• 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*** NatWest Series/Challenge

FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Samuel_Vimes said:
Would be pretty unfair on Hussey to leave him out. ;)

What's the argument for batting Symonds higher than Hussey?
Click to expand...
Symonds has shown himself to be more effective batting higher up the order, as he has the capability to make big scores and graft out an innings, as well as being a big hitter. Of course, there are situations where Clarke and Hussey could come in ahead of him.
 
tassietiger

tassietiger

U19 Debutant
Right now, leaving Hussey out would be grossly unfair. But, before this series, Hussey was very much a fringe player and I would even go as far as to say a surprise inclusion in the team of late. Obviously he adapts to the English pitches well, and it proved a good choice. Hopefully that might answer Nasser Hussain's repetetive questioning on why Hussey is not in the Test team.

Hussey and Katich are both players who would've got a better chance (i.e. a permanent spot, and in Hussey's case, a spot) at Test level had they been born in any other country. Katich in particular gets a raw deal from the selectors, he has hardly ever done anything wrong and they just refuse to pick him.
 
social

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
BoyBrumby said:
This article caught my eye. Apparently It's not just us jingoistic Englanders who think the Aussies' crown may be starting to slip. This was written by Alex Brown, former cricket correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald & presumably as voracious a Pom-eater as most of his ilk.

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/story/0,10069,1510235,00.html
Click to expand...

Aaah no!

Simply another no-name journalist wanting to kick a champion when their down.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Katich has a long-term spot in the test side now, I think. Hussey's had a raw deal, and was probably unlucky not to be picked in 2001 when an openers spot was there. But, you can't argue Langer and Hayden being there now, so Mike will just have to wait.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Demolition Man said:
Hussey for hopes, you jest surely ??
Click to expand...
Not suggesting it's a great idea, but Hopes has his bowling going for him. It really depends how well Symonds and Clarke manage to cover the 5th bowler spot once Symonds comes back.
 
social

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Mister Wright said:
Thanks mate. It's still my opinion though that Ponting would be better suited at 4 than 3, but that isn't going to change.
Click to expand...
Not whilst he averages 55+ in test cricket.

You guys kill me.

Australia has 3 all-time great players (Warne, McGrath & Gilchrist) and a number of greats. England has no-one and yet you're advocating change.

Give me a break and wait until the test series is over or else you'll be embarassing yourselves.
 
Mister Wright

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
tassietiger said:
Right now, leaving Hussey out would be grossly unfair. But, before this series, Hussey was very much a fringe player and I would even go as far as to say a surprise inclusion in the team of late. Obviously he adapts to the English pitches well, and it proved a good choice. Hopefully that might answer Nasser Hussain's repetetive questioning on why Hussey is not in the Test team.

Hussey and Katich are both players who would've got a better chance (i.e. a permanent spot, and in Hussey's case, a spot) at Test level had they been born in any other country. Katich in particular gets a raw deal from the selectors, he has hardly ever done anything wrong and they just refuse to pick him.
Click to expand...

Katich was very lucky to get his spot back against Zimbabwe in 2003. Love was the frindge player, but they went with Katich because of his apparent bowling abilities - but really how many times have we seen Katich bowl well...
 
Mister Wright

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
social said:
Not whilst he averages 55+ in test cricket.

You guys kill me.

Australia has 3 all-time great players (Warne, McGrath & Gilchrist) and a number of greats. England has no-one and yet you're advocating change.

Give me a break and wait until the test series is over or else you'll be embarassing yourselves.
Click to expand...
I did say "that's not going to change". I think everyone will agree that Katich has a much better technique than Ponting, but Ponting has a much better eye. IMO the team would be much better suited with Katich at 3, Ponting 4 & Martyn 5. There is no way Clarke should be batting ahead of Katich, but I don't think he will see out the Ashes tour anyway.
 
social

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Mister Wright said:
I did say "that's not going to change". I think everyone will agree that Katich has a much better technique than Ponting, but Ponting has a much better eye. IMO the team would be much better suited with Katich at 3, Ponting 4 & Martyn 5. There is no way Clarke should be batting ahead of Katich, but I don't think he will see out the Ashes tour anyway.
Click to expand...
And I still say "why?"

Katich AND Hussey are fine players but Ponting is something out of the box.

Ponting has always had a propensity to play across the line early in his innings but the fact remains that he is as talented as most (Lara and Tendulkar are the only ones on his level), is backed up by very good players, and serves Aus best at no. 3.

Ive no problem with Katich/Husssey being in the team today but 7000+ runs @ 55+ commands more respect than most people would like to give him.
 
FaaipDeOiad

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
I can see the argument for having Katich at 3, given his more classical technique and less of a weakness early in his innings. However, Ponting has proven himself batting at 3, and shown the ability to deal with new ball conditions as well as play as a middle-order batsman, and he's also the best all-round batsman in the Australian team, which makes him best for the number 3 spot. Besides, it's not like he's done anything wrong there or Australia are in desperate need of Katich up the order for greater stability.

If Australia were to develop a serious propensity for batting collapses of course, putting someone like Katich at 3 would be a better idea than it is right now.

Regarding Clarke, his form so far in the Ashes tour has been exceedingly promising, and I expect him to have a fairly good tour. I'd expect a few lean tests and a big hundred somewhere, coming out the other side with a similar average to what he has now.
 
social

social

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Mister Wright said:
There is no way Clarke should be batting ahead of Katich, but I don't think he will see out the Ashes tour anyway.
Click to expand...
It's my belief that Katich AND Hussey are better players than Clarke but Clarke is seen as the future of Aus cricket and, as such, is given heaps of leeway.

In fact, whilst most observers have been talking about KP, Hussey looked liked a test player whilst KP displayed talent but no technique on Sunday.
 
shaka

shaka

International Regular
As a prediction, Clarke will take over captaincy from Ponting at some point in his career. He is the future of Australian cricket because he is young and has had a good start to his international career.
 
Mister Wright

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
social said:
And I still say "why?"

Katich AND Hussey are fine players but Ponting is something out of the box.

Ponting has always had a propensity to play across the line early in his innings but the fact remains that he is as talented as most (Lara and Tendulkar are the only ones on his level), is backed up by very good players, and serves Aus best at no. 3.

Ive no problem with Katich/Husssey being in the team today but 7000+ runs @ 55+ commands more respect than most people would like to give him.
Click to expand...
As I've said TWICE it is my personal opinion, and I've also said TWICE it isn't going to happen. Anybody would be crazy to drop Ponting from 3, considering he is the captain and his record.
 
Mister Wright

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
social said:
It's my belief that Katich AND Hussey are better players than Clarke but Clarke is seen as the future of Aus cricket and, as such, is given heaps of leeway.

In fact, whilst most observers have been talking about KP, Hussey looked liked a test player whilst KP displayed talent but no technique on Sunday.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean he should bat at 5 ahead of Katich.

And Clarke does have a severe technical flaw which was exposed by Pakistan and New Zealand, he has a tendancy to play half forward to balls pitched out side off stump and either edges them with a defensive shot or a drive.
 
Mister Wright

Mister Wright

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
shaka said:
As a prediction, Clarke will take over captaincy from Ponting at some point in his career. He is the future of Australian cricket because he is young and has had a good start to his international career.
Click to expand...
Look, Clarke looks like a great future talent, but he has a lot to learn in the game. If he somehow manages to be a permanent fixture of the side until Ponting either retires or is disgarded, hopefully he will have learnt how to captain, because his efforts for Australia A a couple of seasons ago were nothing short of terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top