*Official* Third Test at Old Trafford

[Howe_zat]

I really don't see how you can justify Warner coming in for anyone other than one of the openers.

You including Hughes in that?

 

[Tangles]

Just read Conns article on Hughes form and the bit about Hughes replacing Warner for the 1st test surely means he will get punted for Warner. Apparently Smith was in the first 11 picked before the punching. I hope they don't go with Agar and Starc. Give the kid a rest and get the Bird in.

 

[Howe_zat]

So tell me more about Jackson Bird. RFM swing bowler yeah?

 

[Top_Cat]

More of a seamer. McGrath-lite.

 

[Howe_zat]

ah, the new new new new new new new new McGrath

 

[the big bambino]

ah, the new new new new new new new new McGrath

I'd wait and see. Of course he shouldn't be compared to McGrath but he does go well. For all the hype around Pattinson, Cummins and some others Jackson Bird is the bloke that I like and would punt on him over the others.

 

[Top_Cat]

But yeah, either way, Jack was right in that he doesn't seem to get many backers but just keeps taking wickets. He's had some very friendly home conditions to do it in but still.

 

[Furball]

You including Hughes in that?

No. Openers = Watson and Rogers.

Watson is useless and Murphy was right about Rogers, he's not good enough and is only a short term fix/panic selection anyway.

Australia have two talented young openers that the selectors seem determined to muck about by dropping them, recalling them and shunting them around the order willy nilly while the opening slots are taken up by a pair of dunces.

 

[the big bambino]

Warner should take Hughes' position. Since his first Test 81 his inadequacy against spin-bowling has been found out yet again. At this stage of the tour Hughes is little more than cannon fodder for Swann and should go.

You've convinced me. Personally I don't want to see Hughes and Smith in the team. I keep hearing that OT turns and that should mean the better player of spin gets the spot. Smith in Hughes out.

 

[Ruckus]

Think having Hughes and Warner opening in a team like this is a bad idea at this stage. They both are all-or-nothing players, so there's a high chance we could be 1 or 2 down for nothing, with 3 and 4 still having to negotiate the new ball. And given our already poor tendency to collapse, I don't have much faith in that improving the situation.

 

[Maximas]

No. Openers = Watson and Rogers.

Watson is useless and Murphy was right about Rogers, he's not good enough and is only a short term fix/panic selection anyway.

Australia have two talented young openers that the selectors seem determined to muck about by dropping them, recalling them and shunting them around the order willy nilly while the opening slots are taken up by a pair of dunces.

IMO he is the best player of the moving ball in the side, has handled Anderson really well I thought, the middle order is where the problem lies for me, three times the openers have set a decent platform, and three times it has been wasted.

 

[MW1304]

He's got out to Jimmy twice in four innings. The other two times he's got out to Swann without facing many balls, not sure he's handled him particularly well tbh.

 

[Maximas]

He's got out to Jimmy twice in four innings. The other two times he's got out to Swann without facing many balls, not sure he's handled him particularly well tbh.

One was a cutter from Jimmy, another could have gone either way with the umpiring, the Swann full toss was bull**** and the leave was his inexperience in facing an offie with proper variation, I agree he hasn't handled Swann all that well, but I wouldn't rely on anyone else to get through Jimmy and the other pacers like he does.

 

[Philhughesisbes]

I think events in the last few months have really made people forget how successful Warner's first 14 months in test cricket were. He's probably Australia's second best batsman. Decent technique, and unlike some of his counterparts has the obvious ability to go on and play match winning innings. Also a bit rough to call the SA A attack, which features two players with 7 wicket hauls in tests, "some ****-weak attack".

I mean, he didn't not feature in the first two tests because he had been failing for a prolonged period. He missed the games because he'd had little to no match practice in the lead up and was in horrendous short term form. That's obviously been pretty much eradicated now, so there really is no reason why he shouldn't come back in.

Who for? I'm not so sure.

Top post.What position was Warner batting when he was so successful?Well then he should come straight back in there.Its not like the batsmen filling Warner"s position is setting the world on fire.Warner is capable(maybe the only one apart from Clarke) with the tendancy to go on and score big.I"d sstick wwith Rogers on the basis he has looked very comfortable at the crease and I believe a big one is nigh.Watson should be battling with Smith for the number 6 position.Watson is not an opener,should never bat there fore Australia.

 

[MW1304]

The Swann point was that he'd hardly faced any of Anderson anyway. He did okay in the second innings of the first Test, and I agree that there probably aren't many better to deal with him (which isn't saying much), but the concerning thing is that he's been gotten out in a variety of ways, and he's given his wicket away in equal measure. I'm just not sure he's up to it.

 

[Ruckus]

While Warner should def be in the side, I don't think we should be expecting he is gonna be any kind of savior, nor necessarily even provide much stability to the batting order. I still reckon he probably has at least 20 or so games before he'll start really settling into test cricket. The good thing about him though is that he has shown he can make big scores, and he can be a match winner. And we need as many of those kind of players in the side as possible atm.

 

[Howe_zat]

I"d stick with Rogers on the basis he has looked very comfortable at the crease and I believe a big one is nigh.

Without going that far I'm more or less in agreement. His fifty at TB was probably the most composed innings Aus have managed so far from their top order and after that Test several writers were talking him up. He's also the only player they have left from the previous generation and regularly piles on the runs in domestic cricket, especially in England. He was a good selection and deserves at least most of the series. I'm certainly more willing to back him than Hughes right now, whose technique appears completely shot against seam and swing all year and whose sub-10 scores are almost always there amongst a collapse. I've mentioned in the Watson thread how I'd move him down the order so I'd go this way

Warner
Rogers
Khawaja
Clarke
Smith
Watson
Haddin
Bowlers

 

[Ruckus]

The Swann point was that he'd hardly faced any of Anderson anyway. He did okay in the second innings of the first Test, and I agree that there probably aren't many better to deal with him (which isn't saying much), but the concerning thing is that he's been gotten out in a variety of ways, and he's given his wicket away in equal measure. I'm just not sure he's up to it.

It's just too early to tell. You can't judge a batsmen properly after 3 games.

 

[MW1304]

It's just too early to tell. You can't judge a batsmen properly after 3 games.

Nah of course, but that last sentence is my first impression.

 

[Maximas]

Top post.What position was Warner batting when he was so successful?Well then he should come straight back in there.Its not like the batsmen filling Warner"s position is setting the world on fire.Warner is capable(maybe the only one apart from Clarke) with the tendancy to go on and score big.I"d sstick wwith Rogers on the basis he has looked very comfortable at the crease and I believe a big one is nigh.Watson should be battling with Smith for the number 6 position.Watson is not an opener,should never bat there fore Australia.

Watson was opening when he was most successful, and he was one of our top players at that point, why can't Warner bat 3?