Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

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.

This was my original post which makes complete sense to me

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

If Glenn McGrath didn't retire then he would've bowled more overs during the Ashes. Pointless argument.
Watson was picked as a batsman because he couldn't bowl to his full all-rounder credentials, we all knew that.

This is what I mean, random pointless statements being taken out of my posts to start new arguments, diluting the current one to random mess. That was a statement I just thought should have been added to your previous post because Watson would have bowled more had he been fit. Simple statement with no intention of creating any further discussion. Plain and simple.

 

[thommy_rissole]

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.

That was your original argument.

North was selected well before Watson was back fit and playing cricket.
North was selected on his ability to hold down a middle order spot.
There is relatively no difference from batting 4-7 in a test team, the only thing is the lower you are the more you expect to bat with the tail. To say number 6 is there predominately to hit quick half centuries is ludicrious.

Watson bowling no overs is still good enough to get in the top 6 at the moment, hence his genuine "all-rounder" (someone who can be selected on merit for either discipline) status. Watson is good enough to continue opening and bowl 5-10 overs a day, but would be better suited to the number 6 spot and bowling up to 15-20 overs a day.

North didn't bowl that much at all (despite your thoughts) and when he did he only bowled late in the test match on turning wickets, or was thrown the ball to get through a few overs before the new ball, or to break a partnership (ala Hussey at the Gabba) and the majority of his overs were when they went with 4 quicks.

You selecting only Hussey's last 4 scores is laughable. His 140 was basically a dead rubber, Aussies were chasing nealry 600 against the poms. The other three scores (which mind you aren't mind blowing) were against a mediocre Windies side. Take his stats from the last year or so then reasses plan B.

I understand you don't want North or Watson dropped, Husseys form is staring you right in the face yet you choose to ignore it.

Hussey out, *any opener in Australia Domestic Cricket* in.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

That was your original argument.

North was selected well before Watson was back fit and playing cricket.
North was selected on his ability to hold down a middle order spot.
There is relatively no difference from batting 4-7 in a test team, the only thing is the lower you are the more you expect to bat with the tail. To say number 6 is there predominately to hit quick half centuries is ludicrious.

Watson bowling no overs is still good enough to get in the top 6 at the moment, hence his genuine "all-rounder" (someone who can be selected on merit for either discipline) status. Watson is good enough to continue opening and bowl 5-10 overs a day, but would be better suited to the number 6 spot and bowling up to 15-20 overs a day.

North didn't bowl that much at all (despite your thoughts) and when he did he only bowled late in the test match on turning wickets, or was thrown the ball to get through a few overs before the new ball, or to break a partnership (ala Hussey at the Gabba) and the majority of his overs were when they went with 4 quicks.

You selecting only Hussey's last 4 scores is laughable. His 140 was basically a dead rubber, Aussies were chasing nealry 600 against the poms. The other three scores (which mind you aren't mind blowing) were against a mediocre Windies side. Take his stats from the last year or so then reasses plan B.

I understand you don't want North or Watson dropped, Husseys form is staring you right in the face yet you choose to ignore it.

Hussey out, *any opener in Australia Domestic Cricket* in.

I'm going to ignore half of the post for not writing 1000 word essay reasons.

You still aren't getting my point. I too would drop Hussey, but the selectors haven't dropped him for two bloody years! When he shows the first hint of form you would have to think they are starting to think their stick to it plan is starting to work. IMO they are hardly gonna up and drop him right now.

Let's say it's a theoretical situation so that nobody gets confused.

If Hussey is magically not droppable for whatever reason, what happens? Is Watson going to be the long term opener there with Katich, because his bowling has always been better IMO so he is going to stay in the side for that. So we may end up with dead meat hanging off the openers position (may being the optimal word there). If he isn't making runs, but taking wickets in reality he should be number 6, not opening. That is why it is fashionable to have your all rounder there, because it's not a rule that they have to be like Kallis and have infinite form in both sides of their playing.

What should happen to the team if Hussey isn't droppable like I suspect he isn't?

