***Official*** Australia in South Africa

[adub]

Would Waugh not have had the likes of Taylor, Slater, Boon and his twin brother batting pretty nicely up the order so there was no space for him?

Until Australia sort their **** out at the top of the order, then I think Clarke will unfairly cop a bit of stick if he continues to "hide" at 5 and do well whilst the rest of the lineup is ****.

Of course Waugh had some pretty handy guys up the order, but there were times that we needed to find a 3 after Boon retired when he could have moved up. 3 was a bit of a merry-go-round between Boon and Ponting's 2nd go at it. The right decision was made though. Don't weaken one spot to strengthen another.

Same deal applies to Clarke. With him at 5 we have that spot tight, no need to weaken it. Someone will step up and do the job at 4. So long as they're averaging in the 30s they'll be doing a much better job than Clarke did there. If we do have problems up the order and Clarke's making a pile no one (worth listening to) will be making a big deal about him 'hiding' they'll be talking about bring in Warner, or Uzi, or Lynn or some other guy with Shield runs on the board and giving them a shot.

 

[robelinda]

The selectors really shouldn't have dropped Ponting after that 2nd test v WI in 96, after that they tried Langer, Blewett (for one test!), Elliott (dumb to play him at 3), Blewett again, then back to Langer, then finally back to Ponting in 01.

 

[Spark]

With Clarke in this sort of nick, will this be the summer he finally gets the double?

 

[silentstriker]

Don't buy at all that your 'best batsman' should be at #3. Your best batsman should be where he feels the most comfortable. If Clarke likes batting at five, he should keep doing it. Generally if you bat in the top five, or even six, you will still be able to bat for long periods and score the maximum amount of runs. In theory, it makes sense to bat 'where the team needs you', but I think where the team needs its best batsman is where he'll score the most runs, and more often than not (Sehwag-esque exceptions aside), that'll be the position that he's the most comfortable at.

 

[Burgey]

Most? Almost exactly a 3rd.

He had 36 innings at 3
88 innings at 4
70 innings at 5
63 innings at 6

His average at 5&6 was 52, so not massively better than his average at 4 of 50, but still he played 2/3s of his career batting 5&6 and it wasn't like he had guys at 3&4 averaging 50+.

Obviously the better comparison is with Waugh though.

Lolz, when did he play them though? I recall his glory days of the mid-late 80s and thinking he batted 4 then. Certainly early he batted behind the likes of Hughes and Chappell, and in his dotage M Waugh cemented himself at four (at least by the 93 Ashes series).

 

[Furball]

Lolz, when did he play them though? I recall his glory days of the mid-late 80s and thinking he batted 4 then. Certainly early he batted behind the likes of Hughes and Chappell, and in his dotage M Waugh cemented himself at four (at least by the 93 Ashes series).

Looked it up after you correcting me earlier; as captain (and ignoring the handful of innings batting 3 or 7 and below) Border spent half his career at 4 and half at 5 or 6.

edit: granted, some of those innings at 5 could have been when Border was meant to bat 4 but got bumped down by a nightwatchman.

 

[adub]

The selectors really shouldn't have dropped Ponting after that 2nd test v WI in 96, after that they tried Langer, Blewett (for one test!), Elliott (dumb to play him at 3), Blewett again, then back to Langer, then finally back to Ponting in 01.

Maybe, but he was hardly setting the world on fire. If the argument can be made that Clarke should move out of 5 to fill a hole up the order now (or in the future) it could have equally applied to Waugh then, especially considering he'd batted 3 and scored a ton in Sydney on the Windies previous tour.

I remain convinced that leaving Waugh where he had established himself and was thriving was the right decision no matter the rights or wrongs of the choices made to bat at 3 (and lets face it there was plenty of weird stuff going on in that series)

 

[Son Of Coco]

Would Waugh not have had the likes of Taylor, Slater, Boon and his twin brother batting pretty nicely up the order so there was no space for him?

