Should Katich have been picked?

[tomemy]

katich is an acceptable player with a test avg of a bit over 40 but i cannot believe that he is one of the six best batsmen in australia

He just about would be, i think his average could even be better if he was ever given a decent crack at it he always seems to be a stopgap batting middle order one series then droped then back opening, cant be easy for him to ever feel settled.
So who else is there, i dont think much, maybe Hodge, D.Hussey or Voges are the only blokes who possibly could average more then him at the moment. But i'm a big fan of Pomersbach, Travis Birt and Quiney and give them a another season or two and our batting stocks aren't that bad.

 

[cozmoz]

He just about would be, i think his average could even be better if he was ever given a decent crack at it he always seems to be a stopgap batting middle order one series then droped then back opening, cant be easy for him to ever feel settled.
So who else is there, i dont think much, maybe Hodge, D.Hussey or Voges are the only blokes who possibly could average more then him at the moment. But i'm a big fan of Pomersbach, Travis Birt and Quiney and give them a another season or two and our batting stocks aren't that bad.

there are several good batsmen in oz and katich is not someone who looks to have a lot of class, he has been around for long and has not improved, watson and white shud not be picked either for they are only bits and pieces cricketers, these three guys are ok but don't look like the baggygreen fits them, they shud play for the black caps, baggygreen surely has a lot more class

 

[tomemy]

there are several good batsmen in oz and katich is not someone who looks to have a lot of class, he has been around for long and has not improved, watson and white shud not be picked either for they are only bits and pieces cricketers, these three guys are ok but don't look like the baggygreen fits them, they shud play for the black caps, baggygreen surely has a lot more class

Who should replace them then?

 

[cozmoz]

Who should replace them then?

certainly specialist players and not bits and pieces players like watson and white, these two are ok but they can never be specialist batsmen or specialist bowlers

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Why not bring youth into the team though?

What is it with people and this question?

Are people actually arguing for a co-ordinating policy that promotes young players who haven't earned it, at the expense of older players who have?

Seriously?

How about we just pick our best XI instead of picking players based on their age?

Certainly, in the next 12 months, we're going to need our best side on the park. We can't afford to carry developing players who aren't necessarily best XI.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

katich is an acceptable player with a test avg of a bit over 40 but i cannot believe that he is one of the six best batsmen in australia

Well, who do you think are the top six?

The reality is that Katich forced his way back into consideration with an outstanding domestic season, and has averaged 55 since being recalled to the Test side.

 

[weevil]

What is it with people and this question?

Are people actually arguing for a co-ordinating policy that promotes young players who haven't earned it, at the expense of older players who have?

Seriously?

How about we just pick our best XI instead of picking players based on their age?

Yeah that policy has worked brilliantly with our spinners. Let’s do the same thing with our batsman.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Yeah that policy has worked brilliantly with our spinners. Let’s do the same thing with our batsman.

That's a false equivalence.

Our spinning stocks are in a different state to our batting stocks.

We actually have accomplished batsmen who can come in hold their own at international level. It doesn't look like you can say that about our spinners.

Besides, I'd still argue that we should pick our best available spinner, even if it was an older player i.e. Bryce McGain.

 

[weevil]

That's a false equivalence.

Our spinning stocks are in a different state to our batting stocks.

We actually have accomplished batsmen who can come in hold their own at international level. It doesn't look like you can say that about our spinners.

Besides, I'd still argue that we should pick our best available spinner, even if it was an older player i.e. Bryce McGain.

Sigh, yes of course generally you go for the best player. But you also have team balance issues to take into account.

To blindly say that you always only ever go for whoever is playing best at the time while ignoring the future development of the team is flat out silly.

 

[cozmoz]

Well, who do you think are the top six?

The reality is that Katich forced his way back into consideration with an outstanding domestic season, and has averaged 55 since being recalled to the Test side.

katich does not look very classy
obviously the best six i know are ponting, hayden ,m hussey, clarke, jaques, symonds but i do not know as much about aussie domestic cricket as i wud like to

hodge has a test avg of a little over 55, david hussey, adam voges, shaun marsh are very talented and all of these guys have done well in their little chances outside test cricket(ie in limited overs international cricket), martin love has a test average of 46+ and is very good, cosgrove is pretty good

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Sigh, yes of course generally you go for the best player. But you also have team balance issues to take into account.

