Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Top Contributors
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Well since this seems to be a fairly populous thread I shall post this here.

Everyone have a happy new year, best of luck to you all. Hope it brings many wonderous cricketing moments both internationally, domestically, locally, and especially personally!

:)
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

eddiesmith;382432 said:
Yeah that should be one of the great selections, a spinner who averages over 75 in first class cricket playing test matches :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, but he has a NSW next to his name, he must be good.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Not sure why the selectors feel they have to play Hughes as an opener. He has been impressive against spin, and I feel he would do well in the middle order. While they could still have Katich and Watson opening.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;383172 said:
Not sure why the selectors feel they have to play Hughes as an opener. He has been impressive against spin, and I feel he would do well in the middle order. While they could still have Katich and Watson opening.
Click to expand...

This season he has not been impressive enough in any position. There are better suited bats for the middle order positions, if they become available. I could be wrong but if someone in the middle order is dropped surely bailey or voges is in front of him. In terms of opening Watson has got to be safe right now. He is constantly scoring at the top of the order and there is no need to fix this non-problem.

I am curious, as I have not seen a lot of Hughes against spin, who has he prospered against and is he consistently good against spin?
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Thumbs up;383185 said:
This season he has not been impressive enough in any position. There are better suited bats for the middle order positions, if they become available. I could be wrong but if someone in the middle order is dropped surely bailey or voges is in front of him. In terms of opening Watson has got to be safe right now. He is constantly scoring at the top of the order and there is no need to fix this non-problem.

I am curious, as I have not seen a lot of Hughes against spin, who has he prospered against and is he consistently good against spin?
Click to expand...

The only times I have seen him against spin are Paul Harris and Danish Kaneria. Smashed Paul Harris on the way to his hundred, and was batting very well against Kaneria today.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;383189 said:
The only times I have seen him against spin are Paul Harris and Danish Kaneria. Smashed Paul Harris on the way to his hundred, and was batting very well against Kaneria today.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but that is not a strong enough argument to bring him in to the middle order.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Thumbs up;383197 said:
Fair enough but that is not a strong enough argument to bring him in to the middle order.
Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to start an argument, nor was I trying to prove a point. I was just questioning whether he has to be played as an opener.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;383199 said:
I wasn't trying to start an argument, nor was I trying to prove a point. I was just questioning whether he has to be played as an opener.
Click to expand...

Personally I think he'd be best at No 3, but then he'd have to wait a while to get in.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;383199 said:
I was just questioning whether he has to be played as an opener.
Click to expand...

No he doesn't, I believe he would do well in a number 5 or 6 position, especially in the Aussie team now. But that is when he is in form of course.

I am also a strong believer that for a batsman to play in any position, they must have batted there for a considerable time in the domestic scene. Hughes has scored almost all his runs while opening so I don't have the evidence that he could play down the order.

Also you'd be making the presumption he wants to bat down the order, if he wanted to surely he would be batting down there at state level to get a look in.

Other than that, nothing stops him from succeeding down there. It would actually be a good long term plan too.

Take this for example:

If North get's dropped for whatever reason and Hughes is in form, he could bat at 6 and cement his spot there. The he could open in whatever domestic games he plays to keep himself going in that regard. Then when Katich retires in 3 or so years, or Watson starts to falter, Hughes is there and ready to just whip up the order and you have your precooked opener. Then another batsman can be blooded in that almost readying position of 6.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;383189 said:
The only times I have seen him against spin are Paul Harris and Danish Kaneria. Smashed Paul Harris on the way to his hundred, and was batting very well against Kaneria today.
Click to expand...

Paul Harris is not a spinner
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Boris;383216 said:
No he doesn't, I believe he would do well in a number 5 or 6 position, especially in the Aussie team now. But that is when he is in form of course.

I am also a strong believer that for a batsman to play in any position, they must have batted there for a considerable time in the domestic scene. Hughes has scored almost all his runs while opening so I don't have the evidence that he could play down the order.

Also you'd be making the presumption he wants to bat down the order, if he wanted to surely he would be batting down there at state level to get a look in.

Other than that, nothing stops him from succeeding down there. It would actually be a good long term plan too.

Take this for example:

If North get's dropped for whatever reason and Hughes is in form, he could bat at 6 and cement his spot there. The he could open in whatever domestic games he plays to keep himself going in that regard. Then when Katich retires in 3 or so years, or Watson starts to falter, Hughes is there and ready to just whip up the order and you have your precooked opener. Then another batsman can be blooded in that almost readying position of 6.
Click to expand...

Thought number six had to bowl, that was a major criticism you had of North.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

breeno;383199 said:
I wasn't trying to start an argument, nor was I trying to prove a point. I was just questioning whether he has to be played as an opener.
Click to expand...

The term argument should be read in terms of justification. It would not be a very strong justification for the selectors to make the decision. That does not necessarily mean I think it wont or sholdn't happen, but in this case it does.

It is an interesting notion but I don't think more change is what Hughes needs. After getting into the test team only to be quickly dropped he should be allowed to concentrate on his strength (opening) and actually get in form. The desperate rush to get him in and the emerging 'anywhere will do' attitude are hard to understand (but clearly a result of Watsons success). He is young and talented but may not be ready yet. There are going to be positions in the top order up for grabs over the next few years and Hughes will not be overlooked... so patience... all good things...
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Usman Khawaja could be another top-middle order young batsman to look out for in the future. Average of 47.33 at FC level, and one would think if he keeps this up for another season or two he would be right up there.
 
changes to consider...

With batting again a problem with our test team, why is North not under more scrutiny? Has he ever made consistent runs or runs when it counts?

Klinger again is leading the shield batting and is averaging 110, what more does he have to do to get picked in the test team when we have so many failing middle order batsmen? You never hear about him in the media, all you hear about is Hughes as next in line.

Also Steve Smith averages 89 and is touted as the next big thing in terms of a wicket taking spinner. He's a genuine all rounder. What about replacing North with Smith? The option of having Hauritz and Smith in the same side brings great variation and really gives our bowling attack some venom. As a batsman he appears good enough to play as a batsman.

Thoughts?
 
Re: changes to consider...

gbatman;383322 said:
With batting again a problem with our test team, why is North not under more scrutiny? Has he ever made consistent runs or runs when it counts?
Click to expand...

The South African tour and the Ashes? Don't get people's obsession with changing the team every 5 seconds..
 
Re: changes to consider...

had some good nocks granted, but look at the circumstances and they are few and far between, perhaps more time is granted to see what he's made of. Just the quality nocking on the door is quite high.
 
Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Thumbs up;383307 said:
Thought number six had to bowl, that was a major criticism you had of North.
Click to expand...

That was a different argument than now.

My problem there is that North was brought into the side originally to replace Symonds. Watson wasn't in the team and neither was McDonald. There were only four bowlers. They did their job to a 'C' level standard at the time, and Ponting looked uneasy playing only 4 bowlers without having Roy to back up four greats of the modern and all time era. Clarke and Katich can't bowl and the others you simply wouldn't want to for some longer periods.

North came into the side being labeled by everyone as an all rounder. He then proceeded to bowl in replacement of even a full time spinner. He was bowling some large amounts of overs. My problem wasn't with the position he was batting, but the way he was selected.

Then he started scoring big. The selectors had an issue. He wasn't fulfilling bowling requirements as you would hope from an all rounder, yet you couldn't drop him because he was one of the better batsmen of the side. McDonald was doing the opposite, bowling very well but not fulfilling the batting side of things. There was an issue into which one was needed the most.

Then came Watson, the perfect solution. But where to put him? They way he is batting now he could bat at number 11 and score hundreds (or nineties :p) but it seemed like they just took the weakest batsman at the time to get an all rounder there. Ponting has never played without one so now isn't a time to stop. Watson has proved priceless with bat and ball, so it paid off.

I have a separate trouble with him batting at 6 for those other previously stated things.

As a generalisation an all rounder, due to the nature of the impossibility to be like Jaques and good with bat and all as he is, an all rounder will lean one way or the other. Symonds is a good example. We should agree he is no number 3 or 4 batsman in the Australian team. Therefore he bats at six. He was perfect there because along with Gilchrist he could put on quick 50s, or he could save a match like with Haydos and score a match winning 150. Because he wasn't as strong with the bat though, he could also bowl and therefore number 6s are often your all rounder. Like Watson usually batting there, McDonald would bat there, almost all your all rounders in Australia would bat there. Just a normal presumption that your number 6 in today's game often has a bowl, not a rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top