The time is ripe to introduce Hodge and/or Hussey to Test cricket.

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Just face it, Hodge is too old and too slow a scorer to be included for australia.
Stop love-childing him because he's a victorian and get over him. Everyone else has.

Beautifully put Smokey

At nearly 31 years of age it's about time Eddie kicked him out of the nest.

Matty Elliott is the only Victorian batsman to make the Test side in the past 12 years and, along with Dean Jones and the ill-fated Wayne Phillips, one of only three in the past two decades. Sad really

 

[eddiesmith]

So Hodge is to old yet Hussey isnt?

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

So Hodge is to old yet Hussey isnt?

No, Hodge is a Victorian batsman. They have a history of going silly once they get to around 30. Deano and Elliott are classic examples

 

[thepower]

No, Hodge is a Victorian batsman. They have a history of going silly once they get to around 30. Deano and Elliott are classic examples

as opposed to greats like robertson, emery, cook, nicholson, slater.

 

[eddiesmith]

Just face it, Hodge is too old and too slow a scorer to be included for australia.
Stop love-childing him because he's a victorian and get over him. Everyone else has.

To slow a scored? Geez, didnt realise that was a must for a test batsman to be a fast scorer?

However of course he is faster than any of the 3 players he might replace

 

[eddiesmith]

No, Hodge is a Victorian batsman. They have a history of going silly once they get to around 30. Deano and Elliott are classic examples

DM Jones (Dean Jones) [Player Page] - RHB; OB
Born: 1961-03-24 (present age: 44y 208d) 

Tests: Australia 1983/84 - 1992 (22y 358d - 31y 173d)
Also: ODI Player 1983/84 - 1993/94. 

                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0


1992 (30y 283d)        6   12   2   527 150* 100*  77   52.70   2   2   1

Yeah, he was shocking when he hit 30

 

[POBT]

Whoever you believes should be batting in the middle order, I think it goes to show that there is not enough exposure to international cricket for the second tier of Australian players. The tour to Pakistan only became of interest to anyone once it became clear there were some problems in the current XI. All of a sudden, Aus A games are important again - they should have been given importance for the past 5 years which would allow a better judgment of the players currently in the system.

These facts are clear:

1. You cannot compare Watson's Test performances to Hodge and Hussey's first class performances.

2. No-one can state with any certainty that Hodge and Hussey would perform any better or worse than Watson.

3. Comparing first class performances, there's not a huge difference between the three. Watson has age on his side as well as solid performances. Hussey has overseas performance and solid Aus performances. Hodge has consistent brilliance in Aust.

As this thread has shown, there's arguments for the inclusion of each of them. Therefore, until Watson has been proven to be a failure at Test level (which may or may not happen), then he deserves to be trialled in the middle order. If he fails, move on. If he doesn't, Australia benefits. It might be argued that Hussey and Hodge were more deserving of selection before the Supertest but you can justify Watson's performance on both results and potential - it is worth a trial at least.

Is Watson in the top 7 bats in the country? Maybe not. Is he in the top 7 batsmen under the age of 25? Almost certainly. Therefore, give him the Test in Brisbane, the Test in Adelaide and perhaps the Test in Hobart too. 5 tests, including 3 against a developing side, is ample opportunity for him to prove himself. If he can't do that, then replace him.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

DM Jones (Dean Jones) [Player Page] - RHB; OB
Born: 1961-03-24 (present age: 44y 208d) 

Tests: Australia 1983/84 - 1992 (22y 358d - 31y 173d)
Also: ODI Player 1983/84 - 1993/94. 

                     Mat    I  NO  Runs HS1  HS2  HS3     Ave 100  50   0


1992 (30y 283d)        6   12   2   527 150* 100*  77   52.70   2   2   1

Yeah, he was shocking when he hit 30

Why was he dropped? Was he naughty in the West Indies, or what?

"But the Test selectors remained suspicious; he made only one of three England tours in his time, and was dropped while still in his prime. Turbulent stints as captain of Victoria and Derbyshire followed, for his personality was bound not to please everyone"

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Eddie, why didn't you post about Elliott when over 30 years old?


