Who will be Oz's 2nd opener in their next test series?

[Top_Cat]

Ah the old incumbency thing So if he didn't get that ton last night would he have been dropped then?

It's not really just about being the incumbent. It's about team stability too. Katich is on a hot streak, yes, but if you picked everyone purely on that basis, you'd have Pakistan; a bunch of talented individuals who barely win a series. It breeds more sustainable success for the team as a whole if players are supported even if they have a few outs. Sucks for Katich but all he has to do is keep doing what he's doing and if a spot comes up, he's in and he'll be supported when his great run ends (and it will end). Just breaking up a team because another guy is also batting well is highly de-stabilising and as any management textbook will tell you, will ultimately lead to failure of the team.

 

[Richard]

Stuart Law can attest very well to Katich's position. But think on - had Stephen Waugh not missed that one particular game with injury, he'd never even have played a single Test.

 

[DaRick]

Jaques and Hayden, in all likelihood - as much as I'd personally prefer Katich>Jaques in the subcontinent.

 

[tooextracool]

Katich isnt an opener in my book. Doesnt have the technique to see off the new ball. If he is going to play, he should be in the middle order. Does he even open for his state side?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well, Jaques can catch...

 

[Richard]

Katich isnt an opener in my book. Doesnt have the technique to see off the new ball. If he is going to play, he should be in the middle order. Does he even open for his state side?

Nope, only ever been a #3 by preference to my knowledge. Really made little sense to open with him ahead of Hussey, but I suppose I'm greatful they did else Hussey's poor form this tour would probably have been blamed on not batting in the middle, which would be ridiculous.

 

[aussie]

Jaques and Hayden, in all likelihood - as much as I'd personally prefer Katich>Jaques in the subcontinent.

Agreed. Its basically a horses for courses selection in IND IMO even though it will be harsh to drop Jaques since i'm convinced Kumble & co are likely to expose Jaques a bit.

 

[howardj]

On performance, and such is the weight placed on incumbency, it has to be Jaques. You don't get dropped from the Australian team unless you've underperformed or the selectors wish to restructure the side. For mine, looking at our lack of a third bowler (let alone a spinner), I think it's time such a restructuring took place. I've always been massively reluctant to move him, but I think Hussey should open, Clarke to four, Watson to five and Symonds at six - such is the over-reliance on Lee and Clark. Such a side gives us much more flexibility and plays to our current strength: our allrounders.

 

[Top_Cat]

On performance, and such is the weight placed on incumbency, it has to be Jaques. You don't get dropped from the Australian team unless you've underperformed or the selectors wish to restructure the side. For mine, looking at our lack of a third bowler (let alone a spinner), I think it's time such a restructuring took place. I've always been massively reluctant to move him, but I think Hussey should open, Clarke to four, Watson to five and Symonds at six - such is the over-reliance on Lee and Clark. Such a side gives us much more flexibility and plays to our current strength: our allrounders.

Where's the justification for it? That we're relying on our two opening bowlers? That's not exactly a new phenomena. There were times where it was the Aussies relying on McGrath and Warne too.

And I dispute that our strength is in all-rounders; Symonds' bowling has been somewhat questionable lately, Clarke would do well to keep concentrating on his batting and isn't more than a part-timer anyway, Watson isn't anywhere near a Test-class all-rounder (good batsman, bowling highly suspect) and Casson....... And dropping one opener when there are three available who are in-form and have recent Test tons under their belts (and replacing that one with a bloke who isn't) ain't exactly playing to your strengths either.

Such a series of massively de-stabilising moves for mine.

 

[Richard]

On performance, and such is the weight placed on incumbency, it has to be Jaques. You don't get dropped from the Australian team unless you've underperformed or the selectors wish to restructure the side. For mine, looking at our lack of a third bowler (let alone a spinner), I think it's time such a restructuring took place. I've always been massively reluctant to move him, but I think Hussey should open, Clarke to four, Watson to five and Symonds at six - such is the over-reliance on Lee and Clark. Such a side gives us much more flexibility and plays to our current strength: our allrounders.

