***Official*** South Africa in Australia 2012

[Burgey]

Can't blame the bloke. Had his lunch stolen.

 

[JBMAC]

Australia's Squad
David Warner, Ed Cowan, Shane Watson (vc), Rob Quiney, Ricky Ponting, Michael Clarke (c), Michael Hussey, Matthew Wade, Peter Siddle, James Pattinson, Ben Hilfenhaus, Mitchell Starc, Nathan Lyon

 

[vic_orthdox]

Blewwwwwwy.

 

[Spikey]

the 90's really were the golden age

 

[Spark]

Watson's preferred place in the team remains as an allrounder. Inverarity explained that if Watson was not fit to bowl, he would more than likely also not be fit to run swiftly between the wickets or show the required level of agility in the field. This, as much as the team's desire to have him bowling, will influence the selectors in their deliberations, which will likely reach a decision by Wednesday.

"Yes he could [play as a batsman]," Inverarity said. "He'll have to be fit to perform regarding running between the wickets, chasing in the field, diving. It's unlikely - I'm not saying it's not possible - but it's unlikely that he'll be able to build his workloads so that he'll be able to bowl in the Test.

"If you've got the continuum there, there's only a small margin in which he's fit to perform as a batsman but not able to bowl. We're hoping he'll be beyond that, he'll be able to bowl. But he may not be able to. And if he's not able to, there's a fair chance he won't be able to be fit to perform in terms of running between the wickets, chasing in the field, diving in the field. We'll just wait and see."

howardj to comment.

 

[Spikey]

I don't think whether Watson has a bad calf or not has much impact on his level of agility in the field tbf #can'tbendover

 

[Ruckus]

It's probably just media wish-wash, but geez that is dire if they are thinking of dropping Warner if Watson comes in, and pairing Quiney with Cowan. Warner is in pretty bat form, but he is still a proven performer and game changer when he gets it right. I'm sure SA would love to see him on the bench.

 

[Spark]

Proven performer is a massive stretch.

 

[Justo]

You obviously didn't watch Quiney's 9. A real quality innings that.

But seriously stupid if they are considering it. Specially when you consider that Warner's 180 was at the WACA.

 

[Spikey]

Quiney made only nine in his one innings in Brisbane, but impressed the selectors with his gully fielding, part-time medium pace and an unruffled, mature demeanour that fitted neatly into the Australian dressing room.

i guess i just don't see much of a difference between warner and quiney

 

[benchmark00]

Inexperienced top 3, indeed. we'll be 3-20, then 4/550.

#punter&clarkemagic

This was kinda close.

 

[Ruckus]

Proven performer is a massive stretch.

Proven performer when he gets it right. By that I mean when his form hasn't looked so edgy, like it has in recent times. Usually for a inexperienced player, you could argue that that should be dropped and brought back when they are performing, but Warner's a bit of a weird one, at this stage in his career at least, in that he can go from looking dynamite in one innings to outright flimsy in the next. He might have some technical issues, but I reckon with Warner his main problem is just one of inexperience - he comes off (from some of the stuff I've read about him) as really just not knowing how exactly to approach his game, and how to stay focused. Think with him, unless his confidence really starts to wane over a longer period of time, the best remedy will just be playing more tests. Given what he has shown in the two 100's he made so far in his short career, I'd be very surprised if Warner doesn't average over 40 in the long term. And a little disappointed frankly if he doesn't manage to average a good deal higher than that.

 

[Prince EWS]

Who isn't a proven performer when they get it right?

 

[Spark]

This was kinda close.

Not a bad effort after some of the predictions last summer.

 

[Ruckus]

Who isn't a proven performer when they get it right?

It's not the point I was trying to make. I already explained it above, but I think at this early stage it's hard to predict with a player like Warner whether or not his next innings will be a potential match winner or another failure (as opposed to someone like Hughes, where consistent failure was easier to foresee). And given the massive boost it gives to the team when he does fire, I think it would be very foolish to replace him with someone completely inexperienced and unproven like Quiney.

 

[uvelocity]

seem to remember the selectors admitting that warner would be hit and miss, but worth it when he comes off

made from glass shane wont play yet, not far enough along the continuum

 

[Spark]

Meh, same as any other player. Don't make runs, **** off to Shield, score some, come back a better player. It's the way it goes for most any aspiring Aus Test batsmen.

 

[Ruckus]

So you think Warner should go back to the shield?

 

[Spark]

Nah, I just don't think he should get special treatment just because he has a high strike rate. He hasn't proved any more about his short/medium-term value in Tests than, say, Hughes had in 2009 or Clarke had in 2005. Long term, sure, he might be gun, but that doesn't mean we can't drop him if he needs dropping.

He's a young, up-and-coming batsman who's shown promise but is still a bit inconsistent, that's all, and it's hardly rare.

 

[Spark]

Anyway, predictions for next week? Draw the favourite for mine, our middle order absolutely loves Adelaide and I don't see why the Saffer middle order shouldn't be the same. Then again, if a team is going to inexplicably collapse for absolutely no reason at all, it's one of these two...