View Full Version : 3rd Test
Out: Damien Martyn
In: Shane Watson.
Watson to bat at 4 at bowl 4/5 (before or after Warne depending on conditions).
Thoughts?
Jeremias
4 Dec 2006, 14:28
Martyn is average ATM.
Not sure if Watson deserves a spot, he is also average.
I'd probably stay unchanged for the next test.
Cassius_Clay
4 Dec 2006, 14:29
Out: Damien Martyn
In: Shane Watson.
Watson to bat at 4 at bowl 4/5 (before or after Warne depending on conditions).
Thoughts?
Hussey @ 4, Clarke @ 5, Watson @ 6
Hussey @ 4, Clarke @ 5, Watson @ 6
I prefer Hussey down a bit, as he provides a bit of collapse insurance. He's averaging around 80 as it is, no need to meddle with the order if a straight swap scenario exists.
Watson is more suited to the top order, imo. Has made the vast majority of his first class runs at the top end.
Sylvia Saint
4 Dec 2006, 14:33
Langer /
Hayden /
Ponting* /
Hussey /
Watson /o
Clarke /
Gilchrist +/
Warne /o
Lee /o
Clark o
McGrath o
I like the balance of my side. Watson to bowl 20 overs an innings instead of Clarke.
Also Lee is on his last chance in Perth.
Cassius_Clay
4 Dec 2006, 14:33
I prefer Hussey down a bit, as he provides a bit of collapse insurance. He's averaging around 80 as it is, no need to meddle with the order if a straight swap scenario exists.
Watson is more suited to the top order, imo. Has made the vast majority of his first class runs at the top end.
They won't play Watson @ 4.
Jeremias
4 Dec 2006, 14:34
Watson will come in at 6 if he plays IMO.
I prefer Hussey down a bit, as he provides a bit of collapse insurance. He's averaging around 80 as it is, no need to meddle with the order if a straight swap scenario exists.
Watson is more suited to the top order, imo. Has made the vast majority of his first class runs at the top end.
Does it really matter? He'll still bat the same way, unlike in ODI cricket where you can build an innings batting higher up but have to go the slog in the lower order.
Hussey @ 4
Clarke @ 5
Watson @ 6
Does it really matter? He'll still bat the same way, unlike in ODI cricket where you can build an innings batting higher up but have to go the slog in the lower order.
Hussey @ 4
Clarke @ 5
Watson @ 6
If it doesn't really matter, why suggest otherwise?
Because you have to earn your batting spot. Do you think Ponting was given the no.3 batting spot as soon as he was given a spot in the test team?
94_Eagles
4 Dec 2006, 14:48
Also Lee is on his last chance in Perth.
Lol.
Because you have to earn your batting spot. Do you think Ponting was given the no.3 batting spot as soon as he was given a spot in the test team?
Did Hodge earn number 4, or slip straight in?
Gunnar Longshanks
4 Dec 2006, 14:53
Watson is more suited to the top order, imo. Has made the vast majority of his first class runs at the top end.Why isWatson more suited to #4 than #6?
Is there any reason apart from where he's batted at FC level?
Hussey is in form. He should be batted as high up the order as possible.
Did Hodge earn number 4, or slip straight in?
His first test he batted at 5 :rolleyes:
Symonds was at 6.
red+black
4 Dec 2006, 15:14
Does it really matter?
Hussey @ 4
Clarke @ 5
Watson @ 6
If it doesn't really matter, why suggest otherwise?
It does matter. You don't bat Hussey at 6 for collapse insurance. You bat your best batsmen high up so that the team can build an innings. You construct a team in a positive manner, not a negative one. The batsmen at 1st and 2nd drop should be those that can score a century and a big one at that. Ponting can do that. Hussey can do that. Preferably, those batting positions should be earned.
So I agree with Hussey at 4, Clarke at 5 and Watson at 6. That said, I'm not convinced Watson should play. Has been just serviceable with the bat, and you wouldn't pick him on his bowling alone (2 wickets in 3 Tests). Ponting didn't even bowl Watson in the 1st innings of his most recent Test.
94_Eagles
4 Dec 2006, 15:17
Thank God.
Coin_Toss
4 Dec 2006, 15:20
Watson will come in at 6 if he plays IMO.
I agree... (he's labelled an all-rounder for a reason you know)
then move Clarke up to #4
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Watson OUT: Martyn
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Clark
McGrath
TigerGlory
4 Dec 2006, 15:31
Not really, i agree with Zeke, Hussey as Collapse Insurance is the way its working why would you screw it around?
Hussey is in fine form as is, i'd rather leave him at Number 6 where he will still get a bat anyway, if it was one day, i'd move him up the order. But why screw around with it, when hes averaging big scores where he is?
You dont need to "build" an innings on Hussey, when you have Ponting making centuries, and you have Langer and Hayden up the top order as well.
Out: Damien Martyn
In: Shane Watson.
Watson to bat at 4 at bowl 4/5 (before or after Warne depending on conditions).
Thoughts?
Won't and shouldn't happen.