 

[thommy_rissole]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Let's say it's a theoretical situation so that nobody gets confused.

If Hussey is magically not droppable for whatever reason, what happens? Is Watson going to be the long term opener there with Katich, because his bowling has always been better IMO so he is going to stay in the side for that. So we may end up with dead meat hanging off the openers position (may being the optimal word there). If he isn't making runs, but taking wickets in reality he should be number 6, not opening. That is why it is fashionable to have your all rounder there, because it's not a rule that they have to be like Kallis and have infinite form in both sides of their playing.

What should happen to the team if Hussey isn't droppable like I suspect he isn't?

The thing is, though, if Hussey stays as he appears to be, what happens? In case nobody has noticed, that is the argument I have been trying to put forward for about the last twenty odd posts.

See the thing is I answered your response, and I can answer it another 20 times if you wish. See below.

Well then unfortunately nothing happens. Hussey is the one who is holding up the whole Watson to 6 transition.

And then I took the courtesy to tell you why nothing happens.

Watson bowling no overs is still good enough to get in the top 6 at the moment, hence his genuine "all-rounder" (someone who can be selected on merit for either discipline) status. Watson is good enough to continue opening and bowl 5-10 overs a day, but would be better suited to the number 6 spot and bowling up to 15-20 overs a day.

You must be getting dizzy going around in circles here Boris.

I will go again for you:

If Hussey stays in the side then the top 6 stays the same.
If Hussey is to go, Watson should drop to 6 (and bowl more), North to 5 and Clarke to 4. Then the opening position could go to anyone, my preference would be Rogers.

This will be my last post on this topic at hand, apologies to all who had to scroll through this trivial gutter-rubbish.

 

[thommy_rissole]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

I'm going to ignore half of the post for not writing 1000 word essay reasons.

And for future reference keep the comedy to the professionals.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Okay, okay I guess you don't want to do any theoreticising then.

So if Hussey stays and that team becomes the stable and cemented team then you would stick with it as it is for a long period of time? You wouldn't want a change?

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Nobody else merits dropping. Aside from Hussey all the batsmen are pulling their weight.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

So if Watson fails to make runs up to the end of the Pakistan series, then what?

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Going from the precedent set by Hussey? Probably nothing unless he keeps turning in shit innings until 2012 or so.

What is your point Boris? I don't get it. The reason you're getting so much stick is that you're contriving these farfetched hypotheticals just to talk about dropping perfectly fine batsmen like Watson and North, when the 400lb gorilla in the room is Hussey.

Anybody could go off the boil tomorrow - heck, Ponting or anybody else could break their leg and require the entire order to be rearranged. Brad Haddin could turn out to be a little green man from Mars and be ineligible to play for Australia. We could talk 'what ifs' until the cows come home, but the reality is that all the bats are in form except Hussey so it's silly to talk about dropping anyone else, now or in the immediate future.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

It's making me frustrated that nobody is getting what I'm pointing at.

If Hussey DOES not get dropped, which is entirely possible because knowing the selectors his run of 'form' will buy him another year, would you have Watson batting there for that time?

This is the AUSTRALIAN TEST XI SELECTION THREAD. The selection board would have to consider this a possiblility. They draw up plan of attacks for a lot of things. Doesn't it seem reasonable that this situation is very likely to happen. If you were a selector would you sit around and just assess things on the present only or look to the future and pay attention to the past? I have also stated that I would not drop either North or Watson, quite the opposite on several occasions.

And for your question, if Ponting broke his leg the selectors have a plan for that. They would have someone ruled up as his injury replacement, so if they are on tour they don't spend day and night arguing over to pick next, instead call straight home and get them on a plane. More likely with a home series though, an away series they would have to plan on who is there most likely.

I see this thread as the one where we discuss as if we were selectors, and so far I have seen only one other person who is doing that.

 

[breeno]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

It's making me frustrated that nobody is getting what I'm pointing at.

If Hussey DOES not get dropped, which is entirely possible because knowing the selectors his run of 'form' will buy him another year, would you have Watson batting there for that time?

