***Official*** South Africa in Australia

[LongHopCassidy]

Bracken.

 

[marc71178]

5th bowler being the one who can bat top 7

 

[andyc]

5th bowler being the one who can bat top 7

I think he means Lee at 7, Warne 8, Bracken 9 and MacGill and McGrath 10 and 11.

 

[Pratters]

I think he means Lee at 7, Warne 8, Bracken 9 and MacGill and McGrath 10 and 11.

Yeah.

 

[marc71178]

I'd love that (if I were the bowling side)

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd love that (if I were the bowling side)

Much worse batsmen than Brett Lee have batted #7 over the years.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I'd love that (if I were the bowling side)

Exactly. You can't play five out and out bowlers on a fair cricketing wicket, especially when there are three players in the side with less than 10 tests experience.

 

[Slats4ever]

I'd love that (if I were the bowling side)

i don't think england would love it considering Lee showed he was more than capable by averaging 26 with the bat against England, Warney averaging 27, and McGrath averaging 36.

The above averages come from Australia's 8, 9 and 11 batsman... All three averaged higher than Englands number 7 batsman did for the series Geraint Jones...

 

[Pratters]

I'd love that (if I were the bowling side)

The Australian batting is said to be very strong isnt it. It has been inconsistent in recent times but if you have to choose between

1) A perceived all rounder or 6 batsmen in the top 6 plus Gilly
2) 4 bowlers
3) 5 bowlers

The first option is not a good one as being shown right now.

The second option has been good over the years but with Gillespie at his best not being there, I dont think the 4 bowlers option is good enough for Australia to take 20 wickets consistently against the better sides.

The 5 bowlers option would be the thing Australia has to do then. Its the better of the 3 poor options IMO.

 

[marc71178]

But Jones averaged more than the Aussie number 7

That is seriously the worst argument I've seen yet.

A man who's considered to have done well when he averages 26 is not a Test number 7.

 

[marc71178]

The Australian batting is said to be very strong isnt it. It has been inconsistent in recent times but if you have to choose between

1) A perceived all rounder or 6 batsmen in the top 6 plus Gilly
2) 4 bowlers
3) 5 bowlers

The first option is not a good one as being shown right now.

The second option has been good over the years but with Gillespie at his best not being there, I dont think the 4 bowlers option is good enough for Australia to take 20 wickets consistently against the better sides.

The 5 bowlers option would be the thing Australia has to do then. Its the better of the 3 poor options IMO.

Of the 3 options, there is only one that they can realistically play at the moment, and it's the middle option.

Numbers 1 and 3 are to all intents and purposes the same thing with the player moving from 6 to 7, and if such a player doesn't exist for 1, how does he exist for 3?

 

[Pratters]

But Jones averaged more than the Aussie number 7

But Australia does not have Flintoff.

That is seriously the worst argument I've seen yet.

A man who's considered to have done well when he averages 26 is not a Test number 7.

So you feel my and Mark Taylor's arguement to play 5 bowlers doesnt make sense.
I have made my point and no use arguing over it.

 

[Pratters]

How much does the last 5 average batting wise for England and Australia -

England with their line up containing Jones, Hoggard, Harmison, Giles and Jones
Australia having Lee, Warne, Gillespie, McGrath and MacGill

 

[Pratters]

Numbers 1 and 3 are to all intents and purposes the same thing with the player moving from 6 to 7, and if such a player doesn't exist for 1, how does he exist for 3?

1 would entail the scenario Australia is going in with at the moment. Note I said perceived all rounder. Not an actual one. Like Symonds right now.

3 would entail 5 bowlers and no Symonds.

 

[Pratters]

How much does the last 5 average batting wise for England and Australia

To answer my own question

Australia

Lee 21
Warne 16.8
Bracken - 17.5
McGrath - 9.8
MacGill - 7.4

Total of 73 (approx). Minus 10 maybe because Bracken has played so less and his average may go down.

So 63.

England

Giles 20.7
Jones 29.7
Jones 15.8
Hoggard 8
Harmison 10

Thats approx 84.

Compared to other teams as well Australia will have a longer tail. But if they want to consistently win like they have done in the past against good teams the 5th bowler option is very realistic and we might as well see them adopt the same in the near future.

Australia would have Gilchrist batting in at 6 and Lee at 7 with a test average of 21. Its worse than that of regular wicketkeepers (players who usually bat at 7) of most teams in current cricket but some years ago it wouldnt be an unthinkable thing for a no 7 to average around 21 in tests to play.

Nayan Mongia for example averaged 24 in tests.

 

[Dasa]

Australia would have Gilchrist batting in at 6 and Lee at 7 with a test average of 21. Its worse than that of regular wicketkeepers (players who usually bat at 7) of most teams in current cricket but some years ago it wouldnt be an unthinkable thing for a no 7 to average around 21 in tests to play.

That combination would ironically only be feasible with Australia's pre-Ashes middle-order. Currently, with an inexperienced Hussey and Hodge, and an out-of-form Gilchrist, you can't weaken the batting even further. There's no guarantee that the fifth bowler would necessarily be used all that much - especially if it's someone like Bracken.

Speaking of lower-order batting, this is quite interesting, from CricInfo.

 

[Xuhaib]

Warney feels the" new Darryll" is either Prince or Kemp and he's leaning towards Kemp but i disagree i feel Kemp will be able to hit himself out of trouble like Freddie was after the Lords test so i am leaning towards Ashwell. Any gusses?

 

[Josh]

Hints suggesting MacGill will miss out again and Bracken and Symonds are to play.

 

[andyc]

That combination would ironically only be feasible with Australia's pre-Ashes middle-order. Currently, with an inexperienced Hussey and Hodge, and an out-of-form Gilchrist, you can't weaken the batting even further.

I think it's a bit harsh to call Hodge and Hussey inexperienced, as though they're a couple of wide-eyed 20 somethings. They're well into their 30's and have made bucketloads of FC runs.

 

[andyc]

Hints suggesting MacGill will miss out again and Bracken and Symonds are to play.

You gotta be kidding me. MacGill has to be in the team.