Cricket Player Manager
Page 8 of 47 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 698
Like Tree63Likes

Thread: Australia's test side for the Ashes in Australia

  1. #106
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    16,787
    I think it's a touch over-simplifying to only count the people who played in the top six. I know White and Smith were picked to play at no.8 but surely the selectors would have had one eye on them being top six options later on?
    "Your averages, captain, coaches and players can probably survive incompetence over a relatively short series, so if youíre going to be rubbish, make sure itís against Pakistan, Sri Lanka, New Zealand or someone."

  2. #107
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    #banblocky
    Posts
    20,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    I think it's a touch over-simplifying to only count the people who played in the top six. I know White and Smith were picked to play at no.8 but surely the selectors would have had one eye on them being top six options later on?
    It's a lot easier to look at batsmen when it comes to looking at consistency of selection. Aside from the fact that bowlers always seem to get the blame and therefore the chop for bad performances, bowlers are also more prone to serious injury and therefore more in need of management than batsmen.
    ​63*

  3. #108
    State Vice-Captain schearzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Isla de Muerta
    Posts
    1,380
    Quote Originally Posted by LongHopCassidy View Post
    I was an avid reader of Steve Waugh's tour diaries, and the recurring theme in all of them - at least the one that sticks in my mind - is his commentary on the Poms creating a losing culture by constantly chopping and changing their side and having everyone look over their shoulders. Now that the boot's firmly on the other foot, it's a great deal easier to empathise with the 90's English mindset of selection - we have to persist with someone, but what if that someone is the next Ramprakash or Hick, constantly in the frame by weight of FC runs but never making the step up in temperament for Test matches? That's our only obstacle to a pick-and-stick policy, otherwise we'd have confirmed it by now. Will Hughes go down the same path by the scars of three droppings giving him mental blocks? Is Khawaja just not Test class? Will the People's Champ ever get his breakthrough ton? Hard to see when their Test averages are being challenged by Mitchell Starc.

    If we persist with them, they may never deliver. But if we don't persist with them, we'll be forever haunted with the spectre of what if. That's not a traditionally English mindset, it's one of any struggling team of neophytes who don't believe in themselves. When Waugh's team went from losing to winning, he forgot the **** decision that the selectors faced each Test before 1989.

    Honestly, I don't envy Invers at the moment. He's on a hiding to nothing whoever he puts in the top 6, and even the spinner and third seamer. Do we want to hop back on the twenty Test merry-go-round of blooding the next big thing and pray they become the proverbial duck to water?
    Well put, I'm really happy Faulkner's getting a go, he has been a part of the Tassie side and they're a winning side the past few years same as Queensland have been. Picking between people averaging between 35-40 isn't much of a choice. So getting people in the side who know about winning is a good step forward
    Current Favourite XI 1. Gayle 2. Warner 3.Sangakarra 4. Clarke* 5. Chanderpaul 6.DeVilliers 7. De Kock+ 8. Vettori 9. Johnson 10. Herath 11. Steyn

  4. #109
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    12,059
    Would say that 6 of the top 7 are locked in now for Brisbane. Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith and Haddin. Harris will obviously play if fit as will Siddle and Lyon should too. So basically just a number 6 and the 3rd paceman to pick. Pattinson if fit would be my choice but not got a clue who i'd choose as 6th batsman.


  5. #110
    School Boy/Girl Captain CarlsbergXpress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    109
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Would say that 6 of the top 7 are locked in now for Brisbane. Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith and Haddin. Harris will obviously play if fit as will Siddle and Lyon should too. So basically just a number 6 and the 3rd paceman to pick. Pattinson if fit would be my choice but not got a clue who i'd choose as 6th batsman.
    Agree with this - has anyone got a clue where 6th batsman is concerned?

  6. #111
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    44,227
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Would say that 6 of the top 7 are locked in now for Brisbane. Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith and Haddin. Harris will obviously play if fit as will Siddle and Lyon should too. So basically just a number 6 and the 3rd paceman to pick. Pattinson if fit would be my choice but not got a clue who i'd choose as 6th batsman.
    Pattinson should be second bowler picked if fit but obviously that's a big if.

