*Official* Third Test at the WACA

[Rant0r]

Of which there has been a LOT

 

[Prince EWS]

tail .

But in all seriousness, a highly unorthodox, belligerent 50 from him could be extremely useful.

A ton would be useful. Honestly if he's batting six for Australia, the possibility of a ton is what should be expected of him. Not every time obviously but it should enter our minds as a possibility to hope for. Even when North was playing we held out hope for him passing 26 and scoring that random ton he did every so often.

There's no reason Australia should have to pick an allrounder to bat six with Shane Watson opening the batting, so he needs to justify his spot on batting alone. And as much as his 2008/09 Shield season does that, our natural perceptions and expectations of him at this level really worry me. So much talk about him being picked as the sixth bowler/ground fielder/joke maker/energy-provider worries me - he needs to be able to average 40 with the bat to justify his spot. I fear that what we've got is a poor-man's Symonds, and given we already have a fifth bowler and Symonds was never that good anyway (despite his record), that's not what we need.

If they've picked him as a batsman and backed him to perform as one then I'll support that but I get the feeling more and more that it's not the case.

 

[TumTum]

tail .

 

[Rant0r]

A ton would be useful. Honestly if he's batting six for Australia, the possibility of a ton is what should be expected of him. Not every time obviously but it should enter our minds as a possibility to hope for. Even when North was playing we held out hope for him passing 26 and scoring that random ton he did every so often.

There's no reason Australia should have to pick an allrounder to bat six with Shane Watson opening the batting, so he needs to justify his spot on batting alone. And as much as his 2008/09 Shield season does that, our natural perceptions and expectations of him at this level really worry me. So much talk about him being picked as the sixth bowler/ground fielder/joke maker/energy-provider worries me - he needs to be able to average 40 with the bat to justify his spot. I fear that what we've got is a poor-man's Symonds, and given we already have a fifth bowler and Symonds was never that good anyway (despite his record), that's not what we need.

If they've picked him as a batsman and backed him to perform as one then I'll support that but I get the feeling more and more that it's not the case.

I'm a great believer in picking your 6 batsmen batsmen 4 bowlers and a keeper, if one of those batsmen can bowl then great. I heard a commentator remarking once that David Boon started his career at 6, so too Ponting, neither of them bowl, it's a progression

 

[Mike5181]

A ton would be useful. Honestly if he's batting six for Australia, the possibility of a ton is what should be expected of him. Not every time obviously but it should enter our minds as a possibility to hope for. Even when North was playing we held out hope for him passing 26 and scoring that random ton he did every so often.

There's no reason Australia should have to pick an allrounder to bat six with Shane Watson opening the batting, so he needs to justify his spot on batting alone. And as much as his 2008/09 Shield season does that, our natural perceptions and expectations of him at this level really worry me. So much talk about him being picked as the sixth bowler/ground fielder/joke maker/energy-provider worries me - he needs to be able to average 40 with the bat to justify his spot. I fear that what we've got is a poor-man's Symonds, and given we already have a fifth bowler and Symonds was never that good anyway (despite his record), that's not what we need.

If they've picked him as a batsman and backed him to perform as one then I'll support that but I get the feeling more and more that it's not the case.

I don't know tbh Symonds was pretty king in all forms of the game for Australia. With him in the team i think it actually helped Clarke perform IMO anyway.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'm a great believer in picking your 6 batsmen batsmen 4 bowlers and a keeper, if one of those batsmen can bowl then great. I heard a commentator remarking once that David Boon started his career at 6, so too Ponting, neither of them bowl, it's a progression

I'm a big believer in team balance incidentally but when Watson is one of your six best batsmen, your six best batsmen should definitely all be in the team.

 

[Ruckus]

I have to admit though Smith's leg breaks were pretty damn useful this innings.

 

[wpdavid]

lol, you are a really good side. You just can't expect everything to go your way every minute of a five match series unless you're an atg side.

I think we're a good side. Really good? I suppose there's a degree of subjectivity here, but our pace attack isn't quite top drawer (see SA, for instance) and our batting doesn't quite contain enough world class quality. Maybe that'll change over the next year or so. But I'll stick with my view that we were sloppy yesterday wadr.

