Changes for the 3rd Test

[nobbyiscool]

How about this guy?

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket...r-side-20130729-2quyc.html?rand=1375100962784

Pick him for a Test, see if he succeeds, and even if he doesn't, isn't there a cooling-off period before he can play for another country?

Isn't there a thread on this guy somewhere? And hasn't he already pledged allegiance to the poms?

It's symptomatic of where we're at right now anyway - in any other era we wouldn't be speaking about him. His figures aren't that amazing. It's just that our batsman suck.

And I really think this is down to the way we manage our batsman anyway. Hughes bats like he has 6 different people in his head giving him advice. Kwawaja too. These guys aren't to blame for confused techniques, nor for their lack of experience. A 21 year old Ricky Ponting could walk into this team and not make a run.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the Warner and Bird for (probably) Hughes and Pattinson are the only changes I'd make, and the only changes I'd expect them to make. Warner is unfortunately an X factor that we need, Bird should've been in from the start, and Pattinson's injury was inevitable. (In fact, my one prediction from the 2nd test, which was in the thread for the 2nd test, was that we would finish the match a bowler down.)

I cant begin to say how much I wish we were looking more closely at Neville or even Hartley for a possible number 6. I think Paine has thrown that away, and Haddin and Wade just aren't good enough with the gloves.

In my mind, the end goal for our team over the next 2 years, taking us into the next 10 years, isn't the typical 6-1-4 line up - I think it probably has our keeper at 6 with Faulkner and Agar at 7 and 8.

 

[Phone]

NSW can just allow him to be an International player for the season I'm pretty sure.

a stupid rule prevents australian born players playing as overseas players in the shield.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

I cant begin to say how much I wish we were looking more closely at Neville or even Hartley for a possible number 6. I think Paine has thrown that away, and Haddin and Wade just aren't good enough with the gloves.

In my mind, the end goal for our team over the next 2 years, taking us into the next 10 years, isn't the typical 6-1-4 line up - I think it probably has our keeper at 6 with Faulkner and Agar at 7 and 8.

Why shorten the batting even further by having the keeper at six? Absolutely, Hartley should be keeping, but batting at six? I'd have Wade bat at six as a specialist batsman before having Hartley at six and loading up on all-rounders again.

Batsmen bat, bowlers bowl, the keeper keeps, and if someone can do two jobs that a bonus but picking someone because they almost do two jobs; but can't do either; is a disaster at Test level. It really is that simple.

 

[Showbags]

Why shorten the batting even further by having the keeper at six? Absolutely, Hartley should be keeping, but batting at six? I'd have Wade bat at six as a specialist batsman before having Hartley at six and loading up on all-rounders again.

Batsmen bat, bowlers bowl, the keeper keeps, and if someone can do two jobs that a bonus but picking someone because they almost do two jobs; but can't do either; is a disaster at Test level. It really is that simple.

+1

Did we learn nothing from India.

Our greatest team ever never really had a genuine allrounder in their team other than Symonds at the back end. We had batsmen that just scored runs and bowlers who all bowled tightly and built pressure as a unit.

The great West Indian team of the 80's/90's never had a genuine world class allrounder either. Ditto the current English side (not putting them anywhere near the level of the previous two, just saying they are finding success through the 6-1-4 formula).

The current South Africa side has Jaques Kallis which is a huge added bonus but if he stopped bowling tomorrow he would still make the team as a pure batsmen. Watson, Faulkner, Henriques, Maxwell are all not able to do that so shouldn't be able to make the team. The only future I see for Faulkner is if he improves his bowling (it isn't good enough for Test Cricket atm) and slots in at number 8.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Why shorten the batting even further by having the keeper at six? Absolutely, Hartley should be keeping, but batting at six? I'd have Wade bat at six as a specialist batsman before having Hartley at six and loading up on all-rounders again.

Batsmen bat, bowlers bowl, the keeper keeps, and if someone can do two jobs that a bonus but picking someone because they almost do two jobs; but can't do either; is a disaster at Test level. It really is that simple.

Agar and Faulkner are the best 2 young prospects in the country - given our current situation, I think we're getting close to the point of just finding a spot for them and leaving them in the team to develop.