Until Australia sort their **** out at the top of the order, then I think Clarke will unfairly cop a bit of stick if he continues to "hide" at 5 and do well whilst the rest of the lineup is ****.

Think you're going a bit over the top, The rest of the top order isn't terrible, although they're not world-beaters either. If it's based on this innings then I think you'd find most top orders would look pretty ****house batting yesterday. Even mighty Ungland.

 

[Spark]

Yeah let's be fair here - hardly anyone would have survived the kind of bowling Steyn/Philander were delivering straight up. Marsh did bloody well to get to 44.

 

[Top_Cat]

I saw Waugh's ton at 3 (first date with my now wife )

MARRY THAT W---

Oh wait.

Don't buy at all that your 'best batsman' should be at #3. Your best batsman should be where he feels the most comfortable. If Clarke likes batting at five, he should keep doing it. Generally if you bat in the top five, or even six, you will still be able to bat for long periods and score the maximum amount of runs. In theory, it makes sense to bat 'where the team needs you', but I think where the team needs its best batsman is where he'll score the most runs, and more often than not (Sehwag-esque exceptions aside), that'll be the position that he's the most comfortable at.

It surely has no hard-and-fast rules. If you feel most comfortable at 5 but you're exposing some blokes to bowling they're not as good at facing as you are and your team is scoring 100 runs less on average than they would with you at 3, you should at least consider taking one for the team and giving it a crack. A good captain can step in here too. I don't think it's a massive stretch to say that in the without Dravid, Sachin would have seen himself at 3 a bit more often.

3's a tough spot and if were solely up to preferences, no-one in their right mind would actually prefer to come in at 1/****-all with the ball new and the bowlers with their tails up, having the pace of their game dictated by larger factors than how they feel that day or their personal expressiveness as a batting maestro. But, depending on the team, sometimes you have to suck it up, sacrifice a few average points and score some hard runs.

 

[Top_Cat]

I remain convinced that leaving Waugh where he had established himself and was thriving was the right decision no matter the rights or wrongs of the choices made to bat at 3 (and lets face it there was plenty of weird stuff going on in that series)

Agree with that. Chappelli, right before the series, was calling for one of the Waughs to play as an attacking opener. Interesting thought.

 

[Furball]

Think you're going a bit over the top, The rest of the top order isn't terrible, although they're not world-beaters either. If it's based on this innings then I think you'd find most top orders would look pretty ****house batting yesterday. Even mighty Ungland.

Australia's top order has been **** for almost 3 years now, it's not based solely on this innings.

 

[howardj]

Bottom line for mine is that I think it's pretty lame that we have the three most experienced players in the side at four, five and six - considering the general state of our batting over the last two years. I've got no problem with a young punk or an inexperienced punk (like Marsh) at first drop...but not when the team generally and the batting in particular is in a funk. It really is an indictment, considering where our team is at, that Ponting, Clarke or Hussey are not leading from the front at first drop.

 

[Furball]

Bottom line for mine is that I think it's pretty lame that we have the three most experienced players in the side at four, five and six - considering the general state of our batting over the last two years. I've got no problem with a young punk or an inexperienced punk (like Marsh) at first drop...but not when the team generally and the batting in particular is in a funk. It really is an indictment, considering where our team is at, that Ponting, Clarke or Hussey are not leading from the front at first drop.

So much facepalm.

Ponting isn't leading the side from first drop anymore because he's been crap at it in the last 2 years. With Watson pretty severely out of form why the hell would you retain Ponting at number 3 when he's pretty much a walking wicket as well? Ponting at 3, combined with Watson and Hughes not being in good form is asking for trouble, and recent Australian Test history tells you it's pretty ****ing hard to consistently win Test matches when the first 3 wickets fall for next to **** all.

