***Official*** Commonwealth Bank Tri-Series

[howardj]

Yep, ideally Watson should be at 4. It's where he's going to most useful as a batsmen, and without the extra responsibility of opening, it should allow his bowling to prosper in the long-term.

As much as i beleive that Clarke should be up the order as well, for the balance of the team, he's going to do better at 6 than Watson is, so it's only logical that he slots down to 6. The other option i thought of was having Clarke at 4, Watson 5 & Symonds 6, but i'd be worried as to how that would affect Symonds seeing as he's really made 5 his position, and had been a little to Hit & miss earlier on in his career at 6 & 7.

That's an incredibly dodgy rationale. Just because Clarke is more suited to six that Watson, doesn't mean that you put him there and then put Watson in one of the most important slots in the order (number four), and therefore relegate arguably our best ODI batsman down to number seven! All to accomodate an unproven Watson!

Fact is, Clarke is a better batsman and having your best number four at number four is far more important that not having someone (Watson) at six / seven because he is a better four than he is at six / seven. The team doesn't revolve around Watson. Think about it.

 

[vic_orthdox]

That's an incredibly dodgy rationale. Just because Clarke is more suited to six that Watson, doesn't mean that you put him there and then put Watson in one of the most important slots in the order (number four), and therefore relegate arguably our best ODI batsman down to number seven! All to accomodate an unproven Watson!

Fact is, Clarke is a better batsman and having your best number four at number four is far more important that not having someone (Watson) at six / seven because he is a better four than he is at six / seven. The team doesn't revolve around Watson. Think about it.

Agreed.

 

[Complicated]

That's an incredibly dodgy rationale. Just because Clarke is more suited to six that Watson, doesn't mean that you put him there and then put Watson in one of the most important slots in the order (number four), and therefore relegate arguably our best ODI batsman down to number seven! All to accomodate an unproven Watson!

Heathen how dare you give Clarke Hussey's crown =p

 

[pasag]

Jeez, wicket already. Astle gone for 1.

 

[MoxPearl]

astle didnt let us down

 

[MoxPearl]

Jeez, wicket already. Astle gone for 1.

Cmon did u really think astle or flem would make any runs ? :P

 

[Matt52]

Why is Fulton batting at 3?.. Taylor has always batted at three where he can hit over the top in the early overs. He is the best no3 we have.

Another master stroke by old Boof Bracewell

 

[MoxPearl]

every ball looks like its gonna get flem out :/

 

[Prince EWS]

That's an incredibly dodgy rationale. Just because Clarke is more suited to six that Watson, doesn't mean that you put him there and then put Watson in one of the most important slots in the order (number four), and therefore relegate arguably our best ODI batsman down to number seven! All to accomodate an unproven Watson!

Fact is, Clarke is a better batsman and having your best number four at number four is far more important that not having someone (Watson) at six / seven because he is a better four than he is at six / seven. The team doesn't revolve around Watson. Think about it.

There is a negliable difference between Clarke and 4 and Clarke at 6, while there is a significant different between Watson and 4 and Watson at 7. It's not about who the better batsman is - Watson holds the comparative advantage.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Answer my question, dammit!

How's Haddin more of a natural opener than Watson?

 

[howardj]

There is a negliable difference between Clarke and 4 and Clarke at 6, while there is a significant different between Watson and 4 and Watson at 7. It's not about who the better batsman is - Watson holds the comparative advantage.

C'mon mate, but four is a far more important position than six or seven. It's about the order that will allows Australia to score the most runs, not about where Watson is most comfortable.

 

[howardj]

Answer my question, dammit!

How's Haddin more of a natural opener than Watson?

Watson has one gear to his batting. He can not up the ante when it is required. We don't need a sheet anchor when Lee is at number nine. By contrast, Haddin can both accumulate and gun the bowling. From what I have seen, I think Haddin would be the better option.

 

[Prince EWS]

C'mon mate, but four is a far more important position than six or seven. It's about the order that will allows Australia to score the most runs, not about where Watson is most comfortable.

