Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 256
Like Tree24Likes

Thread: Does anyone think Australia's situation is not actually that dire?

  1. #31
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,233
    Quote Originally Posted by Stapel View Post
    My point is that, if Australia had won, it would have been due to an 80 runs last wicket partnership. By no means would that have been an easy way to win..... I think it was just freakish it got that close! But yeah, it did indeed get very close. Yet, had the Aussies pulled it off, it would, in imho, have been a really freaky win! Not a win the Aussies should draw any conclusion they are close to England anyway.
    Er, yes they should, in terms of saying that it was a close Test. 14 runs are 14 runs, Pattinson and Haddin didn't get that close by nicking through the slips.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm

  2. #32
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Stapel View Post
    Only Anderson & Broad, me thinks. Since they are bowlers, the problems are not really easy to compare, I guess.
    None of the current England batsmen have ever been so dodgy as the Oz batsmen (apart form Clarke). Not even Ian Bell, though some might disagree. Bell has more fifties than Pietersen or Cook, from fewer innings!
    Bairstow is no better than any of the young Australian batsmen

  3. #33
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    11,306
    Quote Originally Posted by morgieb View Post
    Pattinson wasn't even that bad in the first test.
    Bowled well first test but was dreadful at Lord's and even bowling a lot better in the 2nd innings when the game was gone he didn't look like the bloke who was supposed to come here and skittle us cheaply that you lot hyped him up to be. Won't write him off though but he has work to do to make this a decent tour personally.

  4. #34
    State Captain Stapel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,855
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    Bairstow is no better than any of the young Australian batsmen
    Agreed.
    Yet, I guess it's fine to have one of your top 7 being a young inexperienced lad with a point to prove.


  5. #35
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,769
    Quote Originally Posted by morgieb View Post
    Pattinson wasn't even that bad in the first test.
    He was rubbish with the new ball day 1.

  6. #36
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,374
    Not saying that the test team doesn't have major issues but it isn't all gloom and doom as Australia A thrashed England Lions in every match they played last summer whilst our under 19s have finished runner-up and champions at the last 2 WCs

    There is obviously talent there but the question remains as to whether the systems are in place to turn that talent into performances at the international level

  7. #37
    School Boy/Girl Captain Justo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    QLD, Australia
    Posts
    173
    Our batting has been quite poor and I don't think there's any way we could honestly turn it around in a short time without doing unrealistic (for the selectors) moves like dragging Hussy and/or Katich back into the team. Chances are even with them we'd still struggle to forge any real consistency anyway and it'd only be a band aid solution. IMO the best choice we have for the rest of the series is to stick with what we've got and hope that at least one of the young guns can step up if given some faith.

    That said I'd still be dropping Watson. He's a poor test bat (I'd rather a guy who gets fewer starts but actually converts them than what Watson produces) and his fielding is IMO quite poor (the comms always seem to talk him up as a slipper but I don't think I've seen him do anything exceptional there while dropping some catches while day dreaming). IMO the only asset he really brings to the team is his bowling which I think is generally underrated but given he can't be relied upon to bowl a useful number of overs there's no way he can make the team as 3rd seamer. He also obviously has the whole cancer effect happening as well. Personally I seem to generally think Australian batting seems more fragile with Watson than without and our performances generally seem to coincide with him not being in the team.

    For the rest of the Ashes in England I'd run with the below (based on the current squad).

    Hughes
    Rogers
    Khawaja
    Warner
    Clarke
    Smith
    Haddin

    For the medium/longer run obviously depending on form or w/e I'd go with.

    Hughes
    Warner
    Khawaja/Doolan
    Voges/Bailey/Burns
    Clarke
    Smith
    Hartley/whoever

    Hughes - His primary issue is getting starts. Regardless of his technique once he passes 10 he's seemingly impossible to dislodge and he's not going to be able to start well against spin so he should be opening. So far this series he hasn't looked particularly troubled by pace (1 terrible shot aside) and at the very least you know you've got someone who can go long if he does get in.

    Warner - Similar to Hughes in some ways. Obviously if he does well in the middle order he could stay there. IMO his key issue is temperament but he's also shown he can play some brilliant innings.

    Khawaja - Not really a big fan of Khawaja but do believe he should be given a decent run now that he's in. The number of left handers at the top of the order does become a concern with his inclusion and his form in recent times hasn't been all that great.