 

[Rant0r]

I'm a big believer in team balance incidentally but when Watson is one of your six best batsmen, your six best batsmen should definitely all be in the team.

Which of course is extremely helpful. Would also be helpful to use some more than handy part timers he's had at his disposal recently. Clarke, Katich, North who funnily enough was picked with bowling in mind yet rarely did so, despite often outbowling the specialist spinner.

 

[Spark]

I don't know tbh Symonds was pretty king in all forms of the game for Australia. With him in the team i think it actually helped Clarke perform IMO anyway.

Disagree with both.

 

[TumTum]

I have to admit though Smith's leg breaks were pretty damn useful this innings.

You don't understand, he's not in the team to bat or bowl. He's only there to bring a more youthful and jovial atmosphere to the squad. His fielding is quite handy too.

 

[wpdavid]

Interesting to read the revised perspectives on Watson today. I always felt that an opener averaging around 50 was the least of Aus's problems in this series, even if he should have gone on with it more often. Now his contributions appear to look more valuable: perhaps it's because England didn't make 500+.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Of which there has been a LOT

Been fair enough for the most part (except the overly hysterical bit from some media and fans). Up to this morning, you don't expect test bowlers to bowl such a steaming pile of **** on both sides of the wicket, and you expect test batsmen to make a fist of it. Hussey and Haddin have shown what a bit of form and application can do.

 

[Rant0r]

Disagree with both.

*nods*

 

[Prince EWS]

I think we're a good side. Really good? I suppose there's a degree of subjectivity here, but our pace attack isn't quite top drawer (see SA, for instance) and our batting doesn't quite contain enough world class quality. Maybe that'll change over the next year or so. But I'll stick with my view that we were sloppy yesterday wadr.

Don't think there's that much between England and South Africa's attacks. Steyn's comfortably the best of the lot and Morkel's probably about on par with Anderson, but Broad, Finn and Tremlett are soooo much better than Lopsy, McLaren, Parnell etc. That South Africa have Kallis probably tips it, but Swann more than makes up that difference (I know you only said pace attack, but still).

As I was saying yesterday in another thread, South Africa's opening bowlers are world class but their bowling options beyond that can leave them vulnerable.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I have to admit though Smith's leg breaks were pretty damn useful this innings.

Personally think the threat of him coming into the attack saw England throwing their wickets away to the quicker men.

Agree with Peter English in that article too, why did the remedial work necessary for Mitch Johnson to swing the ball again happen in-between the 2nd and 3rd tests? Should've happened before the series began. I assume it might be because Mitch decided he was just going to forget about swing and bowl fast...think he mentioned something about this somewhere.

 

[Mike5181]

Disagree with both.

What a highly pointless post.

 

[Rant0r]

Been fair enough for the most part (except the overly hysterical bit from some media and fans). Up to this morning, you don't expect test bowlers to bowl such a steaming pile of **** on both sides of the wicket, and you expect test batsmen to make a fist of it. Hussey and Haddin have shown what a bit of form and application can do.

Disagree with that, they may not have bowled superbly, but they didn't bowl pies (apart from the odd Johnson spell in Brisbane) lets not forget that England have played well. And really Johnson broke the back of their batting today with an extraordinary spell

 

[Rant0r]

What a highly pointless post.

Followed by an even more pointless retort

 

[Mike5181]

Don't think there's that much between England and South Africa's attacks. Steyn's comfortably the best of the lot and Morkel's probably about on par with Anderson, but Broad, Finn and Tremlett are soooo much better than Lopsy, McLaren, Parnell etc. That South Africa have Kallis probably tips it, but Swann more than makes up that difference (I know you only said pace attack, but still).

As I was saying yesterday in another thread, South Africa's opening bowlers are world class but their bowling options beyond that can leave them vulnerable.

Yeah but Broad, Tremlett and Finn are relatively similar bowlers where as SA's bowlers are a bit different like Steyn and Morkel. I think that makes them a better attack but England have the better spinner easily.