as a 28 year-old.

He was recalled to the team in late 2002 as a 32-year-old. Lehmann played for another two years averaging 49. Katich is currently 32-years-old.

Elliott was dropped from the test side as a 27-year-old in 1999. He was recalled in 2004 as a, wait for it... 32-year-old. Unfortunately for him he only scored one run in two innings and Ponting returned from injury in the very next match.

It is true that Michael Bevan never received a recall after being dropped as a 27-year-old. I think that was unfair. But it must be remembered that Bevan did get pigeon-holed as a one-day specialist.

While Bevan had many good seasons in Shield Cricket after being dropped, his presence in the one-day team meant he never got a chance to completely dominate a first-class season. He did so in 2004/5 after he'd departed the one-day scene, but by that stage he was 34 - a couple of years older than Katich, Lehmann and Elliott at the times of their recalls.

Cheers.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

This is going round in circles. When you keep hiding from the fact your argument falls apart due to Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan, there's no point continuing. It's just not good enough.

But you haven't provided any detail about Bevan, Lehmann and Elliott.

You've just mentioned their names as though the fact they missed selection somehow proves we shouldn't have picked Katich.

That's inadequate.

If you want to build an argument around these guys, then go ahead. But you haven't done that, you've just mentioned them as though that alone constitutes a valid point.

The reality is that different situations will deliver different outcomes for different players.

At what stage in their careers should these guys have been brought back into the Test side? I would argue that they were either too old to be seriously considered and/or were behind too many other candidates to crack a spot.

Either way, these examples don't directly engage the decision to recall Katich. You're choosing to focus on flawed parallels rather than demonstrating that there is someone currently more deserving of a spot than Katich.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

I find it funny that your argumment places so much weight on Elliott, Lehmann and Bevan not being recalled at similar points in their careers. But it's a furphy.

Lehmann was dropped from the test side in early 1999 as a 28 year-old.

He was recalled to the team in late 2002 as a 32-year-old. Lehmann played for another two years averaging 49. Katich is currently 32-years-old.

Elliott was dropped from the test side as a 27-year-old in 1999. He was recalled in 2004 as a, wait for it... 32-year-old. Unfortunately for him he only scored one run in two innings and Ponting returned from injury in the very next match.

It is true that Michael Bevan never received a recall after being dropped as a 27-year-old. I think that was unfair. But it must be remembered that Bevan did get pigeon-holed as a one-day specialist.

While Bevan had many good seasons in Shield Cricket after being dropped, his presence in the one-day team meant he never got a chance to completely dominate a first-class season. He did so in 2004/5 after he'd departed the one-day scene, but by that stage he was 34 - a couple of years older than Katich, Lehmann and Elliott at the times of their recalls.

That's very interesting.

I await chancely's response.

I think the bottom line with Elliott is that he eventually found himself stuck behind Langer and Hayden, and that was basically curtains for him. No amount of FC runs was going to break that partnership.

As for Lehmann, look at the guys who kept him out of the side. He suffered from having the Waugh twins as fixtures in the middle order. Langer went through there and then Ponting emerged. Boof was unlucky, but there was enough quality in the middle order at that stage to keep him out of the side.

Bevan was too far gone from the Test side to push his way back in aged 34. He was no longer in the frame. It had been 6-7 years since he played a Test? At 34, he was never going to be recalled.

These guys missed out either because they were too old or because there were better candidates ahead of them.

That is not the case with Katich. That is why he has been recalled.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

How could anyone make a convincing case for anyone but Katich to be given the nod is beyond me.

Brad Hodge has had his chances at both Test and ODI level and still has a technique that will have him struggle against a attack who can move the ball. At his age, he won't get a gig in the test side unless injuiries hit a few players. His ODI perfomance in October also didn't do him any favours and he offers little in the field.

He is a solid middle order batsmen but i can't see him coming in unless 2 or 3 batsmen get injured or lose form in spectacular fashion.

Katich performed well for us in India in 2004 at number 3, probably the most important position in the batting lineup, those performances are not forgotten by selectors, and while he had an ordinary Ashes tour in 2005, he at stages fought hard and grinded out runs during the tour when other players such as Martyn, Hayden and Clarke either hit a couple of 4's or got out. Thoser performances are not forgotten.

