Khawaja v Marsh

At #3, Khawaja v Marsh

  • Khawaja

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Marsh

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Watson

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ponting

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

PykeDream

Only the Betts
Joined
Sep 2, 2011
Posts
4,688
Likes
1,877
AFL Club
Adelaide
You're right they are flat, but you're using the term flat to mean easy to bat on. It's relatively easy if you're accostomed to the conditions and have a technique which can handle spin bowling and suits the slow, low nature of the wickets, which are very often rain affected (I.e Jayawardena, Sangakarra, De Silva). Not to mention the muggy conditions, oppressive heat and slow, damp outfields.

I hear a lot of talk, especially from Kerry O'Keefe that Marsh's technique is better suited to slower and lower conditions, which may explain his big innings in Lanka. What would question this theory though is the fact that he has been brought up playing at the WACA and also the fact that the weather in the high country (Kandy and Pallekele - where Marsh made the 141) is somewhat cooler (humidity the same) and the wickets offer just that little bit more for seamers
I heard someone say that his technical issues may be a result of over using bowling machine's in his development years. The way he's played this series has mirrored that of the Indians - not reading the swing and bounce produced by our specially prepared pitches, not to mention a dash of Phil Hughes in his half hearted slashes outside off stump.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Nodgey

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Posts
2,825
Likes
1,964
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
SDFC, Liverpool, Scorchers
I voted 'other'.

I'd like Clarke to grow some balls and bat at 3, enabling Khawahja to be eased into test cricket down the order a bit. I'm not convinced on Marsh as a test cricketer.

Watson preferably at 5 or 6 as a genuine all rounder. I certainly wouldn't put Watson in the same class as Kallis, but I would reluctantly bat Watson at 4 if need be.
 

TheWoodenSlug

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Posts
5,250
Likes
9,899
AFL Club
Geelong
I voted 'other'.

I'd like Clarke to grow some balls and bat at 3, enabling Khawahja to be eased into test cricket down the order a bit. I'm not convinced on Marsh as a test cricketer.

Watson preferably at 5 or 6 as a genuine all rounder. I certainly wouldn't put Watson in the same class as Kallis, but I would reluctantly bat Watson at 4 if need be.
Agree with most of your post, but I really don't understand people saying this (the bolded), other than as another excuse to bag Clarke. What does "showing balls" have to do with it? Clarke is clearly best suited to bat at number 5, so why put him up to number 3?

As for Watson I'd like him at 4. To me, he doesn't seem to have the temperament required to bat with the tail if shit goes pear shaped. I reckon Khawaja would be good to replace Hussey when he goes. Something like:

Warner
Cowan
Marsh???
Watson
Clarke
Khawaja
Not Haddin
Bowlers

Agree on Marsh, still not sure if he has what it takes. I hope so, because that would be a pretty decent line up I reckon.
 

The Convert

All Australian
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Posts
751
Likes
118
Location
slightly off centre
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
You're right they are flat, but you're using the term flat to mean easy to bat on. It's relatively easy if you're accostomed to the conditions and have a technique which can handle spin bowling and suits the slow, low nature of the wickets, which are very often rain affected (I.e Jayawardena, Sangakarra, De Silva). Not to mention the muggy conditions, oppressive heat and slow, damp outfields.

I hear a lot of talk, especially from Kerry O'Keefe that Marsh's technique is better suited to slower and lower conditions, which may explain his big innings in Lanka. What would question this theory though is the fact that he has been brought up playing at the WACA and also the fact that the weather in the high country (Kandy and Pallekele - where Marsh made the 141) is somewhat cooler (humidity the same) and the wickets offer just that little bit more for seamers
This may explain his poor first class record
 

CHIEF SMACKAHOE

Club Legend
Suspended
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Posts
1,534
Likes
13
Location
geelong
AFL Club
Geelong
Agree with most of your post, but I really don't understand people saying this (the bolded), other than as another excuse to bag Clarke. What does "showing balls" have to do with it? Clarke is clearly best suited to bat at number 5, so why put him up to number 3?
because our batting lineup is constantly collapsing and we need our captain and best batsman to steady our top order.
 

The Convert

All Australian
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Posts
751
Likes
118
Location
slightly off centre
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Box Hill Hawks
Not sure but 7 centuries and 23 fifties in first class cricket from 123 innings. I would assume at least a couple at waca. Pretty poor conversion. Average 38 over that number of innings does not say he is a no 3 for Australia in my mind
 

Bucking Beads

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Posts
23,622
Likes
15,345
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Not sure but 7 centuries and 23 fifties in first class cricket from 123 innings. I would assume at least a couple at waca. Pretty poor conversion. Average 38 over that number of innings does not say he is a no 3 for Australia in my mind
Agreed 100% the dilemma is he looks better than that
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Belnakor

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
18,286
Likes
8,945
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Greg Chappell had a massive string of ducks, something like 4 in a row and 7 in 15 innings, didnt mean squat, he's still one of the best we've ever produced. .
reminds me of the classic Ken Barrington Quote

"his best-known quip came in answer to a Surrey fan commiserating over his lack of form after a sequence of four low single-figure scores, two ducks among them. "How d'you know I'm out of form?" shot back Ken indignantly: "I've only had nine balls all week!""
 