If finding them a spot means doing something unconventional to get them both in there, or if it means having to change the make up to give them better support and protect their confidence, I reckon you do it.

Agar had wanna hope they see him as a genuine bowling allrounder - the way we treat our spinners means it's the only way he'll stay in the team. Especially when, at this stage, he's not good enough to be our number 1 spinner - so batting at 7 gives him another avenue to stay in the team and to develop. Also, if he bats at 7, it allows another spinner in the team if conditions dictate it and take pressure off his bowling.

Faulkner isn't far off being able to make the team as a bowler, but he's a good batter too - why not put him at 8 and give him a chance to show it? The extra bowler also takes pressure off him if it's a fast bowler's pitch - he's still only required to be the fourth string bowler. I really believe that, going forward, Faulkner absolutely has the potential to bat at 6. But you can't pick him there at the moment.


Finally, having bowling allrounders at 7 & 8 means you can forget all about looking for allrounders in the top order, and perhaps you wouldn't have to play a certain opening batsman who is actually in the side more for the 10 overs of good swing he can bowl in a day.

Do you lose runs playing your keeper at 6? Maybe.

But I reckon the net result is in your favour if playing your keeper at 6 means you can play an opener who might score a run... and not burn repeated reviews.

 

[nobbyiscool]

+1

Did we learn nothing from India.

Our greatest team ever never really had a genuine allrounder in their team other than Symonds at the back end. We had batsmen that just scored runs and bowlers who all bowled tightly and built pressure as a unit.

The great West Indian team of the 80's/90's never had a genuine world class allrounder either. Ditto the current English side (not putting them anywhere near the level of the previous two, just saying they are finding success through the 6-1-4 formula).

The current South Africa side has Jaques Kallis which is a huge added bonus but if he stopped bowling tomorrow he would still make the team as a pure batsmen. Watson, Faulkner, Henriques, Maxwell are all not able to do that so shouldn't be able to make the team. The only future I see for Faulkner is if he improves his bowling (it isn't good enough for Test Cricket atm) and slots in at number 8.

So are we going to compare the weakest Australian team I've seen in my lifetime (I'm 30) to 2 of the best teams of all time as evidence that we don't need an allrounder? That's crazy.

Shane Warne used to bowl 40 overs a day. You didn't need an allrounder.
The WIndies used to bowl sides over so quickly they didn't need one either, and they also had guys like Malcolm Marshall and Courtney Walsh who could bowl freakishly long spells.

Comparisons to these teams are mad when you consider our spin dramas since Warnes retirement, and when you also consider that our bowlers are made of glass.


And no, we didn't learn anything from India.

To suggest that Henriques and/or Maxwell prove that an allrounder at 7 doesn't work is ridiculous. Neither of them have anything like the potential of Agar or Faulkner.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Finally, having bowling allrounders at 7 & 8 means you can forget all about looking for allrounders in the top order

This is one point, of a few, where we differ. Top or lower order doesn't matter - don't go looking for an all-rounder. In limited overs cricket a bit-part player doing a bt-part job is fine, perfectly suited to the game. Test cricket requires specialists, and if a few can perform a bit-part second role then great but it is no reason to pick them if they aren't the best available for either.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Isn't there a thread on this guy somewhere? And hasn't he already pledged allegiance to the poms?

I would have thought there was far greater opportunity for a young batsman to break into the Australian side than the English one.

 

[Phone]

I would have thought there was far greater opportunity for a young batsman to break into the Australian side than the English one.

there's greater opportunity to break into professional cricket in england

 

[eddiesmith]

He had 2 dropped catches and a missed stumping in the first innings I think. Possibly another dropped catch in the second innings.

Apparently, the Aussies dropped 7 catches during the match. So the fielding is ok at least.

Given they only bowled 1 innings I doubt he had any dropped catches in the 2nd innings

 

[bird_man]

Boof has pretty much confirmed that Watson and Rogers will be opening again this test. He also said Warner is not a certainty which I find hard to believe. He will come in as a middle order batsman but for who? Smith would be the most likely but his spin might be useful at Old Trafford, that leaves Hughes I'd say.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Given they only bowled 1 innings I doubt he had any dropped catches in the 2nd innings

So two catches and a stumping dropped then. Shit fielding and keeping whatever way you want to look at it.

