• 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 Third Test at Edgbaston

simmy

simmy

International Regular
FaaipDeOiad said:
Haven't read any of the discussion here yet, but I'll go on record as saying that I don't think it's a bad decision to pick Watson, or to have him open. I think having Hussey open and batting Watson at 4 would probably be a better choice but it's understandable if the selectors don't want to displace Hussey with his somewhat shaky form etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if Watson did reasonably well opening the batting, he's got a good technique and he's such a huge confidence player that throwing him in there against the new ball might do him a world of good. In the modern era opening isn't that different from batting down the order anyway.

To put it another way, if you're going to pick Watson, and the only choices are to have him open or bat at 6 or 7, I think he's better off opening. He's the last of the Australian top order batsmen I'd want stuck with the tail, while Hussey has done very well down the order in general.
Click to expand...
Yeah from an English perspective I am a little frustrated that the Aussie selectors have shown some kahunas and made a decision that makes there team quite a bit stronger.
 
Richard

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
social said:
On Hughes, I dont have a problem with his omission as I'm not a fan of his technique
Click to expand...
If you don't like his technique, there's no excuse for him playing ITFP.

Ridiculous to pick him, let him average 60-odd in South Africa, then drop him after a single bad game.

Not picking him in SA would've been perfectly fair enough, Jaques or Rogers might well have been better choices, but once you've given Hughes the chance and he's taken it it's ridiculous to drop him now.
 
Mister Wright

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Pretty funny that the world found out about Hughes' dropping from his twitter site. Will be interesting to see how the new generation of cricketers affect the cricket world.
 
J

Jewels

Cricket Spectator
Woodster said:
The weather looks sh**e with no signs of improving. The lovely Lucy said showers will be passing through during the morning and the afternoon should give way to spells of sunshine. The problem being the amount of water that this ground has already taken, it cannot afford to take much more or we can kiss goodbye to the first day's play and an entirely wasted day off work!!

So disappointing that the bleeding weather should ruin such a sporting spectacle! Typical of the weather over here!!So annoying.
Click to expand...
Well the lid stays on the next beer FFS:shutup:
 
simmy

simmy

International Regular
superkingdave said:
FFS Birmingham get a drainage system, almost as bad as the french
Click to expand...
Given that I think Lords paid just over £1mill for the sick-ass drainage system they have.. surely it is financially beneficial for every major test ground to follow suit?
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
Uppercut said:
Don't agree, but at least you're not following the, "the decision on Johnson was a bad one, and this decision is the opposite of Johnson's, therefore it's also a bad one" line.
Click to expand...
Not what I was doing at all. I like to see consistency from selectors even if I don't agree with their thinking. I was using Johnson's (presumed) retention to illustrate the point.

Watson's elevation could be a masterstroke and on such calls selectors' reputations are made but I can't escape the feeling it's been rather pulled out of their collective arsehole. Without wanting to repeat myself whatever concerns about Hughes's technique must've existed before his rough trot (is 3 innings a trot? Anyway...) and if they didn't WTF haev the selectors been wathcing?
 
stephen

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Yeah it's a pretty ridiculous decision to drop Hughes for Watson.

North maybe (though it would be tough), but I get the feeling his century in Cardiff saved him from that.

Ultimately there should have only been one change to the side for this test - Siddle or Johnson out for Clark.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top