-
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 Australia in South Africa***
- Thread starter howardj
- Start date
howardj
International Coach
I can see what you're getting at mate, but I don't quite agree about Tait. I think his main assets are always going to be pace and swing. To that end, I can't see him bowling faster or swinging the ball more than he does now. He'll never have great control or consistency - and, paradoxically, that's one of his assets. Once he loses his pace, he'll be cannon fodder. He's one of the few bowlers who can just blast batsmen out, without the assistance of fieldsmen. There may not be a vacancy for him now, but I do think that he is ready.Nnanden said:
All this reading I've done at cricinfo has got me curious about Australia's future. Sounds like Shaun Tait's been having a good time... and in a shock suprise to me, Jason Gillespie says he should be picked ahead of him! That's a huge endorsement.
Which seamers does one pick? Lee of course, Bracken? Maybe. If Tait's as good as they say he is, why not put him ahead of Bracken. For me, the biggest question is does one let Lee lead the attack, or do you get somebody experienced ahead of him. Lee will lead the Aussie attack one day.
Lots of interesting scenarios.
Which seamers does one pick? Lee of course, Bracken? Maybe. If Tait's as good as they say he is, why not put him ahead of Bracken. For me, the biggest question is does one let Lee lead the attack, or do you get somebody experienced ahead of him. Lee will lead the Aussie attack one day.
Lots of interesting scenarios.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
1. Stay ont track mate, you said that Dizzy bowled like crap vs NZ & PAK before the ashes & those facts proven what you have said has untrue.Nnanden said:
2. Well i cant see hwy not, his asset is pace & he is one of the few bowlers that can blast batsmen out, he would offer the test side MUCH more than Clark for sure.
3. I dont need to, you have your views i am not going to force you think otherwise..
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
well has i have said before with Ponting out, this would be my team for tommorow, it might not play but i think it would be the best option with Ponting out for games 2 & 3.
Gilchrist
Katich
Martyn
Symonds/Jaques - depends on if Symo recovers in time
Watson
Clarke
Hussey
Hogg
Lee
Bracken
Clark
I would have Watson in the top 5 or 6, becausehe is really wasted batting lower since he not yor Razzaq, freddie type all-rounder who can bat that low. By letting him bat in the top order where he normally bats for the bulls we may get the best out of Watson IMO.
Gilchrist
Katich
Martyn
Symonds/Jaques - depends on if Symo recovers in time
Watson
Clarke
Hussey
Hogg
Lee
Bracken
Clark
I would have Watson in the top 5 or 6, becausehe is really wasted batting lower since he not yor Razzaq, freddie type all-rounder who can bat that low. By letting him bat in the top order where he normally bats for the bulls we may get the best out of Watson IMO.
Nate
You'll Never Walk Alone
1) Apart from that sentence making little-to-no sense...aussie said:
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/PAK_IN_AUS/STATS/PAK_IN_AUS_DEC2004-FEB2005_TEST_AVS.html
http://aus.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2004-05/AUS_IN_NZ/STATS/AUS_IN_NZ_FEB-MAR2005_TEST_AVS.html
2) Stop just making comments and back it up with something!
3) Anyone can convince me of anything, but you just type with your head.
Last edited:
Jono
Virat Kohli (c)
I'm not really a Hodge fan and I definitely am not a fan of his because he's a Victorian, but flat deck or not, why didn't anyone else score a double ton? (Or hell, even a ton. No other Australian player got triple figures, with the next highest score in both of their innings being 71). And if it was so incredibly easy to bat on (not denying it was flat though) why did Australia only make 258 in the first innings and SA 296 in the 2nd. I'll tell you what, there have been easier tracks to bat on, and I think the flatness of the track is often exaggerated simply because its the WACA, and its renowned bouncyness was non-existent.Linda said:
His average is inflated by that double ton, but that's because he scored it and didn't go out.
I agree he's not in Australia's best XI, and I don't think he'll make it through the Ashes, but I think its fair to credit a good knock when its done.
howardj
International Coach
Australia are likely to overlook Phil Jacques again tonight. This is our team:
1 Gilchrist
2 Katich
3 Martyn
4 Clarke
5 Hussey
6 Watson
7 Hogg
8 Lee
9 Bracken
10 Lewis
11 Clark
Am I the only person who think that team looks a little light on batting talent? This article indicates that Jacques may not get a game unless yet another batsman is injured, besides Symonds and Ponting! I mean, really, this is just getting ridiculous. It's like, having unreasonably (in my view) not selected Jacques all summer, the selectors/hierarchy are too stubborn/obstinant to put the guy in the team.
