Tour of NZ.

[GVGjr]

Re: Tour of NZ.

It must be Victorian thing because Phil Hughes keeps getting picked because of his Phil Hughes-ness, but Brad Hodge never got picked because of his Brad Hodge-ness.

The accusations have often been that the selectors favor the New South Welshman over the Victorians but I can't see how that works. Given where the selectors come from it hardly confirms a NSW cartel.

I agree that Hodge should have played more test cricket than he did but as a rule I do think the selectors reward the better performers.

[Go_Dogs]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Given where the selectors come from it hardly confirms a NSW cartel.

Hilditch must just be a very smart man, and take issue with all Victorians

[lemmon]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Agree with GVG here, I think we're flogging a dead horse with the idea that the Vics have been unfairly treated in regards to national selection. The strength of domestic cricket in Australia dictates that we're going to have a lot of guys good enough for international cricket but who are unable to find a spot. We had Hodgey, Queensland had Jimmy Maher and Martin Love, Boof Lehmann should have played more test cricket then he did, its pointless mentioning them all.
And besides, we have been guilty of mishandling our young players and probably still are. IMO we have been to set on winning trophies and to an extent have neglected blooding our youngsters. After Hodgey retired the selectors persisted with a 28 year old Mash at number 3 rather then putting Finchy straight in, the majority of other states would have blooded Hill earlier, a prodigious talent and then persisted with him in the final rather then the safe option of the 27 year old Rob Quiney. If we were serious about gaining Australian representatives Holland would have been our first choice spinner this year, not McGain. We have brought over two guys who are 30+ in recent years in Rogers and Wright, both have performed admirably but were selections based solely on winning Victoria finals, not giving kids game time. We cant complain about our players not getting opportunities on the international stage when we would rather play older journeymen then talented kids.
Look at NSW, they blooded the likes of Smith, Hughes, Hazelwood and Kwajha even if they may have been underdone or not ready for shield cricket, now they have a group of talented youngsters who will all play international cricket at some stage.

[chef]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Agree with GVG here, I think we're flogging a dead horse with the idea that the Vics have been unfairly treated in regards to national selection. The strength of domestic cricket in Australia dictates that we're going to have a lot of guys good enough for international cricket but who are unable to find a spot. We had Hodgey, Queensland had Jimmy Maher and Martin Love, Boof Lehmann should have played more test cricket then he did, its pointless mentioning them all.
And besides, we have been guilty of mishandling our young players and probably still are. IMO we have been to set on winning trophies and to an extent have neglected blooding our youngsters. After Hodgey retired the selectors persisted with a 28 year old Mash at number 3 rather then putting Finchy straight in, the majority of other states would have blooded Hill earlier, a prodigious talent and then persisted with him in the final rather then the safe option of the 27 year old Rob Quiney. If we were serious about gaining Australian representatives Holland would have been our first choice spinner this year, not McGain. We have brought over two guys who are 30+ in recent years in Rogers and Wright, both have performed admirably but were selections based solely on winning Victoria finals, not giving kids game time. We cant complain about our players not getting opportunities on the international stage when we would rather play older journeymen then talented kids.
Look at NSW, they blooded the likes of Smith, Hughes, Hazelwood and Kwajha even if they may have been underdone or not ready for shield cricket, now they have a group of talented youngsters who will all play international cricket at some stage.

Good post.

Considering a third of Australia's population lives in NSW you would think that the Australian side would be filled with a fair few of them.

[chef]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Well done to Hughes making 86 out of the 106 needed for the win, but still looks troubled by the shot ball(plays them like Bevan IMO).

[bulldogtragic]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Well done to Hughes making 86 out of the 106 needed for the win, but still looks troubled by the shot ball(plays them like Bevan IMO).

86 off 75 and scored 85% of the 2nd innings score. OK performance i say.

[Sedat]

Re: Tour of NZ.

I agree that Hodge should have played more test cricket than he did but as a rule I do think the selectors reward the better performers.