This is the AUSTRALIAN TEST XI SELECTION THREAD. The selection board would have to consider this a possiblility. They draw up plan of attacks for a lot of things. Doesn't it seem reasonable that this situation is very likely to happen. If you were a selector would you sit around and just assess things on the present only or look to the future and pay attention to the past? I have also stated that I would not drop either North or Watson, quite the opposite on several occasions.

And for your question, if Ponting broke his leg the selectors have a plan for that. They would have someone ruled up as his injury replacement, so if they are on tour they don't spend day and night arguing over to pick next, instead call straight home and get them on a plane. More likely with a home series though, an away series they would have to plan on who is there most likely.

I see this thread as the one where we discuss as if we were selectors, and so far I have seen only one other person who is doing that.

With your hypothetical situation, if our bowlers were doing the job, I reckon they would just bring in another opener if Watson were to be dropped.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

What do you want me to say, Boris? Players should play while they are in form. Once they are not they should be dropped. It's not rocket science.

Hussey is out of form, has been for a long time, which is why people are talking about dropping him and how they would rearrange the batting order because of that.

Nobody has any interest in discussing farfetched hypotheticals which currently have no basis in any kind of reality. Talking about what we would do if Watson suddenly went from one of our most form batsmen to complete rubbish has as much relevance at the moment as what we would do if the flight to New Zealand in a couple of months crashed into the Tasman.

If Watson starts to play badly people will start talking about what to do about it. Same with North. Until that happens, they're just two of hundreds of different possible future scenarios. Nobody understands why you're so fixated with them, when Hussey is in fact the relevant issue. That is all.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Hussey is the issue, agreed. Should have beend dropped a while ago, agreed.

Hussey will not be dropped for this series and most likely the next. Hopefully agreed.

Watson is not a long term fix as an opener? Make your decision there.

North is batting well and won't be dropped? Agreed.

Clarke is apparently a super star and will not be dropped? Don't know but I'm guessing agreed.

Ponting? Enough said.

We are not worrying about the individual bowlers in this case. We are saying they will work as they are, as in they are doing their job but can do with the help of a fifth bowler.

What does this situation all add up to? This is not far fetched, it is happening right now. My original post was a little awry, my bad, but all I wanted in the first place was to create some discussion about the solution to this seeming problem created by everyone's opinions that Watson isn't cracked up to what he should be.

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

What does this situation all add up to?

Nothing.

Barring something going massively wrong with somebody else, which doesn't seem likely at the moment, nothing will happen until Hussey gets dropped. When that happens it will likely trigger a rearrangement of the batting order.

In order for that not to be what happens it will require an injury, or Hussey to find form and someone else to lose it. In the latter case, given the leniency shown to Hussey, it appears that anyone who does lose form is going to have an awfully long time to try and recover it before they get the boot.

Which, in summary, means that the only change that will potentially happen in the forseeable future is that Hussey gets dropped at some point. Which, for the hundredth time, is the reason why it is the only scenario anybody is bothering to entertain.

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Nothing.

Barring something going massively wrong with somebody else, which doesn't seem likely at the moment, nothing will happen until Hussey gets dropped. When that happens it will likely trigger a rearrangement of the batting order.

Okay may we pretend this is the second post to this issue, adding Breeno's in as well?

So you don't want Watson bowling more overs as he would given the chance lower in the order?

Do you think that Hussey could open to prove his worth?

Do you think Clarke could open or would even bother trying?

 

[Caesar]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

So you don't want Watson bowling more overs as he would given the chance lower in the order?

Do you think that Hussey could open to prove his worth?

Do you think Clarke could open or would even bother trying?

Why are you asking these questions?

Nothing is wrong with the number of overs Watson is bowling.

Promoting our most out-of-form batsman to one of the most crucial roles in the side, one that he has never performed at a Test level (or even, correct me if I'm wrong, a first class level), is a bizarre suggestion to say the least.

Clarke has never been even remotely considered as an opener in any team he's played in. Why would we start talking about that now when we have a surplus of in-form openers in this country (including the two who are currently doing the job)?