There's a clamour for the guy to play, so it makes them more determined not to give the guy a game! Maybe I'm going a little OTT, however I do think there is an element of that in it. I just think if you're two batsmen down, then surely the reserve batsman that you've flown over, should be selected. I mean, have a look at that team. There is no way it is balanced.
1 Gilchrist
2 Katich
3 Martyn
4 Clarke
5 Hussey
6 Watson
7 Hogg
8 Lee
9 Bracken
10 Lewis
11 Clark
Am I the only person who think that team looks a little light on batting talent? This article indicates that Jacques may not get a game unless yet another batsman is injured, besides Symonds and Ponting! I mean, really, this is just getting ridiculous. It's like, having unreasonably (in my view) not selected Jacques all summer, the selectors/hierarchy are too stubborn/obstinant to put the guy in the team.
There's a clamour for the guy to play, so it makes them more determined not to give the guy a game! Maybe I'm going a little OTT, however I do think there is an element of that in it. I just think if you're two batsmen down, then surely the reserve batsman that you've flown over, should be selected. I mean, have a look at that team. There is no way it is balanced.
Langeveldt
Soutie
Theres a lot of batting talent sitting on the sidelines (Jacques)!
It's like Australia are now bored of winning everything, I would far rather South Africa had the likes of Katich and Lewis to face, than Jacques and Gillespie.. Funny funny selectors.. Maybe they have some big masterplan we don't know about
It's like Australia are now bored of winning everything, I would far rather South Africa had the likes of Katich and Lewis to face, than Jacques and Gillespie.. Funny funny selectors.. Maybe they have some big masterplan we don't know about
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
1. Gosh i'm not denying that his stats during the 2004/05 summer wasn't great but he wasn't rubbish like he was in the ashes, but he did show signs if we look back at it now that he was in trouble if he didn't start wickets, because at that time NOBODY would have though Dizzy would be so abismal in the ashes after hall he had come of a superb series in India. If you remember he was pretty economical for the majority of all the test (which is shown by these links you ahve here) & had one or 2 good occassions with the ball i.e his 2nd innings bowling in the 1st test vs NZ comes to mind. I cant see how you can say makes no sense when it an actual fact, get it straight mate..Nnanden said:
2. Yo want me to back this up cool, Tait is a genuine quick bowler & even though at this stage of his career will be expensive has the great ability to run through sides on a good day, a ability that any captain would love to have in his armory & a worry for opposition batsmen, his 6 for the other day, his 8 wicket haul in the ING cup , also last year, the fact that he broke the domestic record last season taking 65 wickets @ 20 in 10 (better than any season Clark has had for NSW) bowling on the predominantly batsman friendly Adelaide ptich in normally hot conditions.
Clark has been doing well in recent seasons for NSW & possibly if given the chance may be accurate at test level, but when you got such a talented bowler like Tait you cant overlook him. So i hope that little paragraph will help you understand why IMO Tait will offer australia much more as a Test bowler.
3. you aint making sense here dawg..
Top_Cat
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Maybe so but have a look at the top 8 and ask yourself what they all do better than Jacques; fielding. Also, it seems pretty clear that the selectors want to give Shane Watson the top-6 batting spot his supporters (and people here) have been clamoring for. And Hussey deserves a spot higher than his usual number 7 too. If that's the case, the only spot really up for grabs for Jacques is Kat's spot and they're not about to drop him right now. Ergo, no room for Jacques. He'll have to bide his time and improve his ground-fielding while he's at it.
howardj
International Coach
I just think they've ridiculously (considering why we lost the first game) gone away from their own formula, tonight. Usually, it's seven specialist batsmen (with one or two of those guys making up ten overs), and then four specialist bowlers (at least two of whom can handle a bat). Having seven specialist batsmen in the team allows us to go hard early on, and also cushions us against the loss of a few early wickets.Top_Cat said:
Tonight - even though we lost the first game because of our batting - they've got five specialist bowlers (two of whom can handle a bat) and only six specialist batsmen (and one of those I don't think is good enough to be one of just six ODI specialists - Watson). Why not make like-for-like replacements: Watson for Symonds (with Watson to bat at seven, and to bowl some overs like Symonds); and Jacques at three for Ponting.
By the way, I don't think Katich exactly has it all over Jacques in the fielding stakes. In both cases their fielding is serviceable, without being above par.