*Official* West Indies In Australia

[Pothas]

It's not the easy way out by any stretch, unfortunately it's a necessary measure when there is not enough consistent outstanding performers in the top 6/7. Both Bravo and Ramdin are a place too high, imo, at 6 and 7.

Think Ramdin is good enough to bat at 7 to be honest, he may not have a great overall record but he has impressed quite a bit with bat and behind the stumps over the last year.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, I reckon that Ramdin is good enough to play at seven.

 

[Julian87]

I think Ramdin would be good enough at 7 if he had some players with balls below him like Hauritz, Johnson and Siddle. But not with what he has currently.

 

[aussie]

Would have to disagree Ramdin is good enough to bat @ 7 in tests ATM. I dont think he is 30+ average batsman right now, which is the minium for a keeper to be able to bat @ 7 in tests.

Maybe down the line as he gets older, but in a full-strenght WI team right now he is test match # 8.

 

[pasag]

Yeah, whenever I've seen Ramdin bat he's looked way below Test standard. Seems to be in better form recently though.

 

[roseboy64]

Over the last year he's averaged quite more than 30.

 

[Matt79]

His batting is more than good enough to bat at 6. He needs to cut out the silly shots and take responsibility in his innings.

If he doesn't/can't do those things, then his batting isn't really good enough, is it?

 

[Matt79]

Ramdin would be a fair enough number 7 if there was a proper 6 above him, but with a batsman who averages 30 above and little to follow him, it's iffy.

 

[shivfan]

Dave wasn't dropped for performance though so don't bring that in.

if he wasn't dropped for performance, what was he dropped for? Disciplinary issues? If that's the case, the last thing we want is another indisciplined player in the Test team....

 

[shivfan]

If we are talking test cricket he should certainly be amongst the top 6 batsmen. When he is given more responsibility with the bat he usually delivers. At Under 19 level he was a very effective opening batsman for example.

He is a worthy 4th seamer in our lineup but he is having to bowl too many overs in his career so far because the other bowlers are not doing the job. It is a but much to ask Bravo to bowl 30 overs per innings and then bat at number 5, usually coming to the crease within the first 20/30 overs.

If he is going to have to bowl all these overs then I agree with Shivfan, he will have to bat at 7. I really feel Bravo should be averaging 40 or more with the bat at test level as he has the technique and the talent.

As things stand, Bravo has just hit three half-centuries in his last 21 innings....

Having him in the top six weakens our batting, unfotunately. So, IMHO, he either bats at seven, or he's dropped. Otherwise, dropping Nash and keeping Bravo in the top six weakens our batting. Should we do a comparison of last 15 innings, and compare it to Bravo's last 15 innings?

If Bravo's in the side for his bowling, he should take up a slot that is more comensurate with this emphasis on his bowling.

Personally, I think Bravo should bat at seven, and Ramdin at eight. Ramdin averages 25 with the bat in Test cricket, which is not good enough for a number seven batsman, IMHO....

 

[shivfan]

What about Sarwan for Taylor, Deonarine for Nash and Tonge for Benn?

I actually reckon that could work. No matter which spinners they take in they're just going to be batting practise at Adelaide IMO. May as well take South Australia's lead and pick one who can bat if the others aren't making a huge case for selection.


The one thing I'd definitely do though is leave Dowlin at 3 with Sarwan at 4 and Chanderpaul at 5. Dowlin really impressed me in the first innings when others were falling around him. Didn't see the second innings becaus4e I played cricket all day.

For Adelaide, and it's batsman-friendly pitches, I think a spinner is necessary, and unfortunately the WI have only selected one specialist spinner for this tour, and that's Benn....

To me, Deonarine for Nash would weaken the batting. Yes, Deonarine has made runs at first-class level in the Caribbean, but he failed to impress with the bat against Queensland. I think it would be a mistake to drop Nash under those circumstances.

 

[NZTailender]

Is Mckay really the 5th best Australian test bowler now?

(without reading any posts past this yet) No. But he's young and Australia are playing, well, a clearly weaker side. I'd say this is all part of the grooming process.

 

[NZTailender]

Think Ramdin is good enough to bat at 7 to be honest, he may not have a great overall record but he has impressed quite a bit with bat and behind the stumps over the last year.

Yeah, I reckon that Ramdin is good enough to play at seven.