To blindly say that you always only ever go for whoever is playing best at the time while ignoring the future development of the team is flat out silly.

Playing best at the time?

I said we should pick our best XI.

I'm not totally slavish to form.

Five years ago, maybe Australia could afford to pick project players in the hope they developed.

But now, we need to pick the best side to win each series. If we start thinking according to some wishy-washy five-year plan, it may cause us to lose series in the here-and-now.

We need to pick sides that keep Australia number one, while making sure our domestic comp is churning out good young players that will be able to make the transition to Test cricket when required.

The suggestion that we should "get some youth into the side" or "look to future" makes me cringe.

I wonder how these people would react if we picked 2-3 younger players and lost the Ashes with them struggling.

We want to win every series. If that means overlooking younger players for more accomplished players, so be it.

Look back to the start of this thread - some people were pushing for Pomersbach to be picked ahead of Katich. Would that skew towards youth have been vindicated?

Youth for the sake of youth is over-rated.

 

[weevil]

Playing best at the time?

I said we should pick our best XI.

I'm not totally slavish to form.

Five years ago, maybe Australia could afford to pick project players in the hope they developed.

But now, we need to pick the best side to win each series. If we start thinking according to some wishy-washy five-year plan, it may cause us to lose series in the here-and-now.

We need to pick sides that keep Australia number one, while making sure our domestic comp is churning out good young players that will be able to make the transition to Test cricket when required.

The suggestion that we should "get some youth into the side" or "look to future" makes me cringe.

I wonder how these people would react if we picked 2-3 younger players and lost the Ashes with them struggling.

We want to win every series. If that means overlooking younger players for more accomplished players, so be it.

Look back to the start of this thread - some people were pushing for Pomersbach to be picked ahead of Katich. Would that skew towards youth have been vindicated?

Youth for the sake of youth is over-rated.

Yes you are, all you ever do is repeat that ‘we simply have to pick the best players at the time’.

Then your next tactic is to massively exaggerate any talk of picking a team with an eye to the future by trying to paint it as some wishy washy five year plan or some rubbish. As if other people are arguing that the entire team should be dumped for youth.

Good selectors plan for the future. They look at a range of issues and select the best team to address those issues.

It’s not rocket science, it happens in every sport. You have just got your knickers in too much of a twist to back down.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Yes you are, all you ever do is repeat that ‘we simply have to pick the best players at the time’.

I say "pick the best XI" - that's not the same as picking the guy who made a big score 5 minutes ago.

There's a difference between sustained performance and form.

Then your next tactic is to massively exaggerate any talk of picking a team with an eye to the future by trying to paint it as some wishy washy five year plan or some rubbish. As if other people are arguing that the entire team should be dumped for youth.

People are arguing that young players should be picked because they are young, at the expense of more accomplished players.

I don't agree with that approach.

It’s not rocket science, it happens in every sport. You have just got your knickers in too much of a twist to back down.

If you say so.

I'm reluctant to get into a protracted argument with you.

 

[weevil]

[snip]

Yawn.

Perhaps if you didn’t pontificate quite so much you would not be so ‘misunderstood’.

I'm reluctant to get into a protracted argument with you.

That is a really good idea.

 

[blackhead&boil]

more and more players (particularly batsmen) are playing well into their late thirties and continuing to perform at a very high level. in fact, many (hussey and langer, for example) improve greatly as a result of their experience. cricket is less physical that a lot of other sports, and mental strength and application is extremely important. even though the body starts to slow down a bit around the thirty mark the brain continues to develop.

of course katich deserved to be picked, and so did bevan when he was breaking records. there was a one-day series a few years ago where katich top scored for the series and was dropped! that sort of selection weirdness cannot be helpful for team stability. you have to reward performance - age is irrelevant. shaun marsh has many many years of brilliant cricket ahead of him, so there is no need to rush him into the side.WA is a good breeding ground for opening batsmen, so it's not as though he's wasting his time there. his time will come...

