Khawaja v Marsh

[PykeDream]

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.

 

[IanG]

Smith still has a big future.

They need to be careful he doesn't suffer from Cameron White syndrome though; he's a batter who bowls a bit, not a genuine leggie.

Except his batting technique at test level is horrible.

 

[Nodgey]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bucking Beads]

How many first class tons has Marsh hit at the WaCa

 

[CHIEF SMACKAHOE]

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.

 

[Bucking Beads]

because our batting lineup is constantly collapsing and we need our captain and best batsman to steady our top order.

But Clarke is inconsistent and can't handle the moving ball. He also is the cause of global warming.

 

[CHIEF SMACKAHOE]

But Clarke is inconsistent and can't handle the moving ball. He also is the cause of global warming.

he's worse than hitler

 

[The Convert]

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]

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

 

[The Convert]

Other than this series I would agree 100 percent

 

[Belnakor]

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]

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

 

[policegetthatman]

Marsh looked shocking tonight. Poor average in first class. Adelaide should be his final test.. I hope he does well but I doubt it.

 

[Nodgey]

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]

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.

 

[SugarHealey]

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]

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.

 

[Kim Hagdorn]

Calls to move Clarke up to 3 are idiotic, down the order is where he plays best and belongs.

 

[King Elvis]

Clarke can't bat #3.

Ponting has spoiled us - people need to realise what an absolute freak he has been.

 

[SugarHealey]

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]

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

 

[CHIEF SMACKAHOE]

clarke did come in in the 9th over when he made his 329.

 

[Thommo 42]

clarke did come in in the 9th over when he made his 329.

and his first 20-30 runs were extremely steaky and he was lucky to survive.

Ponting on the other hand brought a calm demeanour to the crease and steadied the ship nicely.