Remove this Banner Ad

OT - Ashes

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

RoosterLad said:
Yeah I'm not all that confident in him being able to produce the goods in test match cricket, especially in the Ashes.

I say ******** the all rounder spot. We don't have a gun allrounder who is capable of dominating tests. Go with 6 batsmem, Gilly as keeper, then 4 bowlers. We dont need an allrounder to win these ashes back.
Click to expand...

This is the formula that saw us break records for so long.

6 batsmen, Gilly, and 4 bowlers.

IMO if you are in a place where you are throwing Shane Watson the ball in a Test Match - it means that McGrath, Warne, and 2 other seamers are being thrashed and can't break through. How is Watson going to solve that problem ?

I'd rather play another batsmen particularly with the quality around the place atm.
 
Mad Dog said:
This is the formula that saw us break records for so long.

6 batsmen, Gilly, and 4 bowlers.

IMO if you are in a place where you are throwing Shane Watson the ball in a Test Match - it means that McGrath, Warne, and 2 other seamers are being thrashed and can't break through. How is Watson going to solve that problem ?

I'd rather play another batsmen particularly with the quality around the place atm.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! We dominated cricket for a very long time without the need for a gun allrounder. We need a bloke who is at the top of his game in one discipline, not average in two.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Mad Dog said:
This is the formula that saw us break records for so long.

6 batsmen, Gilly, and 4 bowlers.

IMO if you are in a place where you are throwing Shane Watson the ball in a Test Match - it means that McGrath, Warne, and 2 other seamers are being thrashed and can't break through. How is Watson going to solve that problem ?

I'd rather play another batsmen particularly with the quality around the place atm.
Click to expand...

Brad Hodge has runs on the board:)
 
RoosterLad said:
He tries to bowl for the Redbacks but hasn't been that great so far :(
Click to expand...

I think it's called old age. One good game about every few weeks is all that can be expected so the good one must be just around the corner. He still has something to offer at first class level.
 
There seems to be some debate as to why Watson has been selected - whether Australia have need of an all-rounder.

For the past decade, Australia's success has been built around a structure of 6 batsmen, Gilchrist, 4 bowlers.

First let me start by noting that Gilchrist IS a world class all-rounder. By that I mean that he is a world class exponent of two key disciplines - wicket keeping and batting. The advantage of having an all-rounder in the side is that you select them for one role and get someone who is equally adept at filling another role into the bargain. Most all-rounders are bowler/batsmen, but that does not preclude Gilchrist from meeting the criteria for all-rounder status.

Gilchrist's batting, at least in Test Matches, has seen some serious decline in the last couple of years. Excluding the series against Bangladesh, his averages in the recent series are as follows:
England (Ashes) 2005: 22.62
ICC SuperTest: 47.50
West Indies 2005/06: 17.33
South Africa (in Australia): 27.60
South Africa (in SA): 10.00

During that time his career average has dropped from 50+ to 48.80. Based on these figures, over a run of 15 tests, it is doubtful whether he can still be considered an all-rounder.

Next, we need to consider the bowling attack.

Most teams around the world use five specialist bowlers. Australia have been almost unique in using only four. The reason they have been able to get away with this is because they have had two of the best bowlers in history playing for them at the same time - McGrath and Warne, with over 1100 test wickets between them.

Warne had a career best year in 2005, taking 90+ wickets in the one calendar year. 2006 was less successful - due to the fact that Australia played only 6 tests in that period (New Years test in Sydney, 3 in South Africa, 2 in Bangladesh). With Warne's reduced workload, there is no reason to believe that his performances have been reduced in any way.

McGrath's recent history is less exciting. He missed two of the five Ashes tests in England through injury and was very average when he returned, having dominated the first test (in which Australia consequently thrashed the poms).

Last summer he performed well against the World XI (but who didn't?), before failing in the test series against South Africa. In the three tests played in Australia he averaged 40.62, compared with his career average of 21.55. This was the first time since the 2003 series in the West Indies that he had averaged over 26 (and only the second since 2000).

He missed the return series against South Africa (in SA) and the Bangladesh boondoggle as he was caring for his wife who was ill.

His performances in the Champions Trophy were "interesting". He started slowly, before playing well late in the tournament. Most notable was the fact that he had lost quite a bit of pace - around 5kph on the average delivery (and he wasn't overly quick to start off with).