    But yeah I agree - as big a "disaster" as this series will be seen as by some who had their heads in the sand before it started, it seems to have at least settled the top six a bit. Looking at the series as a whole, Clarke, Rogers and Watson have batted well, even if Clarke didn't reach the heights that were expected of him and Watson's big contribution came when the series was done. Smith has a chance to join that group if he pushes on to make a really big score here, while Warner has looked the part in limited opportunities too. Someone actually performing at number three is huge really given the problems Australia have had there for so long, even if it's only been for one innings in a dead rubber so far.

    I'm a Hughes man myself; I still think he should be batting in the top three but when he actually did bat 6 in this series he actually played one of Australia's best knocks of recent times, certainly if we exclude Clarke, so I'd be looking at:

    1. Rogers
    2. Warner
    3. Watson
    4. Clarke
    5. Smith
    6. Hughes
    7. Haddin
    8. Pattinson (Starc or Bird if not fit, conditions/fitness dependant)
    9. Siddle
    10. Harris
    11. Lyon

    Funnily enough that's actually the exact lineup I would've picked for Lords with the batting order shuffled around a bit, but they've got Rogers, Watson and Lyon with a lot more substance to their selections now which should help no end.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09

    Quote Originally Posted by John Singleton
    Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a manís right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of oneís own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain oneís life and to keep the results of oneís own efforts.


  7. #112
    International Coach flibbertyjibber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Mrs Miggins pie shop
    Posts
    12,059
    Yeah Pattinson would be the 2nd bowler as Siddle won't get the new ball. Was just using it as a number saying a 3rd paceman.

  8. #113
    International Debutant Adders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ***RIP THE PRINCE***
    Posts
    2,690
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Would say that 6 of the top 7 are locked in now for Brisbane. Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith and Haddin. Harris will obviously play if fit as will Siddle and Lyon should too. So basically just a number 6 and the 3rd paceman to pick. Pattinson if fit would be my choice but not got a clue who i'd choose as 6th batsman.
    That's actually interesting, before this series the makeup of the Aussie side was all over the place and not many people could agree on a starting 11. Now I'd say you're right, they have got 9 of the 11 locked down (fitness permitting)..........so despite whatever this series score ends up it certainly hasn't been a lost cause by any means.

  9. #114
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Furball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    #banblocky
    Posts
    20,495
    Bumble just threw Johnson's name in as a bolter for selection.

    Surely not?

  10. #115
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    Pattinson should be second bowler picked if fit but obviously that's a big if.

    But yeah I agree - as big a "disaster" as this series will be seen as by some who had their heads in the sand before it started, it seems to have at least settled the top six a bit. Looking at the series as a whole, Clarke, Rogers and Watson have batted well, even if Clarke didn't reach the heights that were expected of him and Watson's big contribution came when the series was done. Smith has a chance to join that group if he pushes on to make a really big score here, while Warner has looked the part in limited opportunities too. Someone actually performing at number three is huge really given the problems Australia have had there for so long, even if it's only been for one innings in a dead rubber so far.

    I'm a Hughes man myself; I still think he should be batting in the top three but when he actually did bat 6 in this series he actually played one of Australia's best knocks of recent times, certainly if we exclude Clarke, so I'd be looking at:

    1. Rogers
    2. Warner
    3. Watson
    4. Clarke
    5. Smith
    6. Hughes
    7. Haddin
    8. Pattinson (Starc or Bird if not fit, conditions/fitness dependant)
    9. Siddle
    10. Harris
    11. Lyon

    Funnily enough that's actually the exact lineup I would've picked for Lords with the batting order shuffled around a bit, but they've got Rogers, Watson and Lyon with a lot more substance to their selections now which should help no end.

    Hughes is a tricky one, because I rate him too. I know he played one very fine innings at 6, but he struggled horribly in his other 3 innings there. I'd be tempted to play him at 4, given that Watson's played so well at 3 yesterday and Clarke prefers 5 anyway. That also puts Smith at 6, which I think is a fairer reflection of his abilities at this stage.