Clarke is at number 5 because that's where he bats best. As he's the captain, you shouldn't be ****ing around with his form by shunting him about the order to satisfy some bat**** crazy notion about "leading from the front" because that's what Ponting did for 7 years. Steve Waugh didn't lead from the front, nor did Allan Border. Clarke bats best at number 5 and has just peeled off his second consecutive Test ton in the position. But no, let's shunt him up the order to number 3 - where he has played a grand total of 1 Test inning - to satisfy your spurious notion of what good leadership supposedly is. The best thing a captain can do is lead by example; Clarke does this at number 5. So he bats 5. When your batting has been as weak as Australia's has in the last couple of years, why in the name of Christ would you move the one person who's actually started to perform well again in a position where he's always performed well?

For Hussey, pretty much see Clarke. In dire form for 2 years at number 4, is moved back down to 5 for the Ashes, starts performing well. Moves down to 6 to accomodate Marsh in Sri Lanka; continues to perform well. The same principle about not ****ing around with components of the batting order doing well that applies to Clarke equally applies to Hussey.

The batting has been weak because Australia for years have carried underperformers. At the moment, Hughes (with the exception of his ton at Colombo), Watson and Ponting aren't performing. When 3 of your top 6 aren't performing, then obviously the batting will look a little bit suspect. The solution is to remove the underperforming players and replace them with better replacements (as Marsh has been so far at number 3), not moving your players to positions in the order they aren't comfortable with under the guise of "experience", which is just ********.

 

[adub]

Lolz, when did he play them though? I recall his glory days of the mid-late 80s and thinking he batted 4 then. Certainly early he batted behind the likes of Hughes and Chappell, and in his dotage M Waugh cemented himself at four (at least by the 93 Ashes series).

Debuted at 6 (2 tests) then 5 (1 test) and then got pushed up to be 3 almost exclusively until the England test in Syd 1980 (12 tests) when he went back to 6 and 5 almost exclusively again (barring a few tests here and there at 4 or 3) until the end of the 84 Windies tour (when he took over from Hughes). Interestingly in Sydney he stayed at 5 and Richie took Hughes' spot at 4. By that time he'd played 66 tests and was averaging 49.3. In the 50 tests he was batting at 5 or 6 in that time he was averaging 58.4.

From the 85 Ashes tour he took Hughes' old spot at 4 and mostly stayed there until the 92 Lankan tour, so you could make a pretty good argument that he 'took one for the team' in that time. Interestingly he did drop back to 5 for the 88/89 Windies tour with Veletta, Wood, Jones and Boon allowed to enjoy the tender mercies of Marshall, Patterson, Ambrose and Walsh in that series, but he then moved back up to 4 for the 89 Ashes (very strange now looking back). Obviously in that time he was the leader of an inexperienced side and did an amazing job for us at 4 averaging 55.8.

From the 92 Lankan tour he was exclusively 5 or 6 but he was in the twilight and only averaged 42 in his last two years.

So yeah the comparison with Clarke is not that strong. Border went to 4 on gaining the Captaincy and remained as effective there as he was at 5/6 previously, he only dropped back down the order at the end. Waugh is definitely the better comparison with Clarke's situation.

 

[Flem274*]

With Clarke in this sort of nick, will this be the summer he finally gets the double?

You're playing us and we're awesome at bowling batsmen into form so...

Don't buy at all that your 'best batsman' should be at #3. Your best batsman should be where he feels the most comfortable. If Clarke likes batting at five, he should keep doing it. Generally if you bat in the top five, or even six, you will still be able to bat for long periods and score the maximum amount of runs. In theory, it makes sense to bat 'where the team needs you', but I think where the team needs its best batsman is where he'll score the most runs, and more often than not (Sehwag-esque exceptions aside), that'll be the position that he's the most comfortable at.

awta

 

[howardj]

So much facepalm.

Ponting isn't leading the side from first drop anymore because he's been crap at it in the last 2 years. With Watson pretty severely out of form why the hell would you retain Ponting at number 3 when he's pretty much a walking wicket as well? Ponting at 3, combined with Watson and Hughes not being in good form is asking for trouble, and recent Australian Test history tells you it's pretty ****ing hard to consistently win Test matches when the first 3 wickets fall for next to **** all.

