England Tour Of Australia 2013/14

[aussie1st]

You would hope so else there is some weird double standards given guys like Marsh and Quiney had their FC average ignored.

 

[Umair7]

Quiney = Where is he ??? after those 2 matches against Africa he has disappeared :/

 

[War]

Quiney should have never played test cricket, it was a ridiculous choice by the selectors at the time.

 

[Umair7]

And why shouldn't he ??

 

[Aislabie]

Shane Watson's off the field in India with a hamstring problem. Not sure yet how serious it is, but looking at his history, he might be doubtful for Brisbane. Who's likely to replace him? Perhaps Alex Doolan?

 

[Umair7]

Most Probably we will tweak the batting order and Watto can be replaced by Bailey

 

[War]

And why shouldn't he ??

You tell me first why you believed Quiney deserved to be picked for test cricket vs S Africa last year over other candidates, then i'll explain why he should never have worn the baggy green.

 

[Spickery]

Shane Watson's off the field in India with a hamstring problem. Not sure yet how serious it is, but looking at his history, he might be doubtful for Brisbane. Who's likely to replace him? Perhaps Alex Doolan?

Shane Watson is a hard cricketer to replace because he offers something with both the bat and ball and he is good in the field. James Faulkner is the most logical replacement for Shane Watson in my opinion. Faulkner is a wicket taking bowler as has been showed when he has played for Australia in ODIs and in his debut test match. He can also bat which he showed when he made 116 off only 73 balls last night against India. He is also a good fieldsman as well. Clarke said in one of his press conferences that Watson had the all-rounders place in the test team at the moment and Faulkner would have to keep taking wickets and make runs to make the test team. I believe Faulkner has now done that.

I think Clarke has to step up and take the number 3 batting position whether he likes it or not. Clarke is Australia's best batsman and he can't expect someone to come in and fill the most difficult batting position. Clarke can't hide at number 4 when the Australia test team needs their captain's help. If Clarke batted at 3 everyone could move up in the order and Bailey could bat at 5 and Faulkner could bat at number 7 below Haddin.

My batting order for example: (Not all players set in stone)

1. Chris Rogers
2. David Warner
3. Michael Clarke
4. Steve Smith
5. George Bailey
6. Brad Haddin
7. James Faulkner
8. Mitchell Johnson
9. Peter Siddle
10. Ryan Harris
11. Nathan Lyon

 

[Left_Hander]

I'm not a huge fan of Faulkner as a Test allrounder but if Watson goes down, I think he is our next best option. I think he has proven himself in ODI. He definitely has potential.

 

[Little Punter]

Personally, I think the number 3 spot is a specialty spot, like an opener. I don't think Clarke should be batting there. If Watson doesn't play, my side would look like
1. Rogers
2. Warner
3. Doolan
4. Clarke
5. Smith
6. Haddin
7. Faulkner
8. Johnson
9. Siddle
10. Harris
11. Ahmed
If he manages to get up, I would have Watson at 3, move Haddin down to 7 and slip Bailey in at 6.

 

[Umair7]

You tell me first why you believed Quiney deserved to be picked for test cricket vs S Africa last year over other candidates, then i'll explain why he should never have worn the baggy green.

Well you are right he was averaging less than 30 at the time he got call up War 1 Umair 0

 

[War]

The Ashes 2013-14 : Hot Spot may earn Ashes reprieve | Cricket News | England in Australia - The Ashes | ESPN Cricinfo

Good signs.

----------

Shane Watson is a hard cricketer to replace because he offers something with both the bat and ball and he is good in the field. James Faulkner is the most logical replacement for Shane Watson in my opinion. Faulkner is a wicket taking bowler as has been showed when he has played for Australia in ODIs and in his debut test match. He can also bat which he showed when he made 116 off only 73 balls last night against India. He is also a good fieldsman as well. Clarke said in one of his press conferences that Watson had the all-rounders place in the test team at the moment and Faulkner would have to keep taking wickets and make runs to make the test team. I believe Faulkner has now done that.

I think Clarke has to step up and take the number 3 batting position whether he likes it or not. Clarke is Australia's best batsman and he can't expect someone to come in and fill the most difficult batting position. Clarke can't hide at number 4 when the Australia test team needs their captain's help. If Clarke batted at 3 everyone could move up in the order and Bailey could bat at 5 and Faulkner could bat at number 7 below Haddin.

My batting order for example: (Not all players set in stone)

1. Chris Rogers
2. David Warner
3. Michael Clarke
4. Steve Smith
5. George Bailey
6. Brad Haddin
7. James Faulkner
8. Mitchell Johnson
9. Peter Siddle
10. Ryan Harris
11. Nathan Lyon

This yea is the best team if Watson can't play totally, but once he can bat he will play though.

I don't really agree the Clarke "has" to bat @ # 3. Remember when AUS were in a similar transition phase in their test team in the late 1980s when Border was head & shoulder the best batsman - he didn't bat @ 3.

Nor thus Chanderpaul in the current windies team since Lara left, even though he was easily there best batsman.

Even when AUS were dominant - Steve Waugh the clear best batsman batted @ # 5.

If Clarke goes to three, teams will look @ AUS as "we just need to get Clarke early then we get a weak middle-order to bowl at".

Plus one must consider the stress of being a captain & the # 3 batsman is serious mental workload.

I reckon potentially Watson/Smith/Bailey once they keep batting well can bring the kind of solidity to the test middle-order that the team has been lacking in the past 4-5 years also, thus the need to Clarke to move up may not be that significant.