  11. #116
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    44,227
    Quote Originally Posted by wpdavid View Post
    Hughes is a tricky one, because I rate him too. I know he played one very fine innings at 6, but he struggled horribly in his other 3 innings there. I'd be tempted to play him at 4, given that Watson's played so well at 3 yesterday and Clarke prefers 5 anyway. That also puts Smith at 6, which I think is a fairer reflection of his abilities at this stage.
    He actually only batted 6 in the first Test; in the second Test he moved up to 4 and scored 1 and 1.

    I think I actually prefer the lineup with him at four too and I originally had it named in that way, however putting him there would have given me less right to argue that he was unfairly dropped, and I also think it just seems a little more logical to bring the sixth batsman in at six than to bring him at four and move the team's best batsman and captain down a spot (again). I was against Clarke moving to four in the first place but now that it's happened I think it should probably stay like that, especially since Hughes may fail and then they'd be looking at Clarke having to move again or bringing another new batsman straight into #4. Hughes at six just seems much less complicated in general, particularly since he averaged 81 there and 1 at four in the Tests he played this series.

  12. #117
    Request Your Custom Title Now! Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Swimming in the cry water of Antarctica
    Posts
    29,359
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    1. Rogers
    2. Warner
    3. Watson
    4. Clarke
    5. Smith
    6. Hughes
    7. Haddin
    8. Pattinson (Starc or Bird if not fit, conditions/fitness dependant)
    9. Siddle
    10. Harris
    11. Lyon
    This would be exactly my team, though like you I'm unsure where to put Hughes. Ideally I'd go for Clarke at five as well but Hughes, Smith or Watson at four doesn't really work.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Jeets doesn't really deserve to be bowling.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Well yeah Tendy is probably better than Bradman, but Bradman was 70 years ago, if he grew up in the modern era he'd still easily be the best. Though he wasn't, can understand the argument for Tendy even though I don't agree.
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  13. #118
    Cricketer Of The Year wpdavid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    8,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    He actually only batted 6 in the first Test; in the second Test he moved up to 4 and scored 1 and 1.

    I think I actually prefer the lineup with him at four too and I originally had it named in that way, however putting him there would have given me less right to argue that he was unfairly dropped, and I also think it just seems a little more logical to bring the sixth batsman in at six than to bring him at four and move the team's best batsman and captain down a spot (again). I was against Clarke moving to four in the first place but now that it's happened I think it should probably stay like that, especially since Hughes may fail and then they'd be looking at Clarke having to move again or bringing another new batsman straight into #4. Hughes at six just seems much less complicated in general, particularly since he averaged 81 there and 1 at four in the Tests he played this series.
    I'd forgotten about his promotion at Lord's. Did Swann account for him in both innings there?

    I always thought he was unlucky to be dropped mid-series in 2009. I think the biggest danger now is that he completely loses sight of what sort of a batsman he is supposed to be. Perhaps he should simply open for his state side for a couple of years with a view to replacing Rodgers eventually.

  14. #119
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Remembering The Prince - 63*
    Posts
    49,417
    So

    Warner
    Rogers
    Watson
    Clarke
    Smith
    ???
    Rad
    Siddle
    Harris
    ???
    Lyon

    About right yeah?

  15. #120
    International Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    3,333
    Warner
    Rogers
    Watson
    Clarke
    Smith
    Hughes
    Rad
    Siddle
    Harris
    Pattinson/Bird
    Lyon

    If Pattison isn't fit then Bird.

Page 8 of 47 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. australia since Ashes 2005 in test cricket
    By jemo27 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01-01-2008, 07:56 AM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 09-11-2005, 01:15 PM
  3. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 30-03-2005, 05:50 PM
  4. Australia's best ever ODI side
    By MattO in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13-01-2005, 05:16 PM
  5. Australia 'A' Side to take on England
    By Blewy in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 12-11-2002, 03:37 AM

Posting Permissions

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