-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** Commonwealth Bank Tri-Series
- Thread starter James
- Start date
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Yet the World Cup only rolls over once ever four years, which leaves you very little to compare to.
You can't keep trying to compare everything to what has gone in the past - as you just demonstrated with your post, the game has evolved - and will continue to evolve. The single biggest mistake a team can make is to try to emulate another team. The experiment of several teams in recent times to have their wicket keeper opening the batting in ODIs to emulate Gilchrist is evidence of such, as is the Australians' insistance to select an allrounder in test matches to emulate Flintoff's success even when the only one even close to test standard is injured.
A team should play to its strengths - it takes something special to win a World Cup. There is little point in being a poor man's version of another team that played eight years ago when the game is evolving and changing. You should base your selection around your strengths, and look to build a side around those strengths. Two of Australia's main strengths in ODI cricket at the moment are the fact that three of their top order batsmen can bowl more than useful one day spin, and the fact that they posess a plethora of fast bowling options. Shane Watson's presence could change this and result in the inclusion of Brad Hogg, but at this stage Watson's fitness and even role in the side is not set in stone. The balance Australia have gone in with recently suits their strengths and the players at their disposal.
Trying to emulate the balance of the previous three world cup winning sides is ridiculous, as unless that is your strength, you will just become a poor man's version of what could quite well be an outdated side in what is an ever evolving game.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
No, definitely not. They're very different players. Shahid Afridi could do that though, and Mohammad Yousuf probably couldn't, but you wouldn't say Afridi is necessarily a better player, in any form of the game. Certainly though, if you needed 10 an over in the late stages of an ODI, you'd pick Oram over Watson very easily. If you needed someone to come in with a couple down and build an innings for 30+ overs, you'd go for Watson.
Johnners
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
Hayden's position is far from a certainty IMO. His ton should do him the world of good - not only from a selection point of view but from a confidence standpoint as well. But with Watson back bowling now (and taking wickets, mind you), his position isn't 100% secure. The innings itself was quite ordinary early on - he was dropped on 0, 4 and 80, and he really looked quite ordinary until he got to 70. Now that he has played himself into some form, the pressure will be on to score some runs while the form is there. Watson did well opening the batting in th DLF Cup and the Champions Trophy, averaging 37.5 and striking at almost 90. He looked better batting there than he has in his whole ODI career really. And that's even without taking his bowling into consideration - he averages around 17 with the ball since the 2005 Ashes series which is phenominal.
Even given all that though, I get the feeling that Watson's place in the side is still a bit doubtful. The balance of the Australian side looks really good at the moment, and Watson isn't a better one day batsman than any of the top 7 (barring possibly Hayden, depending on how he progresses from this hundred), nor a better bowler than any of the main four bowlers. The obvious decision would be to drop White and either bat Watson at 7, or bat Watson at 4, Clarke and 6 and Hussey at 7. If all things go well for the Australians, Watson's batting at 7 will be useless because he's hopeless coming in for the end-of-innings slog. That said though, if Australia fell into a heap at 5/100 odd, Watson could definitely rebuild the innings by playing orthodoxed cricket. I'd certainly be batting him in the top 4 somewhere but I think he'll probably bat at 7.
The main question that would then be asked is what that did to the balance. All of a sudden, you'd have five quicks + Symonds and Clarke. I supported the four quicks stance because of the spin options in the top order, but with Watson playing, it might become a bit much to play all 4 specialist fast bowlers. In which case, the impressive Johnson would drop out of the side for Hogg. Which begs the question: Is it really all worth it just to play someone who could pull out injured at any moment? I'm a huge Watson fan as Midnight will tell you, but he really brings more questions than answers.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
If Hayden is picked, Watson should bat at 4. As to where he will bat, I've got no idea. I guess they might push him down to 7 again, though that'd be a poor move IMO.
Either way I think he's a certainty to be picked if he's fit.
edit: Just noticed that EWS largely made this post redundant.
Personally, I think Watson will be picked, for a few reasons. The selectors are absolutely keen on having an all-rounder in the lineup, which White obviously isn't given that he doesn't get a single over on a turning track with the game in the balance. The decision to open with Watson was an obvious signal that they believe he's crucial to the balance of the ODI side and they want to make a place for him at the top of the order, rather than have him earn it as a pure batsman. And of course, his bowling has been excellent in recent times, and still seems to be improving.
