SCG 4th Test: Australia v India on Jan 6-10, 2015

[JJ]

Darren Lehmann and Michael Clarke are a disgrace,they would have the power to get rid of Watto but they won't cos he's one of the homies.

Bring back Simon Katich to smash Clarke

The Kat was certainly poorly treated - too much player power?

 

[Haffa]

Clarke and Watson like each other?

 

[rickywalford1]

Bingo!! Our poor mate Ricky Wazn just can't see it.

Yes he can. For the umpteenth time, I just can't see a better replacement. Do I have it type it slower for you or are you going to clue on a bit faster today ?

 

[JJ]

Yes he can. For the umpteenth time, I just can't see a better replacement. Do I have it type it slower for you or are you going to clue on a bit faster today ?

Well, everyone in the current lineup from 4-6 can bat 3, plus there's Cowan, Doolan, (and don't say they're worse, because clearly they aren't, and if they were given automatic selection for 50 tests, I reckon they'd go at least as well as him) and presumably given the exalted status of your domestic cricket there must be a halfway competent top order bat - because Watson is patently not up to it, if he was batting 6 there wouldn't be such contention imo

 

[hineyrulz]

Yes he can. For the umpteenth time, I just can't see a better replacement. Do I have it type it slower for you or are you going to clue on a bit faster today ?

If you can't see a better replacement you need your eyes checked, and if any of the guys got a good run as your boy they just may have nailed down that number 3 spot.


does 4 100's at an average of 35 in over 100 innings scream number 3 batsman to you??? And how many as an opener??? Heck even Darsh could churn out figures like that at test level.

 

[aussies1st]

Sums Watson up, and he gave that chance just after 50 as per usual.

 

[rickywalford1]

Well, everyone in the current lineup from 4-6 can bat 3, plus there's Cowan, Doolan, (and don't say they're worse, because clearly they aren't, and if they were given automatic selection for 50 tests, I reckon they'd go at least as well as him) and presumably given the exalted status of your domestic cricket there must be a halfway competent top order bat - because Watson is patently not up to it, if he was batting 6 there wouldn't be such contention imo

Doolan is worse. Been there and is failing domestically. Giving Cowan another crack is a maybe but he is an opener. You either bat him out of position or you need to move Warner or Rogers. For a borderline choice like that, I don't think it's worth upsetting the openers. It would be differant if he was peeling off hundred after hundred like he was prior to his last selection. Burns might be the man. We'll see how he goes.
If a no 3 was carving them up domestically, averaging 50 plus and looking capable of a 40 plus test average at 3, I'd be all for it. We aren't going to no 1 without a strong 3. Unfortuneately it doesn't appear to exist at the moment. So I wait. That's the unfortunate reality.

 

[firechild]

Give Watto's bowling ability, if he was batting at 6, you couldn't complain too much about his selection but at #3, he's just not doing his job. I have no problem with his inclusion in the side but we need need more depth in the top order. At least against India, he's not wasting reviews on plumb lbws.

 

[Twatface Magee]

Joe Burns problem is that he uses a GM, as does Watto.

 

[rickywalford1]

If you can't see a better replacement you need your eyes checked, and if any of the guys got a good run as your boy they just may have nailed down that number 3 spot.


does 4 100's at an average of 35 in over 100 innings scream number 3 batsman to you??? And how many as an opener??? Heck even Darsh could churn out figures like that at test level.

Oh dear. I did have to type slower.

So your suggestion is Marsh ?

 

[Pete Cash]

I think he's saying darsh would probably not do any worse Shane.

 

[rickywalford1]

I think he's saying darsh would probably not do any worse Shane.

Maybe he missed Marsh at 3 then. He was exposed badly.

 

[tomdl]

Brayshaw has spoken, Marsh has every single toy he needs

 

[JJ]

Doolan is worse. Been there and is failing domestically. Giving Cowan another crack is a maybe but he is an opener. You either bat him out of position or you need to move Warner or Rogers. For a borderline choice like that, I don't think it's worth upsetting the openers. It would be differant if he was peeling off hundred after hundred like he was prior to his last selection. Burns might be the man. We'll see how he goes.
If a no 3 was carving them up domestically, averaging 50 plus and looking capable of a 40 plus test average at 3, I'd be all for it. We aren't going to no 1 without a strong 3. Unfortuneately it doesn't appear to exist at the moment. So I wait. That's the unfortunate reality.

Watson was an opener - at least that's what he was demanding before he started demanding #3... not sure the positions are that relevant tbh Langer did ok as an opener, despite not being one (as you put it), so did Boon. Hussey did ok lower down, despite being an opener (lesson there for Watto, perhaps?)

 

[Haffa]

If you can't see a better replacement you need your eyes checked, and if any of the guys got a good run as your boy they just may have nailed down that number 3 spot.


does 4 100's at an average of 35 in over 100 innings scream number 3 batsman to you??? And how many as an opener??? Heck even Darsh could churn out figures like that at test level.

Sounds like Mitchell Pearce levels of awesome.

 

[chigurh]

"Marsh has got every toy you need." - James Brayshaw

Probaly the highest praise a cricketer can receive

 

[hineyrulz]

Oh dear. I did have to type slower.

So your suggestion is Marsh ?

Maybe I should have typed slower for you, if Marsh or anyone else was given the free and cushy ride your hero has been given they could quite easily churned out his unimpressive figures as well.


How many have been given a decent run since Ponting retired???

 

[rickywalford1]

Watson was an opener - at least that's what he was demanding before he started demanding #3... not sure the positions are that relevant tbh Langer did ok as an opener, despite not being one (as you put it), so did Boon. Hussey did ok lower down, despite being an opener (lesson there for Watto, perhaps?)

Ok. So then it comes down to being confidant Cowan will perform better at 3. Is that a no brainer based purely on stats and what I saw of him last time ? No. So then i need to rely on people who watch him domestically and evaluate how he is going. Those people would be the selectors. Am I confidant enough to believe I know more than those guys when it comes to Cowan at 3 ? No.

 

[rickywalford1]

Maybe I should have typed slower for you, if Marsh or anyone else was given the free and cushy ride your hero has been given they could quite easily churned out his unimpressive figures as well.


How many have been given a decent run since Ponting retired???

Doolan, marsh and Hughes. All performed worse.

 

[Red Bear]

Burns is in his second test. Picking young players requires a bit of patience from selectors, IMO, something that has been lacking for some time. I hope he does well.