**Official** Australia in Bangladesh

[kwigibo]

Howard's got it right, it's how he scores his runs. If he's going to score 50 off 80 and similar innings consistently, which he has, he's going to be a liability against decent opposition. It's ok to score 80 from 110 chasing a smallish total when Gilchrist is hitting a hundred off 70 at the other end, but Gilchrist doesn't do that every game. One day cricket is very different then it was even 5 years ago, when 300 was practically unchaseable, those extra 30 deliveries are going to matter in the important games to come.

He can't even score at 100 or better in the best of conditions. Actually, it's more like he won't, because I've seen him do it in domestic cricket. He doesn't rotate the strike as well as he should, he seems to only pick the most glaring of gaps. And when the kind of innings he's been playing is required, he gets out too early and the middle/lower order has to clean up.

Boeta Dippenaar has scored a lot of runs this season too, but I wouldn't let him within a mile of any team I was picking if I wanted to beat any decent opposition. With the world cup and champions trophy, Australia should be fielding their best team, and Katich is not the best option by a long shot. If you want to continue calling yourself the #1 team, adequate is not enough.

 

[Prince EWS]

Boeta Dippenaar has scored a lot of runs this season too, but I wouldn't let him within a mile of any team I was picking if I wanted to beat any decent opposition.

Why the hell not? Dippenaar is a top notch ODI opener IMO.

 

[kwigibo]

Why the hell not? Dippenaar is a top notch ODI opener IMO.

Only if you think your bowlers can defend less than 250.

 

[Nate]

In short - Katich is good. But there are others who I believe would do better. Jaques, Hayden, Cosgrove, maybe even Clarke.

Nice to see Hogg get MOTS.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Why would Watson replace Martyn.

Because Watson is best suited to batting around number 4, and he adds to the bowling. If Watson replaced Martyn, you could bat Hussey at 7 and Hogg and Lee at 8 and 9, and Watson and Symonds would fill in 10 each game. It's probably the best team balance available.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Of course Katich's batting is not going to cost Australia in games like last night, or games where 220-270 is a winning score. He steadily guides Australia along. My problem with The Kat is that he holds Australia back in games like the final ODI in South Africa - games where 300-360 is the winning score. Check out the scorecard.

How is a steady player going to be of benefit to Australia in these types of high scoring encounters - the types of games we're likely to see in the Carribean (given the flat pitches and short boundaries) in WC2007. If he had have scored at a strike rate of 100 in the above game (like everyone else easily did) Australia would have scored another 20 runs. That's quite significant, and costly.

If we're planning for the World Cup, let's consider the types of conditions and totals we are likely to confront, and select our team accordingly.

Blaming Katich for losing the above game is absurd. Australia scored over 400, that's more than enough to win, the bowlers just couldn't defend it. He made 79 off 90, which is a terrific innings in any conditions, and he didn't hold back the scoring rate at all. In reality, there's only a couple of innings in the last 20 or so games that Katich has scored too slowly, and he's certainly failed less often than most of the batsmen.

Yes, he has to be willing to go hard for quick runs in flat conditions in the carribean, but he's done enough to suggest that he can do that. He won't score as quickly as Jaques or Cosgrove most likely, but he may well score runs more consistently. His strike rate is 70, and Ponting's is 79. Katich isn't so slow that he will hold the team back if he plays as well as he has in the last few months, and he may well allow bigger totals by presenting the team with a solid platform. Let's not forget that the likes of Symonds, Clarke and Hussey are devastating hitters when they come in at strong positions, and if Katich can make 50 off 70-80 balls and set up that strong position and allow them to hit out, Australia will score 300+ on a consistent basis.

 

[howardj]

Not totally blaming him for the above loss - obviously, over 100 overs, there are other factors aswell. Instead, I used the above game to demonstrate that, even in the most benign conditions, he struggles to strike at 100 - and that this could be harmful to Australia's chances when they are chasing a large total. Essentially, the debate is not about Katich's performance. Because, when one looks at it, he fulfils a particular role (that of the steady 70 runs per 100 balls opener) very well. Rather the debate is about whether Australia, who bat down to Brett Lee at number nine, actually need anyone to fulfil the aforementioned role.

 

[Jono]

Because Watson is best suited to batting around number 4, and he adds to the bowling. If Watson replaced Martyn, you could bat Hussey at 7 and Hogg and Lee at 8 and 9, and Watson and Symonds would fill in 10 each game. It's probably the best team balance available.

Hussey at 4 is Australia's best team balance.

I see no need to have Katich and Watson both in the top 4 for Australia. No need at all.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Well, obviously Katich has been told to play in that role, so the team management thinks they do.

The one problem with Katich's game at the moment is his flexibility. There isn't a huge gulf in the way he plays between flat wickets and difficult ones. However, he's acknowledged during the VB series that in certain circumstances he needs to up the ante a bit, and since then he's been quite acceptable in terms of strike rate. I don't think 79 off 90 is a problem even on the flattest wicket, because if he plays an innings like that and gets some support it means that Australia's going to be looking at something like 150-160 off 30 overs when he gets out, at the worst. That's a very good platform to launch towards a 300-350 score, especially if only a couple of wickets have gone down, and I don't see how you can possibly criticise him for playing like that.

