*Official* Fifth Test at The Oval

[Prince EWS]

It's pretty damming on Hughes that, despite batting being Australia's weak point, they chose to bring an all-rounder in to replace a batsman, instead of bringing in a different batsman.

I've said it a few times now, but I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with the fact that Watson's bowling fitness is up in the air at the moment. If he was fully fit to bowl then I don't think Faulkner would be playing, so it's not as simple as "replacing a batsman with an allrounder." Sure that's what's happened but I think an allrounder is being replaced with a batsman as well - Watson replacing Watson.

If Watson bowls a stack of overs come the Test anyway you will see me really let rip with a rant though. I'm already pretty angry because I just don't rate Faulkner but if Watson can bowl then I'll join the chorus of CW members angry about the team balance thing as well.

 

[91Jmay]

Thing is though, surely Watson's overs can be spread around the seamers/Lyon without much of an impact? He has bowled well so far in this series, no doubt but there is no reason why the Aussies 4 man attack can't handle 90 overs in a day.

 

[Prince EWS]

Thing is though, surely Watson's overs can be spread around the seamers/Lyon without much of an impact? He has bowled well so far in this series, no doubt but there is no reason why the Aussies 4 man attack can't handle 90 overs in a day.

Oh yeah I agree, especially since it looks like a dry surface so more overs from Lyon and maybe some from Smith seems like a better option than four seamers anyway. It's a really crap selection no matter which way you look at it.

I just think people are making a bit of a straw man with their arguments though. Australia haven't done this to strengthen the bowling at the expense of the batting IMO; they've done it to maintain the same team balance they've had all series in light of Watson's groin tweak. We should probably look at it more as Faulkner replacing Watson's role and then Watson replacing Khawaja than just straight up Faulkner in for Khawaja. It's the wrong call on team balance (I'd be wanting six specialist bats even if Watson was completely injured) and it's the wrong call on quality (Faulkner is dire) but the way people are summing up the situation is annoying me slightly.

 

[Cabinet96]

I've said it a few times now, but I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with the fact that Watson's bowling fitness is up in the air at the moment. If he was fully fit to bowl then I don't think Faulkner would be playing, so it's not as simple as "replacing a batsman with an allrounder." Sure that's what's happened but I think an allrounder is being replaced with a batsman as well - Watson replacing Watson.

If Watson bowls a stack of overs come the Test anyway you will see me really let rip with a rant though. I'm already pretty angry because I just don't rate Faulkner but if Watson can bowl then I'll join the chorus of CW members angry about the team balance thing as well.

I realise, but I still think four bowlers are better than five and two, technically, all-rounders in the top 6. I know Watson might not bowl, but his batting returns are still one of an all-rounder (I fail to believe his place would never be in question if he couldn't bowl, considering his batting returns these last few years). The fourth seamer is especially unnecessary on a ground like the Oval, which will likely be a lot more profitable to the spinners than the seamers, particularly later on in the game, so any Watson overs can be made up by a higher workload for Lyon.

It's pretty weird for me given when I got into cricket it was Australia who went for the simple four bowlers and a strong and long batting line up, whereas England looked for the fifth bowler and often left their batting resources weak as a result. What's weird is that in both instances the weaker batting line up used five bowlers, which leads me to think half the reason the all-rounders are used is because the selectors think they won't do that much worse than a specialist batsman anyway, which is why I made my point about it being damming on Hughes.

Edit: Made the post before seeing your last one FTR.

 

[GIMH]

He's a bowling all rounder though so it's not the same team balance. Ultimately I think you're being too pedantic about it Cribbage.

 

[Howe_zat]

I've said it a few times now, but I'm pretty sure this has a lot to do with the fact that Watson's bowling fitness is up in the air at the moment. If he was fully fit to bowl then I don't think Faulkner would be playing, so it's not as simple as "replacing a batsman with an allrounder." Sure that's what's happened but I think an allrounder is being replaced with a batsman as well - Watson replacing Watson.

If Watson bowls a stack of overs come the Test anyway you will see me really let rip with a rant though. I'm already pretty angry because I just don't rate Faulkner but if Watson can bowl then I'll join the chorus of CW members angry about the team balance thing as well.

Watson's bowling has been keeping him in the team, though, hasn't it? If he wasn't fit to bowl why not just replace him with Faulkner?

I have a pretty hard time believing he's much better a bat than Khawaja, especially if he's not fit.