    Doolan - I'm not as big a fan of Doolan as many around here. He's made 5 centuries in 45 games at an average of 38.6 but most of those have come recently. His main advantage is that he's one of the few batsmen with recent form on his side. I do believe he's also quite a decent fielder which is a plus.

    Voges/Bailey - to me both are in the same category of middle aged batsmen without the recent first class form to justify their inclusion. Both however have made runs in ODI's and are reasonable fielders. If selected either would most likely be a short-med term option until Burns or someone else forces the issue. I'd personally go with Voges myself.

    Burns - I've followed Burns' career since he's started and I'd have to say he's probably one of the more rounded bats in the country when it comes to facing pace and spin (of course he still only faces domestic spin so who knows how well that will work out at international level). He's scored 5 centuries in 32 games at an average of 39.5 so he's got one of the best conversion rates out of our young batsmen but he does tend to struggle with getting starts. I personally see him as our long term 4 or 5 depending on how long Clarke hangs around for. From what I know he's also a decent fielder which is a plus.

    Smith - Quite good against spin as we all know but significant weaknesses against pace. 6 centuries in 46 matches would seem reasonable (compared to the other options) but 4 of his tons were scored early in his career. If he could resolve his weakness against pace I actually think he could be quite a good 5 or 6 in the longer run.

    Hartley - IMO he's a better keeper than anything else we've got and we can't keep giving away chances like we are. His batting is IMO also not much worse than Haddin or Wade.

    Maddinson - Wouldn't have him near the side for several years. At the moment his runs either come in short time or not at all and I don't think he's done much when the going gets tough. Definitely one to keep watching though.

    Henriques - Shouldn't be in the Test side IMO. If he can get his batting to click he could be an asset but he's also quite injury prone.

    Cosgrove - Would probably be my reserve bat and could be a good replacement for Watson since he bowls using medium pace.

    Silk - Early days but could be a batsmen for the long term as well.

    As to the main question asked in the title I don't personally think we're that dire and at the very least things can only really get better from here. The fact of the matter is that we have 1 settled batsmen in the team (Clarke). Other poor batting teams generally have at least 3 guys who've been part of the team consistently for ages (E.G. WI, NZ, PAK). Watson's the closest we have to stability outside of Clarke and he's pretty much always injured. IMO build a bit more stability and things will start to turn around.

    Short Term = 1 Year
    Medium Term = 2 Years
    Long Term = 3 Years
    Hurricane likes this.

  8. #38
    International Coach social's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    12,374
    Quote Originally Posted by Stapel View Post
    Agreed.
    Yet, I guess it's fine to have one of your top 7 being a young inexperienced lad with a point to prove.
    Therein lies Australia's problem and one of the reasons why Watson has been such a major disappointment

    If he had done justice to his talent, Oz would have a dominant opener, world-class middle order player (Clarke) and you can work around that

    Instead we have world-class middle order player who is permanently facing the new ball, 3 Bairstows, a mental midget and a 35yo who is basically a debutant

  9. #39
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,476
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Bell only really had problems with Warne and McGrath and he wasn't the only bat in the world to struggle against them.None of the England batting (Bairstow apart) has ever seen their average in the low 30's after a significant number of tests.

    This current Aussie lot make the old England line up of Atherton, Butcher, Hussain, Thorpe, Ramprakash and Hick look good.
    It was a much easier era for batting, though. Cook and Bell were criticised constantly for years, I doubt there's anyone on the site who didn't call for them to be dropped at least once. Prior started off as a bad joke of a wicket keeper, Anderson was very bad a lot more often than he was very good, Broad was a clear weak link and hate figure, Swann was a county-standard tweaker that everyone in the team hated, Bresnan was a fat bits and pieces dobbler. Only Trott and KP looked the goods from the start and KP has his own tiresome back story while Trott has regressed quite a lot in the past couple of years.

    The point is, you have to start somewhere and every team goes through transitional periods. This is a particularly painful one for Australia but it's never quite as bad as it looks after a heavy defeat.
    LongHopCassidy, Pothas and hendrix like this.
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  10. #40
    Hall of Fame Member Son Of Coco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    17,227
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Says the man from the country who have a new spin hope from Pakistan.
    I think our new refugee policy is indicative of the way we're heading - if you can't play cricket then welcome to PNG sunshine! It's really got nothing to do with boat people, we're just shoring up our stocks for the 2019 Ashes.
    "What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)

    R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best

    R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi

    Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath

    "How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.

