Who's next?

[Beny]

1 century from 23 innings is not good enough.

He's failed to convert and that is his problem.

75
125
77
86
81
99

On the difficult wickets in Chennai and Mumbai, when Aus were under pressure and NEEDED runs from him, he choked - badly - looked like a rabbit in the headlights.

So did the rest of the players. Dravid,Tendualker,Ponting,Hayden,Langer Martyn....e.c.t all had a difficult time on those wickets. You can't judge him solely on that. For the record, how many times did he save the team?

For the record, on the Indian tour, he scored 276 runs at 39.42 including only two half centuries from eight innings. While not bad, you could hardly call that a fantastic tour

Put it in perspective. The situaion of the game... The difficulty of the wickets. e.c.t He was the only behind martyn,clarke and gilly in that tour.

[Leafy Seadragon]

Agree on all three points Beny,

If you want to consider poor conversion rate early in a career, look no further than Steve Waugh (42 innings before his first ton by my count) and averaging 28.35 after the same number of tests as Katich. Now I'm not suggesting Katich is of the same calibre as Steve Waugh, but it goes to show that a slow start doesn't mean much (and yes, there are other mitigating factors - strength of team, opposition, etc, but its still a pretty startling comparison.

My memory of the Indian series was of Katich performing reasonably well. Not really sure about Seamer's Chennai comment - wasn't Katich N.O. trying to hold some semblance of the batting together in the 1st innings? Okay out for few in the 2nd, but a really harsh judgement for this test, given that he was onr of the few batsmen who did perform when needed. At Mumbai few Aussie batsmen covered themselves in glory (Martyn and Hayden the best of a sorry bunch). Looking at two tests in isolation (particularly when many others struggled) seems a strange argument for discounting a batsman, particularly when he did okay in one of them, to say nothing of his valuable scores 80+ & 99 in the other tests.

As cautious as I am about statistics, Katich was outscored in the Indian tests by only Clarke, Martyn & Sehwag and had the 3rd highest Aussie batting average. That and his contributions in three of the four tests suggest that he was an important part of the first Australian team to win in India for ages.

Personally, I can't think of why anyone would be questioning his position.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Leafy Seadragon

f you want to consider poor conversion rate early in a career, look no further than Steve Waugh (42 innings before his first ton by my count) and averaging 28.35 after the same number of tests as Katich. Now I'm not suggesting Katich is of the same calibre as Steve Waugh, but it goes to show that a slow start doesn't mean much (and yes, there are other mitigating factors - strength of team, opposition, etc, but its still a pretty startling comparison..

Steve Waugh's early career was at a time when Australia was weak and had little viable batting options. We are now in a period of dominance and have no need to endure mediocracy.
Current conversion rates (centuries)
Ponting 21 after 138 - century every 6.5 inns
Gilchrist13 after 94 - century every 7.2 inns
Clarke 2 after 14 - century every 7 inns
Hayden 20 after 112 - cetury every 5.6 inns
Langer 21 after 145 - century every 6.9 inns
Lehman 5 after 41 inns - century evey 8.4 inns
Martyn 11 after 86 inns - century every 7.9 inns
Love 1 after 8 inns - century every 8 inns
And then we come to Katitch
Katitch 1 after 23 inns - century every 23 inns
As i said - not good enough. If you are happy with mediocacy and a guy who chips in with the odd 50 every now and then, fine, but for myself (and the Aussie selectors know doubt) we need a great player - not a very average one

[Zainub]

Hayden 20 after 112 - cetury every 5.6 inns

That's one every 2.8 tests! Awsome!

[Rachael]

Originally Posted by Seamer

If you are happy with mediocacy and a guy who chips in with the odd 50 every now and then, fine, but for myself (and the Aussie selectors know doubt) we need a great player - not a very average one

Hmmmm. So if you had the chance to get a flat track bully who made centuries when the going was easy then you'd take him over a guy with a less expansive game who consistently held innings together, even on the toughest pitches, whilst rarely taking headline space, high profile plaudits and MoM awards? A curious idea, that.

I'm not going to stick my neck out and say Katich is the man for the job... but it strikes me that he is the right TYPE of man for the job: in games where making centuries is straightforward this Aussie team is over-run with guys who can and do deliver.. to the point where declarations are almost commonplace.. but as soon as the going gets tough... everyone's desperate to see Langer carry his bat as the rest seem likely to play a quickfire ODI style innings and then get themselves out!

What this side is missing is a guy for those games where th abtting is tough: ability to make centuries is, to my mind, irrelevent.. and you could even argue that ability to play strokes and score runs is secondary.

Going for a win in each session of every match is a luxury only afforded to those who face weak opposition in series whose outcome is a forgone conclusion: when the team is finally seriously challenged it's going to be series wins, not individual games, that count... and not losing games.. and salvaging something from those games where you lose a critical toss... is going to be far, far more important.

[Seamer]

Originally Posted by Rachael

ability to make centuries is, to my mind, irrelevent.. and you could even argue that ability to play strokes and score runs is secondary. .

Well if you say so
The fact that an English cricket fan wants Katitch in the team with the Ashes coming up just strengthens my arguement.

[Beny]

Seamer,

I dont care how many tons he makes. I'm far more interested in how many runs he makes. As I've pointed out above, he has only made 50 once and since than he's made numerous 70's,80's and even 99... are you going to drop this guy over 1 run? On top of that he, out of the three names mentiond in the post, is the most sucsessfull in Aussie Domestic cricket. My warning, don't take Katich at you're own risk, because taking Hussy ( a big hitter) along with a middle order consisting of Clarke and Gilly, is not a good structure.

[Beny]

Australia squad Matthew Hayden, Justin Langer, Ricky Ponting (capt), Damien Martyn, Michael Clarke, Brad Hodge, Simon Katich, Adam Gilchrist (wk), Shane Warne, Brett Lee, Jason Gillespie, Michael Kasprowicz, Glenn McGrath.

Looks like Hussy has missed out....

[Paoli]

Originally Posted by Seamer

P69. Your faith in Hodge and Victorians in general is admirable. But in all fairness, Hodge and Bevan(who, strangely you failed to mention) are roughly the same age, and Bevan has had far more experience in international cricket and county cricket than Hodge. And form?

Hodge will never play for Australia. Too many better batsmen of his agegroup. The selectors will likely go for youth though, and rightfully so

Recently, Seamer, you took a stab (probably in a little fun!!) at me when I said in response to bevo that McGrath probably wasnt in career-best form and went on to take 4-16 off his 10. "Choke (about 20 gasps inbetween each) on your words", I think was the call.

Anyway, my faith in Victorians and Hodge has been paid off with Hodge's spot in the tour of New Zealand. And he'll never play for Australia??? I dare say there is a chance he will. Seamer, this aint' a slanging match, rather in a bit of cross state rivalry and poking a little fun. Choke on the words, with 50 gasps inbetween each!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good on the selectors, Good on Hodgey, and look forward to you being No.391. Onya mate, You finally get "THE" call.

[Zainub]

I think he was called up for the India tour too. But then he didn't get a game. With Lehman out now, he might this time.