Replacing Damien Martyn

[SirShire]

IMHO he would be better suited batting higher up in the order in tests.

 

[Anonymous]

This is the batting lineup I'd take to Sri Lanka (and probably India):

1. Langer
2. Hayden
3. Ponting
4. Lehmann
5. Katich
6. Martyn
7. Gilchrist

(Symonds & Michael Clarke as batting reserves)

I think Martyn is better suited (or at least he produced better form) at no.6 and he should probably get one FINAL chance. If he fails Clarke as reserve would be there to replace him.

Martyn in better form than Clarke? I don't think so.

 

[Twizzle]

Forget the stats, you only have to look at Martyn at the crease.

The feet are not moving well, and his recent scores show that.

He made a good score at a good rate againts the Zimbots, but I will take more notice when he does it against a better attack than the Zimbots.

 

[Anonymous]

Forget the stats, you only have to look at Martyn at the crease.

The feet are not moving well, and his recent scores show that.

He made a good score at a good rate againts the Zimbots, but I will take more notice when he does it against a better attack than the Zimbots.

Unfortuantly I have to defend Martyn here. He is a player when in top form will not move his feet mcuh anyway. Its the way he plays and is why he is caught playing in front of his body so much.

 

[Tupac Shakur]

he went good against zimbabwe in both the vb series matches and we will see if he can back up the form he is getting into against india tomorrow.

 

[Twizzle]

You can forget tomorrow.

The ground is flooded and the monsoonal rain will be here till about the middle of next week.

 

[knights04]

Martyn should join Zim in 4 yrs. He'd fit in perfectly.

 

[Twizzle]

Stuey Law perhaps............he's looking for another team.

 

[knights04]

England not Zimbabwe

 

[Disco]

Blind Freddy could see that Damien Martyn is in a real form slump

Not sure what else to say to this besides to quote Martyns stats for today and add the analysis:

47* from 39 balls.
three fours and a six.

Entered the match with Australia looking to boost the run-rate because they had wickets in hand. Martyn turned the strike over to Gilchrist ball after ball, and contributed about half of the runs in his partnership with Gilchrist.

When Gilchrist got out, Martyn carried the innings along, popping singles and keeping things ticking a little bit (also keeping the strike so to avoid more golden ducks).

He never was out of form - he has just struggled to make the big scores. Successive ducks is out of form, a 2003 like Sachin Tendulkar's is out of form - Mark Taylor in 1997 is out of form.

But Martyn's batting never deserted him, he just seemed to lose concentration at times and fluffed along a bit. His lowest test score in 2003 of 21 is testament to a player in good knick but just not producing the big scores - reliable but not outstanding.

His One Day form was never anything below quality - averaged 58 in 2003, eight 50s and a few centuries - he has performed better than the three fellows above him yet still people chose to ignore this and assume he was out of form in all types of cricket.

His 47* today won't silence the critics - but it does add weight to the statistics, and verify slightly the argument myself and others have made - he is a good batsmen who isn't out of form.

He is a victim of Mark Waugh syndrome - laziness at the crease.
His 47* today wasn't lazy - it was calculated, at times a bit risky, but the ideal innings in that situation.

Well done Damien Martyn

Well said, good to see somebody else defending Martyn, i have been putting up a fight at Rleague, but it seems a lost cause, people don't like him no matter what sort of figures he produces

 

[SirShire]

One 47* doesnt prove to me that he is back in form. Some BIG scores will, that are consistent. Especially in the test arena.

 

[SirShire]

Oswin I hope you edit everything positive you posted about Damien Martyn. He is a disgrace!

 

[Tupac Shakur]

poor bloke

 

[Twizzle]

Lets face it, he is not in good form at the moment.

They will not drop him just yet, either.

 

[Doctor]

Oswin I hope you edit everything positive you posted about Damien Martyn. He is a disgrace!

I'm not one to change my opinion in sync with the tides of public support - his career stands for itself and is quite effectively bolstered by a highly successful 2003 in One Dayers.

Ignorance of his stats is one thing but changing one's opinion in the space of one match is just not for me.

One 47* doesnt prove to me that he is back in form.

I agree - this pattern of thought lends itself to the sacking of Michael Bevan. His scores have been far more disgraceful than that of Martyn and yet he too scored well in 2003. Why distinguish between two players with similar 12-month histories, and similar recent form? The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind.