  11. #41
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,476
    Quote Originally Posted by social View Post
    Bairstow is no better than any of the young Australian batsmen
    You know I still don't really see the point of Hughes. I'm starting to think he should have stuck with his original, highly unorthodox technique and just found a way to stop the short ball getting him out. It's not usually an impossible weakness to manage and his efforts to become more textbook just don't look like coming off. Sometimes he plays a defensive prod and his feet and elbows go all over the place. Someone in the tour thread said it looked like he was performing a long-lost martial art.

    I don't think Bairstow's as good as the others though.

  12. #42
    Hall of Fame Member Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Anyone But England
    Posts
    19,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Uppercut View Post
    It was a much easier era for batting, though. Cook and Bell were criticised constantly for years, I doubt there's anyone on the site who didn't call for them to be dropped at least once. Prior started off as a bad joke of a wicket keeper, Anderson was very bad a lot more often than he was very good, Broad was a clear weak link and hate figure, Swann was a county-standard tweaker that everyone in the team hated, Bresnan was a fat bits and pieces dobbler. Only Trott and KP looked the goods from the start and KP has his own tiresome back story while Trott has regressed quite a lot in the past couple of years.

    The point is, you have to start somewhere and every team goes through transitional periods. This is a particularly painful one for Australia but it's never quite as bad as it looks after a heavy defeat.
    Swann had a much better start to his career than that.

  13. #43
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,476
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    Swann had a much better start to his career than that.
    I'm talking about when he came into the setup in 2000 and everyone hated him and thought he was ****e. Don't think he played a test but whatever.

  14. #44
    Hall of Fame Member NUFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Marrickville
    Posts
    17,899
    Haha, Flib, knew I shouldn't have added Kenya into the mix. Not going to continue though, because UK really are doing great in the sporting world.

    Nice post Justo, what do you make of Burns county cricket form? I do really enjoy the way he plays his cricket, he's quite a natural player who kind of reminds me of Clarke early days. Bailey and Voges do seem to be branded together of late, they are quite similar I agree, and wish one of them was added to the squad when Warner was suspended. Bailey is still 30 so he would still have the opportunity to play quite a long career and offer leadership if given the opportunity - wish he didn't suck so much last Shield campaign though (Voges was almost as bad).

    Its pretty much impossible to mount an irresistible case for any batsman away from the squad at the moment, due to their inconsistency.

  15. #45
    International Coach morgieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Dishing out broken ****ing floggings
    Posts
    10,966
    Let's be honest here, there is still light ahead of the tunnel IMO.

    Watson - should be moved back down the order, I mean he's not an opener originally unlike Rogers and Hughes. Probably can still have a role in the side as at least he can bowl and can make starts, but he's clearly done little with the bat since the 2010/11 Ashes.

    Rogers - an interesting case. Old, but has dominated domestic cricket in the past. Looks sometimes solid but has had a knack of getting out to poor deliveries. A series by series basis, if he fails here then move towards someone else.

    Khawaja - deserves to be the #3, he needs a fair go at Test cricket to see whether he sinks or swim.

    Hughes - should open, it's what he's done for most of his career. Otherwise, give him at #6 a go. If he struggles there, then discard him.

    Clarke - obviously keep. Only batsman who's worth his weight in piss. Will be mighty annoyed if he retires.

    Smith - shows balls at least. Keep him in the side, plus he can occasionally bowl well.

    Warner - isn't even scoring runs for Australia A. Needs some big scores to get back in the side, but has more natural talent than most which I suppose is a good start.

    Cowan - he's 31, never dominated Shield cricket and has been mediocre. I know he's a decent, intelligent bloke, but he really isn't test match material. Would never had gotten anywhere in stronger times.

    I think that Top 6 should remain our top 6 for the near future, with Warner coming in for Rogers sometime within the next 12 months or if some of our other batsmen still can't hack test cricket. Many of these guys are young, done well at Shield level, and some of them show fight, so our batting stocks could be worse. Things should go up within time.

    We have other problems, but none nearly as concerning as our batting.
    5-0

    RIP Craig Walsh (Craig) 1985-2012

    Proudly supporting the #2 cricketer of all time.

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Aamer Situation
    By Teja. in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 488
    Last Post: 17-09-2010, 09:22 PM
  2. How do you deal with this situation?
    By Mard in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-08-2008, 12:43 PM
  3. The Mugabe situation-is anyone really going to do anything?
    By cover drive man in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 04-07-2008, 03:57 PM
  4. The Situation Good & Bad!!!
    By Blewy in forum World Club Cricket
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 19-07-2004, 11:28 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •