Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

[thommy_rissole]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Anyone realise that we are playing Watson at the top of the order as an All Rounder, which means we can afford to have a pure batsman in North at #6?

Common-sense is hard to come by for some people breeno. Whilst I was one of the first to jump on the selectors backs for picking Watson/dropping Hughes I think he has done a very servicable job with the bat (and with the ball of late).

I still feel he would be best suited to facing an older ball at number 6, push North up to 5, Clarke 4, Ponting 3, Katich 2 and at the moment it would have to be Chris Rogers from Victoria on the back of some impressive shield performances. Therefore for me Mike Hussey needs to go.

Hughes is definitely the man for the future but has done nothing in the 4 day games thus far this season so his selection on form is unwarranted. Yes, I know he was stiff to get dropped in the 1st place but since the demotion he has all but justified the selectors decision.

More importantly it seems that Stu Clark, who is the worlds #7 Test Bowler according to the ICC, will be overlooked in favour of new kid on the block Clint McKay for the upcoming test.

Not sure I agree 100% on that decision, as I feel Clark is the better bowler, but I think it could be a good venture for the future of Australian Cricket.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Anyone realise that we are playing Watson at the top of the order as an All Rounder, which means we can afford to have a pure batsman in North at #6?

That is what I'm talking about. North is batting in the position and playing as an all rounder. Remember who's spot he first took to get into the team - Symonds'. He used to bowl quite a lot, even with Hauritz there. Now Watson is in as an all rounder because they noticed that North wasn't enough, but he has batted too well to get dropped, saving the team on more than two occasions. They got themselves into a mess noticing they picked the wrong man, but they can't take it back now.

Watson has always seemed a short term fix, but with his bowling being arguably the best in the side and his batting doing enough to keep him there at the top, he has put himself in a non-dropable position as well. Now they have two players which seem out of place but they can't get rid of or swap jobs. It would be nice if North could open, but I doubt he will start doing that. Having a number 4 batsman in number 6 is a little useless in my opinion. Number 6 is your hard hitting match turning normally all rounder that can put in a big innings if needed, but usually hits quick half centuries to boost the score. Who is this? Watson, the perfect solution to it. But wait North is in the road. But we can't put him as an opener and we can't make him bowl more or bat differently. And we can't drop him. Let's go to plan B and boot Hussey out of the side, but wait he has scores of 140, 66, 41 and 29 as his last four innings, all good scores relative to the game situation. Oh no, plan B doesn't work. Plan C? Stick with it and hope it works. Well for everyone's sake I hope it does.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris, that's a lot of mumbo jumbo in an attempt to overlook the obvious. We have two middle order batsmen. Since the end of last summer:

• Player A has played 9 matches for 3 centuries, an average of 45 and a strike rate of 48.
• Player B has played 10 matches for 1 century, an average of 32 and a strike rate of 40.

Tell me, on what planet does it make sense to drop Player A and keep Player B in the team?

That's even before you start to take into account things like the fact that North is also a handy part-time bowler, he's four years younger than Hussey, and his big scores over the period have generally been more crucial than Hussey's and scored under tougher conditions, often against better opponents.

We get it. You don't like North and you're a big fan of Hussey. But the facts don't lie, and out of six specialist batsmen in the team Hussey lags a long, long way behind the other five at the moment - and has for quite a long time.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris, that's a lot of mumbo jumbo in an attempt to overlook the obvious. We have two middle order batsmen. Since the end of last summer:

• Player A has played 9 matches for 3 centuries, an average of 45 and a strike rate of 48.
• Player B has played 10 matches for 1 century, an average of 32 and a strike rate of 40.

Tell me, on what planet does it make sense to drop Player A and keep Player B in the team?

That's even before you start to take into account things like the fact that North is also a handy part-time bowler, he's four years younger than Hussey, and his big scores over the period have generally been more crucial than Hussey's and scored under tougher conditions, often against better opponents.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. I'm trying to picture the selectors thoughts when they selected them.

