***Official*** Sri Lanka in Australia 2012/2013

[cnerd123]

**** sake, press the wrong key and the world's up against you. When you speak as many languages as me you can expect to make an error every now and again #smokeme

I didn't know **** was considered a language now days

 

[cnerd123]

Probably gonna regret that statement.

 

[benchmark00]

 

[hendrix]

There is literally no basis for that opinion at all.

The basis for my opinion is pretty simple. Come in at 6 and you're either capitalising on what the earlier batsmen have set up to give a big total, or doing your best to repair the damage. The more time you have and the more batsmen at the other end at your disposal gives you a better opportunity to do both jobs anyway. It's part of the reason almost all test side bat their most accomplished batsman at 4.

I'd much rather have the best players setting up the game rather than having to play according to the match situation.

But sure, you're welcome to argue that a run is a run...in which case there's no point in discussing batting orders at all...

 

[benchmark00]

The basis for my opinion is pretty simple. Come in at 6 and you're either capitalising on what the earlier batsmen have set up to give a big total, or doing your best to repair the damage. The more time you have and the more batsmen at the other end at your disposal gives you a better opportunity to do both jobs anyway. It's part of the reason almost all test side bat their most accomplished batsman at 4.

I'd much rather have the best players setting up the game rather than having to play according to the match situation.

But sure, you're welcome to argue that a run is a run...in which case there's no point in discussing batting orders at all...

Is this a real post?

Tell me the teams around the world, and you're more than willing to go through history, whose best batsman bats at 4.

The role of a number six can be varied, however in an ideal situation they're there to top up after a good foundation has been established. Which Hussey does every single time, see: Brisbane, Adelaide and Sydney.

He also needs to be able to bat with the tail. See the SCG against Pakistan.

Also needs to be able to build a partnership when side is in turmoil, see every situation Australia has been in in the last 12 months.

 

[hendrix]

Is this a real post?

Is this a real question?

Tell me the teams around the world, and you're more than willing to go through history, whose best batsman bats at 4.

Ponting for most of his career. Ditto Tendulkar, Kallis, Lara, Jayawardene...etc etc etc.

He also needs to be able to bat with the tail. See the SCG against Pakistan.

So he's good at batting with the tail. Cool. Is he not also a better allround batsman than Watson? Sure, batting with the tail might be a skill that a number 6 should possess(overlooking the fact that even opening batsmen have to bat with the tail occasionally), but simply being a good batsman should be the number one criteria for the number 4 batsman. And I believe that Hussey is a better batsman than Watson, and that number 4 is a more critical position than number 6. Therefore, Hussey should be at 4. Or even Clarke.

Also needs to be able to build a partnership when side is in turmoil, see every situation Australia has been in in the last 12 months.

It's better to prevent turmoil than to try to recover from it.

The role of a number six can be varied, however in an ideal situation they're there to top up after a good foundation has been established. Which Hussey does every single time, see: Brisbane, Adelaide and Sydney.

Again, I think he'd be better at establishing this good foundation than Watson.

 

[benchmark00]

Ponting for most of his career. Ditto Tendulkar, Kallis, Lara, Jayawardene...etc etc etc.

how long have you been following cricket exactly?

I mean what the **** is this. I don't even..

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Mæhela Jayawardene is my favourite player.

itstl.

 

[hendrix]

how long have you been following cricket exactly?

I mean what the **** is this. I don't even..

Whatever, man. Continue with the "is this for real" and "i don't even"s, don't bother to address the actual point.

Ponting is a perfect example anyway. Started at 6 and as he became one of the side's better players he moved down to occupy 3 and 4.

Or would you say that he too should have stayed at 6?

 

[benchmark00]

I'm incredulous because you have no idea what you're on about. Ponting played well over 100 matches in the number three position, because that was the best fit for him and the team.

Jayawardene isn't even the best batsman in his team. Amla bats at 3 for South Africa.

FMD man, you literally are talking complete ****.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

I think his point is that Ponting batted most of his career and had most of his success at three.

