What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Slax]

Thats not playing an allrounder thats just playing Johnno above Haddin. He'd still be one of the four bowlers and then we'd only have the four bowlers and Voges & Smith

Then bring in Siddle for Watson.

We have more than one problem coming out of this test match that needs to be fixed and Watson is just one of those problems.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If it was any place other than Lords I wouldn't mind just going back to the thing that worked for 100 years. Pick your best 6 bats, if one of them can bowl a bit that is a bonus.

 

[Hardhat11]

Watson must go

He's a liability ....we saw what Mitch Johnson did in the second innings with the bat ....a big hitter can change the way bowlers bowl which I think Mitch marsh can

I was riding today in the Forrest mountain biking and reflecting where we went wrong

Haddins drop of root .....If that's 4-40 odd we win the test I think ...that's how crucial it is

So maybe we shouldn't all be doom n gloom

That said Watson must be dropped ...Mitch marsh deserves his chance.

And to be hinest I would prefer Shaun marsh than Voges ....PLAY MARSH AT 3 ...smith four Clarke 5

Marsh can play at 3 and I believe his batting is suited to English conditions. Ever the optimist I believe we can fight back and if a few things had gone our way we could have been talking a whole different story

 

[Showbags]

If it was any place other than Lords I wouldn't mind just going back to the thing that worked for 100 years. Pick your best 6 bats, if one of them can bowl a bit that is a bonus.

If there is any juice in the Lord's deck whatsoever (ofcourse knowing the Poms there won't be) then I'd go with that theory too.

If not though we need that 4th seamer. Would be frightening to see Starc and Johnson both have an off day with only 4 front line bowling options.

 

[Scott03]

Gym for life is a troll. He's a filthy basement lurking scumbag who's probably never been in the gym in his entire life. Every time we quote him we feed his appetite more than the doritos and mountain dew sustain him whilst he is simultaneously streaming LoL and playing WoW - i guarentee you he isnt even watching the cricket.

I already regret quoting him earlier and giving oxygen to this moronic troll

I thought he is watto himself

 

[nobbyiscool]

Calls for Johnson to play as an allrounder are ridiculous. Forever his batting has provided such a barometer for his bowling - you definitely don't want to put any more pressure on that. Depending on whether M Marsh gets a chance and makes anything of it, the answer in the long term is probably Neville at 6 and Faulkner at 7, but that won't happen this tour.

So for the short term, you have to back Marsh. I get that they wanted to go with the incumbent and give him a chance to fail so they could promote the new guy (as opposed to playing the new guy and perhaps having to drop him for Watson again) - but Marsh's scores in the warm ups were too good, and Watson's dismissals in the first test were too ugly (and bowling too ineffective).

 

[YOTC]

I thought he is watto himself

He has plenty of time to post as he doesn't spend long out in the middle.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Calls for Johnson to play as an allrounder are ridiculous. Forever his batting has provided such a barometer for his bowling - you definitely don't want to put any more pressure on that. Depending on whether M Marsh gets a chance and makes anything of it, the answer in the long term is probably Neville at 6 and Faulkner at 7, but that won't happen this tour.

So for the short term, you have to back Marsh. I get that they wanted to go with the incumbent and give him a chance to fail so they could promote the new guy (as opposed to playing the new guy and perhaps having to drop him for Watson again) - but Marsh's scores in the warm ups were too good, and Watson's dismissals in the first test were too ugly (and bowling too ineffective).

Faulkner is not a test batsmen nor is he a test quality bowler. It would just be a slightly more bowling orientated version of Watto, whilst sacrificing batting prowess (because whilst Watto is a hack at test level I think he is better with the bat than Faulkner) in that situation we are just playing a bowling allrounder instead of a batting allrounder and in that scenario we still have the issue of only having 6 bats, which isnt enough with out current lineup (maybe if we had Ponting, Clarke, Hussey as a middle order in their prime but not now).