I think Ramdin would be good enough at 7 if he had some players with balls below him like Hauritz, Johnson and Siddle. But not with what he has currently.

Would have to disagree Ramdin is good enough to bat @ 7 in tests ATM. I dont think he is 30+ average batsman right now, which is the minium for a keeper to be able to bat @ 7 in tests.

Maybe down the line as he gets older, but in a full-strenght WI team right now he is test match # 8.

Yeah, whenever I've seen Ramdin bat he's looked way below Test standard. Seems to be in better form recently though.

Ramdin would be a fair enough number 7 if there was a proper 6 above him, but with a batsman who averages 30 above and little to follow him, it's iffy.

Bat him 3, imo. [/throw-away suggestion]

 

[Prince EWS]

Bat him 3, imo. [/throw-away suggestion]

Nah, Kyle Mills IMO.

 

[Woodster]

On the Ramdin issue, I was impressed with his batting in the first innings at Brisbane, he does look as though he may be making strides towards becoming a decent Test batsman, but at this moment in time I think he'd be best served in the number 8 position. I think as Matt79 suggests, perhaps he is just being exploited in the number 7 slot because of the lack of support dierctly above him.

Ramdin so far averages just over 40 for 2009, and without taking anything away from him, he cashed in on the absolute featherbed, Kensington Oval, against England when team totals were 600-6 dec, 749-9 dec, and 279-2 dec, and made his highest Test score of 166, and his only Test century to date.

 

[Beamer]

On the Ramdin issue, I was impressed with his batting in the first innings at Brisbane, he does look as though he may be making strides towards becoming a decent Test batsman, but at this moment in time I think he'd be best served in the number 8 position. I think as Matt79 suggests, perhaps he is just being exploited in the number 7 slot because of the lack of support dierctly above him.

Ramdin so far averages just over 40 for 2009, and without taking anything away from him, he cashed in on the absolute featherbed, Kensington Oval, against England when team totals were 600-6 dec, 749-9 dec, and 279-2 dec, and made his highest Test score of 166, and his only Test century to date.

Fair point but he also made a half century at Lords where the ball was swinging all over the place in early May and he just made a solid half century at Brisbane which is a notoriously hard venue for touring teams. More than stats, it's the way he has batted this year which makes him look like a test number 7, he has looked the part in almost every innings he has played and hasn't given it away with a silly sweep shot etc.

Sometimes you have to look beyond the stats and look at the way he is playing his cricket this year. He is only 23 years old and can only get better IMHO. He is fine at either 7 or 8 in the current lineup.

 

[Woodster]

Fair point but he also made a half century at Lords where the ball was swinging all over the place in early May and he just made a solid half century at Brisbane which is a notoriously hard venue for touring teams. More than stats, it's the way he has batted this year which makes him look like a test number 7, he has looked the part in almost every innings he has played and hasn't given it away with a silly sweep shot etc.

Sometimes you have to look beyond the stats and look at the way he is playing his cricket this year. He is only 23 years old and can only get better IMHO. He is fine at either 7 or 8 in the current lineup.

Yes sure I agree that stats don't tell the whole story, I just wanted to demonstrate that his stats for 2009 are as high as they are due to that run hungry knock against England where he made 166. He did make a half century at Lords, but he needs to find more consistency. As I said earlier, I've been pretty impressed with him of late.

 

[aussie]

That Hundred vs ENG was on an abosulte road though. Very much a test match # 8 for me.

 

[Uppercut]

Fair point but he also made a half century at Lords where the ball was swinging all over the place in early May and he just made a solid half century at Brisbane which is a notoriously hard venue for touring teams. More than stats, it's the way he has batted this year which makes him look like a test number 7, he has looked the part in almost every innings he has played and hasn't given it away with a silly sweep shot etc.

Sometimes you have to look beyond the stats and look at the way he is playing his cricket this year. He is only 23 years old and can only get better IMHO. He is fine at either 7 or 8 in the current lineup.

Hmm, dunno, I reckon he's almost always looked great when batting. Haven't seen any marked improvement this year, he's got plenty of shots but he still seems a little loose. He doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence.

 

[roseboy64]

If he doesn't/can't do those things, then his batting isn't really good enough, is it?

Don't follow? The playing of ill timed shots doesn't relate to batting ability. Relates only to mental stamina.