Some BIG scores will, that are consistent. Especially in the test arena.

Let's distinguish this here - we're talking One Day Internationals here. His Test form is seperate to that of his form in the limited overs. On that note, his Test form is waning and I wouldn't be surprised to see him given a bit of a reminder by the selectors.

His One Day form though is beyond question - you cannot ignore the stats and expect to generate reasonable discussion. He does need to produce some more of those handy innings though just to keep things rolling along and not get bogged down into a form slump.

 

[SirShire]

Hardly, his test form has been bad, but not as bad as his ODI.

Bevan has had a bad VB series, but he just scored a double century, whereas Martyn hasnt scored a ton in 2 years!

 

[Anonymous]

Oswin I hope you edit everything positive you posted about Damien Martyn. He is a disgrace!

I'm not one to change my opinion in sync with the tides of public support - his career stands for itself and is quite effectively bolstered by a highly successful 2003 in One Dayers.

Ignorance of his stats is one thing but changing one's opinion in the space of one match is just not for me.

One 47* doesnt prove to me that he is back in form.

I agree - this pattern of thought lends itself to the sacking of Michael Bevan. His scores have been far more disgraceful than that of Martyn and yet he too scored well in 2003. Why distinguish between two players with similar 12-month histories, and similar recent form? The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind.

Some BIG scores will, that are consistent. Especially in the test arena.

Let's distinguish this here - we're talking One Day Internationals here. His Test form is seperate to that of his form in the limited overs. On that note, his Test form is waning and I wouldn't be surprised to see him given a bit of a reminder by the selectors.

His One Day form though is beyond question - you cannot ignore the stats and expect to generate reasonable discussion. He does need to produce some more of those handy innings though just to keep things rolling along and not get bogged down into a form slump.

The stats in the last 12 months are one thing but this VB series is comeplety different.

Sure he scored century's IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, but he is currently costing Australia a chance.

One thing the selectors fail to see is how the form a player had 12 to 18 months ago cannot be related to how well he is playing in the current day.

 

[SirShire]

So true Earl!! I reckon you sould be on that ACB board.

 

[Doctor]

Oswin I hope you edit everything positive you posted about Damien Martyn. He is a disgrace!

I'm not one to change my opinion in sync with the tides of public support - his career stands for itself and is quite effectively bolstered by a highly successful 2003 in One Dayers.

Ignorance of his stats is one thing but changing one's opinion in the space of one match is just not for me.

One 47* doesnt prove to me that he is back in form.

I agree - this pattern of thought lends itself to the sacking of Michael Bevan. His scores have been far more disgraceful than that of Martyn and yet he too scored well in 2003. Why distinguish between two players with similar 12-month histories, and similar recent form? The word 'hypocrisy' springs to mind.

Some BIG scores will, that are consistent. Especially in the test arena.

Let's distinguish this here - we're talking One Day Internationals here. His Test form is seperate to that of his form in the limited overs. On that note, his Test form is waning and I wouldn't be surprised to see him given a bit of a reminder by the selectors.

His One Day form though is beyond question - you cannot ignore the stats and expect to generate reasonable discussion. He does need to produce some more of those handy innings though just to keep things rolling along and not get bogged down into a form slump.

The stats in the last 12 months are one thing but this VB series is comeplety different.

Sure he scored century's IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, but he is currently costing Australia a chance.

One thing the selectors fail to see is how the form a player had 12 to 18 months ago cannot be related to how well he is playing in the current day.

On that logic, and ignoring his 12 month form, let's focus on the VB Series:

Ricky Ponting (av 20.75) will be dropped, as will Michael Bevan (17) because Martyn (23 @ the strike rate of 109) is batting better, faster and with a higher score than the other two.

Yet you don't question Bevan, least of all Ponting.
Why is that? Because you use past form as a guide to who is a better option.
Why then do you change this when discussing Martyn - is anyone going to finally answer that ultimate question. So many opinions in agreeance but so little substance to your collective argument.

As for 18 months - I'm talking 12 months not 18 because it gives a more rounded figure.

 

[Anonymous]

Forget the stats, you only have to look at Martyn at the crease.

If that was how you picked teams Ugly Adam Gilchrist would never have gotten past the back yard.