We need a batting alrounder. Or a pure batsmen.

I have faith M. Marsh can be a very good batting allrounder. He's been steadily improving for 2 years, he's only 23 which is a baby in cricketing terms and he's already the best batting allrounder in the country. He could even be a GREAT allrounder. We need to play him and give him a chance.

 

[GoldenSky]

Interesting that after all the talk that he was picked because we needed that extra bowling option that Clarke barely used him. Almost as though he is responding deliberately.

Yeah thought this too.

 

[Shiv]

Yeah thought this too.

I think it was pretty obvious that he did. Our bowlers were giving away too many runs and watto is in the team for the control he provides with the ball yet he was hardly used in the situation.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Faulkner is not a test batsmen nor is he a test quality bowler.

This is where people get Faulkner wrong.

He is not a test quality batsman, but he is a test quality bowler.

He is not an ODI quality bowler, but he is an ODI quality batter.

Unfortunately he hasn't been able to lift his game in either of those as he's being pidgeon holed into the ODI format at the moment.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Faulkner is not a test batsmen nor is he a test quality bowler. It would just be a slightly more bowling orientated version of Watto, whilst sacrificing batting prowess (because whilst Watto is a hack at test level I think he is better with the bat than Faulkner) in that situation we are just playing a bowling allrounder instead of a batting allrounder and in that scenario we still have the issue of only having 6 bats, which isnt enough with out current lineup (maybe if we had Ponting, Clarke, Hussey as a middle order in their prime but not now).

We need a batting alrounder. Or a pure batsmen.

I have faith M. Marsh can be a very good batting allrounder. He's been steadily improving for 2 years, he's only 23 which is a baby in cricketing terms and he's already the best batting allrounder in the country. He could even be a GREAT allrounder. We need to play him and give him a chance.

How do we know? On what do you base this? 2 seasons back he was the second top wicket taker in the Shield. He averages under 24 with the ball in FC cricket, not to mention averaging under 17 with the ball in his one test before inexplicably not being given another opportunity in the 2 years since.

He bowls over 140km. Swings it, seams it, gets bounce - Faulkner is the prototype of what they're looking for in a bowler now, it's not inconceivable that he could play as a specialist bowler one day.

But why would you? His batting has improved, he has a pretty decent resume of scores against international teams in ODIs. If you dropped Watson and Haddin now for Neville and Faulkner, you're losing a lot of experience - but your bowling is much better, and on recent evidence you haven't lost anything with batting.

 

[sherb]

How do we know? On what do you base this? 2 seasons back he was the second top wicket taker in the Shield. He averages under 24 with the ball in FC cricket, not to mention averaging under 17 with the ball in his one test before inexplicably not being given another opportunity in the 2 years since.

He bowls over 140km. Swings it, seams it, gets bounce - Faulkner is the prototype of what they're looking for in a bowler now, it's not inconceivable that he could play as a specialist bowler one day.

But why would you? His batting has improved, he has a pretty decent resume of scores against international teams in ODIs. If you dropped Watson and Haddin now for Neville and Faulkner, you're losing a lot of experience - but your bowling is much better, and on recent evidence you haven't lost anything with batting.

He does?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

How do we know? On what do you base this? 2 seasons back he was the second top wicket taker in the Shield. He averages under 24 with the ball in FC cricket, not to mention averaging under 17 with the ball in his one test before inexplicably not being given another opportunity in the 2 years since.

He bowls over 140km. Swings it, seams it, gets bounce - Faulkner is the prototype of what they're looking for in a bowler now, it's not inconceivable that he could play as a specialist bowler one day.

But why would you? His batting has improved, he has a pretty decent resume of scores against international teams in ODIs. If you dropped Watson and Haddin now for Neville and Faulkner, you're losing a lot of experience - but your bowling is much better, and on recent evidence you haven't lost anything with batting.

