Replacing Damien Martyn

[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.

Waiting for a reply to these valid comments - I find it remarkable that there is so much being said about his alleged "form" yet when the facts of the matter are presented, no one will go near their previous comments. :?

How a batsman looks at the crease has nothing to do with selection - it is based on runs, strike rates, individual innings etc.

 

[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.

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.

Waiting for a reply to these valid comments - I find it remarkable that there is so much being said about his alleged "form" yet when the facts of the matter are presented, no one will go near their previous comments. :?

How a batsman looks at the crease has nothing to do with selection - it is based on runs, strike rates, individual innings etc.

Ponting had an outstanding test series so we know he is in decent touch. While Martyn's test serious wasn't a complete failure I think somebody else could have done better, and his performances so far in the VB show that.

I have no problem with Bevan being dropped, and the only reason I havn't started on him is because of the support I know he has on these forums Bevan hasn't scored a century for well over 15 months and while most people will argue he doesn't get the chance, well when was the last time he won a game for Australia?

He has had ample oppurtunity to 'do what he does best' in the last few series, but doesn't have what it takes anymore. And beside all this his strike in the last 13 months has dropped to a lousy 66. Which I think is pathetic.

 

[Doctor]

Bevan hasn't scored a century for well over 15 months and while most people will argue he doesn't get the chance

In One Dayers, neither has Matthew Hayden - not scoring a century isn't grounds for dismissal.

when was the last time he won a game for Australia

The winning or losing of games is ambiguous - some players make greater contributions than others. If Bevan gets Australia close (but not over the line) to 10 targets in 2004, does that make him any less valuable than if it wins us one match?

I'm not defending Bevan but you need to look at the idea of a player "winning" the game for us instead of getting us close and missing out by one or two wickets or 10-15 runs.