Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[smiddy9]

If we made an Oceanic test side I'd put the order as:

Warner
McCullum
Williamson
Clarke
Smith
Watling
Johnson
Southee
Harris
Lyon
Boult

Dont mind it but i like Craig ahead of Lyon!

 

[eth-dog]

Dont mind it but i like Craig ahead of Lyon!

Why? Lyon's better. Craig's economy rate and average are vastly inferior to Lyon's.

 

[smiddy9]

Why? Lyon's better. Craig's economy rate and average are vastly inferior to Lyon's.

I think Craig is more of a wicket taking threat than Lyon!

 

[eth-dog]

I think Craig is more of a wicket taking threat than Lyon!

I hardly think that's true, Lyon will be the leading wicket taker this series, took more wickets last year than any of them barring Herath added onto the fact that he's far more tight and can be relied upon holding up an end while the quicks are on.

In any case, it's hardly necessary to have a strike spin bowler when you have Johnson, Southee, Harris and Boult in the side.

 

[carnthemlions]

The current test series has been ordinary, almost no contest between bat and ball.

Agree that the bats are getting too big and get rid of the ropes. Another one that I don't know would work (in fact I doubt it would) but possibly having a new ball at both ends, or 2 new balls available at the start of an innings and then from there the fielding team could decide whether to just use one new one and rough it up or to use both new balls together.

May as well allow ball tampering if batsmen are going to continue to be given more and more advantages.

 

[Aussie_boy]

May as well allow ball tampering if batsmen are going to continue to be given more and more advantages.

Similar concept I guess just 2 new balls would be 'more legal' under current rules

 

[Phone]

the new ball can be an advantage to the batting team at times though. so the comparison is off a bit. The harder ball can make run scoring easier. Bigger bats are, most of the time, an advantage only to the people batting. Adjustments to the LBW law may perhaps be more suited to responding to the bigger bat.

 

[Borisdog]

Frank Tyson never bowled 150km/h, let alone his claimed 190km/h.



There's no way he was close to Roberts/Thomson/Lee/Akhtar/Tait.

I'm not sure how people can claim that Thommo bowled up to 180km/h in his prime with a straight face either.

Some fairly good judges of the game, who stood at the business end of him, would disagree with you.

Morris, Benaud, O'Niell, Miller, Harvey to name a few.

So , yes, your opinion is unpopular. It also has expert opinion disagreeing with you.

I do agree that those who said Thommo bowled 180kph were talking through their botbot. I was there at the time though and I never heard it said.

I genuinely believe that 160-165kph is about all that can be achieved legitimately. And precious few have done that.

 

[Aussie_boy]

the new ball can be an advantage to the batting team at times though. so the comparison is off a bit. The harder ball can make run scoring easier. Bigger bats are, most of the time, an advantage only to the people batting. Adjustments to the LBW law may perhaps be more suited to responding to the bigger bat.

That's why in 'my new rules' the 2nd ball is completely optional, can use it whenever you want or not use it at all

 

[western royboy]

This is bloody stupid and you're a better poster than that.

Hodge was dropped to bring back Martyn (who on return won us a test in South Africa).
The selectors elected to keep Hussey over keeping Hodge.

Later they decided to bring back Clarke.

So essentially Hodge was overlooked because the selectors opted for Hussey and Clarke- which has to be considered a good call.

And then when Martyn retired the selectors decided to opt for the allrounder (Symonds). This move is debatable and Hodge can feel quite unfortunate.

But it was a selection policy and not because Ponting disliked Hodge

Ponting and Hodge were both ideally No.3 bats. Ponting quite rightly blocked Hodge for his career. Hodge was not the greatest tourist and in line ball calls he often missed out because of it.

 

[Parquet Court]

the word round the traps was that hodge was a very abrasive person to be be around in the dressing room and on the field.

not that i can vouch for it personally but i do remember an interview he did on one of the crappy sports radio stations in melbourne last year which was simulcasted on sportfm 91,3. he really teed off on those involved at the time about his non selection and said everything bar personally blaming the captain/ selectors involved at the time.

pretty much confirmed what i had heard about him

 

[Damon_3388]

I wouldn't be so definitive given how well Warner and Smith have been traveling, but would be a bloody nice conundrum to have. He is going to make a hell of a lot of runs in the next decade or so.