In his one hitout since returning to Australia he finished with 2/63 from 18 overs in the hit and giggle match between NSW & England. I don't recall any news reports indicating that he was one of the better bowlers. Of course he might have been holding back, not wanting to show his hand ahead of the tests. He might not have been too - would he have missed the chance to establish some mental dominance over the visitors?

As of today, McGrath is 36 years 280 days of age. It's pretty clear that he is no longer the dominant force which took Australia to the top of world cricket over the past decade.

It is this decline, together with the unsettled nature of the 3rd seamer's position, which is prompting the Australian selectors to opt for Watson. They need as much firepower as they can muster. Watson is probably a test class batsman & bowler and would probably have been playing at this level for 3-4 years for any other side.

With the aging of Australia's key players and subsequent decline in their performances, it is time for some new and exciting players to be given their opportunity.
 
Vader said:
There seems to be some debate as to why Watson has been selected - whether Australia have need of an all-rounder.

For the past decade, Australia's success has been built around a structure of 6 batsmen, Gilchrist, 4 bowlers.

First let me start by noting that Gilchrist IS a world class all-rounder. By that I mean that he is a world class exponent of two key disciplines - wicket keeping and batting. The advantage of having an all-rounder in the side is that you select them for one role and get someone who is equally adept at filling another role into the bargain. Most all-rounders are bowler/batsmen, but that does not preclude Gilchrist from meeting the criteria for all-rounder status.

Gilchrist's batting, at least in Test Matches, has seen some serious decline in the last couple of years. Excluding the series against Bangladesh, his averages in the recent series are as follows:
England (Ashes) 2005: 22.62
ICC SuperTest: 47.50
West Indies 2005/06: 17.33
South Africa (in Australia): 27.60
South Africa (in SA): 10.00

During that time his career average has dropped from 50+ to 48.80. Based on these figures, over a run of 15 tests, it is doubtful whether he can still be considered an all-rounder.

Next, we need to consider the bowling attack.

Most teams around the world use five specialist bowlers. Australia have been almost unique in using only four. The reason they have been able to get away with this is because they have had two of the best bowlers in history playing for them at the same time - McGrath and Warne, with over 1100 test wickets between them.

Warne had a career best year in 2005, taking 90+ wickets in the one calendar year. 2006 was less successful - due to the fact that Australia played only 6 tests in that period (New Years test in Sydney, 3 in South Africa, 2 in Bangladesh). With Warne's reduced workload, there is no reason to believe that his performances have been reduced in any way.

McGrath's recent history is less exciting. He missed two of the five Ashes tests in England through injury and was very average when he returned, having dominated the first test (in which Australia consequently thrashed the poms).

Last summer he performed well against the World XI (but who didn't?), before failing in the test series against South Africa. In the three tests played in Australia he averaged 40.62, compared with his career average of 21.55. This was the first time since the 2003 series in the West Indies that he had averaged over 26 (and only the second since 2000).

He missed the return series against South Africa (in SA) and the Bangladesh boondoggle as he was caring for his wife who was ill.

His performances in the Champions Trophy were "interesting". He started slowly, before playing well late in the tournament. Most notable was the fact that he had lost quite a bit of pace - around 5kph on the average delivery (and he wasn't overly quick to start off with).

In his one hitout since returning to Australia he finished with 2/63 from 18 overs in the hit and giggle match between NSW & England. I don't recall any news reports indicating that he was one of the better bowlers. Of course he might have been holding back, not wanting to show his hand ahead of the tests. He might not have been too - would he have missed the chance to establish some mental dominance over the visitors?

As of today, McGrath is 36 years 280 days of age. It's pretty clear that he is no longer the dominant force which took Australia to the top of world cricket over the past decade.

It is this decline, together with the unsettled nature of the 3rd seamer's position, which is prompting the Australian selectors to opt for Watson. They need as much firepower as they can muster. Watson is probably a test class batsman & bowler and would probably have been playing at this level for 3-4 years for any other side.

With the aging of Australia's key players and subsequent decline in their performances, it is time for some new and exciting players to be given their opportunity.
Click to expand...

Excellent post Richie.:thumbsu: However, I disagree with your las comment. After this ashes series, it will be "time for some new and exciting players to be given their opportunity".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

SpringChoke said:
Excellent post Richie.:thumbsu: However, I disagree with your las comment. After this ashes series, it will be "time for some new and exciting players to be given their opportunity".
Click to expand...