At this time it was clear Katich also had a technical problem involving to much movement at the crease, mainly his pronounced back foot movement which IMO affected his game in several ways

1) Made it harder for him to know where his off stump was (see Ashes 2005, letting a flintoff ball cannon into his off stump, and sparing at balls 2 feet wide of off stump producing easy catchs to the umbrella field)

2) Secondly, this movement ment he was on the move while playing his shots and his head wasn't still, against decent bowling attacks, these 2 flaws spell a form slump.

By all accounts and the opinion from respected judges is that Katich has fixed this flaw and is once again back in the runs against decent domestic judges.

He is more then capable of stepping up if needed IMO, he also offers left arm chinaman and is a capable gully fieldsmen, something that should not be taken lightly considering our fielding efforts of late.

He also appears respected within the team and has touring experience of England, a tour which should be at the apex of our masterplan.

Not to mention his experience of the subcontinent gained during 2004, which will be invaluable considering Jacques, Hussey, Haddin, Symonds have yet to play a test on Indian soil.

Katich is the type of gritty player that we need, in India especially, wickets can fall very quickly, a team can be 0 for 100 and 5 minutes later they can literally be 3 or 4 wickets down. A quick check back through scorecards from our last 2 Indian tours in 2001 and 2004 will reveal that this scenario can happen more often then other venues around the world.

Katich provides a lot to the team, sure other players will also provide certain attributes, but Katich has the experience and the ability to get hard runs, a attribute that we will need our batsmen to have in the coming 18 months.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

How could anyone make a convincing case for anyone but Katich to be given the nod is beyond me.

I agree.

But others believe we should be blooding a younger batsman, especially when Katich is unlikely to play in India.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

I agree.

But others believe we should be blooding a younger batsman, especially when Katich is unlikely to play in India.

This "blooding" talk gives me the shits.

IMO "blooding" suggests that a player is getting a game based on his age and the need to look to the future rather then 100% merit.

Its another one of those terms that people seem to use which really means ____ all.

Today it is obvious that all batsmen and even the bowlers need to make a contribution with the bat, obviously the top 6 batsmen will need to make the bulk of the runs, no team can afford carrying a young batsmen in a test match just to blood them, the very use of the term suggests that in normal circumstances they would not be picked due to the fact that they simply are not good enough at this stage.

ODI's are the place to blood batsmen, Shaun Marsh is a perfect example, in this format players can face an international attack and get used to the surrounds of this form of cricket. This is the perfect place to "blood" a batsmen. Michael Clarke was given a gig in the One day team 2 years before he got his debut.

Over the years the young batsmen who have played in the test team at a young age are Ricky Ponting and Michael Clarke. Rod Marsh and Ian Chappel had been saying that Ponting was a gun before he turned 18, they were right, but Ponting had the weapons to combat a good attack, he could pull and cut and drive. Same with Clarke, everyone knew they were stars, and they rightly got the gig after good performances.

There is no young batsmen who deserves to play for Australian Test team at this stage, there is a reasonable chance Katich will play for the Australian test team over the next 18 months if any player gets injured or loses form, especially in a country like India, where players can get gastro and what not.

This talk of Katich being unlikely to play shits me as well, if anything happens and we have a young batsmen who is on tour for "blooding" then what the ____ is going to happen if a player wakes up the morning of a test with bombay belly, remember what happened when Warney cracked his thumb and Hauritz got the gig, everyone back here was screaming how disgraceful it was, and how Macgill should have been on the tour.

Some of you mob have short memories, leave the cricket discussion to the big boys.

 

[hujsh]

This talk of Katich being unlikely to play shits me as well, if anything happens and we have a young batsmen who is on tour for "blooding" then what the ____ is going to happen if a player wakes up the morning of a test with bombay belly, remember what happened when Warney cracked his thumb and Hauritz got the gig, everyone back here was screaming how disgraceful it was, and how Macgill should have been on the tour.

Main difference is it's our batsmen vs Windies bowlers.

Far different to trying to bowl out the Indians at home on dusty pitches where a spinner would be the main weapon and the young bowler was that spinner.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Main difference is it's our batsmen vs Windies bowlers.