Would he get a game at #3 ahead of Watson though?

 

[Greendogg5]

Game favours batsman too much, and batsman have been able to use bigger and better bats over the years. I don't personally see a problem with allowing scuffing up the ball a bit, with 'approved' techniques/materials. Wouldn't be different to shining the ball if regulated.

exactly, why isn't shining the ball considered ball tampering? because it's just the norm now? what's the difference between scuffing and shining? just let the fielding side do it if they wish. I would prefer to see the ball hooping around a lot and gripping more in the surface for the spinners.

 

[Scotland]

Hodge probably is a dickhead, but professional sport is full of dickheads.

He finished with a test average of 55.8 from 11 innings. If he was capable of keeping that up, he should've been in the side. It's the job of coaches and captains to manage egos.

Anyway, Hodge came in to replace Katich who the selectors had lost faith with. Katich and Watson (injured) went out from the first test, Hodge and Symonds came in. Hussey debuted the test prior filling in for Langer as an opener and made 137, making him hard to drop. With Hodge making 60 the selectors opted to drop Michael Clarke who wasn't in form. The top 6 stayed the same for the remainder of the series against the Windies then the 3 test series against RSA. Langer missed another test, but Hussey stayed in the middle order and Phil Jaques filled in as opener for one. By the end of the 2005/6 summer Hodge had played 5 tests for 409 runs @ 58.

Our next test was in South Africa two months later in March and Hodge was dropped for Damien Martyn who averaged 56 for the series before failing in Bangladesh and retiring 2 matches into the 2006/7 Ashes. At that point Watson was again injured and the selectors opted for Clarke to replace him instead of another all rounder. Once Martyn pulled the pin the selectors went back to all rounder mode and picked Symonds as his replacement. Hodge got one more test in 2008 as a fill in for Clarke scoring 67 and 27 then was never seen again.

Dickhead or not I can see why Hodge would be pissed off. In hindsight his best bet was probably to play as an opener for Victoria as Jaques and dumped test middle order Katich plundered runs doing that and won opportunities at test level.

 

[western royboy]

Hodge probably is a dickhead, but professional sport is full of dickheads.

He finished with a test average of 55.8 from 11 innings. If he was capable of keeping that up, he should've been in the side. It's the job of coaches and captains to manage egos.

Anyway, Hodge came in to replace Katich who the selectors had lost faith with. Katich and Watson (injured) went out from the first test, Hodge and Symonds came in. Hussey debuted the test prior filling in for Langer as an opener and made 137, making him hard to drop. With Hodge making 60 the selectors opted to drop Michael Clarke who wasn't in form. The top 6 stayed the same for the remainder of the series against the Windies then the 3 test series against RSA. Langer missed another test, but Hussey stayed in the middle order and Phil Jaques filled in as opener for one. By the end of the 2005/6 summer Hodge had played 5 tests for 409 runs @ 58.

Our next test was in South Africa two months later in March and Hodge was dropped for Damien Martyn who averaged 56 for the series before failing in Bangladesh and retiring 2 matches into the 2006/7 Ashes. At that point Watson was again injured and the selectors opted for Clarke to replace him instead of another all rounder. Once Martyn pulled the pin the selectors went back to all rounder mode and picked Symonds as his replacement. Hodge got one more test in 2008 as a fill in for Clarke scoring 67 and 27 then was never seen again.

Dickhead or not I can see why Hodge would be pissed off. In hindsight his best bet was probably to play as an opener for Victoria as Jaques and dumped test middle order Katich plundered runs doing that and won opportunities at test level.

Correct except you missed the fact that in the Sydney Test the last of their series against the RSA, Hodge was undone twice by the short ball in fairly unconvincing fashion. Heading back to RSA on pacy bouncy wickets, DM Martyn was preferred and IMO despite being a Victorian it was the correct decision.

 

[The Passenger]

There was a lot of rumours around the grade cricket of scene of Hodge being a fair knob and whether it was truth or perception probably doesn't matter as often perception is reality in these matters.

My problem is that Hodge could easily have had a 50+ test average over a sustained period. At some point performances have to override being a knob. If you can expect similar performances from two players, and one is a dickhead then he's gonna get overlooked for sure. There is a lot of sitting around in pavilions and touring in cricket. You get to know your team mates very very well. If they don't like you, then you're gonna have to really give the selectors a strong reason for keeping you.

