• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

***Official*** India in Australia ODIs 2016

honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
vcs said:
People talk about accelerating earlier, but there is also a distinct possibility of ending up with 255 all out or 265-9 off 50. I really can't complain too much about us getting consistent 300ish scores on foreign tracks.
Click to expand...


See the way I see it is, if we tried to accelerate earlier there is 1 in 3 chance that it will come off, and the series would be 1-2 instead of 0-3 as it is now.
 
vcs

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
We'd have struggled to defend 330 in the first two games. Australia eased home.
 
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
How many allrounders do you really think they need? And if I am not wrong, they made him a #6 around the WC and right now they are just picking Mitch Marsh ahead of him. I would think Twatto would be better for them at 6 but he is not the one who will be around for 2019 right?
 
Prince EWS

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
Furball said:
Bizarre. Then again they've had Finch opening over him for ages haven't they?
Click to expand...
Yeah Watson had a run at 3 and then had a run at 6. Fair enough that they want to give Mitch Marsh a run, particularly since Watson's bowling has really declined, but I think he's better than a lot of the openers they've been picking. When MMarsh got injured they brought in Hastings and when Warner got injured they brought Khawaja into the squad, so he seems a fair way down the ODI pecking order in both the roles he could be picked for now.
 
B

Blanco

Cricket Spectator
Prince EWS said:
Yeah Watson had a run at 3 and then had a run at 6. Fair enough that they want to give Mitch Marsh a run, particularly since Watson's bowling has really declined, but I think he's better than a lot of the openers they've been picking. When MMarsh got injured they brought in Hastings and when Warner got injured they brought Khawaja into the squad, so he seems a fair way down the ODI pecking order in both the roles he could be picked for now.
Click to expand...
Thing is selectors rate S.Marsh and Finch.Their records are very good. While they're excited about Warner and can you blame them?When you factor his explosive batting, quick running between the wickets and brilliant fielding.You look at his record and while not as good as it should be is better than most. In selectors mind I don't think they see any issues with their opening options. If that was the case Watson would have been in the squad. Mitch Marsh has clearly overtaken Watson in the odi role, Maxwell and Smith pick themselves.Bailey is just a gun bat who is massively underrated.If I was a selctor I'd probably have stuck with Watson as opener even when they played him at 3 a few years ago.The fact Warner and Finch has done well, it is not surprising they've looked past Watson, right now.I see the real issue is the keepers role but with Faulkner at 8, Wade will invariably avoid criticism.Handscomb would do a better job with the bat and he is no worse than Wade with the gloves.
 
Last edited:
honestbharani

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Blanco said:
No he is not, he is around because he is a very good odi batsman.
Click to expand...

No, I mean I have seen selectors boot out very good players for potentially very good players just because the latter are more likely to be around for the next WC. Bailey may well go that way post this WT20 and maybe the next CT if that happens.
 
Burgey

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
honestbharani said:
I never said 330. I am not even specifying numbers here. Just that they could have hit the accelerator earlier than they did. Wasn't it at the WC that Kohli said our batsmen are looking for more sustained aggression than just smacking it at the end? That is really all we are saying our batsmen should do. Look for 7 or 8 an over in the middle overs itself (one boundary risk per over) given that we do not have batsmen capable of going for 10+ an over at the slog since our bowling is pretty **** and it needs all the help it can get to even make it competitive, including much better fielding.


Anyways funny how everyone talks about the guys out injured for Australia but we are missing 2 of our best bowlers from the WC as well to injury. Not that I think it would have made a HUGE difference but do think we would have at least saved 1 target of the 3 with Shami and Mohit around.
Click to expand...
What makes you think they would have got that total if Starc played?
 
NUFAN

NUFAN

Y no Afghanistan flag
Australia’s T20 squad: Aaron Finch (c), Scott Boland, Cameron Boyce, James Faulkner, John Hastings, Travis Head, Nathan Lyon, Chris Lynn, Glenn Maxwell, Shaun Marsh, Kane Richardson, Steve Smith, Shaun Tait, Andrew Tye, Matthew Wade, David Warner, Shane Watson.

Warner and Lyon return for the remaining 2 ODIs too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top