2ND TEST: Australia v Pakistan SCG Jan 3-7 2010

[Twizzle]

Siddle batted for 3 hours, had minimal rest bowled 2 excellent overs and then started to spray them a bit.

Pretty hard to be critical of his bowling today after fronting up almost immediately after his 3hr inning.

yesterday maybe, but one wicket in two tests is not good enough

he wastes the new ball and bowls far too short imo, far too many bouncers and he's never got a wicket from one. generally the idea of a bouncer is to set a batsman up and its the next ball that gets the wicket, but his next ball is never pitched up

he can beat the bat, but if he pitched it up a bit more he would find the edge of the bat or hit the stumps instead of bouncing way over the top

I think he has some ability but he needs to learn how to bowl imo

 

[The_Joey_Show]

The side doesn't need a lot of changes, but it desperately needs a few. Firstly, I think Hughes is worth sticking with, purely on the basis of his age, potential, and the fact that it would facilitate a move down the order for Watson (allowing him to make a bigger bowling contribution by playing as a true all rounder). That middle order spot filled by Watson must be North's. He's gotta go. And Hilfy must come back for Siddle. That would give us a starting XI of:
1. Kato
2. Hughes
3. Punter
4. Hussey
5. Clarke
6. Watson
7. Haddin
8. Johnson
9. Hauritz
10. Hilfy
11. Bollinger

That is a pretty bloody good XI, and it has a good balance. At very least, it will do until Steve Smith comes through, takes Hauritz's spot, and possibly makes Mitch Johnson the best No. 9 of all time.

 

[brooksy19]

Plenty of pink there yesterday too.

Fair shake of the sauce bottle!

Got him, Yes!:lol:

 

[Twizzle]

Hilfy is out for some time apparently

 

[hineyrulz]

He's out for the summer, not sure if that means NZ as well.

 

[Evenflow]

The side doesn't need a lot of changes, but it desperately needs a few. Firstly, I think Hughes is worth sticking with, purely on the basis of his age, potential, and the fact that it would facilitate a move down the order for Watson (allowing him to make a bigger bowling contribution by playing as a true all rounder). That middle order spot filled by Watson must be North's. He's gotta go. And Hilfy must come back for Siddle. That would give us a starting XI of:
1. Kato
2. Hughes
3. Punter
4. Hussey
5. Clarke
6. Watson
7. Haddin
8. Johnson
9. Hauritz
10. Hilfy
11. Bollinger

That is a pretty bloody good XI, and it has a good balance. At very least, it will do until Steve Smith comes through, takes Hauritz's spot, and possibly makes Mitch Johnson the best No. 9 of all time.

Why in the hell would you move a bloke (Watson) from a position where he has flourished and excelled back down the order where he was mediocre at best? Our openers have been the most successful part of our batting lineup by far and you want to go and change that just to fit in a bloke on age and potential? On that basis we may as well fast track your other master plan and get rid of Hauri now regardless of if he's fit or not and put in Steve Smith for Hobart. I mean he's young and has a heap of potential :crazy:

And Hilfy is out for the summer as has been mentioned so back to the drawing board on that one as well...



.

 

[The_Joey_Show]

Why in the hell would you move a bloke (Watson) from a position where he has flourished and excelled back down the order where he was mediocre at best? Our openers have been the most successful part of our batting lineup by far and you want to go and change that just to fit in a bloke on age and potential? On that basis we may as well fast track your other master plan and get rid of Hauri now regardless of if he's fit or not and put in Steve Smith for Hobart. I mean he's young and has a heap of potential :crazy:

And Hilfy is out for the summer as has been mentioned so back to the drawing board on that one as well...



.

I have explained the reasons why I would move Watson. It would allow him to make a greater contribution with his (greatly under-rated, IMHO) swingers. After his hundred in Melbourne, Ponting couldn't bowl him for a full session because the poor bloke was too stuffed. It also gives us a path to ridding ourselves of the grossly out of form North. On top of this, I believe his time as an opener has fine-tuned his technique to a point where he is now ten times the batsman he was when he compiled his 'mediocre' current middle-order record.

This move would replace an out-of-form batsman (North). Therefore it is not the same as replacing Hauritz with Smith, as Hauritz is currently in good form. As I stated, I see that as a move for the future.

I was unaware of how long Hilfy was out for... apologies. I only included that to state that I believe he should come back (when he is fit) for Siddle, not the player who replaced him (Bollinger).

 

[Evenflow]

I have explained the reasons why I would move Watson. It would allow him to make a greater contribution with his (greatly under-rated, IMHO) swingers. After his hundred in Melbourne, Ponting couldn't bowl him for a full session because the poor bloke was too stuffed. It also gives us a path to ridding ourselves of the grossly out of form North. On top of this, I believe his time as an opener has fine-tuned his technique to a point where he is now ten times the batsman he was when he compiled his 'mediocre' current middle-order record.

I know you explained your reasons but that still doesn't mean it makes any sense. I'd much rather Watson averaging 63.00 opening while bowling a few less overs as opposed to having him average 19.00 batting at 6/7 and bowling more overs. I'm not exactly sure what his bowling averages are when batting in the 2 positions but i can't imagine there'd be a massive difference in them like there is with his ave's with the bat. I doubt there'd be much difference at all.