Interestingly, looking at Australia's teams between 1989 and 2006/07, there were a handful of occasions (1991 and 1996/97 IIRR) where they went into Tests with three specialist bowlers, as they had the likes of Mark Waugh, Stephen Waugh, Allan Border, Michael Bevan, Greg Blewett, etc. who could offer not-completely-count-out-worthy options. They've the same thing currently with Symonds, Clarke, Katich and even Hussey isn't the worst.

So given Katich really, really is just bashing on the door currently, and is a superb player of spin, and is one of three decent part-time spinners available, why not just pick three seamers? Go in with
Jaques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Katich
Symonds
Haddin
Lee
Johnson
Clark
Which gives astoundingly deep batting and hardly weakens the bowling considerably as even in the seam department there isn't exactly a whole host of people banging down the door - witness one-season wonders like Bollinger being picked in squads and three-game semi-wonders like Casson getting into teams.

If you can pile-up massive totals, which that batting-line-up should do often (even though it does have Symonds in it) then even with a bit-part attack you can still cause huge problems simply by pressure of runs.

 

[Prince EWS]

Interestingly, looking at Australia's teams between 1989 and 2006/07, there were a handful of occasions (1991 and 1996/97 IIRR) where they went into Tests with three specialist bowlers, as they had the likes of Mark Waugh, Stephen Waugh, Allan Border, Michael Bevan, Greg Blewett, etc. who could offer not-completely-count-out-worthy options. They've the same thing currently with Symonds, Clarke, Katich and even Hussey isn't the worst.

So given Katich really, really is just bashing on the door currently, and is a superb player of spin, and is one of three decent part-time spinners available, why not just pick three seamers? Go in with
Jaques
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Katich
Symonds
Haddin
Lee
Johnson
Clark
Which gives astoundingly deep batting and hardly weakens the bowling considerably as even in the seam department there isn't exactly a whole host of people banging down the door - witness one-season wonders like Bollinger being picked in squads and three-game semi-wonders like Casson getting into teams.

If you can pile-up massive totals, which that batting-line-up should do often (even though it does have Symonds in it) then even with a bit-part attack you can still cause huge problems simply by pressure of runs.

That might work if the third seamer was firmly established in the team as a proven performer. I don't think you could afford to do that if your third seamer had question marks over his head to begin with.

There's a big gulf between what the Waugh brothers offered in their youth with the ball and what Clarke and Hussey offer, too. Not to mention the incredible strength of the Australian tail with the bat as it is, the fact that Haddin is a genuine batsman and the fact Australia had several inexperienced batsmen in the team when they tried that, as opposed to now where the batting lineup is firmly established.

 

[Richard]

That might work if the third seamer was firmly established in the team as a proven performer. I don't think you could afford to do that if your third seamer had question marks over his head to begin with.

In one of these Tests in 1996/97, the third seamer was Andy Bichel, a bowler who was always poor except against hopeless Test batsmen. They won the Test in question by an innings and 180-odd runs.

In the other cases the bowlers were first McDermott, Reid, Hughes, then Warne, Gillespie, McGrath, which is a bit different, as all were proven class-acts.

 

[Prince EWS]

In one of these Tests in 1996/97, the third seamer was Andy Bichel, a bowler who was always poor except against hopeless Test batsmen. They won the Test in question by an innings and 180-odd runs.

I don't think that was a particularly good selection then, regardless of the result. The other differences between then and now which I went into in my post made it a better decision than it would be now, indeed, but still not a good one.

 

[Richard]

Oh, and I forgot this too...

...the fact Australia had several inexperienced batsmen in the team when they tried that, as opposed to now where the batting lineup is firmly established.