Clarke is at number 5 because that's where he bats best. As he's the captain, you shouldn't be ****ing around with his form by shunting him about the order to satisfy some bat**** crazy notion about "leading from the front" because that's what Ponting did for 7 years. Steve Waugh didn't lead from the front, nor did Allan Border. Clarke bats best at number 5 and has just peeled off his second consecutive Test ton in the position. But no, let's shunt him up the order to number 3 - where he has played a grand total of 1 Test inning - to satisfy your spurious notion of what good leadership supposedly is. The best thing a captain can do is lead by example; Clarke does this at number 5. So he bats 5. When your batting has been as weak as Australia's has in the last couple of years, why in the name of Christ would you move the one person who's actually started to perform well again in a position where he's always performed well?

For Hussey, pretty much see Clarke. In dire form for 2 years at number 4, is moved back down to 5 for the Ashes, starts performing well. Moves down to 6 to accomodate Marsh in Sri Lanka; continues to perform well. The same principle about not ****ing around with components of the batting order doing well that applies to Clarke equally applies to Hussey.

The batting has been weak because Australia for years have carried underperformers. At the moment, Hughes (with the exception of his ton at Colombo), Watson and Ponting aren't performing. When 3 of your top 6 aren't performing, then obviously the batting will look a little bit suspect. The solution is to remove the underperforming players and replace them with better replacements (as Marsh has been so far at number 3), not moving your players to positions in the order they aren't comfortable with under the guise of "experience", which is just ********.

It's not just under the guise of experience, you knob.

They're amongst the best three players in the side, and should be setting the tone for the innings rather than trying to rescue it.

I really find you a bitter bloke, always sniping away at other peoples' ideas, ready to pounce, with very little productive or original to say.

 

[Spark]

No need to get so aggressive folks.

 

[Spikey]

well ponting isn't in the best 3 players in the side anymore, and we've more than proven that hussey and clarke at 4 is a sure fire way to remove them from the best 3 players in the side.

 

[Prince EWS]

So much facepalm.

Ponting isn't leading the side from first drop anymore because he's been crap at it in the last 2 years. With Watson pretty severely out of form why the hell would you retain Ponting at number 3 when he's pretty much a walking wicket as well? Ponting at 3, combined with Watson and Hughes not being in good form is asking for trouble, and recent Australian Test history tells you it's pretty ****ing hard to consistently win Test matches when the first 3 wickets fall for next to **** all.

Clarke is at number 5 because that's where he bats best. As he's the captain, you shouldn't be ****ing around with his form by shunting him about the order to satisfy some bat**** crazy notion about "leading from the front" because that's what Ponting did for 7 years. Steve Waugh didn't lead from the front, nor did Allan Border. Clarke bats best at number 5 and has just peeled off his second consecutive Test ton in the position. But no, let's shunt him up the order to number 3 - where he has played a grand total of 1 Test inning - to satisfy your spurious notion of what good leadership supposedly is. The best thing a captain can do is lead by example; Clarke does this at number 5. So he bats 5. When your batting has been as weak as Australia's has in the last couple of years, why in the name of Christ would you move the one person who's actually started to perform well again in a position where he's always performed well?

For Hussey, pretty much see Clarke. In dire form for 2 years at number 4, is moved back down to 5 for the Ashes, starts performing well. Moves down to 6 to accomodate Marsh in Sri Lanka; continues to perform well. The same principle about not ****ing around with components of the batting order doing well that applies to Clarke equally applies to Hussey.

The batting has been weak because Australia for years have carried underperformers. At the moment, Hughes (with the exception of his ton at Colombo), Watson and Ponting aren't performing. When 3 of your top 6 aren't performing, then obviously the batting will look a little bit suspect. The solution is to remove the underperforming players and replace them with better replacements (as Marsh has been so far at number 3), not moving your players to positions in the order they aren't comfortable with under the guise of "experience", which is just ********.