Mr Meeseeks

Premium Gold
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Posts
12,894
Likes
9,022
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I really like Khawaja at 3.
Insurance allowing Warner the freedom to destroy an attack. Ed and usman could see off a new ball should Warner go early but he has to be encouraged to play as he did in Perth.

Frightens tge hell out of the opp

Not sold on Marsh
 

Nodgey

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 14, 2007
Posts
2,825
Likes
1,964
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
SDFC, Liverpool, Scorchers
Agree with most of your post, but I really don't understand people saying this (the bolded), other than as another excuse to bag Clarke. What does "showing balls" have to do with it? Clarke is clearly best suited to bat at number 5, so why put him up to number 3?
...
I just think Clarke is our best batsman at the moment and therefore should come in at 3. I'd have more confidence in our top order if he were there and I reckon the collapses would decrease.

The reason I said he lacked balls to go there is because of the albeit unconfirmed reports that he "prefers" 5. I respectfully disagree that he is best suited to bat at 5.

FWIW I reckon Clarke has blossomed as a cricketer since becoming captain and has certainly performed better than his predecessor. I like him.
 

Thommo 42

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Posts
9,782
Likes
1,198
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Collingwood
I just think Clarke is our best batsman at the moment and therefore should come in at 3. I'd have more confidence in our top order if he were there and I reckon the collapses would decrease.

The reason I said he lacked balls to go there is because of the albeit unconfirmed reports that he "prefers" 5. I respectfully disagree that he is best suited to bat at 5.

FWIW I reckon Clarke has blossomed as a cricketer since becoming captain and has certainly performed better than his predecessor. I like him.
He failed dismally at #4, so not sure how you could ascertain he is best suited to #3.

The best #3's are former openers or complete freaks. Steve Waugh & Allan Border have balls of steel and the size of basketballs, and they didn't bat #3. Tendulkar has never batted 3, Lara, Kallis etc none have been #3's.

Greg Chappell only batted 3 about 30 times and averaged low 40's and averaged nearly 60 at #4 where he spent most of his career. Trott is not England's best player, and he bats 3.

Clarke should bat where he is best suited and that is middle order, he doesn't have a top order mentality or technique.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Posts
255
Likes
16
Location
Voyager 1
AFL Club
Melbourne
Khawaja v Marsh

Neither at the moment.

I'd go with Cowan & Watson when Watson gets back.
Warner @ 3, for the moment, ahead of both Marsh & Khawaja. Warner IMO could play anywhere between Opening & 5th.

So I'd go with an opening R/L hand opening combo, looking ahead to the bigger Tests coming up.
Maybe eventually Khawaja could settle into 3, with Warner then @ 4, when Ponting is ready to go.
 

Black Diamond

Sleight of Hand
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Posts
7,642
Likes
6,264
Location
Beyond Reproach
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
BMC Racing
Thread starter #144
Khawaja v Marsh

Neither at the moment.

I'd go with Cowan & Watson when Watson gets back.
Warner @ 3, for the moment, ahead of both Marsh & Khawaja. Warner IMO could play anywhere between Opening & 5th.

So I'd go with an opening R/L hand opening combo, looking ahead to the bigger Tests coming up.
Maybe eventually Khawaja could settle into 3, with Warner then @ 4, when Ponting is ready to go.
So you would move our most consistent batsman this summer from where he has played pretty well, and then move him a second time very shortly?

If Watson comes back he shouldn't disrupt the first opening pair we've had for ages which is seeming to gel quickly. If Watson comes back in his inclusion should not disrupt the batting order.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Posts
255
Likes
16
Location
Voyager 1
AFL Club
Melbourne
So you would move our most consistent batsman this summer from where he has played pretty well, and then move him a second time very shortly?

If Watson comes back he shouldn't disrupt the first opening pair we've had for ages which is seeming to gel quickly. If Watson comes back in his inclusion should not disrupt the batting order.
Yes.

And I liked the Idea of Adam Gilchrist becoming an opener, instead of staying put in the middle order.
IMO Warner has a great 'eye', but is a little off for his technique, and his natural aggression chasing runs suits the stroke players spots.
Cowan is more suited temperamentally as an opener and plays like he could play on green seaming English wickets.
Watson has the maturity to take the Poms on as an opener and can get amongst the runs.

Having a mixed pair opening is more difficult for the opposing New ball bowlers.
You know it makes sense!
 

TheWoodenSlug

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Posts
5,250
Likes
9,899
AFL Club
Geelong
I just think Clarke is our best batsman at the moment and therefore should come in at 3. I'd have more confidence in our top order if he were there and I reckon the collapses would decrease.

The reason I said he lacked balls to go there is because of the albeit unconfirmed reports that he "prefers" 5. I respectfully disagree that he is best suited to bat at 5.

FWIW I reckon Clarke has blossomed as a cricketer since becoming captain and has certainly performed better than his predecessor. I like him.
Fair enough. Personally I think he is too vulnerable against the movement of the new ball and is easily our best batsman against spin therefore by batting at number 5, the ball is older and the spinners are more likely to be bowling.

Matter of opinion really :)
 
Top Bottom