The whole team had the fumbles by the sounds of it.

Comparisons with Pakistan sound more and more apt.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

If Warner comes in it will help our fielding, biggest problem for Australia is we would have the worst slips fieldsmen in world cricket currently.

Following the tour matches my line up

Watson
Rogers - Both openers on last chance
Khawaja
Smith
Clarke
Warner
Wade
Siddle
Harris - due to breakdown, my money is on 4th test though
Agar
Bird

Having Warner in the side gives us another spin option and cosnidering the history of Old Trafford and the fact they've included Monty Panesar into the squad it tells me it will spin.

Our slips are awful and not at all helped by having Haddin - who has watched balls whistle past before in his career - as keeper. We haven't had decent or settled slipsmen for a long time.

 

[bird_man]

Rogers
Watson
Khawaja
Clarke
Warner
Smith/Hughes
Wade
Agar
Siddle
Harris
Bird

Agar gets another go, Lyon blew his chance in the tour match. Wade strengthens our batting at number 7, their probably isn't a lot of difference in their keeping but at least Wade should keep improving. Warner is a slogger at times and can be very frustrating to watch but he can also win a game off his own bat so he's worth taking the risk on. As for the number 6 spot, I'm not too bothered on who gets in between Smith and Hughes, besides a couple of 50's, Hughes' last 7 or 8 tests have been pretty poor but he's been dropped that many times that if it happens again it will probably be for a long time so they may let him see if he can prove himself before the end of the series. Saying that, Smith is a better player of spin and his bowling may come in handy at Old Trafford.

 

[bird_man]

Our slips are awful and not at all helped by having Haddin - who has watched balls whistle past before in his career - as keeper. We haven't had decent or settled slipsmen for a long time.

We have a specialist VC in the team, maybe next time we can pick a specialist slip fieldsman/VC. Who's the best slip fieldsman in FC?

 

[Skeppersap]

Rogers
Watson
Khawaja
Clarke
Warner
Smith/Hughes
Wade
Agar
Siddle
Harris
Bird

Agar gets another go, Lyon blew his chance in the tour match. Wade strengthens our batting at number 7, their probably isn't a lot of difference in their keeping but at least Wade should keep improving. Warner is a slogger at times and can be very frustrating to watch but he can also win a game off his own bat so he's worth taking the risk on. As for the number 6 spot, I'm not too bothered on who gets in between Smith and Hughes, besides a couple of 50's, Hughes' last 7 or 8 tests have been pretty poor but he's been dropped that many times that if it happens again it will probably be for a long time so they may let him see if he can prove himself before the end of the series. Saying that, Smith is a better player of spin and his bowling may come in handy at Old Trafford.

Replace Watson with Hughes and keep Smith in the team. This is then, to me, the best team we can put out there which is also a team for the future!!!!!

Watch them go with Haddin, Watson etc though. Both has-beens that never were!

 

[Cleavy]

if Smith and Clarke are fit to bowl, then only need to play 1 specialist spinner.

 

[bird_man]

if Smith and Clarke are fit to bowl, then only need to play 1 specialist spinner.

Yeah, surely their is no way the will play two specialist spinners.

 

[Showbags]

So are we going to compare the weakest Australian team I've seen in my lifetime (I'm 30) to 2 of the best teams of all time as evidence that we don't need an allrounder? That's crazy.

Shane Warne used to bowl 40 overs a day. You didn't need an allrounder.
The WIndies used to bowl sides over so quickly they didn't need one either, and they also had guys like Malcolm Marshall and Courtney Walsh who could bowl freakishly long spells.

Comparisons to these teams are mad when you consider our spin dramas since Warnes retirement, and when you also consider that our bowlers are made of glass.


And no, we didn't learn anything from India.

To suggest that Henriques and/or Maxwell prove that an allrounder at 7 doesn't work is ridiculous. Neither of them have anything like the potential of Agar or Faulkner.