 

[Blue Dimension]

Katich deserved to be picked as apart of the squad, but whether or not he was the right man to be placed at the top of the order can be debated.

Yes, he churned out a massive amount of runs last domestic season - more so than any other player. However i said from the start that his slow batting has a domino effect on the rest of the innings. Starting off with intent is important.

Must say though that he did well in the 3rd test and i can't really complain. He and Haddin should be clipped around the ears for the way they got out though.

 

[Belnakor]

With every opening combination, there can't be two dashers in at the start. You need a guy who can score freely, but then you also need a guy with great technique incase things go pear shaped. Haydos will normally score at about 75 runs per 100, and Langer would normally score about at about 50 - Katich is no different. Both Katich and Langer like to grind down attacks, not gifted with the greatest natural ability. Langer worked out ok didn't he?

Slats/Tubby was another good combo because of this.

Then when Hayden retires we have Jacques and Katich to open, Jacques is the goer.

 

[Iron Gloves]

Katich can be quite a fluent batsmen when he's settled. Being the perennial scapegoat and Mr Fixit, batting in various positions wouldn't help that. I would prefer to see him in the middle order however as a batting allrounder but you can't deny his legitamacy of being selected again.
It is the Australian Test XI, the best players in the country, it's not the role of the test team to nurture players thats what the domestic competition is for. When you get the right to earn the Baggy Green you should be ready for test cricket and pull your weight.
Good luck to Kato, he's a top bloke and stuck to his guns

 

[Belnakor]

while we have the power of our domestic cricket - we should keep using it. the Kat has done very well since he got the recall - the only thing i think that goes against him is he doesn't get the big hundreds.

 

[blackhead&boil]

With every opening combination, there can't be two dashers in at the start. You need a guy who can score freely, but then you also need a guy with great technique incase things go pear shaped. Haydos will normally score at about 75 runs per 100, and Langer would normally score about at about 50 - Katich is no different. Both Katich and Langer like to grind down attacks, not gifted with the greatest natural ability. Langer worked out ok didn't he?

Slats/Tubby was another good combo because of this.

Then when Hayden retires we have Jacques and Katich to open, Jacques is the goer.

another example of how appearances can be deceptive.

langer and taylor batted slowly in the first half of their careers but both upped their scoring rate drastically in the later years - langer especially. in fact, you will probably find, if you can be bothered to look, that langer tended to outscore hayden in most of their opening partnerships (hayden's ODI strike rate is only 79 and his test rate is actually 60. while langers overall test strike rate is 54, remember that it was something like 35-45 for most of his career). however, the manner in which their respective runs were scored influenced public opinion to believe it to be the opposite. hayden sends his boundaries crashing off the fence and bouncing halfway back to the pitch while langer would deftly guide balls into gaps, only he would do this more frequently that hayden. the same often went for taylor/slater partnerships. the scoring rate in their partnerships was not as unbalanced as a lot of people would believe. there was even one match where taylor was on 64 while slater was still on 1!



that being said, the first part of your statement is 100% true. you need a combination of dashers and stayers. I always found it interesting, though (and I found this occurring in my own partnerships), the often taylor and slater would swap roles. one would start off quickly and the other would take it easy, then the faster scorer would slow up for a bit and his partner would up the tempo. I think this is a bit of a secret to a good, sustained partnership. it is too difficult to be scoring quickly all the time, so each batsman takes it in turns to have a burst of intensity...

 

[aussie1st]

On Langer in the opening few overs he just loved to crash his cover drive for a few fours. It was great to watch, after that he unsettled the bowler and then he settles into his normal role.

I would have gone with Katich in Watson spot and Jaques opening when this series began.

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

Handy knock from Katich in Nagpur so far.

He's on 74 from just 87 balls.

Needs to crack on with it, though.

In the past, he's thrown these kinds of starts away.

 

[anti.]

yep, the way he's playing he can make whatever he wants to.

hasnt really been bothered all innings and going at a great strike rate also.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Fact is, Katich is the best opening bat in Australia at this point in time. I don't think that can be argued.

 

[achancely]

People are arguing that young players should be picked because they are young, at the expense of more accomplished players.

I don't agree with that approach.

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.