 

[Prince EWS]

He's a bowling all rounder though so it's not the same team balance. Ultimately I think you're being too pedantic about it Cribbage.

Yeah but I'm confident the selection has been made because of Watson's injury. I don't think the selectors sat around until one of them said "You know what? I think we really need to bring in another bowling option at the expense of the batting for the next Test" and then went with it. And that's what the way some people's post are suggesting happened.

I hate the selection, for many reasons. Some of those reasons absolutely are team balance. But you can't really just make a direct comparison between Khawaja and Faulkner when analysing that balance because the balance of the rest of the side has changed too. Doesn't mean it's the right call, in fact I think it's a terrible call, but "bowling allrounder in for a batsman" just really over-simplifies what has happened IMO.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have a pretty hard time believing he's much better a bat than Khawaja

Well I don't, and I don't think the selectors do either.

I really don't think he'll bowl much if at all in this match because of his injury, and much to Furball's dismay I think he's in as a specialist bat now. We'll see though, I guess.

 

[Howe_zat]

On second thoughts if you're just of the mindset Khawaja has to go then I could get on board with that. Is Watson also better than Wade, Hughes or any other batting option right now - and I stress - while he's not fit?

 

[Prince EWS]

On second thoughts if you're just of the mindset Khawaja has to go then I could get on board with that. Is Watson also better than Wade, Hughes or any other batting option right now - and I stress - while he's not fit?

Better than Wade yes, could go either way on Hughes. But I think he's basically been selected as such now anyway, whether he is or not.

There hasn't been an announcement on Watson's bowling but it's been reported since he tweaked that groin that his bowling was a 50/50 proposition for this game. Faulkner's selection absolutely suggests, IMO, that Watson isn't fit to bowl just yet but has been selected as a batsman anyway.

I think it's stupid insisting on five bowlers all the time, especially when the bowling is so much better than the batting, when the pitch is dry and when the only fit allrounder option in the squad is Faulkner, but I'm pretty sure that's why he's in the side. It's not really a change a policy at all; we just didn't quite notice what the policy was before because Watson was ensuring it didn't end up as silly as this before.

 

[Prince EWS]

Actually, I retract everything I said.

"Shane will be able to bowl," Clarke said. "Shane will certainly play that allrounder role once again.

So yeah, Australia have gone into The Oval with five seamers (and Nathan Lyon). So not only is the selection terrible but it now officially makes no sense whatsoever. They straight up have brought in an allrounder for a batsman in a team performing with the ball and misfiring with the bat that already had a genuine batting allrounder in the top order, in order to have five seamers on a dry wicket.

I'm out.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Find it quite funny that with Lolstralia's revolving door selections that the big C is still in the lineup.

 

[BeeGee]

EDIT: I've just seen that PEWS has recanted his Catholicism, so no need to continue the debate.

 

[Howe_zat]

Tasting-raging combo for Cribb. Ouch.

 

[Cabinet96]

So they genuinely just decided that bringing in a guy who's never made a FC 100 into the top 7, as a sixth bowling option, would reduce their problems? Boof out!

 

[Furball]

Well I don't, and I don't think the selectors do either.

I really don't think he'll bowl much if at all in this match because of his injury, and much to Furball's dismay I think he's in as a specialist bat now. We'll see though, I guess.

I'm delighted that Watson continues to be selected.

 

[Furball]

but "bowling allrounder in for a batsman" just really over-simplifies what has happened IMO.

I'm not sure if you're referring to Faulkner being selected or Watson being moved to 3 with this comment btw.

 

[Burgey]

Andrew Wu ‏@wutube 13m

James Faulkner to make Test debut at Oval. My spies tell me selectors love his competitive spirit and aggression #ashes

xrfxjfxu7o5e7it 57 dc56d4r6ixsr

HJ's true identity revealed!

 

[Jarquis]

Andrew Wu ‏@wutube 13m

James Faulkner to make Test debut at Oval. My spies tell me selectors love his competitive spirit and aggression #ashes

xrfxjfxu7o5e7it 57 dc56d4r6ixsr

intent

 

[Jarquis]

Actually, I retract everything I said.



So yeah, Australia have gone into The Oval with five seamers (and Nathan Lyon). So not only is the selection terrible but it now officially makes no sense whatsoever. They straight up have brought in an allrounder for a batsman in a team performing with the ball and misfiring with the bat that already had a genuine batting allrounder in the top order, in order to have five seamers on a dry wicket.

I'm out.

Worst 'letting rip with a rant' ever?