Australia will score the most runs when all the batsmen are comfortable in their roles and positons though. There is little if any difference to both Clarke and the team as a whole between him batting 4 and him batting 6 - while Watson is decidedly useless in the lower order.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Watson has one gear to his batting. He can not up the ante when it is required. We don't need a sheet anchor when Lee is at number nine. By contrast, Haddin can both accumulate and gun the bowling. From what I have seen, I think Haddin would be the better option.

How much have you seen of Watson opening the batting? I've seen every innings that he's opened, and he's looked so much more comfortable and fluent at the top than I've ever seen him in ODI cricket (or even OD domestic). He really looked in control (except for some of his early pull shots, though the one against England would've gone for 4 if it bounced properly).

In each of his significant scores (bar the Champions Trophy final) he's scored at close to or faster than a run a ball, which is hardly a sheet anchor rate.

Haddin has many gears, and I'll never forget the time he opened the innings with Mark Waugh in a game for NSW and they both gunned big hundreds, but AFAIK it's been quite awhile since he's opened in a ODD game, let alone throwing him to the wolves opening in and ODI.

Watson has the technique and the shots against pace, as well as a hunger for the ball coming onto the bat. I really can't see why he couldn't succeed there for a period of time until the middle order opens up more. Only concern to me is whether it would affect his bowling, but it certainly didn't in the DLF Cup and the Champs Trophy, where he bowled beautifully.

 

[Prince EWS]

Watson has one gear to his batting. He can not up the ante when it is required. We don't need a sheet anchor when Lee is at number nine. By contrast, Haddin can both accumulate and gun the bowling. From what I have seen, I think Haddin would be the better option.

Did you actually watch the games Watson opened in? He was hardly a sheet anchor...

79 off 74 balls (Australia made 244 off 50 overs)
18 off 27 balls (Australia made 240 off 50 overs)
0 off 3 balls (Australia made 234 off 50 overs)
21 off 26 balls (Australia made 170 in 36.5 overs)
50 off 46 balls (Australia made 252 off 45.4 overs)
0 off 4 balls (Australia made 240 off 50 overs)
57* off 80 balls (Australia made 116 off 28.1 overs)

All in all, he scored 225 runs in 7 innings @ 37.5 with three half centuries at a strike rate of 86.54. The strike rate of the rest of the team combined in the games he played was 79.24. Sheet anchor?

 

[Johnners]

That's an incredibly dodgy rationale. Just because Clarke is more suited to six that Watson, doesn't mean that you put him there and then put Watson in one of the most important slots in the order (number four), and therefore relegate arguably our best ODI batsman down to number seven! All to accomodate an unproven Watson!

Fact is, Clarke is a better batsman and having your best number four at number four is far more important that not having someone (Watson) at six / seven because he is a better four than he is at six / seven. The team doesn't revolve around Watson. Think about it.

Yes i agree that Clarke is a better batsmen, however, as EWS said, the difference between Clarke batting at 4 & 6 is very small, whilst the difference between Watson batting at 4 & 6/7 is.

Watson has shown that he's a far more capable batsmen when he's given a chance to play himself in a litte, by averaging 37-38 at the top of the order, at a reasonable SR. Whilst it's speculation to say that he'll do exactly the same at 4, it's a reasonable assumption to say that he will seeing as it's a position he's comfortable playing in.

No the team doesn't relolve around Watson, but the team does revolve around getting the right balance, and if that means Clarke batting at 6 (a position he's more than capable batting in) to allow our best all-rounder a place in the team then so be-it.

 

[Jono]

FFS NZ.

Been watching the tennis, forgot about the cricket, change the channel and they're going at under 2 an over.

 

[Slow Love™]

hey guys how many of u think the aussie selectors shud bring back holland to replace warnie he was an underrrrated bowler when he first played for australia and there arent many young spinners coming through he could provide the variation aussie need what do you guys think?

BTW, I was checking just how old Bob was these days and I saw he doesn't even have a bio at cricinfo. Bit of a travesty there.

 

[Slow Love™]

If England get up today (I kinda expect them to, for some reason), it's a pretty friggin' disastrous tour for the Kiwis.

 

[meatspx]

I know everybody moans about Bracewell....but he really needs to be fired :P

Fulton at 3? Taylor bats there for CD, and we need him up the order to lift the run-rate.

Bracewell is a muppet.