What do you do with Shane Watson?

[Sweet Jesus]

It will be a hell of a shame to play a team below full strength

Finch
Warner
MarshMitch
Smith
Maxwell

Clarke/fawkner/bailey/NotWatson

Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Cumming/hazelwood

Or perhaps, if Watson were dropped:

Finch
Warner
Smith
Clarke/Bailey
Maxwell
Marsh
Faulkner
Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Hazlewood

Would that team be improved by shoehorning Watson into the top order?

 

[CountryRace]

Or perhaps, if Watson were dropped:

Finch
Warner
Smith
Clarke/Bailey
Maxwell
Marsh
Faulkner
Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Hazlewood

Would that team be improved by shoehorning Watson into the top order?

Gorgeous. Watson is hurting the side.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Gorgeous.

Well, it is Valentine's Day.

 

[The Speaker]

Gorgeous. Watson is hurting the side.

Not gorgeous, still too light on for reliable bowlers.

 

[CountryRace]

Not gorgeous, still too light on for reliable bowlers.

Smith, Faulkner, maxwell, marsh is not good enough for 20 overs?

 

[The Speaker]

Smith, Faulkner, maxwell, marsh is not good enough for 20 overs?

If Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood all bowl well, yes. But there's no guarantee that will happen, and at some point it will all fall apart. You really want four bowlers who can comfortably bowl ten overs, and Faulkner is not actually one of those players right now.

 

[CountryRace]

If Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood all bowl well, yes. But there's no guarantee that will happen, and at some point it will all fall apart. You really want four bowlers who can comfortably bowl ten overs, and Faulkner is not actually one of those players right now.

You can't going into games hoping people will not get hurt

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Not gorgeous, still too light on for reliable bowlers.

But we'd otherwise be going with Watson, Faulkner and Maxwell for 20 overs.

Marsh has just taken a five-wicket haul so does his inclusion at Watson's expense really weaken the bowling?

If Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood all bowl well, yes. But there's no guarantee that will happen, and at some point it will all fall apart. You really want four bowlers who can comfortably bowl ten overs, and Faulkner is not actually one of those players right now.

But that's not the line-up we've been going with.

We've been going with three specialist quicks for 30 overs and then planning on getting another 20 from the all-rounders.

That doesn't change. The only question is whether Watson is one of the those all-rounders.

 

[The Speaker]

You can't going into games hoping people will not get hurt

I didn't say anything about injuries.

But we'd otherwise be going with Watson, Faulkner and Maxwell for 20 overs.

Marsh has just taken a five-wicket haul so does his inclusion at Watson's expense really weaken the bowling?

No, but it's still not ideal.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

No, but it's still not ideal.

Again, I'm not sure if you've been paying attention.

That's clearly our preferred line-up. Three specialist quicks at 9, 10 and 11, with 3 all-rounders up the order to bowl the other 20 overs.

The question is which three all-rounders you want. Basically, it's Maxwell and two of Watson, Marsh and Faulkner.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

But we'd otherwise be going with Watson, Faulkner and Maxwell for 20 overs.

Marsh has just taken a five-wicket haul so does his inclusion at Watson's expense really weaken the bowling?

But that's not the line-up we've been going with.

We've been going with three specialist quicks for 30 overs and then planning on getting another 20 from the all-rounders.

That doesn't change. The only question is whether Watson is one of the those all-rounders.

I wouldn't think so.

Axe Watson for Clarke and see if the good score in the warm up and in this match from Bailey is a sign that his form is starting to turn the corner.

 

[CountryRace]

I didn't say anything about injuries.



No, but it's still not ideal.

In a 50 over game you have to assume the primary bowlers will be able to bowl ten

Faulker is only 24 and has good bowlin stats first class

 

[The Speaker]

Again, I'm not sure if you've been paying attention.

That's clearly our preferred line-up. Three specialist quicks at 9, 10 and 11, with 3 all-rounders up the order to bowl the other 20 overs.

The question is which three all-rounders you want. Basically, it's Maxwell and two of Watson, Marsh and Faulkner.

I have been paying attention, and I don't think the selectors have the balance right.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I wouldn't think so.

Axe Watson for Clarke and see if the good score in the warm up and in this match from Bailey is a sign that his form is starting to turn the corner.

Honestly, I think it's more a case of Bailey being axed for Clarke and then making a call on the mix of all-rounders.