I agree North should probably go but no way at the expense of Watson losing his opening spot. It's taken a long time to find his niche and his right place in the side where he's best suited and IMO would be a ridiculously stupid move to tamper with that all for the sake of him bowling some more overs. He's clearly not suited to the middle order so any bowling "advantage" you got out of him by moving him (if any) would be cancelled out completely and then some by losing his batting ability.

It's all well and good to say he's fine tuned his game at the top order but that doesn't mean it'll instantly translate and flow down with a move back to the middle order. It just doesn't work that way with the vast majority of batters and it's a rare as rocking horse sh*t to find one who can bat consistantly at any place in the order. To move him now would undo all the good work he's done and would be more of a detriment to the team than a help.

 

[JJ]

Watson looks better as an opener, seems to really struggle with the ball reversing, which he will get at #6.

His bowling is ok, but you know his body is fragile anyway, so if this reent form is a trueish indication of his ability, he's worth more to the team as an opener who sometimes bowls, rather than requiring a full bowling load from him and risking injury.

North just looks like a decent first class player really, nothing more....

In reality Aust has huge issues, struggling to beat teams like the Windies and Pakistan at home is not a great sign - while both those teams have some super talent, they both are on a par with NZ, and very much in the second tier of test teams... at their present level of performance so too are Aust.

Aside from the openers and Hussey despite the criticism have looked good.

Ponting and Clarke are definitely world class, but both struggling.

North and Hughes are not at the level that Aust has demanded in recent years - North never will be, and Hughes just looks like he needs more experience - he'd be the one I'd be tempted to use at #6 if a change is demanded - he certainly cannot unseat Watson or Katich

Haddin's record is excellent, but he was ill-disciplined in Sydney, and unlike Umar Akmal can't use inexperience as an excuse

Bollinger is having a good season, but not sure he's as good as all that. Johnson is a trier, and takes wickets, but until he bowls fewere bad balls will continue to be expensive, and good teams should take toll of him. Siddle is just not very good, and Hauritz isn't either, but he is taking wickets at the moment

 

[Evenflow]

Watson looks better as an opener, seems to really struggle with the ball reversing, which he will get at #6.

His bowling is ok, but you know his body is fragile anyway, so if this reent form is a trueish indication of his ability, he's worth more to the team as an opener who sometimes bowls, rather than requiring a full bowling load from him and risking injury.

Spot on. His past battles with injury is something i didn't really take into account and that's even more reason to lighten his bowling load as opposed to increasing it as you mentioned. It's the bowling that will more than likely decrease his longevity in the game and not his batting.

 

[Bigfella]

Plus if he makes 100's at 6 he presumably will be even more buggered than if he makes then opening when it comes time to bowl?

 

[Red Bear]

I would prefer
Watson
Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin
Johnson(sigh)
Hauritz
Hilfenhaus
Bollinger

at full strength, I would love someone other than Siddle or McKay to come forward to take on the 4th bowling option. Clark would do the job if he was ever fit but sadly i think his time has passed, Lee i dont think can handle the longer form body wise, so maybe one of the young quicks for some experience. Hopefully Hilfenhaus can stay fit when he comes back (keep him away from the one day side!)

 

[lockyno1]

Watson will stay at opener, you don´t change a guy averaging 65. Did we revert Mike Hussey to opener after his initial sucess at 4, no we didn´t. Hughes is hardly basing the door down.

I would go with 1 change Mitch Marsh in, North out. We can afford to take a Pakistan like punt on a young player who has bucketloads of talent. He is the better Marsh guys, Sean is average compared to Mitchell.

 

[yappy]

He is the better Marsh guys, Sean is average compared to Mitchell.

See sometimes you can say something sensible.

 

[TheParraboy]

See sometimes you can say something sensible.

Maybe the trips to fashion shows around europe has done Locky the world of good?

 

[JJ]

If Hughes is truly the next cab of the rank, then he's surely the one to bat 6 if North is dropped... to me though Hughes doesn't look any better than North, and clearly isn't as good as the other 5 so why change?

 

[Meth]

I have explained the reasons why I would move Watson. It would allow him to make a greater contribution with his (greatly under-rated, IMHO) swingers. After his hundred in Melbourne, Ponting couldn't bowl him for a full session because the poor bloke was too stuffed.

Another solution for that would be to strengthen the middle order so there isn't the type of collapse that you might expect from a Kiwi test team. That would give Watson a chance to rest before he needs to bowl- unless he bats right through, like he did in the example you cited. Can't do much about that.

In any event, what is clear is this- Watson is not the problem with your batting at the moment. It is the performance of those around him, from 3-6

 

[lockyno1]

See sometimes you can say something sensible.

Could be that..could be from watching him as a junior, if anyone saw the 240 odd he made in a 60 over match you would know!

 

[hineyrulz]

Could be that..could be from watching him as a junior, if anyone saw the 240 odd he made in a 60 over match you would know!

Plus M Marsh also bowls in the mid 130's not bad for an 18 yr old.

 

[lockyno1]

Agreed, honestly he´d be a better bowler than S..tle at the moment anyway and he can really bat well. If you are going to give a young bat a debut, Tassie is the perfect place as it is batsman friendly.