Dave Warner is widely considered a knob, and he is, but seems to have settled down a bit and seems quite popular within the Australian set up.

Here are the batting performances from 2003/04 to 2008/09 - http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;orderby=batting_average;spanmax1=06 Feb 2009;spanmin1=15 Oct 2003;spanval1=span;team=2;template=results;type=batting

It's very realistic to believe that Hodge could have out performed all bar Hussey and Ponting on that list over the same period. Maybe even significantly outperformed them. IMO he has a fairly legitimate gripe to at least not get 20 or so tests to show what he could do. If he was averaging mid 40's after that, then he probably would've got brushed, and couldn't have had too many complaints.

 

[Scotland]

Correct except you missed the fact that in the Sydney Test the last of their series against the RSA, Hodge was undone twice by the short ball in fairly unconvincing fashion. Heading back to RSA on pacy bouncy wickets, DM Martyn was preferred and IMO despite being a Victorian it was the correct decision.

I always found this argument a bit flimsy. He spooned one to bat pad off Andre Nel, but other than that he went fishing outside off.

IMO he had a weakness against the short ball but this was more of an excuse than a reason to drop him. If Shane Watson averaged 50 for a series there is no way he would be dropped for a perceived weakness. Some are on the in, some are not. Hodge definitely was not.

 

[western royboy]

I always found this argument a bit flimsy. He spooned one to bat pad off Andre Nel, but other than that he went fishing outside off.

IMO he had a weakness against the short ball but this was more of an excuse than a reason to drop him. If Shane Watson averaged 50 for a series there is no way he would be dropped for a perceived weakness. Some are on the in, some are not. Hodge definitely was not.

My mail is white hot on this - Martyn was preferred to him for two reasons, they felt that Hodge was a risk on SA decks and that short stuff unsettled him, secondly the stuff about him being a nob was spot on. Martyn got shafted after the Ashes despite getting three shocking decisions. Ponting was very keen to get him back a.s.a.p.

 

[Scotland]

I reckon making an unbeaten double hundred at the WACA says you're OK with fast, bouncy wickets (the WACA pitch was a bit tame in the mid 2000s though, FWIW) but CA are happy to ruin careers based on one poor shot - just ask Damien Martyn!

 

[The Speaker]

I highly, highly doubt Hodge would've averaged 50+ over a long period.

 

[t_94]

Brad hodge was a very good cricketer and no doubt very unlucky not to play more for Australia. He'd be the number three without question if he were playing now, but don't forget just how good Damien Martyn was. Ponting was a strong advocate of Martyn's too iirc

 

[Kram]

People (well mostly Victorians) seem to conveniently forget how unconvincing Hodge was for most of the rest of his innings... Yes unlucky to not be given more of a run but he was absolutely no guarantee to make it as a Test player at all.

 

[western royboy]

I reckon making an unbeaten double hundred at the WACA says you're OK with fast, bouncy wickets (the WACA pitch was a bit tame in the mid 2000s though, FWIW) but CA are happy to ruin careers based on one poor shot - just ask Damien Martyn!

Michael Bevan says hi, there are sliding doors moments in many cricketers careers, rarely one thing goes against you, in the case of both, they both had reputations as being difficult on tour. When you are living with the same group of blokes on tour for 10-11 months of the year, blokes that are 50/50 need everything going their way. If you are perceived as being difficult, you don't get the second chances. It is as simple as that.

 

[peternorth]

once selectors/key machine men have made up their mind about a player, that's it. the short ball reason may have been used to keep hodge out, but a player in the same vein (suspect to short stuff) who selectors love will be afforded more opportunities.

warner was picked and played in the t20s. selectors clearly wanted him to succeed and its paid off.

watson - similar...mates in teh team keep saying hes working hard and a big scores just around the corner. to quote sidney deane, even the sun shines on a dogs arse someday, anyone can win the lottery.

 

[western royboy]

Brad hodge was a very good cricketer and no doubt very unlucky not to play more for Australia. He'd be the number three without question if he were playing now, but don't forget just how good Damien Martyn was. Ponting was a strong advocate of Martyn's too iirc

IMO Martyn was a significantly better player across all conditions. I liked watching Hodge bat, particularly in his latter years because he had it all worked out, unfortunately his career ran parallel with so many good players.