Would you settle for the following?

With the decline of Gilchrist's batting and McGrath's bowling Australia finds itself needing to bolster both key areas. Watson's abillity as an all-rounder is sorely needed right now if Australia are to regain The Ashes.
 
Vader said:
Would you settle for the following?

With the decline of Gilchrist's batting and McGrath's bowling Australia finds itself needing to bolster both key areas. Watson's abillity as an all-rounder is sorely needed right now if Australia are to regain The Ashes.
Click to expand...

No. Watson doesn't have ability.
 
SpringChoke said:
No. Watson doesn't have ability.
Click to expand...
Rightio.

Based on his 1st class batting record alone, Watson is more deserving to be picked as a batsman than Clarke.

It's the leaving out of Jaques I'm concerned about, but he is seen as more of an opener. Must come into the side in the next 6 months at the latest IMO.
 
Over the years a number of cricket "givens" have gone. eg - conventions associated with picking traditionally structured OD sides.....approach to run-rate in the first 15 overs of a ODI......12th man free to go play another game of cricket although officially 12th man.......reverse sweeps.........the rate at which runs are scored in test matches....... not exposing bowlers late in the order etc..etc

I think it's time another one went.

There's no question that Jaques is a victim of the tradional "structure" that selectors like to maintain within the batting order. There's not many around the country who are in better form.....he has shown contempt for the Pommy bowling - yet because we have 2 established openers he doesn't get selected. However most would agree he is in better form than Clarke, Watson, and maybe Hussey.

I've heard over the years that "oh ....Billy the Goose can't bat at 3.....he's a number 4"......and..... "so and so is better suited to 5 than 6".

Bollocks I say !

I reckon it's about time we selected our best 6 batsmen regardless of prefered batting position and sent in those with the greatest disposition to opening first - then the next best 3 at 3, 4, and 5......with a shotmaker/slogger at 6......and then the keeper (what a luxury to have Gilly at 7).


At the moment - and over the years there have been some very good batsmen who have not played enough test cricket because they had "an opener" or a "number 3" in front of them in the national pecking order.

I'm not a complete idiot - I understand that opening requires a certain style - and batsmen are creatures of habit who don't like venturing out of their comfort zone but the reality is......if Langer or Hayden is knocked over first ball of the match - then Ponting becomes a virtual opener in the context of the new ball he is facing and the shot selection he should make given the state of the game. vice versa - if Langer and Hayden plonk on 400 and one of them isn't dismissed until just before lunch on the second day.....Ponting goes in with the mind set of a number 6. You can't tell me these guys don't know how to adapt their approach.

I say play our best 6 batsmen + Gilly - and have the flexibility to tinker with the batting order because the alternative is cheap tests are given to some - and a long time in the wilderness for others.

My batting order:

Langer
Hayden
Jaques
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Gilchrist


thoughts ?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

I agree MD. Tugga was forever saying that the game of cricket is a mental battle and therefore the players have to adjust to different circumstances.

I actually think Blewy raised the question on Inside Cricket last night about Jaques batting at 6. Gilly pretty much ruled out Watson playing as a batsman only in the Gabba Test.
 
Mad Dog said:
I reckon it's about time we selected our best 6 batsmen regardless of prefered batting position and sent in those with the greatest disposition to opening first - then the next best 3 at 3, 4, and 5......with a shotmaker/slogger at 6......and then the keeper (what a luxury to have Gilly at 7).


At the moment - and over the years there have been some very good batsmen who have not played enough test cricket because they had "an opener" or a "number 3" in front of them in the national pecking order.

I'm not a complete idiot - I understand that opening requires a certain style - and batsmen are creatures of habit who don't like venturing out of their comfort zone but the reality is......if Langer or Hayden is knocked over first ball of the match - then Ponting becomes a virtual opener in the context of the new ball he is facing and the shot selection he should make given the state of the game. vice versa - if Langer and Hayden plonk on 400 and one of them isn't dismissed until just before lunch on the second day.....Ponting goes in with the mind set of a number 6. You can't tell me these guys don't know how to adapt their approach.
Click to expand...

The requirements for opening the batting are very different from those of a middle-order batsman.

The opener comes in to face a brand new cherry. It's hard, so bounces a lot more, and shiny so it swings more. For this reason, the opener needs to be a lot more disciplined than the middle-order batsman.