It's quite obvious they want to keep Hussey until or if he comes good. He has started to make the slightest of impressions now so knowing the selectors he is probably going to be there even after he retires ("why does your team only have ten players?" "Because we are hoping Hussey is going to come back and play for us again soon" hahaha) so I doubt they are going to drop him very soon.

They picked North before they picked McDonald or Watson so he was there as the all rounder. He was given a lot of overs to start with, really fulfilling the role of all rounder and I remember that even on here there were people complaining that we needed an all rounder that could bowl. Instead we found a brilliant batsman and Ponting was having trouble because he didn't have enough bowlers, he was used to having an all rounder and to go along with his new bowling attack he needed something to steady ship. He was probably part of the reason Watson came in as an opener because they discovered North could bat better than the rest of them and Hughes was having convenient problems.

Just ask yourself is Watson the man you want opening for the country for the next few years? Or would you rather him batting at 6 and bowling a lot more?

 

[breeno]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

That is what I'm talking about. North is batting in the position and playing as an all rounder. Remember who's spot he first took to get into the team - Symonds'. He used to bowl quite a lot, even with Hauritz there. Now Watson is in as an all rounder because they noticed that North wasn't enough, but he has batted too well to get dropped, saving the team on more than two occasions. They got themselves into a mess noticing they picked the wrong man, but they can't take it back now.

Watson has always seemed a short term fix, but with his bowling being arguably the best in the side and his batting doing enough to keep him there at the top, he has put himself in a non-dropable position as well. Now they have two players which seem out of place but they can't get rid of or swap jobs. It would be nice if North could open, but I doubt he will start doing that. Having a number 4 batsman in number 6 is a little useless in my opinion. Number 6 is your hard hitting match turning normally all rounder that can put in a big innings if needed, but usually hits quick half centuries to boost the score. Who is this? Watson, the perfect solution to it. But wait North is in the road. But we can't put him as an opener and we can't make him bowl more or bat differently. And we can't drop him. Let's go to plan B and boot Hussey out of the side, but wait he has scores of 140, 66, 41 and 29 as his last four innings, all good scores relative to the game situation. Oh no, plan B doesn't work. Plan C? Stick with it and hope it works. Well for everyone's sake I hope it does.

North is played as a batsman which he has done quite well at. You don't need your number 6 to be an all rounder, or a big hitter, he just needs to be a good, solid middle order batsman, which North is.

This obsession with having an all rounder in the side is ridiculous, and after that, there is the obsession of having him put at number 6.

Watson is opening the batting, this ticks the all rounders spot, so therefore pushes everyone down one, which leaves North at number 6. He was never playing as an all rounder.

Look at South Africa, their all rounder bats at number 3 or 4 usually, thus leaving them playing a specialist batsman at number 6.

It doesn't have to be conventional, but it's doing the job, North isn't the weak link in the side.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

They picked North before they picked McDonald or Watson so he was there as the all rounder.

That's simply not true. Just because he was the closest thing to an allrounder in the team does not mean that he was selected as an allrounder.

North has ALWAYS been a specialist batsman and useful parttime bowler. That's all he's ever been in state cricket (his Shield bowling average is something like 40 or 45), and neither he nor anyone else has ever pretended otherwise.

Just ask yourself is Watson the man you want opening for the country for the next few years? Or would you rather him batting at 6 and bowling a lot more?

I agree that, given our current surplus of quality openers and comparative lack of Test-class middle order bats, Watson's place is down the order. But the man to make way has to be Hussey. It's simply unjustifiable to drop anyone else.

The matter of whether an allrounder is necessary in every team is a different matter. I have always been of the opinion that you pick 6 batsmen, a batting wicketkeeper, and 4 bowlers. If one of those players is good enough at the other discipline to be classed as an allrounder then you are a fortunate captain. Since the '60s Australia has never been much scratch at producing world-class allrounders, so you seldom see them in the Test team.

Australia's recent history of picking someone who doesn't merit being in the side on the basis of either discipline, purely in favour of flexibility, is something I have never endorsed. I was glad that they reverted to the former mindset with North's selection, and was unimpressed when they appeared to go back on it with Watson's. But since then Watson has justified his selection as a batsman and his bowling remains (as it should) a pleasant bonus. As to a lesser extent does North's.

 

[breeno]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

They picked North before they picked McDonald or Watson so he was there as the all rounder. He was given a lot of overs to start with, really fulfilling the role of all rounder and I remember that even on here there were people complaining that we needed an all rounder that could bowl. Instead we found a brilliant batsman and Ponting was having trouble because he didn't have enough bowlers, he was used to having an all rounder and to go along with his new bowling attack he needed something to steady ship. He was probably part of the reason Watson came in as an opener because they discovered North could bat better than the rest of them and Hughes was having convenient problems.

They didn't pick North as an all rounder. They picked him as a batsman who can roll the arm over, similar to Clarke.

Just ask yourself is Watson the man you want opening for the country for the next few years? Or would you rather him batting at 6 and bowling a lot more?

If he can do the job adequately, he can open the batting. He bowled a fair bit last test match, which indicates that now his body seems to be okay, that they want him to send down some more overs. It's not impossible to open the batting and still bowl a lot of overs, they're fit men.

Realistically, I'd prefer him at number 6, but not at the expense of North.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

North is played as a batsman which he has done quite well at. You don't need your number 6 to be an all rounder, or a big hitter, he just needs to be a good, solid middle order batsman, which North is.

This obsession with having an all rounder in the side is ridiculous, and after that, there is the obsession of having him put at number 6.

Watson is opening the batting, this ticks the all rounders spot, so therefore pushes everyone down one, which leaves North at number 6. He was never playing as an all rounder.

Look at South Africa, their all rounder bats at number 3 or 4 usually, thus leaving them playing a specialist batsman at number 6.

It doesn't have to be conventional, but it's doing the job, North isn't the weak link in the side.

Once again that's not what I'm talking about though.

Watson is a number 6 batsman, North is a number 4. North is probably in the side now to replace Hussey so he has experience before they drop him or he retires. He was picked after Symonds had his issues. He was played as an all rounder, even having more overs than Hauritz on a couple of occasions, as in 20+.

I'm not talking about conventionalism. There are many openers worldwide that are also all rounders, as there are number 3s down to even number 10s.

I'm not talking about dropping North, but rather rearranging the team. Watson has trouble reaching the milestones, always has, but that doesn't matter at number 6. What is North doing there as an upper order batsman when he either doesn't have the chance to make a big score or scores only to be declared on. He is great to save a collapse in the top order, but with time that sort of thing is going to occur less and less as the order gets settled. Watson scores at about a strike rate of 70 naturally so he can lift a score quickly with someone like Haddin, and even Clarke. Number 6 is the perfect spot for him in this team. North is out of place there.

 

[breeno]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I have always been of the opinion that you pick 6 batsmen, a batting wicketkeeper, and 4 bowlers. If one of those players is good enough at the other discipline to be classed as an allrounder then you are a fortunate captain.

Totally agree, the obsession with an all rounder is unjustified.

 

[breeno]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Once again that's not what I'm talking about though.

Watson is a number 6 batsman, North is a number 4. North is probably in the side now to replace Hussey so he has experience before they drop him or he retires. He was picked after Symonds had his issues. He was played as an all rounder, even having more overs than Hauritz on a couple of occasions, as in 20+.

I'm not talking about conventionalism. There are many openers worldwide that are also all rounders, as there are number 3s down to even number 10s.

I'm not talking about dropping North, but rather rearranging the team. Watson has trouble reaching the milestones, always has, but that doesn't matter at number 6. What is North doing there as an upper order batsman when he either doesn't have the chance to make a big score or scores only to be declared on. He is great to save a collapse in the top order, but with time that sort of thing is going to occur less and less as the order gets settled. Watson scores at about a strike rate of 70 naturally so he can lift a score quickly with someone like Haddin, and even Clarke. Number 6 is the perfect spot for him in this team. North is out of place there.

Stop deluding yourself please, North was never played as an all rounder. He was played as a batsman who can roll the arm over, nothing more.

I agree Watson is doing well at number 6, but North is doing the job just as well. He can bat aggressively when need be.

The bottom line is, Watson is opening, which leaves North at 6. They are both doing their jobs adequately.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I think you are mixing up today's game with that of many a years past.

Yes 6 batsman, a wicket keeper and 4 bowlers is the traditional way of doing things. Would that work in today's game with the Australian side as it is? I don't think it would. Not when you have the opening batsman becoming the most consistent bowler on the team. Four bowlers doesn't cut it anymore. The all rounder can become the biggest asset to the side, as Kallis has to South Africa and IMO it was Kallis that started the hunt for an all rounder.

What happens if your four bowlers aren't getting the wicket? Would you rather go to someone like Watson or someone like Clarke or North? The obsession was started for a reason because it has changed and become an item of almost necessity.

North was played as a batsman was he? Do batsman normally bowl 26 overs and get a wicket in one game?

I wouldn't be surprised if Ponting was the one that piped up to the selectors and said he wanted a real all rounder (as everyone on BC was saying at the time, which makes this argument seem strangely contradictory) and Watson was brought in at the loss of Hughes who just happened to have a weakness which gave them reason to put in an all rounder because Ponting just simply NEEDED him with the bowling attack. And the next game they won. Strange that.

An all rounder is almost a necessity in today's game and without them a team is limited with the way it can adapt to any situation. Not just part-timers, and actual all rounder. If there was no all rounder picked when North first was, why was he the first time in many, many, many years the team didn't have one? And why was he bowling so much? And why were we and the media critisising him for not being very good at it?

 

[breeno]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I think you are mixing up today's game with that of many a years past.

Yes 6 batsman, a wicket keeper and 4 bowlers is the traditional way of doing things. Would that work in today's game with the Australian side as it is? I don't think it would. Not when you have the opening batsman becoming the most consistent bowler on the team. Four bowlers doesn't cut it anymore. The all rounder can become the biggest asset to the side, as Kallis has to South Africa and IMO it was Kallis that started the hunt for an all rounder.

What happens if your four bowlers aren't getting the wicket? Would you rather go to someone like Watson or someone like Clarke or North? The obsession was started for a reason because it has changed and become an item of almost necessity.

North was played as a batsman was he? Do batsman normally bowl 26 overs and get a wicket in one game?

I wouldn't be surprised if Ponting was the one that piped up to the selectors and said he wanted a real all rounder (as everyone on BC was saying at the time, which makes this argument seem strangely contradictory) and Watson was brought in at the loss of Hughes who just happened to have a weakness which gave them reason to put in an all rounder because Ponting just simply NEEDED him with the bowling attack. And the next game they won. Strange that.

An all rounder is almost a necessity in today's game and without them a team is limited with the way it can adapt to any situation. Not just part-timers, and actual all rounder. If there was no all rounder picked when North first was, why was he the first time in many, many, many years the team didn't have one? And why was he bowling so much? And why were we and the media critisising him for not being very good at it?

He bowled 26 overs on a spinners wicket when we needed to push overs through. Ponting wouldn't have said "give North a bowl, he's our go to man", he would of thought "nothing is happening, give the part-timer a bowl and re-assess". From memory he was bowling okay and tied down an end, to which Ponting gave him more overs.

When Clarke bowls a lot of overs in a test does that automatically mean he's meant to be an all rounder?

 

[Ljp86]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

It's like talking to a brick wall.

 

[eddiesmith]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

North is always going to be seen as the weak link by many as he is a 100 or 0 player, whilst Watson is get a start and choke player and these days Hussey is a prod and crawl to 40 and get out

None of them are exactly world class players who should be guaranteed a spot although Hussey seems to be keeping his because back in ancient history he was a top player, although his first class record shows it was probably never going to last. Speaking of Mikes overrated first class career where he barely averaged 40 for WA, his brother now has a far superior record

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

The all rounder can become the biggest asset to the side, as Kallis has to South Africa and IMO it was Kallis that started the hunt for an all rounder.

Well yes, when your player is arguably the greatest allrounder in history and one of the top few players of alltime he does tend to add a bit to the side. It's got less to do with the fact he's an allrounder, and more to do with the fact he's a freak.

If there was no all rounder picked when North first was, why was he the first time in many, many, many years the team didn't have one?

You do realise that Andrew Symonds and Greg Matthews are probably the only two genuine allrounders to play regular Test cricket for Australia in the last half a century, right?

You make it sound like we've never been without one. Yet for the better part of 15 years before someone decided Symonds was the next Keith Miller, we dominated Test cricket without one.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I'm only stating the words that everyone on here were saying when North came into the side.

Almost everyone on here were saying things such as 'he is in as an all rounder but I don't see the point, he is only a club bowler at best'. They were the words of a for effort or Kram if I remember correctly. And then everyone were agreeing with him. Why the sudden change of heart?

Kallis started the search worldwide for them. Every team were looking for a Flintoff or a Symonds, and how many teams these days have no all rounders?

 

[a for effort]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Marcus North is a club bowler at best.

When he was first selected it seemed that he would be more of an all-rounder, true, but that was before Watson got back in the side. As much as I despise Watson, he is a pretty decent 5th bowler and reduces the need for North to bowl.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I'm only stating the words that everyone on here were saying when North came into the side.

Almost everyone on here were saying things such as 'he is in as an all rounder but I don't see the point, he is only a club bowler at best'. They were the words of a for effort or Kram if I remember correctly. And then everyone were agreeing with him. Why the sudden change of heart?

Kallis started the search worldwide for them. Every team were looking for a Flintoff or a Symonds, and how many teams these days have no all rounders?

Symonds in the Test team was a failure, most of the time he was no more than a parttime bowler and his middle order batting didn't justify his selection over players like Hodge and Katich.

I think we're starting to get into semantics as to whether North was picked "as an allrounder" or not. I think the general point is that nobody expected him to be a fifth wickettaking option - his first class bowling statistics make that very clear. With a first class average of 45, the primary reason for his selection was to shore up a middle order that had looked decidedly dodgy against South Africa over the summer.

As AfE notes the fact he can trundle in some offspin probably assisted his selection over over options like Hodge, at a time that our bowling attack was not the most economical in the world. I don't think anyone ever expected him to do more than tie up an end for a while and give the pacemen a bit of a rest though. If they did then they obviously didn't know what kind of a player he was.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Symonds in the Test team was a failure, most of the time he was no more than a parttime bowler and his middle order batting didn't justify his selection over players like Hodge and Katich.

I think we're starting to get into semantics as to whether North was picked "as an allrounder" or not. I think the general point is that nobody expected him to be a fifth wickettaking option - his first class bowling statistics make that very clear. With a first class average of 45, the primary reason for his selection was to shore up a middle order that had looked decidedly dodgy against South Africa over the summer.

As AfE notes the fact he can trundle in some offspin probably assisted his selection over over options like Hodge, at a time that our bowling attack was not the most economical in the world. I don't think anyone ever expected him to do more than tie up an end for a while and give the pacemen a bit of a rest though. If they did then they obviously didn't know what kind of a player he was.

Yep, that is fair.

I'm just wondering as to why Watson was picked so suddenly? Was it because an all rounder was needed to steady ship? Or was it really just to add another option and they thought he was a Test opener quality batsman?

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

He was the only backup batsman on tour.