Clarke up the order?

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

Thought my view was reasonable; can't remember this formula of bits and pieces players ever being successful.

BTW agree with the views re. Watson, he seems to hold court with the media about his preferences without really earning the right to do this. He's actually struggling to retain his place at this juncture regardless of his apparent talent which realistically is unproven in the test arena. Not sure about Skully's call re. Shaun Marsh. He's nearly thirty yet has never shone in first class cricket and was exposed last summer by a very ordinary attack.

Watson is far more trouble to Australia's test team than he's worth. The sooner Australia realises this, the better. He could win them the World Cup, but in tests he'll be a liability.

taipan wrote:

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?

They're there to bat and bowl.

Brass Monkey wrote:

taipan wrote:

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?

They're there to bat and bowl.

You have got mean in your old age

G.Wood wrote:
You have got mean in your old age

This is what I mean. They're there to bat and bowl regardless of how good they are at it. In a similar vein, Phil Hughes is there to bat - he's a batsman, however poor he is at it.

You have got philosophical in your young age.

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:

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....

No I've been hammering this point ad nauseam much to the annoyance of others.

Red wrote:

Anthony_Gonzales wrote:

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....

No I've been hammering this point ad nauseam much to the annoyance of others.

So the current state of play is that one of Tony, Red or Trev have the been the only person hammering this point.

Brass Monkey wrote:

G.Wood wrote:
You have got mean in your old age

This is what I mean. They're there to bat and bowl regardless of how good they are at it. In a similar vein, Phil Hughes is there to bat - he's a batsman, however poor he is at it.

Yet no one is really sure what Henriques and Maxwell are there for. Bits and pieces cricketers, for sure.

Moises averaged 149 after his first test, he's the next Bradman.

taipan wrote:

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?

I'm not falling for your bait. Especially when it comes from someone who's viewpoint is that a player is only an allrounder if they have Kallis' or Sobers' ability.

baggygreen wrote:

taipan wrote:

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?

I'm not falling for your bait. Especially when it comes from someone who's viewpoint is that a player is only an allrounder if they have Kallis' or Sobers' ability.

Well now you are picking players who aren't even good enough to get in on one of the disciplines, let alone two.

place Taips on ignore...or ignorant if you like

he/red/merls continue to put the hurl into churl

so the aussie 'brain' trust finally gets something right

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-australia-2013/content/current/story/623561.html

"We need our top six batters to be scoring runs, we need our four, five or six bowlers to be taking wickets. It can't be about one person. I've never played cricket that way and I don't want this team to go to that."

I've always thought cricket was about one man smashing the daylights out of an opposition XI with his batting, bowling, fielding, keeping, captaincy and advice to himself.

I shall have to rethink my position.

PeterCS wrote:"We need our top six batters to be scoring runs, we need our four, five or six bowlers to be taking wickets. It can't be about one person. I've never played cricket that way and I don't want this team to go to that."

I've always thought cricket was about one man smashing an opposition XI. I shall have to rethink my position.

Clarke has hurt my religious sentiments. I may need an apology.

Bails, sorts out the problem

If ever he was going to move up the order it was surely in India where they sometimes open with the spinner anyway.

Glad he listened to us!

This is a classic example of lack of forward thinking, lack of foresight. This is what separates true leaders from people just having titles - applies not just to cricket of course.

What's the point now, Mr. Johnny Come Lately?

Sorting himself out for the Ashes.

With Pup declaring he's moving to 4 for T3 we can now rejoice in the fact that Phil Hughes will never play for Australia again. I hope the new configuration (presumably with UK at 5) works and we can start a proper building process towards the Ashes. With farken Phil Hughes in the XI we were never serious.

Maybe Watto will just change places with Clarkey?


In which case it should be more a case of "Rod up the Clacker?"

I would still prefer to have the space filler (smith) ahead of low rent schoolgirl

37 test innings since schoolgirl scored a ton...as one journo put it - Howard was right when he said that watson was not in the top 6 batsmen and needed to bowl to get a game

watosn gets paid $1.5m pa at the moment from CA....that will get a significant shave under the performance criteria