#3 needs to be a flexible batsman. There's every chance that they'll be called on to face the new ball, should one of the openers fall early. This means that they need to have outstanding technique and discipline. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that they will enter the fray at 1/200 with the ball 60 overs old, in which case they need to play more like a middle-order batsman, using attacking shot-making. Ponting is an outstanding example.

#4 & #5 are your definitive middle-order batsmen. Unless you have a minor disaster on your hand they're coming in with the shine well and truly off the ball. Their role is to score and score quickly, which means that they're usually shot-makers.

#6 is slightly different again. They're the last recognised batsman, so they need to be someone who is capable of batting with the tail. Granted, Australia have Gilchrist coming in at #7 but his form has been ordinary of late and he's always been equally likely to make 10 as 100. Batting with the tail is an art form all of its own - one which Steve Waugh was the ultimate exponent. At times you need to farm the strike, keeping the lesser batsman away from the danger bowlers, at times you need to score as quickly as possible (lest you run out of partners), at other times you need to be constantly encouraging your partner to hang in there and keep the partnership going.

Some players are uniquely suited to one role but not another, some have learned the discipline required to move from the middle-order to the top order (Langer). On the other hand, some never will (Martyn).

The real question here is whether Jaques can be played in another position, besides that of opener (#6 being currently up for grabs). That would depend upon the rate at which he scores his runs - I haven't seen him often enough to know whether he's a fluent stroke-maker.

If Watson is available then I think he should be played. I think he is vital to our bowling attack because I view McGrath as in the early stages of terminal decline - though McGrath would argue otherwise, not unlike Ben Hart. If Watson is unavailable, then I would be urging the selectors to pick Jaques in the middle-order, ahead of "Pup" because Clarke simply doesn't have the performances or form to back-up his selection (take a look at how poor his batting averages are: 36.22 in tests 40.01 in first class matches).
 
Vader said:
The requirements for opening the batting are very different from those of a middle-order batsman.

The opener comes in to face a brand new cherry. It's hard, so bounces a lot more, and shiny so it swings more. For this reason, the opener needs to be a lot more disciplined than the middle-order batsman.

#3 needs to be a flexible batsman. There's every chance that they'll be called on to face the new ball, should one of the openers fall early. This means that they need to have outstanding technique and discipline. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that they will enter the fray at 1/200 with the ball 60 overs old, in which case they need to play more like a middle-order batsman, using attacking shot-making. Ponting is an outstanding example.

#4 & #5 are your definitive middle-order batsmen. Unless you have a minor disaster on your hand they're coming in with the shine well and truly off the ball. Their role is to score and score quickly, which means that they're usually shot-makers.

#6 is slightly different again. They're the last recognised batsman, so they need to be someone who is capable of batting with the tail. Granted, Australia have Gilchrist coming in at #7 but his form has been ordinary of late and he's always been equally likely to make 10 as 100. Batting with the tail is an art form all of its own - one which Steve Waugh was the ultimate exponent. At times you need to farm the strike, keeping the lesser batsman away from the danger bowlers, at times you need to score as quickly as possible (lest you run out of partners), at other times you need to be constantly encouraging your partner to hang in there and keep the partnership going.

Some players are uniquely suited to one role but not another, some have learned the discipline required to move from the middle-order to the top order (Langer). On the other hand, some never will (Martyn).

The real question here is whether Jaques can be played in another position, besides that of opener (#6 being currently up for grabs). That would depend upon the rate at which he scores his runs - I haven't seen him often enough to know whether he's a fluent stroke-maker.

If Watson is available then I think he should be played. I think he is vital to our bowling attack because I view McGrath as in the early stages of terminal decline - though McGrath would argue otherwise, not unlike Ben Hart. If Watson is unavailable, then I would be urging the selectors to pick Jaques in the middle-order, ahead of "Pup" because Clarke simply doesn't have the performances or form to back-up his selection (take a look at how poor his batting averages are: 36.22 in tests 40.01 in first class matches).
Click to expand...

Understand your description completely.....:thumbsu:

2 things.....

This whole debate / issue at the moment centres around Watson. My view is that he is not a test cricketer - but never mind that.