Far different to trying to bowl out the Indians at home on dusty pitches where a spinner would be the main weapon and the young bowler was that spinner.

We're playing the West Indies, who are crap. That's true.

Doesn't mean we start devaluing spots in the side.

Those guys are still playing for their country and we should be picking the best available side.

 

[hujsh]

We're playing the West Indies, who are crap. That's true.

Doesn't mean we start devaluing spots in the side.

Those guys are still playing for their country and we should be picking the best available side.

There's something about Katich that makes me feel uneasy. Maybe because if only saw him against England and the Windies (who he failed against before being dropped) but i don't get the feeling he will be that reliable even though he has had an excellent season.

This isn't based on any evidence it's just a hunch.




A hypothetical question to you Katich supporters. Should he make some sort of an impression on the series would you reward him with further appearances?
Would you feel we are going backwards and not forwards?
Would you take him to England again?

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

There's something about Katich that makes me feel uneasy.

Gee - that's compelling!

A hypothetical question to you Katich supporters. Should he make some sort of an impression on the series would you reward him with further appearances? Would you feel we are going backwards and not forwards? Would you take him to England again?

What does "backwards or forwards" actually mean? I would pick the best available squad at every opportunity, with a view to winning as many matches and series as possible.

If Katich was among our seven batsmen most likely to score runs, I'd pick him.

If someone like David Hussey goes past Katich, then I'd pick Hussey instead.

There are no rules or timeframes, apart from picking our best available squad.

 

[hujsh]

Gee - that's compelling!

Sorry my opinion doesn't compell you. That is all i think about. How can i compell you. I must know

What does "backwards or forwards" actually mean? I would pick the best available squad at every opportunity, with a view to winning as many matches and series as possible.

It's a question I'm done with arguing.

By "backwards or forwards" i mean that he's been done before and and sometimes you need to move on and find new players and keep the squad fresh.

Will anyone else reply? I think both groups have gone on and on and it may be time for this thread to die as about 4 people have done almost everypost.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Sorry my opinion doesn't compell you. That is all i think about. How can i compell you. I must know

Katich making you "uneasy" isn't even an opinion.

It's nothing.

By "backwards or forwards" i mean that he's been done before and and sometimes you need to move on and find new players and keep the squad fresh.

I can't help noticing your tendency to use inane buzzwords and cliches.

"Moving forwards... looking to the future... keeping the squad fresh."

This is all BS. These phrases don't mean anything. They don't plug into what actually happens during a game of cricket. They have nothing to do with performance or winning games. They're nothing but hot air and waffle. Yet they form the entire basis of your argument.

The most important thing is playing our best available squad. If Katich is part of that, then he should be picked. Period.

 

[hujsh]

Katich making you "uneasy" isn't even an opinion.

It's nothing.

I can't help noticing your tendency to use inane buzzwords and cliches.

"Moving forwards... looking to the future... keeping the squad fresh."

This is all BS. These phrases don't mean anything. They don't plug into what actually happens during a game of cricket. They have nothing to do with performance or winning games. They're nothing but hot air and waffle. Yet they form the entire basis of your argument.

The most important thing is playing our best available squad. If Katich is part of that, then he should be picked. Period.

It's not an argument I'm asking a question. But it seems you would perfer an argument.

If I was arguing i would reply to this

Doesn't mean we start devaluing spots in the side.

with a who cares about devaluing a spot if we're still winning in 10 years time.

But I'm not arguing. And I'll move on from this thread as it goes around in circles and gets booring.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

It's not an argument I'm asking a question.

And I answered that question.

with a who cares about devaluing a spot if we're still winning in 10 years time.

One isn't going to directly lead to the other.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Clarke has made himself unavailable.

Good thing we picked our best available squad.

 

[DaRick]

Good thing we picked our best available squad.

One wonders whether this will be the case if we select Brad Hodge (that rumour has been spreading around)...

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

So Clarke and Hayden are possibly out of the First Test.

Would those advocating a youth policy be happy to see two kids joining the XI instead of more experienced players?

I think the absence of those guys demonstrates the importance of including the players best equipped to step in.

If Pomersbach was set to make his debut, while Katich sat at home, it would be an absolute sham. Picking Katich was the right move.