Yeah, he's played a few innings which should have come a fair bit quicker, but mostly he's been on the money, and I don't see how he can be dropped.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Hussey at 4 is Australia's best team balance.

I see no need to have Katich and Watson both in the top 4 for Australia. No need at all.

Where's Watson going to bat then? The fact is, Hussey is better suited to batting 6/7 than anyone else in the team, including Watson by a long way. Watson isn't going to score any slower than Martyn at 4, and if he makes a decent number of runs and helps out with the bowling, it will allow Australia to have Hussey down at 7, which is otherwise a luxury that means Symonds has to bowl 10 overs every game.

If you bring in a Jaques or a Cosgrove for Martyn, that means you have to pick four bowlers, and Symonds and the part timers bowl 10. To avoid that, you have to either pick a specialist in place of Martyn, like in the current series, or pick Watson. I think his best place in the ODI lineup is number 4 anyway. The CT would be an ideal time to give it a shot, if he's fit.

 

[howardj]

Well, obviously Katich has been told to play in that role, so the team management thinks they do.
.

Yes, obviously. And he plays that role, and follows those orders, very well. But whether we need anyone to play that role is the issue. Why do we suddenly need someone like Katich to play the steadying role when Gilchrist was formerly partnered by the more aggressive Hayden and Waugh? Combinations which delivered Australia two World Cups. Moreover, having someone striking at 70 playing long innings', does not suit the structure of our side. Australia bat down to number nine and can afford (and should do so when the field restrictions are in place) to have both openers 'go hard', right from the outset.

 

[Mister Wright]

I haven't fallen asleep watching the cricket since the Darren Lehmann days, but yesterday I couldn't help it. Our future batting stocks might be in good hands, but the days of elegant batting look to be well and truely over. I don't think you could find 2 more ugly-styled batsman than Jaques & Cosgrove. They might get the job done, but it sure is ugly. I didn't ever think Katich would have competition in that department.

 

[Nate]

Not that it`ll happen, but I`d like to see

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Watson
Symonds
Clarke
Hussey
Hogg
Lee
Bracken
McGrath

EDIT: If McGrath is unavailable, then Clark. And I wouldn`t be too displeased to see Jaques in-front of Hayden.

 

[Nate]

Australia seem to think that the fifth bowler role is fine in the hands of Symonds and Clarke. I really think you need the extra option of Watson.

 

[andyc]

Not that it`ll happen, but I`d like to see

Gilchrist
Hayden
Ponting
Watson
Symonds
Clarke
Hussey
Hogg
Lee
Bracken
McGrath

EDIT: If McGrath is unavailable, then Clark. And I wouldn`t be too displeased to see Jaques in-front of Hayden.

I'd take that, although you probably won't get Hayden there. I'd be happy enough with either Katich, Jaques or Cosgrove opening the batting, really.

 

[age_master]

Where's Watson going to bat then?

#4 for the Bulls preferably.

 

[marc71178]

Blaming Katich for losing the above game is absurd. Australia scored over 400, that's more than enough to win, the bowlers just couldn't defend it. He made 79 off 90, which is a terrific innings in any conditions, and he didn't hold back the scoring rate at all. In reality, there's only a couple of innings in the last 20 or so games that Katich has scored too slowly, and he's certainly failed less often than most of the batsmen.

This whole debate reminds me of a couple of years ago when people wanted to drop Martyn because he scored slowly...

 

[pasag]

I used to think like everyone here. But I really like Katich now. He is a great anchor and puts a great balance in the team. He is horrible to watch but he gets the job done. The only problem i have with him is that he usually gets Ponting out, by that I mean he annoys and aggrevates Ponting forcing him to go for a four or six when he usually doesnt want to. I think thats more of a flaw with Ponting though. Early on in Dizzy's great knock, Ponting ran himself out becuase he was too impatient. He likes the game to be really quick. Although if its between Katich and Ponting its obvious who will have to go. But if the other players can learn to work around Katich and Katich can learn how to rotate the strike properly then, in my opinion we will have found the perfect team for the World Cup.

 

[GotSpin]

Because Watson is best suited to batting around number 4, and he adds to the bowling. If Watson replaced Martyn, you could bat Hussey at 7 and Hogg and Lee at 8 and 9, and Watson and Symonds would fill in 10 each game. It's probably the best team balance available.

But its not like Martyn bowls, so wouldnt he be replaced by a specialist batsmen such as Jaques or Cosgrove.

 

[andyc]

But its not like Martyn bowls, so wouldnt he be replaced by a specialist batsmen such as Jaques or Cosgrove.

Just because Martyn doesn't bowl doesn't mean he can't be replaced by someone who does. Watson would be an ideal number four in my opinion, with his bowling simply an added extra. Additionally, as Martyn has been underperforming, he is the most likely person who would make way for him, were it to happen.