*Official* Road to 2013 Ashes

[Spikey]

Ah yes Matty Hayden the famed English performer

 

[adub]

Can"t believe most people on here are convince Co wan/ Warner (average of less than40) are unmoveable.Acase can be made for Warner seeing he usually goes on with his stats but if Cowan is the answer at the top we"re in serious trouble.Hayden and LAnger must be laughing themselves off.Rogers is a gun and his an opener.If they"re picking him and no one will select a 35 Year old to warm the benches. ,then he has to open.

I don't think Cowan is unmoveable, just that the selectors like him and will give him more chances. They've invested heavily in Cowan/Warner opening and despite Cowan's individual numbers being pretty rubbish they still see enough in the combination to want to persist with it.

I agree Rogers will play (like you say they don't select a 35y/o to warm the bench), but he'll be three or maybe 4 if they see Hughes as the long term answer at 3. I reckon Watson is looking down the barrel of bowling and batting 6 or not bowling and finding Khawaja or Wade taking his spot. Clarke at 5 looks like a lock to me (India was a special case and the move to change up the order didn't work anyway).

If after two tests the rest of the top order are making some runs and Cowan has had 4 failures he could then be in trouble, but he seems too popular amongst those that make the decisions for it to happen before that imho. Even if that does happen but we win both games they'll invoke the 'don't change a winning combination' clause on him (but not on any quicks with a niggle) and even a single half century in those games will save him, so I think he's going to be a fixture for a while yet. Just going to cross my fingers he starts to deliver more regularly.

 

[Maximas]

going by the squad, we have only seven batsmen, so either Rogers or Khawaja will play at any given time. I expect both will bat at six if Watson doesn't, and that is fine, if Rogers really is such a good player he will do fine at 6.

 

[honestbharani]

Now that Ponting/Tendulkar opening combo has been named Pondulkar, shouldn't Cowan/Warner be called Corner ?

 

[Prince EWS]

Wowan IMO.

 

[uvelocity]

nah warcow

 

[NUFAN]

Cowwar.

 

[uvelocity]

that cows a tranny

 

[Daemon]

Now that Ponting/Tendulkar opening combo has been named Pondulkar, shouldn't Cowan/Warner be called Corner ?

Only if you want it to end up with the same fate..

 

[NUFAN]

Good to see that Rogers has started his county stint strongly.

Maximas, I definitely would not play Rogers at 6 - he must bat in the top 4.

 

[Maximas]

Good to see that Rogers has started his county stint strongly.

Maximas, I definitely would not play Rogers at 6 - he must bat in the top 4.

Is that because you think his game doesn't suit number 6 or because he is needed more in the top 4? I just think that with the batsmen we have picked, if he doesn't find a place in the top 4 then he is still better than the other candidates for the number 6 spot. I would still prefer to have him in the top 4 though.

 

[social]

Pretty sure that I read somewhere that Rogers hadn't batted anywhere other than opener (might have been other than top 3) since 2004

Big ask to bat him at 6 and not particularly fair when he is clearly better than Cowan and in better form at this stage

 

[AlanJLegend]

Pretty sure that I read somewhere that Rogers hadn't batted anywhere other than opener (might have been other than top 3) since 2004

Big ask to bat him at 6 and not particularly fair when he is clearly better than Cowan and in better form at this stage

If you're not good enough to bat anywhere in the top 6 then you're not a test-quality batsman.

Simple as that.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

No. Great batsmen have the ability to bat anywhere in the top six. For most mere mortals it's only possible to master one or two positions to a world class standard. You're seriously underestimating the different requirements.

 

[NUFAN]

Is that because you think his game doesn't suit number 6 or because he is needed more in the top 4? I just think that with the batsmen we have picked, if he doesn't find a place in the top 4 then he is still better than the other candidates for the number 6 spot. I would still prefer to have him in the top 4 though.

Firstly, I would say that since we've selected an experienced top order batsman used to English conditions we might as well play him in the top order to utilize him in a way that he is most familiar with.

Something needs to change. M Clarke come out to bat at 3/50 or 2/40 all the time.

Its a bit of a rubbish situation at the moment though as I don't think anyone could be reasonably confident anyone bar Clarke is likely to make runs. Surely someone will surprise (hopefully more than one) but I just think we have to give our great white bispectacled hope a chance and even though Huss made a fine number 6, I don't think our most experienced batsman (in age and first class experience) should bat at 5,6,7 in Clarke, Rogers and Haddin.

 

[uvelocity]

No. Great batsmen have the ability to bat anywhere in the top six. For most mere mortals it's only possible to master one or two positions to a world class standard. You're seriously underestimating the different requirements.

nah look there's a few things there (pissed or not) i disagree with

it would be unreasonable to ask a free flowing shotmaker of a middle order batsman (m.waugh, d.martyn, abcdev, pietersen etc) to open. it would be no problem, in fact a benefit especially taking into account that there is no pressure for them to get a move on nowadays for an opener to come in down the order and play circumspect against an older ball, or play an openers role against a new ball, second time around for the bowlers. on a turner, it's only a few overs different to opening anyway and it doesnt really count as turners aint cricket innit

 

[Prince EWS]

If you're not good enough to bat anywhere in the top 6 then you're not a test-quality batsman.

Simple as that.

And what do you do when you discover you only have one Test quality batsman?

Australia's batting is ****.

****. Absolutely ****.

People need to face up to this fact. It means the selectors can't just pick the batsmen in any order they feel like and declare players proven failures willy nilly when they don't perform immediately. Clarke aside, these blokes aren't true Test quality batsmen so the management needs to find them niche roles and hope it all gels together as a unit. The batting order becomes important in this situation.

 

[uvelocity]

nahar warner is learning his **** on the big stage, but he counts as test quality. hughes has been dicked around, and having a wierdo technique doesnt exclude someone from being test quality. very confident he will show it. we will have almost as many test quality batsmen as the pomgolians

 

[Prince EWS]

nahar warner is learning his **** on the big stage, but he counts as test quality. hughes has been dicked around, and having a wierdo technique doesnt exclude someone from being test quality. very confident he will show it.

I agree but the bloke I was replying to was clearly holding the term to a much higher standard judging by what he said.

 

[uvelocity]

fair enough. he likes tassie though, so he's in a conundrum caught between all tassies bat like punt so pick em all, or punt is one in a million give up cricket we've seen the best stop watching

nice fella all the same