Test Matches 1 Runs 1 Highest Score 1 Batting Av 0.50

MTG Elliott c Arnold b Vaas 1
MTG Elliott c Dilshan b Vaas 0

 

[eddiesmith]

Whoever you believes should be batting in the middle order, I think it goes to show that there is not enough exposure to international cricket for the second tier of Australian players. The tour to Pakistan only became of interest to anyone once it became clear there were some problems in the current XI. All of a sudden, Aus A games are important again - they should have been given importance for the past 5 years which would allow a better judgment of the players currently in the system.

These facts are clear:

1. You cannot compare Watson's Test performances to Hodge and Hussey's first class performances.

2. No-one can state with any certainty that Hodge and Hussey would perform any better or worse than Watson.

3. Comparing first class performances, there's not a huge difference between the three. Watson has age on his side as well as solid performances. Hussey has overseas performance and solid Aus performances. Hodge has consistent brilliance in Aust.

As this thread has shown, there's arguments for the inclusion of each of them. Therefore, until Watson has been proven to be a failure at Test level (which may or may not happen), then he deserves to be trialled in the middle order. If he fails, move on. If he doesn't, Australia benefits. It might be argued that Hussey and Hodge were more deserving of selection before the Supertest but you can justify Watson's performance on both results and potential - it is worth a trial at least.

Is Watson in the top 7 bats in the country? Maybe not. Is he in the top 7 batsmen under the age of 25? Almost certainly. Therefore, give him the Test in Brisbane, the Test in Adelaide and perhaps the Test in Hobart too. 5 tests, including 3 against a developing side, is ample opportunity for him to prove himself. If he can't do that, then replace him.

Actually its more Katich that is under pressure from Hodgey

Watson will play if MacGill does, will be very lucky to play when STuey doesnt

 

[POBT]

Actually its more Katich that is under pressure from Hodgey

Watson will play if MacGill does, will be very lucky to play when STuey doesnt

I agree with both of those statements. Katich out. Hodge to bat at 4 and Clarke at 5 with his performance on trial.

While Watson should only play when Macgill is the 4th bowler, I can see the merits in MacGill being the 4th bowler for much of the summer. Only because there's no other bowlers pressing for selection.

 

[Smokey_22]

To slow a scored? Geez, didnt realise that was a must for a test batsman to be a fast scorer?

However of course he is faster than any of the 3 players he might replace

If you want to debate it, send an email to Cricket Australia. Justifying him here wont get him in.

 

[eddiesmith]

If you want to debate it, send an email to Cricket Australia. Justifying him here wont get him in.

So you come up with something stupid, get shot down and now it aint worth debating? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Anyway, there is nothing to debate, once Kato or Watson are dropped, Hodge is in whether people like it or not

 

[Gunnar Longshanks]

These facts are clear:

1. You cannot compare Watson's Test performances to Hodge and Hussey's first class performances.

2. No-one can state with any certainty that Hodge and Hussey would perform any better or worse than Watson.

3. Comparing first class performances, there's not a huge difference between the three. Watson has age on his side as well as solid performances. Hussey has overseas performance and solid Aus performances. Hodge has consistent brilliance in Aust.

I'm confused.

Is Watson in the top 7 bats in the country? Maybe not. Is he in the top 7 batsmen under the age of 25? Almost certainly. Therefore, give him the Test in Brisbane, the Test in Adelaide and perhaps the Test in Hobart too. 5 tests, including 3 against a developing side, is ample opportunity for him to prove himself. If he can't do that, then replace him.

Why should Watson be given an inside lane purely because of his age?

Watson is nowhere near the top of the pile as a specialist batsman. The only reason he has played Tests is because of his promise as an all-rounder.

His batting, at any level, doesn't command a spot as a specialist top 6 batsman, regardless of his age.

If there are to be changes to the batting order, then the best-performed specialist batsman should be picked.

 

[just maybe]

So, please explain where his average for Tas is NOT higher than his average for Queensland, and please explan where this is NOT higher than Hussey's average?

To quote you: maybe next time you should actually look at basic numbers before abusing people who do know what they're talking about.

Once again, eddie, you've shown you know ********e-all about cricket.