In any event, you are right in saying most of the best batsmen in history have batted at three or four. But I'm not sure you are right in saying that their runs would be any less valuable if they were made at six. It's another thing if you think that he'd make more runs batting at four or that other players would made more runs if Hussey batted at four and they batted at six, but runs are runs whether you bat at 4, 6 or 8.

 

[hendrix]

FMD man, you literally are talking complete ****.

How compelling.

Ponting played well over 100 matches in the number three position, because that was the best fit for him and the team.

Correct. And I think it would be best for the team if Hussey batted at 4.

Jayawardene isn't even the best batsman in his team. Amla bats at 3 for South Africa.

No, but he was for much of his career. Amla is still relatively new to the team. Anyway, I'm not talking about 3 and 4, i'm talking about 4 and 6. Most of the best batsmen bat at positions 3 and 4. I don't actually get why you're trying to refute this.

 

[hendrix]

In any event, you are right in saying most of the best batsmen in history have batted at three or four. But I'm not sure you are right in saying that their runs would be any less valuable if they were made at six. It's another thing if you think that he'd make more runs batting at four or that other players would made more runs if Hussey batted at four and they batted at six, but runs are runs whether you bat at 4, 6 or 8.

Right. This is where the discussion is quite subjective. I am trying to say that runs from 3 and 4 are more valuable. I know you can put forward the argument that runs are runs, but I think it's also about establishing momentum and setting up matches, rather than simply capitalising and/or saving matches.

As I said though, it's pretty difficult to argue with the "runs are runs" argument from anything other than a subjective standpoint. Afterall, I do think that "momentum" is one of the most overused words by commentators.

 

[benchmark00]

Because you said nearly all teams play their best batsman at 4, when that is so so so wrong.


And the argument of 'the best batsman always bats at 3 (or your made up 4)' is an argument born out of stupidity, and I'm tired of hearing it.

Alot of the great players over time have batted at 3, that doesn't mean your best batsman should bat there. Matthew Hayden for a portion of his career was the best bat in the Australian side, did he bat at 3? No, because he was more suited as an opener. Michael Clarke is Australia's best bat, does he bat at 3? No, because he is suited to 5. Adam Gilchrist was probably better than a number of players ahead of him in the order, does that mean he should have batted higher? No, because he was successful, and he was suited, and what's more it was best for the team for him to bat at 7.

Hussey has had overwhelming success for Australia in the number 6 position. Yet you'd like to change it just because 'the best batsman should bat at 3 or 4'. Compelling argument indeed.

 

[hendrix]

I'm not arguing that he's not a great number 6 batsman. Your argument is that the players and the team suit certain players batting certain positions. I.e. you think Hussey is good at number 6, and that it's the best position for him and for the team. My argument is that 4 would not be an unsuitable position for him, and that it would be better for the team to have one of Australia's current best batsmen batting at 4.

You may disagree, but i don't see how that warrants dismissal of the argument I'm making.

 

[howardj]

The weather is not set fair

Why the hell do they bother with Tests in those parts?

Give them an ODI every couple of years, other than that ignore them

 

[howardj]

I totally agree with Hendrix

Against good opposiiton, Australia will pay the price for having three relative green-horns in the top three (including Australia's second least successful opening combination). We saw in Perth, and in big-time in the Ashes, what happens when H00sey and Clarke don't pull off miracles.

Watson needs to open, and Hussey and Clarke need to move up.

 

[Red]

I can't comprehend the theory that Clarke and Hussey need to move up the order. Clarke keeps making double hundreds at 5 (so why move him?) and Hussey is getting older but remaining very successful at six against the older ball and guiding the innings from there.

It's just a matter of the guys being selected at 3 and 4 actually taking their opportunities.

The team is relatively settled apart from #1-4.

 

[Spark]

1 and 2 are settled, IMO. 3 and 4 are the issues.

 

[Prince EWS]

I totally agree with Hendrix

Against good opposiiton, Australia will pay the price for having three relative green-horns in the top three (including Australia's second least successful opening combination). We saw in Perth, and in big-time in the Ashes, what happens when H00sey and Clarke don't pull off miracles.

Watson needs to open, and Hussey and Clarke need to move up.

So we're going to bat Warner and Hughes at 5 and 6 then?