***Official*** Australia in South Africa 2013/14

[benchmark00]

So maybe a guy bagging a pair on a flat wicket is an indication that he's not up to much as a test batsman. If the rest of your team struggle to bat on such a batting-friendly surface then you'll never get to #1 anyway.

So what about a guy who makes a wonderful hundred against the world's best seam attack on a green wicket on day one after being sent in?

The batting line up will learn how to grind up big scores on flat wickets and play attritional cricket. That's a lot harder than scoring a match setting up hundred on fap worthy bowling conditions.

 

[benchmark00]

Because that's the point everybody's been making - the key trait to making runs while opening the batting under pressure against South Africa is bowling 5-7 overs of medium pace per day. Completely irrelevant to the argument.

Rogers isn't perfect, but he's averaged 40 opening the batting since his recall - something nobody has done in partnership with Warner for a long time now. He's got maybe 18 months left in him, so he's not causing long-term problems by any stretch, and it allows guys like Jordan Silk and Joe Burns to spend some time making Shield runs at the top of the order before they undoubtedly get selected ahead of Hughes.

He's not a long-term solution; nobody is claiming him as being one.

Wow, you have missed the point by a crazy margin.

The point I was making, which god knows how you've missed, is that Watson shouldn't be judged on his runs alone, he should be judged what he brings to the team.

 

[Dan]

If Chris Rogers scores a ton on a flat flat wicket and the rest of Australia fail, Australia will lose.

If someone makes a hundred on a good bowling wicket, chances are Australia wins.

It's about understanding the game of cricket.

So Rogers is culpable for everyone else failing, and because the game wasn't a win his runs count for nothing? Surely an unnamed middle order batsman making a pair on the same "flat flat wicket" contributes more to the Australian loss than Rogers making a century.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yeah no need for anything re: Harris.

He did look a bit laboured in the PE test, but there really wasn't anything at all for the seam bowlers for the most part. Has the best part of a week to rest up now so he should roll on.

tbh, he looked laboured for years at Adelaide too. As much as he's a gun when there's any bounce or movement, on truly flat decks he doesn't have a lot more than line to fall back on. Never been a big mover of the ball.

 

[benchmark00]

So Rogers is culpable for everyone else failing, and because the game wasn't a win his runs count for nothing? Surely an unnamed middle order batsman making a pair on the same "flat flat wicket" contributes more to the Australian loss than Rogers making a century.

Man, this is just a lack of understanding of what wins (and loses) games of cricket.

Scoring a hundred on a flat deck does not win you games of cricket. Bowling well on a flat deck does.

Bowling well on a green juciy wicket does not win you test matches. Batting well on a green juicy wicket does.

Sometimes they over lap, but as a general rule that's what applies.

 

[Flem274*]

Eds never mentioned Marsh so I don't know why you're trying to pin suggestions to drop Marsh on him and Watson being the worlds best 5th bowler doesn't mean he's a test openers arsehole, let alone better than Rogers at the job, which your post about setting games up when the heat is on appears to imply, unless of course you shifted the goal posts of the argument to setting games up with the ball without bothering to tell anyone.

 

[benchmark00]

Again, just not understanding the game I'm afraid.

 

[Flem274*]

Again, just not understanding the game I'm afraid.

No, I think you're just blowing a load of hot air because the alternative is admitting you got something wrong.

 

[hendrix]

tbh, he looked laboured for years at Adelaide too. As much as he's a gun when there's any bounce or movement, on truly flat decks he doesn't have a lot more than line to fall back on. Never been a big mover of the ball.

Disagree with this, tbh.

Even when there's no movement I thought he did a better version of Siddle than Siddle in the Ashes. Just great areas the whole time.

 

[benchmark00]

tbh, he looked laboured for years at Adelaide too. As much as he's a gun when there's any bounce or movement, on truly flat decks he doesn't have a lot more than line to fall back on. Never been a big mover of the ball.

True enough.

 

[benchmark00]

Disagree with this, tbh.

Even when there's no movement I thought he did a better version of Siddle than Siddle in the Ashes. Just great areas the whole time.

Yeah but that's got nothing to do with movement. He does have great areas, like TC said, it's just that in the Ashes in Australia he just sat on them the whole time while Johnson did the business at the other end.

 

[Blocky]

Errrrrrrrrghhhhhh. This is just so wrong it's not funny. You've just spat out (incorrect) cliches without having any research behind you i.e. followed Australian domestic cricket.

Let's see, Shaun Marsh in domestic cricket scores a middling average of 35 and converts approximately 1 in 15 innings into a century, Doolan in domestic cricket scores a middling average of 37 and converts approximately 1 in 15 innings into a centur - versus Katich's stop start test career producing a higher average and much better conversion, let alone his superb first class career statistics.

Nothing I wrote there isn't completely accurate, you've selected guys who have no consistency of performance and you've picked them based on peak performance - not "usual likelihood of making runs" - hence you're now an inconsistent team. What a surprise. Welcome to NZ 1990s and 00s.

 

[benchmark00]

Should go with the consistency of David Hussey to sure up the middle order against Steyn, Philander, Morkel and co I reckon.

 

[Blocky]

Should go with the consistency of David Hussey to sure up the middle order against Steyn, Philander, Morkel and co I reckon.

Yet when I wrote this as a better option than Marsh, Smith and Doolan - you said I don't follow Australian domestic? Make your mind up.

 

[Johnners]

Wooosh

 

[benchmark00]

Good stuff.

 

[Cabinet96]

Giving de Kock the gloves will take the pressure off his batting so I wouldn't be surprised if he does better as a keeper bat, as he doesn't walk to the crease knowing he only brings his batting to the team.

There's also Alviro who may come back in. Would be interesting to see if they pull the trigger and drop Elgar after his solid first dig, move Elgar down the order again (even though he says he doesn't want to) or just leave Alviro on the sidelines all together.

They'll just replace de Kock with Alviro IMO. Elgar won the bat off between the newbies and can easily move back down to six. South Africa don't seem to have the same worry about de Villiers' workload that you, I and a few others have.

 

[benchmark00]

They'll just replace de Kock with Alviro IMO. Elgar won the bat off between the newbies and can easily move back down to six. South Africa don't seem to have the same worry about de Villiers' workload that you, I and a few others have.

I would expect that same, but if it was a horses for courses situation you couldn't go with Elgar in Cape Town, but on form you have to.

 

[Ruckus]

No, I think you're just blowing a load of hot air because the alternative is admitting you got something wrong.

Na he's never wrong. If you disagree you just don't understand cricket mate.

 

[hendrix]

Think Elgar and Duminy won the bowl-off with Alviro, tbh.