The fact that Symonds and Clarke can bowl is useful, but it's much more useful IMO if there's already five "front line" types to bowl ahead of them. Watson has the ability to bowl 10 good overs these days, and Symonds or Clarke can fill in for anyone who isn't performing, or share the overs with Hogg (if he's picked) on a turning or slow track. It adds lots of flexibility to the lineup. As it is, I think the balance is a little off, because part-timers who sometimes go for heaps have to bowl 10, and if one of the main bowlers has a bad day, they have to bowl more. The balance was perfect in the DLF Cup and CT because it moved them down a rung in the bowling order, and that's what I think they'll go for in the WC.
The variable in this is Watson's fitness. If he breaks down again, I think the current team give or take Hogg is the WC first XI. If Watson's fit and playing roughly like he was before his hamstring problems, he'll be in the side without question, whether it's opening, at 4 or at 7.
Either White or Hayden will be the man to go, depending on form. Probably White at this stage.
Last edited:
doesnt say much tbh
pup11
International Coach
I think if watson doesn't open than i don't see him playing at all, the reason is simple, if you bat him at 4 clarke goes down and he is not good at slogging either(and clarke is a better batsman than watson). The thing that could happen is if hayden scores runs in the upcoming games than he opens in the world cup , and watson sits on the bench. And if hayden fails to score now, then watson should replace him.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Three good innings and 4 failures. He did okay. I wouldn't say he did well. We all know he can bat, but he has a fair bit to prove that Australia is best served by him opening the batting. However, Hayden has really not been very good in the CB Series thus far. He looks like he's trying to be the player he was years ago.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I'm impressed by your knowledge of West Indian pitches at the moment. What with only domestic cricket having been played there in roughly a year. Unfortunately for you, you're entirely wrong.
pup11
International Coach
But i doubt whether hayden would be dropped now, no matter how poorly he bats in the remainder of the games. I am saying this because gilly has announced today that "he would like hayden to partner him in the world cup". Seems like team management has already made up their minds that hayden would be their opener for the world cup.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Hayden will undoubtedly go to the World Cup, largely because Australia is a strong enough team to carry a under-par opening batsman. And if New Zealand and England continue to drop him, he could be back in marching form by the time the World Cup rolls around.
pup11
International Coach
I saw the series India had in west indies, didn't see many balls even bouncing till waist height. Except barbados none of the west indian pitches have decent pace or carry that they had in the past. The tracks are flat otherwise how do explain 3 draws in a row between IND and WI in the recent test series they had.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Again. How are the expert on what the pitches are like now?
The pitches in the West Indies are certainly no slower than those in India. They've actually offered more to the seamers of late than in years before.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Well said
its ashame your point is too often overlooked by selectors
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Two low scoring series, the DLF Cup and the CT. Worth remembering that. Still, it wasn't a great performance opening from Watson, it was a mixed one with some signs of promise. He played some poor shots and failed, but also looked the most comfortable he's ever looked at international level when he got set. I'm not fussed whether or not he opens again, provided that they don't try and bat him at 7.
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Clarke is very good at batting in the lower order. I don't know about "slogging" (though he isn't a bad hitter), but he's extremely good at building an innings in a recovery and at scoring quickly in the late overs, and there's many examples of it. He averaged in excess of 40 with a great strike rate at number 6.
you really need that player in the lower order who is more 'orthodox', i.e not a slogger, so if it goes wrong up the top, you have got someone who can rebuild, and Clarke is perfect for that. Australia have got plenty of 'sloggers' down the order already, although Hussey can be both a rebuilder and a slogger.
Take a look at England, without Pietersen and Flintoff out of touch, they have no-one who can slog the ball, thus when these recycled test players attempt to slog the ball, they simply look very foolish. And BTW, that is England's problem, you have got these recycled test players trying to slog boundaries too often rather than take 3 or 4 singles an over, and as I said before, they look extremely foolish. If they just take the singles, rather than attempt to slog the ball to all parts, then they might be at least competitive. Some of their dismissals in the ODI series have been absolutely terrible.
Take a look at England, without Pietersen and Flintoff out of touch, they have no-one who can slog the ball, thus when these recycled test players attempt to slog the ball, they simply look very foolish. And BTW, that is England's problem, you have got these recycled test players trying to slog boundaries too often rather than take 3 or 4 singles an over, and as I said before, they look extremely foolish. If they just take the singles, rather than attempt to slog the ball to all parts, then they might be at least competitive. Some of their dismissals in the ODI series have been absolutely terrible.