 

[Boris]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Why are you asking these questions?

Nothing is wrong with the number of overs Watson is bowling.

Promoting our most out-of-form batsman to one of the most crucial roles in the side, one that he has never performed at a Test level (or even, correct me if I'm wrong, a first class level), is a bizarre suggestion to say the least.

Clarke has never been even remotely considered as an opener in any team he's played in. Why would we start talking about that now when we have a surplus of in-form openers in this country (including the two who are currently doing the job)?

I like martin back a while ago am concerned that North is in the wrong position, especially for a 100 or 0 player. I am also concerned that our bowing attack is the weakest part of the side and with Watson being arguably the best bowler it is showing. I want to see either an improved bowling attack or my stupid comments are going to have to flow into the batting line up because one cannot be at peace without the other being that way.

I agree all my statements above are outlandish and I would never try them, but I'm trying my best to get this thread back on track without me looking more of an idiot.

 

[Sober Symonds]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

lol, suggests two Bushrangers and then tries to pass it off as they originally came from WA, followed by bringing up Hodge, again. Hussey has been making runs and will probably be in the side for the summer, you really need to get over the obsession.

If they were to drop him they should've done it during the Ashes and replaced him with Watson, keeping Hughes at the top of the order hoping that he'd get over his deficiencies mid tour.

Can't let this crack go without a response.

I'm trying to demonstrate impartiality, though it really doesn't matter to some people: I live in this state, therefore rendering me incapable of making objective comment. What do you want me to do? I would pump for candidates from any other state if they were deserving, but if they can't stop eating or playing up on the sauce, then I'm fighting another losing battle.

I've already indicated my support for Hughes & Jacques, though they're not exactly piling on the scores that put them into consideration in the first place. Give me someone else. I can't help it if some of the leading contenders year after year play for a particular state. Any New South Welshman would argue their Test incumbents are there due to their record - this is no different. If others are going through the motions with their respective teams, scoring now & then and losing matches consistently, then there's a clear reason why they're not being seriously considered.

Your second point has some merit, although I'm not sure the selectors are going to reinstall Hughes, "hoping" he has eliminated his perceived shortcomings.

 

[Sober Symonds]

Re: Australian Test XI - Selection Thread

Hussey is the issue, agreed. Should have beend dropped a while ago, agreed.

We are not worrying about the individual bowlers in this case. We are saying they will work as they are, as in they are doing their job but can do with the help of a fifth bowler.

What does this situation all add up to? This is not far fetched, it is happening right now. My original post was a little awry, my bad, but all I wanted in the first place was to create some discussion about the solution to this seeming problem created by everyone's opinions that Watson isn't cracked up to what he should be.

I don't believe what I'm reading, and believe me, there's been a bit to get through! You've gone out of your way in the past to dodge the hot potato that is Mike Hussey. Yes, you've discussed him, but only in support and admiration (oh, and reflection). I must have missed the one where you said he should have been dropped, but then you've swung to & fro so freely I could be excused for losing sight of which argument you're taking.

Now I don't wish to put words in your mouth, but your statement that the bowlers are doing their job could be misconstrued as an endorsement of - dare I say it - P.Siddle. Hell no Boris, have you lost your mind? I hope you're not selling your soul to please these nasty types who question your leanings!

In whatever argument you choose to pursue, Boris, be forthright. Have an opinion by all means, but stick to your guns. Your views might be completely insane, but the lengths you go to in order to explain your way out of controversy is worse. We don't mind slagging you off for having a say, but when you scamper for a place to sit astride the fence, it's confusing, no fun and we find we've wasted all this time and energy

I am also concerned that our bowing attack is the weakest part of the side and with Watson being arguably the best bowler it is showing. I want to see either an improved bowling attack or my stupid comments are going to have to flow into the batting line up because one cannot be at peace without the other being that way.

I agree all my statements above are outlandish and I would never try them, but I'm trying my best to get this thread back on track without me looking more of an idiot.

What the_