Predict Australia's 17 man squad for the first test in Australia

[Tangles]

Agreed but recent history shows the selectors want an all rounder in the team. When Watson isn't fit or they don't want to risk him is when we see Faulkner/Henriques/Maxwell etc.

Faulkner playing at the Gabba probably is down to how Watson feels rather than Faulkner being a better option than a specialist batter.

 

[Hooksey]

Agreed but recent history shows the selectors want an all rounder in the team. When Watson isn't fit or they don't want to risk him is when we see Faulkner/Henriques/Maxwell etc.

Faulkner playing at the Gabba probably is down to how Watson feels rather than Faulkner being a better option than a specialist batter.

Australia have preferred to have a batting/bowling allrounder in the team for decades, but very rarely had anyone that truly warranted the position. Unfortunately that didn't stop the selectors choosing them

I'd be extremely surprised if they only play 5 batsmen again at the Gabba.

 

[Riggins]

A return to 6-4-1 would be a start but I won't hold my breath. If fit Watson can bowl so number 6 should be a batsman.

I know they've bowled Wade in the past but 4 keepers seems like overkill.

 

[chris.hinton]

The Aussie team for the first test (In my opinion) should be as follows :-

Rogers
Hughes
Watson
Clarke
Smith
Haddin
Faulkner
Siddle
Pattinson
Harris
Lyon

 

[Tangles]

Faulkner isn't test material. Haddin at 6 isn't smart. Gilly didn't bat that high yet with a weaker batting lineup you want the keeper at 6?

 

[chris.hinton]

Whats wrong with him at 6, you not exactly get wall to wall talent of batsman its not like it was 10-15 years ago

 

[Viscount Tom]

Also Patto's not going to e fit for the Gabba.

 

[Furball]

A return to 6-4-1 would be a start but I won't hold my breath. If fit Watson can bowl so number 6 should be a batsman.

It was 6-4-1 for the entire tour bar the final Test.

 

[Furball]

I would put Hughes at 3 and Watson at 6 ftr.

I still think Watson's a **** ****, but I can see how he's useful in terms of team balance.

 

[Hooksey]

I would put Hughes at 3 and Watson at 6 ftr.

I still think Watson's a **** ****, but I can see how he's useful in terms of team balance.

The previous 52 innings by Australian number 3 batsmen, prior to Watson's big 100 in the final test, had produced something like 8 x 50s and 1 x 100.

You don't wait that long for a solution and then go changing things again.

 

[Adders]

The previous 52 innings by Australian number 3 batsmen, prior to Watson's big 100 in the final test, had produced something like 8 x 50s and 1 x 100.

You don't wait that long for a solution and then go changing things again.

Solution?? surely 1 good knock from Twatto in the troubled No3 spot does not = problems solved??

 

[Tangles]

It was 6-4-1 for the entire tour bar the final Test.

Watson played and bowled so he's an all rounder. That's how the selectors treat him until he can't bowl.

 

[Hooksey]

Solution?? surely 1 good knock from Twatto in the troubled No3 spot does not = problems solved??

Closest we've had to a solution at #3 for 52 test innings, and the reason Watson is a monty to bat at 3 at the Gabba.

 

[morgieb]

Solution?? surely 1 good knock from Twatto in the troubled No3 spot does not = problems solved??

He deserves the chance to prove that wrong though. I can't remember the last time someone scored a ton from #3.

If he flounders then whatever, but we shouldn't be messing around with our batting lineup for now.

 

[Dan]

Closest we've had to a solution at #3 for 52 test innings, and the reason Watson is a monty to bat at 3 at the Gabba.

The same Shane Watson who averaged 20-odd in his previous run at number 3 up until that point?

I agree with playing Watson at 3, FTR, but not for the same reasons. Clarke's a middle order bat, Smith's a middle order bat, if we pick a new batsman you shouldn't debut him at 3. We've basically got the bowling all-rounder batting at 3 to protect the middle order.

 

[Adders]

Look I don't disagree that he shouldn't bat 3 at the Gabba, all I was saying it's a bit early to be calling this a "solution"........when he's averaging +40 in the position over a period of time then you can say he's nailed down the spot. To me he is still only a couple of low scores away from "where they **** do we play him now" all over again.

It will be interesting to see if the Oval does end up being a turning point in Watsons career, will he repay the faith in the selectors and finally do some justice to the obvious talent that he has. I reckon he owes everyone at least 3 years of solid performances and (just my opinion) I don't think he's got it in him.............time will tell.

 

[Maximas]

This order seems pretty good, while it's silly to say we're set, you wouldn't change the order now from 1-5

 

[Hooksey]

Look I don't disagree that he shouldn't bat 3 at the Gabba, all I was saying it's a bit early to be calling this a "solution"..

You "don't disagree that he shouldn't bat 3 at the Gabba"??

I take it that means you think he should bat at 3 at the Gabba?

The thread is titled : "Predict Australia's 17 man squad for the first test in Australia," and Watson is the solution at #3 for the 1st test. After that, like most others, his position will be reassessed.

 

[Dan]

Hooksey, I think you've completely missed the point of what Adders is saying there. He performed at The Oval at 3, so he should retain that spot. But one big innings does not a 'solution' make. Shaun Marsh made that ton on debut in Sri Lanka, and he most definitely was not a solution.

 

[Maximas]

well, that depends on what sort of solution we're talking about, Watson is a short term solution, so we won't go into the first test thinking "who the **** will bat 3?", but as most people are saying, we will have to wait and see if he is a long term solution.