That would be a debatable topic. Plenty of cricketers have been fast-tracked before their first class form warranted it. And others have endured a sustained run of woeful form at national level and are still rewarded with a national cap. Meanwhile others have churned out runs every year and are overlooked for higher honours.

The circumstances behind Hodge being dropped from the test team were a disgrace. After cementing his place in the national team with a wonderful double-hundred in his first series, he fended at a short ball and made one failure. That was supposedly enough to get him dropped from the test team for the return tour to Sth Africa a month later. And who was he dropped for? Damian Martyn, a bloke 3 years older than him, who was finished as a test cricketer at the time, who had already been dropped from the test team for poor form after the 2005 Ashes and who then proceeded to make no runs whatsoever at Shield level. Complete and utter disgrace. This isn't a Vic conspiracy - the above example is only used to highlight the fact that some players have been treated awfully by the national selectors.

Our selectors chop and change their methodology time and again when it suits them. We are a successful test team because the rest of the world is so average, not because our selectors are miracle-workers.

[lemmon]

Re: Tour of NZ.

That would be a debatable topic. Plenty of cricketers have been fast-tracked before their first class form warranted it. And others have endured a sustained run of woeful form at national level and are still rewarded with a national cap. Meanwhile others have churned out runs every year and are overlooked for higher honours.

The circumstances behind Hodge being dropped from the test team were a disgrace. After cementing his place in the national team with a wonderful double-hundred in his first series, he fended at a short ball and made one failure. That was supposedly enough to get him dropped from the test team for the return tour to Sth Africa a month later. And who was he dropped for? Damian Martyn, a bloke 3 years older than him, who was finished as a test cricketer at the time, who had already been dropped from the test team for poor form after the 2005 Ashes and who then proceeded to make no runs whatsoever at Shield level. Complete and utter disgrace. This isn't a Vic conspiracy - the above example is only used to highlight the fact that some players have been treated awfully by the national selectors.

Our selectors chop and change their methodology time and again when it suits them. We are a successful test team because the rest of the world is so average, not because our selectors are miracle-workers.

Agree about Hodge's dropping but saying Martyn was finished is a bit harsh. Made 225 runs in SA at an averaged 56.25. He wasn't a total failure on his comeback.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Tour of NZ.

That would be a debatable topic. Plenty of cricketers have been fast-tracked before their first class form warranted it. And others have endured a sustained run of woeful form at national level and are still rewarded with a national cap. Meanwhile others have churned out runs every year and are overlooked for higher honours.

The circumstances behind Hodge being dropped from the test team were a disgrace. After cementing his place in the national team with a wonderful double-hundred in his first series, he fended at a short ball and made one failure. That was supposedly enough to get him dropped from the test team for the return tour to Sth Africa a month later. And who was he dropped for? Damian Martyn, a bloke 3 years older than him, who was finished as a test cricketer at the time, who had already been dropped from the test team for poor form after the 2005 Ashes and who then proceeded to make no runs whatsoever at Shield level. Complete and utter disgrace. This isn't a Vic conspiracy - the above example is only used to highlight the fact that some players have been treated awfully by the national selectors.

Our selectors chop and change their methodology time and again when it suits them. We are a successful test team because the rest of the world is so average, not because our selectors are miracle-workers.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And no.4 in the world, sliding 3 places in 3 years, isn't particularly successful, mind you. Last summer was a debacle, this summer we've played teams ranked 6th, 7th and 8th, so it's like saying we're a good AFL team this year because we beat Melbourne, Richmond and Freo even though we lost to everyone else.

[Charlie the Wonder Dog]

Re: Tour of NZ.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And no.4 in the world, sliding 3 places in 3 years, isn't particularly successful, mind you. Last summer was a debacle, this summer we've played teams ranked 6th, 7th and 8th, so it's like saying we're a good AFL team this year because we beat Melbourne, Richmond and Freo even though we lost to everyone else.

Hang on a minute, I find it very offensive that you are comparing NZ to Melb, Rich or the purple haze.


I think it would fairer and more accurate to say we have more in common with the Kooweerup u14s