Either play 5 bowlers with Gilly at 6 or play 6 batsmen with gilly at 7, we don't need to go half-arsed when we don't have a test all-rounder.
Not really, i agree with Zeke, Hussey as Collapse Insurance is the way its working why would you screw it around?
Hussey is in fine form as is, i'd rather leave him at Number 6 where he will still get a bat anyway, if it was one day, i'd move him up the order. But why screw around with it, when hes averaging big scores where he is?
You dont need to "build" an innings on Hussey, when you have Ponting making centuries, and you have Langer and Hayden up the top order as well.
He's currently batting at 5...
Can we afford to bank on Watson, given his recent injury worries?
Cooldude
4 Dec 2006, 16:37
Watson and Macgill should come in
WACA should be even deader than Adelaide and that can only mean we have to play the two leggies
Oh When the Saints
4 Dec 2006, 17:05
Agree with Sylvia Saint's lineup, except Watson at 6 and Clarke at 5.
McGrath, Clark, Watson, Lee and Warne (with Clarke for a few overs of spin). That gives Punter a lot more options than he had in Adelaide.
Agree that Lee is on his last chance in Perth, barring a good spell tomorrow.
i_hate_scams
4 Dec 2006, 17:09
WACA should be even deader than Adelaide
can't wait for another run feast...
17/1123 after 4 days, are they putting cement in the WACA pitch?
raikkonen
4 Dec 2006, 18:28
Why is everyone obsessed with Watson playing?
How about:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Jaques
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Clark
MAcgill
McGrath
Lee 12th
Lee hasnt really done anything to warrant a spot, and from what Im hearing the WACA has been a spinners paradise this year, so?
Nathan Brown #7
4 Dec 2006, 18:42
Im not sure why everyone wants all these changes made in the test side. Sure, marto has missed out twice in 2 tests, but who cares, its just as likely he'll come out and make 100 next time he bats. Part of Australia's success in recent years is because they persist with batsmen and bowlers out of form. Martyn will get another crack at it for sure, his home ground will assure this. Watson isnt even that good anyway, certainly nowhere near as good a bat as marto, and I dont know why we need him to bowl many overs, his a second rate bowler, and stuart clarke is getting underbowled. Leave the team as it is, and if marto fails once or twice more bring in hodge.
apollo_creed
4 Dec 2006, 19:00
Zeke has always been in love with Shane Watson.
I guess it's that he thinks he's a Tasmanian when really the dude obviously hated the place and couldn't wait to get back home.
crowsarethebest
4 Dec 2006, 19:04
Martyn out IMO. Need to look towards the future.. Even if Watson makes only 10 runs and takes 1 wicket, he is doing a better job than Martyn at the moment.
Monkeyboy
4 Dec 2006, 19:48
Why is everyone obsessed with Watson playing?
How about:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Jaques
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Clark
MAcgill
McGrath
Lee 12th
Lee hasnt really done anything to warrant a spot, and from what Im hearing the WACA has been a spinners paradise this year, so?
Na. You must have a third seamer. Not only in case of injury, but just for attack balance. If we bowl first and it doesn't turn till day 3-4, can you really see McGrath coping with 40 plus overs in the Perth heat.
They will not be replacing anyone for a specialist bat like Jaqus. We have made about 1200 runs for 20ish wickets. We would only replace Martyn with a Watson, a Macgill or a Johnson. Hopefully Macgill.
Alkaline
4 Dec 2006, 19:51
IN: Jaques, Watson, MacGill
OUT: Hayden, Martyn, Lee
Cassius_Clay
4 Dec 2006, 19:52
IN: Jaques, Watson, MacGill
OUT: Hayden, Martyn, Lee
LoL, not gonna happen :rolleyes:
Marklar_33
4 Dec 2006, 20:04
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Gilchrist
Hussey
Clarke
Watson
Warne
Clark
MacGill
McGrath
12th: Andrew Symonds (why not a gun fielder!)
Bartram_Class
4 Dec 2006, 20:05
Out: Damien Martyn
In: Shane Watson.
Watson to bat at 4 at bowl 4/5 (before or after Warne depending on conditions).
Thoughts?
Clarke to 4, Watson at 6.
Malibu#27
4 Dec 2006, 20:08
I dont see the point of including Watson personally - especially now that Clarke has made runs ... he hasn't doen enough for mine. His bowling isnt going to be that dangerous at test level, and I think he needs to work on it, before he comes in to compensate for his batting being behind where a true batsman would need to be.
I dont see the absolute need for an all-rounder given we are already playing one (Gillchrist)
If we need a top 6 batsman - we pick the best available (that isn't Watson), if we need another bowler, then we should be making a tough decision re Lee. A jack of all trades, to me is a similar logic to what England have used to select Giles over Monty ... because his batting is better.
Money where my mouth is:
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Martyn ....... (Jaques if we want a change here)
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Clark
Tait .... (seriosly troubled POMs in PMs game and again in Adelaide)
McGrath
Marklar_33
4 Dec 2006, 20:10
If Gilchrist is an all-rounder, so are Ponting and Clarke
Bartram_Class
4 Dec 2006, 20:13
Gilchrist isnt a true all rounder is the sense he can bat and bowl, nor is Clarke, who is really a part time bowler and the few overs he has bowled, never looked like picking up a wicket.