Ok easy fix for that. Pick Copeland in the team. He can bowl all day and keep it tight from his end.

Agar or Faulkner are not top 7 batsmen. Simple as that. They both have never scored a FC hundred. They are handy 8's not good enough for the top 7.

Our main weakness atm is batting and you want to pick a bowling allrounder at 7 to further weaken it. That is ludicrous.

 

[Cleavy]

FoxSports reporting Smith in doubt with back stiffness

 

[Ill Chicken]

What happens if they drop Agar for Lyon and then Lyon gets pumped? Do they then play Turner? This is the issue the selectors have created by not playing Lyon originally, instead of saying Lyon has three tests, he may only get one and then there is nowhere for the selectors to turn. Very reminiscent of playing Doherty in Brisbane.

 

[BJFCyulerman13]

We're gone this series get over it, all about Australian summer now. my team for the home series (providing everyone's fit):
1. chris rogers- great FC record, can seriously play.
2. shane watson- under performed so far, should be a star.
3. shaun marsh- our 2nd best batsman behind clarke.
4. usman khawaja- technically immaculate, a lot of potential.
5. michael clarke- best bat, arguably the worlds finest.
6. david warner- the matchwinner in the lineup, can turn a test in a session.
7. matthew wade- australia's best wk/ bat with age on his size.
8. james pattinson- future superstar, fine bowler and can bat.
9. peter siddle- workhorse of the attack, bowls his heart out.
10. ryan harris- arguably our best bowler when fit.
11. jackson bird- fine bowler, moves it and is quick enough or
nathan lyon- australia's most reliable spinner. (depending on wicket)

unlucky:
phill hughes- best is great, worst is shocking. still needs to sort out technical flawes.
mitchell starc- raw talent, could be anything but not ready yet.
steve smith- handy cricketer, must keep working on his leggies.

 

[Footy Smarts]

if Smith and Clarke are fit to bowl, then only need to play 1 specialist spinner.

In all honesty, if Clarke was fit enough to bowl I'd probably go something like this as the team:

Hughes
Rogers
Khawaja
Smith
Clarke
Warner
Watson
Haddin
Siddle
Harris
Bird

Let's face it neither Agar or Lyon are going to rip through an opposition. It's up to our quicks to get the wickets and between Clarke holding an end up and Smith or Warner being given a few overs here and there I don't see how we lose anything compared to Agar/Lyon. Of course Clarke won't be bowling so that's not happening.

 

[Torz]

We're gone this series get over it, all about Australian summer now. my team for the home series (providing everyone's fit):
1. chris rogers- great FC record, can seriously play.
2. shane watson- under performed so far, should be a star.
3. shaun marsh- our 2nd best batsman behind clarke.
4. usman khawaja- technically immaculate, a lot of potential.
5. michael clarke- best bat, arguably the worlds finest.
6. david warner- the matchwinner in the lineup, can turn a test in a session.
7. matthew wade- australia's best wk/ bat with age on his size.
8. james pattinson- future superstar, fine bowler and can bat.
9. peter siddle- workhorse of the attack, bowls his heart out.
10. ryan harris- arguably our best bowler when fit.
11. jackson bird- fine bowler, moves it and is quick enough or
nathan lyon- australia's most reliable spinner. (depending on wicket)

unlucky:
phill hughes- best is great, worst is shocking. still needs to sort out technical flawes.
mitchell starc- raw talent, could be anything but not ready yet.
steve smith- handy cricketer, must keep working on his leggies.

Shaun Marsh? He'll be 50 and people will still be talking about his "potential".

 

[Zach Package]

Our slips are awful and not at all helped by having Haddin - who has watched balls whistle past before in his career - as keeper. We haven't had decent or settled slipsmen for a long time.

don't really have a problem with our cordon, excluding haddin, Watson is usually pretty reliable, Pup has an immaculate pair of hands (there was that one that got between them at TB, but an isolated incident)
Smith and Hughes are also capable in the 3rd/4th slip/gully region as well, they're all good catchers.

Haddin has to set the tone though, and he's not