This is the same James Faulkner with a grand total of ZERO First Class centuries, nada, nil, zilch.....and you want to play him as a test number 7! Our batting is bad enough without playing AR's for the sake of it.

As for his bowling he was poor this season in FC cricket for Tasmania.

LOL at Faulkner bowling over 140kmph...since when exactly, more in the 132-135kmph range...and he doesn't get much bouce anyway.

 

[MisterMarcus]

This is the same James Faulkner with a grand total of ZERO First Class centuries, nada, nil, zilch.....and you want to play him as a test number 7! Our batting is bad enough without playing AR's for the sake of it.

As for his bowling he was poor this season in FC cricket for Tasmania.

LOL at Faulkner bowling over 140kmph...since when exactly, more in the 132-135kmph range...and he doesn't get much bouce anyway.

Is there any Australian player you actually rate or like??

 

[MisterMarcus]

Calls for Johnson to play as an allrounder are ridiculous. Forever his batting has provided such a barometer for his bowling - you definitely don't want to put any more pressure on that.

This.

Plus, there's a huge difference between being "a bowler who's a handy bat" and a genuine all-rounder. Johnson averages 23 with the bat, more than useful for a bowler, but nowhere near enough for a reliable number 7.

 

[KissKiss]

Is there any Australian player you actually rate or like??

Silk?

 

[Doodlesweaver]

This.

Plus, there's a huge difference between being "a bowler who's a handy bat" and a genuine all-rounder. Johnson averages 23 with the bat, more than useful for a bowler, but nowhere near enough for a reliable number 7.

There really is. Shame our selectors don't realise it.

 

[hong_kong_bond]

This is the same James Faulkner with a grand total of ZERO First Class centuries, nada, nil, zilch.....and you want to play him as a test number 7! Our batting is bad enough without playing AR's for the sake of it.

As for his bowling he was poor this season in FC cricket for Tasmania.

LOL at Faulkner bowling over 140kmph...since when exactly, more in the 132-135kmph range...and he doesn't get much bouce anyway.

I get the point you are trying to make here, but you are obscuring it by making up statistics. Faulkner has a top-score in first class cricket of 121 and he has an international 100 at ODI level. His first class average is 32, his ODI average is 43 - either of those would be acceptable for batting at 7.

On top of that he has a 1st class bowling average of 23.7... Certainly worthy of discussion. Bradesmaen's points around his current Test v ODI abilities are spot on - and Faulkner is only 25 as well, very young in cricketing terms.

If the selectors are insistent on having an all-rounder, it would be helpful if they couldon the sort of all-rounder they want, ie. one with a bowling or batting strength. Watson at the moment is failing in both areas and would appear to have lost the faith of his skipper in delivering in the bowling department.

 

[MisterMarcus]

Silk?

Of course, how could I forget.

 

[sherb]

This is the same James Faulkner with a grand total of ZERO First Class centuries, nada, nil, zilch.....and you want to play him as a test number 7! Our batting is bad enough without playing AR's for the sake of it.

As for his bowling he was poor this season in FC cricket for Tasmania.

LOL at Faulkner bowling over 140kmph...since when exactly, more in the 132-135kmph range...and he doesn't get much bouce anyway.

You may want to revisit that comment.

 

[sherb]

I think we are onto something here.

http://theunaustralian.net/2015/07/...ricket-selectors-dumping-body-of-dead-hooker/

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You may want to revisit that comment.

What 1 of them...my point stands that is the figures of a number 8 or 9. We don't need more AR's in fact we need less

 

[Doodlesweaver]

I think we are onto something here.

http://theunaustralian.net/2015/07/...ricket-selectors-dumping-body-of-dead-hooker/

Excellent, especially the title of Ray Bright's book.

 

[sherb]

What 1 of them...my point stands that is the figures of a number 8 or 9. We don't need more AR's in fact we need less

It was funny watching you grandstanding about him scoring zero f-c centuries when you were wrong, that's all.