# Thread: Predict Australia's 17 man squad for the first test in Australia

1. Originally Posted by Hooksey
The previous 52 innings by Australian number 3 batsmen, prior to Watson's big 100 in the final test, had produced something like 8 x 50s and 1 x 100.

You don't wait that long for a solution and then go changing things again.
Solution?? surely 1 good knock from Twatto in the troubled No3 spot does not = problems solved??

2. Originally Posted by GingerFurball
It was 6-4-1 for the entire tour bar the final Test.
Watson played and bowled so he's an all rounder. That's how the selectors treat him until he can't bowl.

Solution?? surely 1 good knock from Twatto in the troubled No3 spot does not = problems solved??
Closest we've had to a solution at #3 for 52 test innings, and the reason Watson is a monty to bat at 3 at the Gabba.

Solution?? surely 1 good knock from Twatto in the troubled No3 spot does not = problems solved??
He deserves the chance to prove that wrong though. I can't remember the last time someone scored a ton from #3.

If he flounders then whatever, but we shouldn't be messing around with our batting lineup for now.

5. Originally Posted by Hooksey
Closest we've had to a solution at #3 for 52 test innings, and the reason Watson is a monty to bat at 3 at the Gabba.
The same Shane Watson who averaged 20-odd in his previous run at number 3 up until that point?

I agree with playing Watson at 3, FTR, but not for the same reasons. Clarke's a middle order bat, Smith's a middle order bat, if we pick a new batsman you shouldn't debut him at 3. We've basically got the bowling all-rounder batting at 3 to protect the middle order.

6. Look I don't disagree that he shouldn't bat 3 at the Gabba, all I was saying it's a bit early to be calling this a "solution"........when he's averaging +40 in the position over a period of time then you can say he's nailed down the spot. To me he is still only a couple of low scores away from "where they **** do we play him now" all over again.

It will be interesting to see if the Oval does end up being a turning point in Watsons career, will he repay the faith in the selectors and finally do some justice to the obvious talent that he has. I reckon he owes everyone at least 3 years of solid performances and (just my opinion) I don't think he's got it in him.............time will tell.

7. This order seems pretty good, while it's silly to say we're set, you wouldn't change the order now from 1-5

Look I don't disagree that he shouldn't bat 3 at the Gabba, all I was saying it's a bit early to be calling this a "solution"..
You "don't disagree that he shouldn't bat 3 at the Gabba"??

I take it that means you think he should bat at 3 at the Gabba?

The thread is titled : "Predict Australia's 17 man squad for the first test in Australia," and Watson is the solution at #3 for the 1st test. After that, like most others, his position will be reassessed.

9. Hooksey, I think you've completely missed the point of what Adders is saying there. He performed at The Oval at 3, so he should retain that spot. But one big innings does not a 'solution' make. Shaun Marsh made that ton on debut in Sri Lanka, and he most definitely was not a solution.

10. well, that depends on what sort of solution we're talking about, Watson is a short term solution, so we won't go into the first test thinking "who the **** will bat 3?", but as most people are saying, we will have to wait and see if he is a long term solution.

11. We can tangle ourselves up in semantics or talk cricket. I prefer the latter.

I think Shane Watson will bat at number 3 at the Gabba, and after that, like most others, his position will be reassessed.

12. The more interesting discussion is on who will be the 6th batter, the batting cover and how many all rounders in the squad. Hopefully they don't draft Maxwell into the squad if Watson and Faulkner are in it.

13. Originally Posted by Tangles
The more interesting discussion is on who will be the 6th batter, the batting cover and how many all rounders in the squad. Hopefully they don't draft Maxwell into the squad if Watson and Faulkner are in it.
Number 6 is the quandary for the selectors. The other 5 batsmen choose themselves for the 1st test. If someone was running a book on it I'd say Phil Hughes would be favourite. While Mattinson and Faulkner could surpass him if they make big early season runs. I'm hoping they go with Mattinson myself.

14. stop calling him Mattinson

15. Originally Posted by Maximas
stop calling him Mattinson
Thanks for the correction mate. Can't promise I won't spell it wrong again though.

Page 3 of 5 First 12345 Last