----------

WA Chairman's XI v England XI, Tour match, Perth, 2nd day : Michael Carberry hopes to spark Ashes chance | Cricket News | England in Australia - The Ashes | ESPN Cricinfo

Australia Cricket News: Shane Warne attacks Ricky Ponting, Alastair Cook | ESPN Cricinfo

Don't know how other ENG fans view this, but i personally was not totally convinced about Root as opener in the Ashes. Still think he would be better at # 6.

Although the selectors have treated Compton poorly & he really should have been on this tour, i'm leaning towards the idea of Carberry opening with Cook & Root @ 6.

To round off his serve, Warne said England would do well not to play Joe Root at the top of the order during the series, suggesting the young Yorkshireman would be "crucified" facing the new ball on Australian pitches. Warne preferred to see Michael Carberry as Cook's opening partner, with Joe Root to bat at No. 6 instead of Jonny Bairstow.

"I don't think Root's an opener because of his technique. Australia found him out in England, and in Australian conditions they'll find him out more. You can't get stuck on the crease in Australia because of the pace of the wickets.

"It could be crucifying him if he has got to face Ryan Harris, Peter Siddle and Mitchell Johnson on some fast, bouncy pitches. I think he's just going to nick off a lot. Besides Lord's, where he got 180, Australia really did have his number."

 

[Spickery]

This yea is the best team if Watson can't play totally, but once he can bat he will play though.

I don't really agree the Clarke "has" to bat @ # 3. Remember when AUS were in a similar transition phase in their test team in the late 1980s when Border was head & shoulder the best batsman - he didn't bat @ 3.

Nor thus Chanderpaul in the current windies team since Lara left, even though he was easily there best batsman.

Even when AUS were dominant - Steve Waugh the clear best batsman batted @ # 5.

If Clarke goes to three, teams will look @ AUS as "we just need to get Clarke early then we get a weak middle-order to bowl at".

Plus one must consider the stress of being a captain & the # 3 batsman is serious mental workload.

I reckon potentially Watson/Smith/Bailey once they keep batting well can bring the kind of solidity to the test middle-order that the team has been lacking in the past 4-5 years also, thus the need to Clarke to move up may not be that significant.

I get what you are saying that Clarke doesn't have to bat at number 3 to help the team and other players have batted in the middle order and been very good batsman. The point I am making though is that if Clarke doesn't bat at number 3 and Shane Watson is injured we have to rely on an inexperienced player at international level to bat at number 3. For example Alex Doolan is linked to the number 3 batting spot. This means he would have to come into the Australian test team on debut and bat at the most difficult position at number 3 in a Ashes series in Australia. That is a lot of pressure to put on someone who is making their test debut for Australia. Especially with Australia's shaky batting order. If Michael Clarke bats at number 3 it allows someone like Alex Doolan to bat somewhere like 5 or 6 and takes pressure away from them and makes it a lot easier for them. Would you rather an inexperienced player just trying to stay in the team at number 3 or a experienced player like Clarke who has made 300 before coming in first drop?

 

[War]

^^

Well yes in that scenario i would bat Clarke @ # 3.

Hayden backs Bailey for Ashes debut

Fair enough if Chappell don't think Bailey is good enough for tests, but i'm with Hayden here. His criticism seems a bit illogical.

The situation with Bailey is very simple.In a perfect world, especially in world when AUS were the dominant test team & you had batsmen scoring heavily in shield cricket during the 90s & early 2000s - you would pick players for test after they have really dominated in 4-day cricket.

This is not the reality of AUS cricket at the moment however.
AUS test team is still struggling and the first-class system isn't producing the kind of batting talent which once prevented Stuart Law, Jamie Cox, Jamie Siddons from having long test careers due to the competition.

Thus due this paucity in batting talent, Bailey international ODI form HAS to earn him a test call up without question, despite his iffy first-class record. If it is he plays tests & can't adapt to the format, then AUS batting would be in an even bigger hole, because there isn't too many other batsmen in shield cricket currently that are demanding a place.

 

[Spickery]

^^

Well yes in that scenario i would bat Clarke @ # 3.

Hayden backs Bailey for Ashes debut

Fair enough if Chappell don't think Bailey is good enough for tests, but i'm with Hayden here. His criticism seems a bit illogical.

The situation with Bailey is very simple.In a perfect world, especially in world when AUS were the dominant test team & you had batsmen scoring heavily in shield cricket during the 90s & early 2000s - you would pick players for test after they have really dominated in 4-day cricket.

This is not the reality of AUS cricket at the moment however.
AUS test team is still struggling and the first-class system isn't producing the kind of batting talent which once prevented Stuart Law, Jamie Cox, Jamie Siddons from having long test careers due to the competition.

Thus due this paucity in batting talent, Bailey international ODI form HAS to earn him a test call up without question, despite his iffy first-class record. If it is he plays tests & can't adapt to the format, then AUS batting would be in an even bigger hole, because there isn't too many other batsmen in shield cricket currently that are demanding a place.

I agree with you War. It is worth taking a risk with playing George Bailey in the test team because there isn't a batsman at the moment demanding a place in the team by consistently scoring runs in the Sheffield Shield. Bailey has been in outstanding form in the ODIs and if he transfer his form over into the test matches it will be well worth the punt.

Ian Chappel has had a problem with George Bailey ever since he made his debut and was announced Twenty20 captain for Australia. Chappel is 70 and because of this I think his opinions are starting to become out of date.