The batting-line-ups in said games read:
1991:
Marsh
Taylor
Boon
Border
Jones
Mark Waugh
Stephen Waugh
Healy
In this one, only Stephen Waugh was not a fixture in the team (he was brought in to replace the all-rounder Greg Matthews for the two games in question) and only he and Healy were not proven Test batsmen (both would of course later become such things and how).
1996/97:
Taylor
Hayden
Elliott
Mark Waugh
Stephen Waugh
Blewett
Bevan
Healy
And in this, only Hayden (who only came into the side ITFP after an injury to Elliott, who then returned to briefly bat three) and Bevan were not proven class as Test batsmen and fixtures in the side. Bevan of course always had massive hopes, and Blewett would go on to endure some rocky times, but in 1996/97 he was The Ritz.

 

[howardj]

Interestingly, looking at Australia's teams between 1989 and 2006/07, there were a handful of occasions (1991 and 1996/97 IIRR) where they went into Tests with three specialist bowlers, as they had the likes of Mark Waugh, Stephen Waugh, Allan Border, Michael Bevan, Greg Blewett, etc. who could offer not-completely-count-out-worthy options. They've the same thing currently with Symonds, Clarke, Katich and even Hussey isn't the worst.

So given Katich really, really is just bashing on the door currently, and is a superb player of spin, and is one of three decent part-time spinners available, why not just pick three seamers? Go in with
Jaques
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Katich
Symonds
Haddin
Lee
Johnson
Clark
Which gives astoundingly deep batting and hardly weakens the bowling considerably as even in the seam department there isn't exactly a whole host of people banging down the door - witness one-season wonders like Bollinger being picked in squads and three-game semi-wonders like Casson getting into teams.

If you can pile-up massive totals, which that batting-line-up should do often (even though it does have Symonds in it) then even with a bit-part attack you can still cause huge problems simply by pressure of runs.

I was more getting at, especially for India in October:

Hussey
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Watson
Symonds
Haddin
Noffke
Casson/McGain
Lee
Clark

 

[Prince EWS]

Oh and BTW Richard, you'd think that someone who placed such importance in the difference between facing the first ball and standing at the non-stiker's end when it was bowled would be able to correctly differentiate between coming in at the fall at the second wicket and coming in at the fall of the third..

Clarke
Hussey

 

[NZTailender]

I was more getting at, especially for India in October:

Hussey
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Watson
Symonds
Haddin
Noffke
Casson/McGain
Lee
Clark

Great, completely ignore the guy who just scored two centuries to put someone out of form (but all class) opening with a shaky middle order and two unknown bowlers in some of the toughest conditions on cricketing-earth.

 

[aussie]

I was more getting at, especially for India in October:

Hussey
Hayden
Ponting
Clarke
Watson
Symonds
Haddin
Noffke
Casson/McGain
Lee
Clark

Not bad at all i reckon except for Noffke even though he was the form domestic bowler whats his ability to reverse it?. Because if AUS are going to depend on three pace bowlers in IND all need to be well adept at reversing it, especially with IND likely to prepare decks to suit their spinners.

 

[howardj]

Great, completely ignore the guy who just scored two centuries to put someone out of form (but all class) opening with a shaky middle order and two unknown bowlers in some of the toughest conditions on cricketing-earth.

What, you'd rather a known bowler like Johnson, would you? I think I know enough about him not to pick him. Furthermore, you may giggle at the spinners I've selected there, but who would yours be? As for Katich, he hardly brings more to the team than someone like Watson, or even Jaques or Hodge.

 

[Burgey]

I don't mind the look of that side HJ, but I'd have some concerns re Watson v spin. He seems to go very hard at the ball.

I like the way you're thinking though. And FWIW I don't think the middle order is shakey. Symonds seems to play spin pretty well (different conditions of course), as does Clarke. Haddin's grown up on the SCG which was for quite some time the biggest spinning ground in Australia. Hopefully this time Ponting scores heavily, just to give the haters something else to whinge about.