Watson needs to be included, he couldnt do any worse than Martyn with the bat and will give our frontline bowlers a rest if nothing else. I personally think he will trouble some of the poms, just like Clark has so far.
Malibu#27
4 Dec 2006, 20:20
If Gilchrist is an all-rounder, so are Ponting and Clarke
He keeps, and is top notch batsman .... hence killing two birds with one stone ... therefor a bowling allrounder isnt really required. I assumed a keeping allrounder was a term that had been used elsewhere on here before ? I certainly had heard the term.
He keeps, and is top notch batsman .... hence killing two birds with one stone ... therefor a bowling allrounder isnt really required. I assumed a keeping allrounder was a term that had been used elsewhere on here before ? I certainly had heard the term.
Keepers must be able to bat now-a-days. You will never see a keeper picked on keeping ability alone, if you did Darren Berry would be a 100+ test veteran.
Gunnar Longshanks
4 Dec 2006, 21:00
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Gilchrist
Hussey
Clarke
Watson
Warne
Clark
MacGill
McGrath
12th: Andrew Symonds (why not a gun fielder!)How do people come up with this stuff?
Of course Gilchrist is an all-rounder.
For Perth I would bring in an extra bowler because apparently the wicket is going to be another dead one. The problem is who to drop after Clarke made a few runs today. I would almost consider looking at bringing someone like Tait or Johnson in for Martyn and batting Hussey at 4, Clarke at 5, and Gilly at 6. Watson just doesn't look like a wicket-taking bowler at times.
Gridlock'd
4 Dec 2006, 21:08
The selectors cleary want to play Watson, as he is the future of Australian cricket, and as soon as he if fit, he will slot straight back in.
If hes fit for the next test, Watson in, Martyn out.
Hussey at 4, Clarke 5, Watson 6.
Hayden and Lee on very thin ice.
rdhopkins2
4 Dec 2006, 21:53
Pity it is going to be another Adelaide like wicket from reports rather than the traditionally feared bouncy WACA deck.
Would England not water their pitches to give the seamers a better chance or would India not dry theirs drier than a shagpile carpet to help the spinners??
I'm not saying we should join them, but how about giving the bowler a little and the batsman a bit in Aus rather than a batting paradise. Ok days 4 and 5 you will expect some wear and tear and slightly uneven bounce but I think we are too batting sided at the moment.
Still that is my opinon and you might all think its tripe!
Cheers
Russ
pinkus maximus
4 Dec 2006, 22:49
Pity it is going to be another Adelaide like wicket from reports rather than the traditionally feared bouncy WACA deck.
Would England not water their pitches to give the seamers a better chance or would India not dry theirs drier than a shagpile carpet to help the spinners??
I'm not saying we should join them, but how about giving the bowler a little and the batsman a bit in Aus rather than a batting paradise. Ok days 4 and 5 you will expect some wear and tear and slightly uneven bounce but I think we are too batting sided at the moment.
Still that is my opinon and you might all think its tripe!
Cheers
Russ
the word around perth is the curator was instructed to make sure the game lasts 5 days as the waca has lost heaps of money with all these 3 day matches over the years as teams have not been able to cope with the pace and bounce
so now we have a dull lifeless pitch
mr_cellotape
5 Dec 2006, 02:12
Watson needs to be included, he couldnt do any worse than Martyn with the bat and will give our frontline bowlers a rest if nothing else. I personally think he will trouble some of the poms, just like Clark has so far.
I'd agree, if he were fit. Given that he'd be a 'rushed back from injury' selection, I'd argue that's foolish. You don't need/want that in an important mid-series test match, when the side is already carrying players (McGrath, Lee, Martyn, Hayden).
Coin_Toss
5 Dec 2006, 06:29
Originally posted by mr_cellotape
I'd agree, if he were fit. Given that he'd be a 'rushed back from injury' selection, I'd argue that's foolish. You don't need/want that in an important mid-series test match, when the side is already carrying players (McGrath, Lee, Martyn, Hayden).
Not really, he's had plenty of time to recuperate, because if he were "rushed", then he would have played in the Adelaide Test. I'm sure when he gets to Perth he'll be right.
At least he fits the gap in the contentious fourth bowling spot.
Jeremias
5 Dec 2006, 07:53
How do people come up with this stuff?
I was thinking exactly the same thing.................:rolleyes:
TheColeTrain
5 Dec 2006, 08:29
Hayden
Langer
Ponting
Gilchrist
Hussey
Clarke
Watson
Warne
Clark
MacGill
McGrath
12th: Andrew Symonds (why not a gun fielder!)
Why would we play Gilchrist at 4, when he wouldn't even bat at 4 when he was at his best? And play two pace bowlers and two spinners, with Watsons not very threatening bowling, he is in the team based on his batting averaging above 50 in FC cricket.
How can you possibly justify wanting a team like that?:rolleyes: