Clarke up the order?

But to be fair, is England's lineup (Cook, Root and perhaps Prior apart) that much more reliable than the best Aus have to offer? Even Trott has been a bit wonky.

I don't think anyone has room for assumptions, less still complacency.

Red wrote:Katich said he was left out because of Clarke.

Chappelli loves Clarke more than most and thinks he should bat at #3 as do several other former players who have spoken about the issue on radio in recent times. Just seems the logical thing. If he does go in and steady the innings maybe the guy at the other end is less likely to go out and we get a solid partnership higher up the order. The bowlers get more tired and frustrated and so those batting down the order might find it easier.

If Clarke was still surrounded by top batsmen coming in at #5 wouldn't be an issue but when he is so clearly the best and in the form of his life it does appear a little odd. Steve Waugh was also reluctant to embrace the move but at least he had decent batsmen above him.

Border. Sobers. Waugh. Walters.

Try to think.

PeterCS wrote:But to be fair, is England's lineup (Cook, Root and perhaps Prior apart) that much more reliable than the best Aus have to offer? Even Trott has been a bit wonky.

I don't think anyone has room for assumptions, less still complacency.

Well, we can't be complacent as I'm sure the Aussies will find a way to be competitive this summer, whether it's newcomers or the current bunch playing above themselves. But any of England's top seven would walk into their side at the moment. Even Ian Bell would be their second best batsman by a distance!

lardbucket wrote:

Red wrote:Katich said he was left out because of Clarke.

Chappelli loves Clarke more than most and thinks he should bat at #3 as do several other former players who have spoken about the issue on radio in recent times. Just seems the logical thing. If he does go in and steady the innings maybe the guy at the other end is less likely to go out and we get a solid partnership higher up the order. The bowlers get more tired and frustrated and so those batting down the order might find it easier.

If Clarke was still surrounded by top batsmen coming in at #5 wouldn't be an issue but when he is so clearly the best and in the form of his life it does appear a little odd. Steve Waugh was also reluctant to embrace the move but at least he had decent batsmen above him.

Border. Sobers. Waugh. Walters.

Try to think.

Thought I'd already made the point that these guys batted below very good batsmen so it was less of an issue. And Walters had technical issues against the moving ball but played the role at #6 beautifully. You wouldn't bat him above the Chappells. Border's an interesting one because he struggled during his first incarnation at #3 and Chappellg had to go up there but once the famous ones had retired he did take up the responsibility of first drop but went down the order later in his career. I always thought that Steve Waugh shirked the issue by not batting higher up but his record at #3 was poor. Nonetheless he was in teams which had a plethora of options in domestic cricket and the team itself; Clarke's situation is different.

Sobers also played in some very good teams and one might argue that he was an all-rounder, though he was a better batsman than most.

Clarke in at 3 most likely = Australia 2 for eff-all, and nothing to come.

He's batting where he has batted best for his whole career.

SRW failed at 3 and Border didn't do well at 3. Of course Walters wouldn't have done well at 3 - that's my point. Some batsmen are far better suited at 3; their defensive and primary attacking shots equip them best for a role high in the order. Some batsmen play more shots squarer of the wicket (Clarke, Martyn, Laxman) and they are better suited to coming in a bit later.

The problem isn't that Clarke is coming in too low. The problem is that the wrong players are being selected for the higher positions. Warner is not a Test class opener. He might be dangerous at 6. Hughes is not a Test class opener, and I'm not even convinced he's a Test class player. He will never get the one or tow four balls per over in Test cricket that he needs to release pressure on himself.

In the absence of a decent opening partner for Chris Rogers, who I still think is the most likely player to score runs in the opening spot come July, I'd like to see him opening with Watson, who did well in England last time. I would really have preferred to see Watson at 3, with another opener partnering Rogers. At the start of this summer I thought Liam Davis was a good shout, but he's had a shocking summer. Other candidates are hard to find ... maybe Tim Paine?

Warner and Hughes just have to go, they're shit. What Maxwell is doing anywhere near the team is a mystery.

philcric wrote:Watson
Warner
Cowan
* Clarke
Khawaja
Henriques
+ Wade
Starc
Pattinson
Lyon
Doherty

Probably one of the best XIs (and it's still poor) we could put on the park ATM.

If he could get his head right, Bog would walk into the top 3, and Vague is worth a go as well. Beetle wouldn't be the worst bloke to be picked for a bg either. Doolan, Forrest, Neville, Henry, Quiney, Ferguson, even Klinger, are hovering on the fringes. I honestly don't think Warner and Cowan are true Test players. Reeks will be the new Steve Smith, talented but not quite Test standard.

lardbucket wrote:Clarke in at 3 most likely = Australia 2 for eff-all, and nothing to come.

He's batting where he has batted best for his whole career.

SRW failed at 3 and Border didn't do well at 3. Of course Walters wouldn't have done well at 3 - that's my point. Some batsmen are far better suited at 3; their defensive and primary attacking shots equip them best for a role high in the order. Some batsmen play more shots squarer of the wicket (Clarke, Martyn, Laxman) and they are better suited to coming in a bit later.

The problem isn't that Clarke is coming in too low. The problem is that the wrong players are being selected for the higher positions. Warner is not a Test class opener. He might be dangerous at 6. Hughes is not a Test class opener, and I'm not even convinced he's a Test class player. He will never get the one or tow four balls per over in Test cricket that he needs to release pressure on himself.

In the absence of a decent opening partner for Chris Rogers, who I still think is the most likely player to score runs in the opening spot come July, I'd like to see him opening with Watson, who did well in England last time. I would really have preferred to see Watson at 3, with another opener partnering Rogers. At the start of this summer I thought Liam Davis was a good shout, but he's had a shocking summer. Other candidates are hard to find ... maybe Tim Paine?

Warner and Hughes just have to go, they're shit. What Maxwell is doing anywhere near the team is a mystery.

However nobody called Walters the best batsman in the world yet people freely say that about Clarke. If that's the case him coming in at #3 shouldn't mean two for eff all otherwise one would have to say that Cook and Amla are better. They come in while the ball is moving around, the latter in conditions putatively the most difficult in the world yet survive. If Clarke is the best in the world as most seem to think he should bite the bullet. At the moment there seems to be a view that we'll be three for very little and it's okay to sacrifice a few wickets early. Why not find out if Clarke can come in at first drop and stem the tide. If he's the world's best batsman, like Cook and Amla he will.

Walter is different in any case because he wasn't as good as the likes of Greg Chappell yet if in fact he had a similar order to what Clarke has above him he may well have been promoted because he batted at #4 for NSW. It just looks dumb to have brumbies batting above a colt when the experiment keeps failing.

Walter Hammond, Walter Hadlee, Where's Walter?? Who is this Walter person??

skully wrote:Walter Hammond, Walter Hadlee, Where's Walter?? Who is this Walter person??

Kevin Douglas as you well know.

beamer wrote:

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:It seems to me things are wrong with the Australian cricket at a level far deeper than " this guy is rubbish, that one is awful".

Well, the fact these "rubbish" and "awful" players are in Test contention hints at that!

There was a pretty capable "lost generation" of Australian batsmen stuck behind the likes of Ponting, Hayden, Langer, the Waughs etc. who played a handful of Tests or none at all, while in many cases pissing on English county cricket in the late 90s and early 00s. I wonder what they are thinking looking at this?

Probably that why weren't there all the 20/20 leagues in their time, if they were to be honest about their thoughts.

20/20 affects test cricket in more ways then people generally seem to realize. Would Hussey have so easily walked away on his own if there was no lucrative income coming from 20/20?

Clarke
Clarke
Clarke
Clarke
Clarke
Clarke
Hartley+
Agar
Harris
Pattinson
Ahmed


I reckon.

But seriously, I think the decline in Australian batting has at least something to do with T20, ad Cricket Australia's obsession with promoting the BBL above all else.

What's worse, is all the influential ex players joining the bandwagon. You'll hear someone like Tom Moody on commentary- "Steve Smith can really strike the ball cleanly when he wants to....brilliant six over extra cover"

And then a couple of days later he'll no doubt have a word to his old mate Inverarity- "Did you see Smith in the BBL last night? Geez he looks in good touch" and then when it comes to selecting a tour squad for India, the name Steve Smith is still in Inverarity's mind, regardless of the fact that he averages 20 in the Sheffield Shield. Tom Moody says he's in good touch. He must be worth consideration.

At least, that's what I'd imagine sometimes happens. The more I watch T20 cricket, the more I realise that good form in that format has no bearing whatsoever on the longer forms of the game. Why is is that Shaun Marsh consistently looks amazing in T20, but can literally hardly make a run in first class cricket? Same with Aaron Finch, Luke Pomersbach, Travis Birt....

They just can't seem to apply their natural talent to first class cricket. They have no idea about how to find a good balance of positive strokeplay, and sound defence in the long form of the game. If anything they go too much the other way. Their thinking becomes as simplified and ignorant as "oh, it's first class cricket now. Better put away all my shots here for at least an hour." So they actually become shotless, before their instincts are unable to resist nibbling at one and they're out for 10 off 40 balls having looked like the next Viv Richards a few days previous in the BBL.

T20 shows that there are some guys with serious talent in Aus cricket, but when they play first class cricket again, we see that the problem is in their minds, rather than anything technical, and it's become a bit of a disease that's spread.

Agree with a lot of that Henry but also think that people make the mistake of assuming because they look good or talented or whatever in T20 that this will translate to the test arena. People seem to forget that there are some ordinary bowling line-ups, that the field set-ups are different, that the very good bowlers can only bowl a few overs and have no time to work over the batsmen, that the pitches are often flat and there's no movement etc.

Even with Watson, most of his most memorable knocks have been in the shorter forms of the game. People get the two confused. His average at test level is very average for a reason.

Of course there's no doubting though that the scheduling means that Aussie players no longer have the chance to develop any sort of first class momentum throughout our summer.

Bernie and the arseclowns need to bite the bullet. The frailty of our top order was papered over by a weak Lankan effort in our summer. Warner, Cowan and Hughes are not Test Class. Build the opening position around Watson, get a long term no. 3 in now (Bog is the logical choice if he could get off the blow) and stiffen the middle order with a UK, Beetle or Vague.

FFS, this is the Ashes we are talking about, not a game of tiddlywinks. Our bowling has enough strength to be a threat in England, but our batting is far too reliant on Clarke to perform every match.

This was the side we fielded in T5 of the 85 Ashes:

Wood
Hilditch
Wessels
Border*
Ritchie
Phillips†
O'Donnell
Lawson
McDermott
Thomson
Holland

We got smashed 4-1 in this series. I would rate the above side as a better batting XI than our current tosh (just).

We are gonna get so smashed, unless we can get some technical correctness into the top order.

Build the opening position around Watson,

Nothing should be built around Watson. The structure would almost certainly collapse.

I'm clutching, Trev. Twat at least has some technical correctness about him. If he could de-mush his brain, he might be of some value.

The cupboard is bare so I have to accept some chaff.

Fred Nerk wrote:Naaa....Watson out on his pink shell-like. He doesn't have a clue what he wants to do besides staying in the team. All last week he was making noises about bowling again, about 10 minutes after he finished telling everybody who might be listening that he had accepted he was now a batsman only. Unfortunately it seems we are lumbered with either Watson or Hughes (or both) because the alternatives just aren't there.

Absolutely agree, biggest imposter in the side right now. He's taking the spot of someone like Khawaja who we need to be exposed to these conditions. Is CA so near sighted?

As for Hughes, he may suck but until a gluttony of cricketers suddenly appear from the SS, he's going to be the best we have. They should be working on his problems though, mentally and physically.

Clarke's a qunt but he's more than earned the right to bat wherever the fark he wants.

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:In our view the likes of Cowan were not likely to succeed regardless of the conditions. The trouble with this team though is that it lacks balance. There are just too many players who do a bit of everything but none of it particularly well. Maxwell has been selected on the basis of T20 performances. Too many mediocre players are now wearing the cap that was once so coveted.

But they are all allrounders.

Like you're an allround troll

baggygreen wrote:

taipan wrote:

Red wrote:In our view the likes of Cowan were not likely to succeed regardless of the conditions. The trouble with this team though is that it lacks balance. There are just too many players who do a bit of everything but none of it particularly well. Maxwell has been selected on the basis of T20 performances. Too many mediocre players are now wearing the cap that was once so coveted.

But they are all allrounders.

Like you're an allround troll

Really? So care to explain what Henriques and Maxwell are doing batting at 7 and 8? Clearly not there as specialist bats? So are they there for their bowling?

lardbucket wrote:Clarke in at 3 most likely = Australia 2 for eff-all, and nothing to come.

He's batting where he has batted best for his whole career.

SRW failed at 3 and Border didn't do well at 3. Of course Walters wouldn't have done well at 3 - that's my point. Some batsmen are far better suited at 3; their defensive and primary attacking shots equip them best for a role high in the order. Some batsmen play more shots squarer of the wicket (Clarke, Martyn, Laxman) and they are better suited to coming in a bit later.

The problem isn't that Clarke is coming in too low. The problem is that the wrong players are being selected for the higher positions. Warner is not a Test class opener. He might be dangerous at 6. Hughes is not a Test class opener, and I'm not even convinced he's a Test class player. He will never get the one or tow four balls per over in Test cricket that he needs to release pressure on himself.

In the absence of a decent opening partner for Chris Rogers, who I still think is the most likely player to score runs in the opening spot come July, I'd like to see him opening with Watson, who did well in England last time. I would really have preferred to see Watson at 3, with another opener partnering Rogers. At the start of this summer I thought Liam Davis was a good shout, but he's had a shocking summer. Other candidates are hard to find ... maybe Tim Paine?

Warner and Hughes just have to go, they're shit. What Maxwell is doing anywhere near the team is a mystery.

Lardy, the fact is that Clarke is effectively batting at 3 or 4 anyway, if he comes in before the 10th over. If you had a decent 1-4 this subject would never have come up, but you haven't. IMHO until you resolve the problem he has to grasp the nettle and move up the order.

Let's assume that Clarke could still average 70 batting at number three. Australia might be 200-2 more often, and the young, inexperienced players could come in under less pressure. As it is, Australia are asking young, inexperienced batsmen to set the tone of the match for them, and Clarke is more often than not coming in at 50-3 with a repair job to do.

Henry wrote:Let's assume that Clarke could still average 70 batting at number three. Australia might be 200-2 more often, and the young, inexperienced players could come in under less pressure. As it is, Australia are asking young, inexperienced batsmen to set the tone of the match for them, and Clarke is more often than not coming in at 50-3 with a repair job to do.

Yes it is the same argument I had made even before the start of the series. I was the only person on this board at that time who thought it was ridiculous that the best batsman would come 3 down, esp when you have jokers all around you.

Also, what Clarke actually averages batting at five is besides the point, and just shows how misleading stats can be. He made 91 here, and a fat lot of good it did for the team....

I'd probably just bump Watson and Clarke one place up the order ( the 2 best batsmen on paper). That would mean they could play the weaker (or new) batsmen at 5 and 6 where they would be 'protected'. Sort of.

I'd have a problem with exposing the best batsman, who is not used to the no.3 position, in a weak batting team to the very new ball (when Australia have the openers that they have). Doesn't mean that Clarke won't do well in that position or that he's any less of a batsman than Amla or Cook. It just doesn't make good cricketing sense to me.

I'd say Clarke is definitely more of a batsman than Cook. Lot more.