If we're only picking three specialist quicks, which we are, then we need three all-rounders in the top 8 to bowl the other 20 overs. I'm not including Smith in that. He's more a part-timer than an all-rounder these days.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

I have been paying attention, and I don't think the selectors have the balance right.

Well, setting aside your disagreement with the selectors and taking reality as it is, that's probably going to be the balance of the side for the duration of this tournament. Agreed?

 

[The Speaker]

Well, setting aside your disagreement with the selectors and taking reality as it is, that's probably going to be the balance of the side for the duration of this tournament. Agreed?

Which means it still isn't gorgeous, which was the point I made in the first place.

Thanks.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Which means it still isn't gorgeous, which was the point I made in the first place.

Thanks.

Fair enough.

I think it's pretty capable of taking Australia all the way.

Three specialist quicks plus Maxwell, Faulkner and Marsh/Watson.

if you had asked me a few ago, I probably would have agreed with you. But recent performances have persuaded me that there's enough bowling there, particularly if Johnson, Starc and Hazelwood perform.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Honestly, I think it's more a case of Bailey being axed for Clarke and then making a call on the mix of all-rounders.

If we're only picking three specialist quicks, which we are, then we need three all-rounders in the top 8 to bowl the other 20 overs. I'm not including Smith in that. He's more a part-timer than an all-rounder these days.

Personally I'd make 1 change. Watson out Clarke in.

Finch
Warner
Smith
Clarke
Bailey
Marsh
Maxwell
Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Hazlewood

Then it gets a bit harder when Faulkner comes into calculations.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Personally I'd make 1 change. Watson out Clarke in.

Finch
Warner
Smith
Clarke
Bailey
Marsh
Maxwell
Haddin
Johnson
Starc
Hazlewood

Then it gets a bit harder when Faulkner comes into calculations.

It means Marsh and Maxwell have to bowl 20 overs between them. I think you need one more option there.

 

[Art Vandelay_]

It means Marsh and Maxwell have to bowl 20 overs between them.

When exactly is Faulkner expected to be back?

Our next three games are Bangladesh, NZ and Afghanistan.

Keeping Watson simply as a bowling contingency is stupid. He bats at 3 ffs. He needs to score runs.

I'd back both of Clarke and Bailey to outperform him as a batsmen and if it does in a game cost us a few extra runs, I still think the improvement in batting would be greater.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

Was Clarke's bowling in the warm-up games just a means of testing his back out, or is he a going to be considered a reliable option again?

 

[Sweet Jesus]

When exactly is Faulkner expected to be back?

Not sure. Watson is probably safe until then.

Keeping Watson simply as a bowling contingency is stupid. He bats at 3 ffs. He needs to score runs.

Yeah, but just think about how you'd divide up 50 overs among the bowlers.

Johnson, Starc and Hazlewood for 10 overs each. And then you've got 20 left. I don't think it's feasible to rely on Maxwell and Marsh to bowl 10 each. There needs to be another option.

Our next games may be against weak opposition, but we should decide on the balance of the side and keep it, rather than chopping and changing and experimenting.

I'd back both of Clarke and Bailey to outperform him as a batsmen and if it does in a game cost us a few extra runs, I still think the improvement in batting would be greater.

But we've already bolstered the batting by only picking three specialist bowlers. You can't push it even further by reducing the number of total bowling options from six to five.

 

[Doodlesweaver]

Again, I'm not sure if you've been paying attention.

That's clearly our preferred line-up. Three specialist quicks at 9, 10 and 11, with 3 all-rounders up the order to bowl the other 20 overs.

The question is which three all-rounders you want. Basically, it's Maxwell and two of Watson, Marsh and Faulkner.

Once Faulkner is fit, Marsh will miss out... need four frontline bowlers. One five for isn't enough to make him a frontliner.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Once Faulkner is fit, Marsh will miss out... need four frontline bowlers. One five for isn't enough to make him a frontliner.

Sorry, just walk me through that.

Who were the four 'frontline bowlers' who played today? Is Faulkner a 'frontline bowler'?

I agree that Faulkner will come straight back in. The question is whether you then pick Marsh or Watson. Neither are frontline bowlers but you could argue that Marsh is in better form with both bat and ball. Compare their records since the start of 2014.

 

[Mancey]

Until faulkner is fit, watson stays imo.

Clarke for watson is pulling the piss, we need watson to bowl his 5-6. Clarke isn't going to do that

He got a great nut first ball today, it happens