Eddie?

 

[just maybe]

I'm confused.

Not that hard. It's unfair to compare Watson's two Tests against the first-class records of Hodge and Hussey. What is fair to compare the first class records of all of them. Absolutely simple premise.

Why should Watson be given an inside lane purely because of his age?

Because of his age.

His batting, at any level, doesn't command a spot as a specialist top 6 batsman, regardless of his age.

Just to point out - I think you meant 'at any rate'. You're wrong the way you currently put it, because at the 'level' below Tests Watson EASILY commands a spot as a specialist top 6 batsman. Just thought you might like to know.

If there are to be changes to the batting order, then the best-performed specialist batsman should be picked.

And the performances of all of them are fairly similar, as has been established. Some have just been playing longer than others.

 

[eddiesmith]

Eddie?

At QLD it is 42, at Tasmania it was 42.9

Still a career average of 42

 

[just maybe]

At QLD it is 42, at Tasmania it was 42.9

Still a career average of 42

No, that means his average was HIGHER for Tasmania than it was at Queensland. As I said, and you said was wrong.

NOW, do you admit you were wrong, and wish to make a full apology?

Otherwise I still need you to explain how his average for Tasmania was not higher than his average for Queensland.

 

[sinepari]

I find that alot of people on here don't really understand cricket and are too quick to call for changes. I can only put that down to them being predominately football supporters, with a minor background in cricket.

Players need to be given time to develop, it's a fact of life in cricket.

Hussey and Hodge are both fantastic players, however would not bring them at the expense of a young player.

Hayden is coming to end of his playing career, and that opens a spot up for Huss. Langer would be lucky to play for another 18 months, therefore opening a spot up for Jaques.

So within 2 years, with a natural course of events, we will only have Ponting with over about 60 Tests (batsman only)

Be patient people, all will happen in its time.

 

[eddiesmith]

I find that alot of people on here don't really understand cricket and are too quick to call for changes. I can only put that down to them being predominately football supporters, with a minor background in cricket.

Players need to be given time to develop, it's a fact of life in cricket.

Hussey and Hodge are both fantastic players, however would not bring them at the expense of a young player.

Hayden is coming to end of his playing career, and that opens a spot up for Huss. Langer would be lucky to play for another 18 months, therefore opening a spot up for Jaques.

So within 2 years, with a natural course of events, we will only have Ponting with over about 60 Tests (batsman only)

Be patient people, all will happen in its time.

BUt Katich isnt exactly a younger player who needs to be given time to develop, he should make way for Hodge, now.

As for Watson, its all well and good to let players develop, but isnt that what first class cricket is for? You can only carry so many developing players, atm CLarke and Watson are gift wickets to any bowler lucky enough to be bowling at them, Lee is worth plenty of runs for a batsman, by next series add in Tait and there is 4 developing players who are still developing yet all in the test side

 

[crownie]

I find that alot of people on here don't really understand cricket and are too quick to call for changes.QUOTE]

totally agree with you. seems the player who makes the lowest score gets their head on the chopping block.

i think some people are to use to Australia winning all the time and not prepared to go through a rough patch even if it will get us more 3-4 year periods of solid success.

 

[just maybe]

atm CLarke and Watson are gift wickets to any bowler lucky enough to be bowling at them,

Much like Bell and Vaughan?

Lee is worth plenty of runs for a batsman,

Much like Giles?

 

[eddiesmith]

Much like Bell and Vaughan?

Look at my sig, both have much better averages than CLarke or Watson

 

[just maybe]

Look at my sig, both have much better averages than CLarke or Watson

Perhaps we'll see Clarke's after as many Test as Vaughan, and we'll see Watson's after as many Tests as Bell - as long as there's a guaranteed two against Bangladesh in there.

BTW: your Ian Bell average is WRONG.

 

[Jumpin' Jimmy]

Perhaps we'll see Clarke's after as many Test as Vaughan, and we'll see Watson's after as many Tests as Bell - as long as there's a guaranteed two against Bangladesh in there.

BTW: your Ian Bell average is WRONG.

Let me guess...... too high by 10%.

Eddie reckons it's because he always gives 110%