England in Australia
- Thread starter andrew_nixon
- Start date
He's a better batsman than all those competing for his spot, should we get rid of him because he can bowl as well?anthenms said:
Either way the English slips will be doing a lot of business, I'd prefer they gave Jaques a chance at 6- he bats 4 in county cricket, there's no reason he can't play without opening.
genghis_khan
International Cricketer
I'm pretty confident that Watson will take his place in the side next thursday...ive twinged my hamstring like he did today, was over it in 2 days.
I've got to say credit where it's due to South Australia and especially Darren Lehmann for declaring and making a game of it.
I just hope that Harmison was merely rested and it's not a cover up for something else. Monty started though and with Fletcher saying that this would be our Test team (although Harmison missing out changes that) the signs are promising.
I just hope that Harmison was merely rested and it's not a cover up for something else. Monty started though and with Fletcher saying that this would be our Test team (although Harmison missing out changes that) the signs are promising.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Fletcher has come out and said that with Tresco gone they may revert to Giles to strenghten the batting. That's one of the most ridiculous comments I think I've heard from him in recent weeks. Is he trying to say that an out of form opener means not playing, and a batsman who has had a good year playing, suddenly means he needs to play Giles? I hope it's just a smoke-screen to keep the Aussies guessing, but it just doesn't make any sense as a comment, is he trying to destroy the confidence of Monty and Colly/Bell as well as Read?
Also MUFC, sort of credit to Lehman. Considering they don't have much in the way of quicks. Delcaring before the end of play allows them to get two spells out of the way from their openers before turning to the spinners
Also MUFC, sort of credit to Lehman. Considering they don't have much in the way of quicks. Delcaring before the end of play allows them to get two spells out of the way from their openers before turning to the spinners
Such a shame about Watson. He didn't look too bad when he left the field though, he was still jogging around, so I'm hopeful he will still take his place. If there's any doubt I don't think they'll play him because the allrounder roll is going to be more important from tests 3-5. I think we have enough firepower to get the job done in Brisbane - Warnie is going to operate non-stop at one end for the second innings, we just have to hope that 3 quicks is enough to get the job done in the first innings.
Tait's ball to get Strauss was a ripper. That guy is a monster....he pulls out magic, unplayable balls more than any paceman i've ever seen. But still a bit too inconsistent to think that he can keep it tidy enough to not leak runs in a huge first test. I still want Clark in there hitting the seam - although Johnson was pretty tidy against one heck of a Gilchrist onslaught so I don't think we'd be at a loss if he played.
I so want Symmo in for Watson if he's out - Clarke may be in good form, but Symmo is the type of player who could destroy Harmison's confidence to the point where he'll be joining Tresco back in England. I'd back him to produce this time around.
So Panesar is playing in the first test I take it? He seems pretty innocuous in Aussie conditions so far, his only wickets coming from batsmen going the slog.
Tait's ball to get Strauss was a ripper. That guy is a monster....he pulls out magic, unplayable balls more than any paceman i've ever seen. But still a bit too inconsistent to think that he can keep it tidy enough to not leak runs in a huge first test. I still want Clark in there hitting the seam - although Johnson was pretty tidy against one heck of a Gilchrist onslaught so I don't think we'd be at a loss if he played.
I so want Symmo in for Watson if he's out - Clarke may be in good form, but Symmo is the type of player who could destroy Harmison's confidence to the point where he'll be joining Tresco back in England. I'd back him to produce this time around.
So Panesar is playing in the first test I take it? He seems pretty innocuous in Aussie conditions so far, his only wickets coming from batsmen going the slog.
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
He's also had a missed stumping and dropped catch at slip, so he's been fairly unlucky. They may seem like he's getting them on slogs, but that's one of his major strong points. He is difficult to get away for big runs, and when batsman try he more often than not seems to win that battle.
Iron-Haggis
Club Cricketer
anthenms said:
Do you even follow cricket? Watson has been one of the most inform batsmen since he came back from stress fractures. Also if Watson comes in at 4/50 he will be at his best. He is a technically sound and is a top order batsmen. Follow the game before you make ridiculous comments that make yourself look like an idiot.
Watson first class average of nearly 50. Clarke just over 40. Who has done more?
kodos
International Coach
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Online Cricket Games Owned
puddleduck said:Fletcher has come out and said that with Tresco gone they may revert to Giles to strenghten the batting. That's one of the most ridiculous comments I think I've heard from him in recent weeks. Is he trying to say that an out of form opener means not playing, and a batsman who has had a good year playing, suddenly means he needs to play Giles? I hope it's just a smoke-screen to keep the Aussies guessing, but it just doesn't make any sense as a comment, is he trying to destroy the confidence of Monty and Colly/Bell as well as Read?
Also MUFC, sort of credit to Lehman. Considering they don't have much in the way of quicks. Delcaring before the end of play allows them to get two spells out of the way from their openers before turning to the spinners
Everything Fletcher says nowadays is ridiculous
From selecting Jones ahead of Read, not playing Plunkett in any of the warm up games and now saying Giles is the favourite for the "spinner" spot in Brisbane. If England do lose this series and get hammered say 5-0 I will be calling for the chop but it seems unlikely as I read from somewhere he is the coach till the WC.Cricket_god
Associate Cricketer
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Location
- heaven
Iron-Haggis said:
There are lot of guys who had extra ordinary first class averages but test cricket is different and he does not feel like a top order batsman heis good a lower middle order otherwise he would be cannon fodder
Lower class domestic comps, sure- hacks don't average close to 50 in Pura Cup. I'm fascinated to know why he doesn't "feel" like a top order batsman, he'd have close to the best technique in the team.Cricket_god said:
Lol Watson is a top order batsmen not a lower order one. Every time he goes down the order he barely registers a score given the fact he usually is on when Murali or some other spinner is well into their spell.
Symonds batting is as consistent as Tait bowling. Too risky to be playing him and having the both of them hmmmm. I would go Jaques a batsmen as good as him has the class to bat anywhere.
valvolux said:
Symonds batting is as consistent as Tait bowling. Too risky to be playing him and having the both of them hmmmm. I would go Jaques a batsmen as good as him has the class to bat anywhere.
Similar threads