Objectively - I think if the rationale to playing Watson (ie taking a batting spot) is to cover for the bowlers - then the selection logic is flawed. McGrath has always selected himself on form and needs to continue to do so - otherwise select another bowler - let's not comprimise our batting by selecting a safety net allrounder at the expense of an in form batsmen when if the game is at the stage of throwing Watson the ball - we are probably in deep doo-doo and didn't make enough runs anyway.

Secondly - I don't see why we can't play Jaques at #3. That way we have
  • maintained the integrity of the opening pair as you have rightly described.
  • asked Ponting to slide only 1 spot to 4.
  • not rewarded Clarke's mediocre form
  • played one of the countries most in-form batsmen
 
Vader said:
The requirements for opening the batting are very different from those of a middle-order batsman.

The opener comes in to face a brand new cherry. It's hard, so bounces a lot more, and shiny so it swings more. For this reason, the opener needs to be a lot more disciplined than the middle-order batsman.

#3 needs to be a flexible batsman.

#4 & #5 are your definitive middle-order batsmen.

#6 is slightly different again.

Some players are uniquely suited to one role but not another, some have learned the discipline required to move from the middle-order to the top order (Langer). On the other hand, some never will (Martyn).
Click to expand...


Am I asking too much to expect that they should all be competent in batting at any position? They have all shown on their day that they have the shots and mental toughness to score a ton - obviously some are more consistent than others but the basis is there.

Question: Would Gilly be opening the batting if he wasn't the keeper?
 
jen_32 said:
Am I asking too much to expect that they should all be competent in batting at any position? They have all shown on their day that they have the shots and mental toughness to score a ton - obviously some are more consistent than others but the basis is there.

Question: Would Gilly be opening the batting if he wasn't the keeper?
Click to expand...

In a word.. NO. Even if he wasn't keeper, he would not bat any higher than #4 (probably 5 or 6).

In a perfect world, every batsman would be able to bat in every position. Reality is that different batsmen have different temperaments and different ranges of strokes. Reality is that conditions change within a game - it's much easier to face an older ball (with tiring bowlers) than it is the new cherry (with some fired up bowlers at the beginning of an innings). Consequently, some batsmen are better suited to different roles.
 
Mad Dog said:
Objectively - I think if the rationale to playing Watson (ie taking a batting spot) is to cover for the bowlers - then the selection logic is flawed. McGrath has always selected himself on form and needs to continue to do so - otherwise select another bowler - let's not comprimise our batting by selecting a safety net allrounder at the expense of an in form batsmen when if the game is at the stage of throwing Watson the ball - we are probably in deep doo-doo and didn't make enough runs anyway.
Click to expand...

I seriously think that this will be McGrath's last series wearing the baggy green. He's lost a lot of pace, just like Gillespie did in the Ashes series in England. It makes him a LOT less dangerous.

The problem is that McGrath is a fixture of the side. He has over 500 wickets to his credit and the selectors won't drop him unless they have no choice. Even reading today's newspapers, McGrath thinks he will still be performing at the top level in 5 years time. He's the Australian Cricket team's equivalent of Ben Hart - slowly declining performances, aging body, but the mind won't accept that the time has come.

For what it's worth, I don't think that the selection of Watson compromises our batting that badly. Compared to Jaques, maybe, but definitely not when the alternative is Clarke. Don't forget that he made a double century in the Sheffield Shield final last year. The guy can bat.

Mad Dog said:
Secondly - I don't see why we can't play Jaques at #3. That way we have
  • maintained the integrity of the opening pair as you have rightly described.
  • asked Ponting to slide only 1 spot to 4.
  • not rewarded Clarke's mediocre form
  • played one of the countries most in-form batsmen
Click to expand...

See how Ponting feels about a demotion to #4. I'd be surprised if the response was anything other than a stream of profanities.

As we've both agreed, Ponting is the ideal #3 due to his ability to play both roles - dour opener and attacking middle-order batsman. Why mess with this?

If you're going to select Jaques, don't mess around with the whole order, just slot him in at #6. I have no objection whatsoever to selecting him ahead of Clarke.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Cleric
Honestly, how would you now rate our midfield against the other teams?
Replies
11
Views
566
GameofSloanes
GameofSloanes
screech
    • Haha
    • Like
  • Locked
Opinion Non-Crows AFL 11: Succession plans and other lols
495 496 497 498 499
Replies
12K
Views
452K
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?
Drugs Are Bad Mackay?

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom