*Official* Third Test at Old Trafford

[Philhughesisbes]

One was a cutter from Jimmy, another could have gone either way with the umpiring, the Swann full toss was bull**** and the leave was his inexperience in facing an offie with proper variation, I agree he hasn't handled Swann all that well, but I wouldn't rely on anyone else to get through Jimmy and the other pacers like he does.

Rogers has the technique to survive and I"d definitely stick with him.I think he is similiar to katman in their approach to batting.Just been wondering does Rogers have "a go to shot",strong area/s that he could punish the bowler.I think that's important to have as scoring runs is vital.I believe he has it ,his record in first class cricket is second to none.I"d give him the entire series on the back of his record and see how he goes.

 

[Philhughesisbes]

Watson was opening when he was most successful, and he was one of our top players at that point, why can't Warner bat 3?

Watson success was only the result of him just being in form and not necessarily because he is suited to opening( because he is not).A form Watson fail to take full advantage of and hence there will be callss for his sacking on the basis he doesn't score big enough.Warner should not bat at 3 the reason being he is our incumbent opener.The fact he has done so with sucess and done what Watson fail to do and that is go on and score hundreds strengthens his case.Hughes and KhawAja should be given time to find their feet at test level, they are our future.There are no better options than Warner Rogers Khawaja Hughes Clarke Watson(in batting order ) out there.

 

[the big bambino]

Watson's career was reformed by Chappell who reckoned his power down the ground and ability to "don't argue" the short one made him suited to opener. He was remade for the spot and that's where he has made his runs. Also he bowls and we'll need whatever relief he can provide bcos Harris is a big chance of breaking down in this test. He's in and he opens.

 

[Philhughesisbes]

Watson's career was reformed by Chappell who reckoned his power down the ground and ability to "don't argue" the short one made him suited to opener. He was remade for the spot and that's where he has made his runs. Also he bowls and we'll need whatever relief he can provide bcos Harris is a big chance of breaking down in this test. He's in and he opens.

What about the fact that he plays around his pad and is a walking wicket against quality new ball bowlers like Anderson and Broad.England seamers have his number,Watson won't get the job done at the top of the order.Warner can score just as quickly as Watson without being figured out by Anderson.If Lehman and co have any brains now they"ll accept they were wrong and drop Watson to 6.I could imagine Clarke and co covering their eyes everytime Watson is facing Anderson.

 

[stephen]

It's really hard to justify Watson's place in the team if he plays as opener. It's not just that he's not making runs, but he's getting out to a technical flaw that has existed in his game for years. A technical flaw that good bowlers can exploit (particularly in English conditions) relatively easily. Worse still, that technical flaw tends to get Watson out in such a way that he wastes a referral in the process, putting the entire team at a huge disadvantage.

Watson, IMO, can only really be justified batting at either 4 or 6 and bowling 15 overs per innings. If he's not averaging 30 with the bat he's not worth his place in the team.

I mean FFS there was a time where averaging less than 45 had people questioning your place in the test side. Now we have one bloke with a batting average over 40. Watson is a cancer on the team. He white ants Clarke at every opportunity, acts like a big sook 90% of the time and is a douche the other 10%. He's the ultimate case of "get runs or get out".

 

[the big bambino]

What about the fact that he plays around his pad and is a walking wicket against quality new ball bowlers like Anderson and Broad.England seamers have his number,Watson won't get the job done at the top of the order.Warner can score just as quickly as Watson without being figured out by Anderson.If Lehman and co have any brains now they"ll accept they were wrong and drop Watson to 6.I could imagine Clarke and co covering their eyes everytime Watson is facing Anderson.

Its indicative of how bad we are that Watson retains a spot anywhere in the team. His big pad will be a problem wherever he bats. At least as opener he wont have to deal with reverse and spin first up.

 

[Justo]

You could say the same about Hughes and Warner though and at least with them you know that if they get in they have the ability to go long. As it stands a significant portion of our batting line up prefers to face the new ball and Watson's constant starts ultimately end up wasting the conditions that our other batsmen are more likely to succeed in.

At the same time Watson's consistent 20s-40s aren't going to win us any matches (pretty much similar reasoning as to why people wanted Cowan gone). In a lineup with batsmen who are largely hit and miss we'd be better served choosing guys who could go big because it'll ultimately increase our chances of winning/drawing matches.

His bowling is useful but if he's going to open the batting his primary role should be to score runs with his bowling being an addition to that. His poor fielding also (imo anyway) partly negates what his bowling brings to the team.

In short either bat 4 or 6 (where constant 30s will be an improvement to the other options) or gtfo Shane Watson you malignant dick.

 

[Philhughesisbes]

You could say the same about Hughes and Warner though and at least with them you know that if they get in they have the ability to go long. As it stands a significant portion of our batting line up prefers to face the new ball and Watson's constant starts ultimately end up wasting the conditions that our other batsmen are more likely to succeed in.

At the same time Watson's consistent 20s-40s aren't going to win us any matches (pretty much similar reasoning as to why people wanted Cowan gone). In a lineup with batsmen who are largely hit and miss we'd be better served choosing guys who could go big because it'll ultimately increase our chances of winning/drawing matches.

His bowling is useful but if he's going to open the batting his primary role should be to score runs with his bowling being an addition to that. His poor fielding also (imo anyway) partly negates what his bowling brings to the team.

In short either bat 4 or 6 (where constant 30s will be an improvement to the other options) or gtfo Shane Watson you malignant dick.

I wouldn"t bat him at 4.If Watson"s going to Succeed its at 6 facing tired bowlers.He is capable of accelerating things.I know he has fail there before but that was early in his career and its a very small sample.Bat him at 6 and you have the experience duo of he and Clarke.I"m not sold on the other options outside the squad (with the exeption of Maddinson and Mitch Marsh but I think they need more years) .So its basically a case of sticking with that squad and getting the batting order right.Some of the questions that need to be ask:
1.Is Hughes better serve at 4 or 6 , what about opening?
2.Is Rogers the answer short term?
3. Should Watson partner Rogers at the top or is a Warner- Rogers or Hughes- Rogers or even Warner- Hughes partnership better?
4.Should Khawaja start his career with the pressure of batting 3, is he better off starting at 5 or 4?
5.Should Clarke be batting at 4 (being the best batsman in the team).
6.Is Wade a better option than Smith or Watson at 6?

Bailey might be the only other option outside the squad( from a batting point of view) that selectors might go to.

 

[Howe_zat]

Telegraph says that Pietersen will probably be fit.

Edit: Turns out article knows nothing, and just blows him off a bit

 

[LegionOfBrad]

Telegraph says that Pietersen will probably be fit.

Edit: Turns out article knows nothing, and just blows him off a bit

I don't think Taylor would have been parachuted into Sussex if they thought he'd be fit.

Hopefully Taylor will do well so that we can be rid of Bairstow once KP returns.

 

[91Jmay]

Amazing that Bairstow has 139 runs so far this series. You'd think he'd got four globes the way he is talked about.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Will be very happy if Bird continues to carry drinks.

What I saw from him in the Aussie summer looked excellent, and he keeps churning out the numbers, too. Obviously his continued omission makes it ever more unlikely that my call for him to top the wickets list will pay off, but I won't be moaning if we see some more Starc.

 

[Adders]

You know it wouldn't surprise me if the selectors are having the exact same vigorous debates about Watson as you blokes are in here. This is the biggest problem with him.....half the people want him in but no one has a ****ing clue what to do with him and it's been that way since 2009. 4 years and they still haven't worked out what his role is in this side.

I have little time for him but tbf has there ever been such a talked about and mismanaged cricketer in recent history?? Of course a lot of it is his own doing but some of the blame must lie with the team management.........Twatto's career will be looked back on as horror story and for such a talented cricketer it should have ended up so differently.

 

[Tangles]

He is a talented short format player. In a different era thats all he would have been. With our weak batting they keep trying to find a spot for him somewhere instead of just moving on. If they must have an allrounder then McDonald is the better bet.

 

[Burgey]

You know it wouldn't surprise me if the selectors are having the exact same vigorous debates about Watson as you blokes are in here. This is the biggest problem with him.....half the people want him in but no one has a ****ing clue what to do with him and it's been that way since 2009. 4 years and they still haven't worked out what his role is in this side.

I have little time for him but tbf has there ever been such a talked about and mismanaged cricketer in recent history?? Of course a lot of it is his own doing but some of the blame must lie with the team management.........Twatto's career will be looked back on as horror story and for such a talented cricketer it should have ended up so differently.

Thetes something in this I think. If there were more secure options up front, Watson could bat six and basically be given a licence to thump the **** out of the ball, without having to worry too much. Sadly that's not the case and they've spent more time trying to work out his best place rather than whether he's truly worthy of a place at all.

 

[Philhughesisbes]

He is a talented short format player. In a different era thats all he would have been. With our weak batting they keep trying to find a spot for him somewhere instead of just moving on. If they must have an allrounder then McDonald is the better bet.

I wouldn"t say that Mc Donald is a better bet than Watson because he is not but Watson"s body hasn"t help his cause either.In the glory days of Australia I still believe he"d be excellent in that team.His bowling is excellent and he"d be batting at 7 in that lineup.In that current team because of this weak batting order many on here are convince he is the savior at the top of the order but honestly he should bat at 6 in this team and nothing higher.He should also bowl more as his bowling is very handy.If he breaks down then Smith is in the wings.Watson is an all rounder so let's pick him in an all round role.Let's pick specialist at the top of the order.I"ve been saying that for a while now,but many on here and the selectors are convince Watson is the man to open.

 

[Adders]

I think the selectors have 2 choices with Twatto......

- Cut their losses and move on from him. If half the reports we hear are true he is a destabilising influence behind the scenes and his performances do not justify putting up with any crap.

- He is not good enough to open the batting. Serious technical flaw and something definitely not right between the ears. As Phil Hughes said above, play him as an allrounder at 6 and tell him he has to share the bowling workload, if he breaks down then stiff ****.....he is not that valuable that he should be protected like he has been in the past. He is dispensable and if you stick with him should be used up until he breaks.

If I were an Aussie I'd be strongly in favour of option 1, my patience would have worn thin with him long ago......and I guess if you place any value in the shorter forms, breaking him is not the best option as he is still one of the best ODI and T20 players in the world.

Glad he's your headache and not ours........

 

[Chook Herron]

Really aside from Clarke, the selectors are simply rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic when it comes to the batsmen.

 

[Maximas]

Yeah, look, I honestly don't mind Watson opening now, I think he's done OK to get us off to reasonable starts, the new ball is tough don't forget, but this is it, if he fails to make any decent scores over the next three tests he's out, for good.

 

[Tangles]

I wouldn"t say that Mc Donald is a better bet than Watson because he is not but Watson"s body hasn"t help his cause either.In the glory days of Australia I still believe he"d be excellent in that team.His bowling is excellent and he"d be batting at 7 in that lineup.In that current team because of this weak batting order many on here are convince he is the savior at the top of the order but honestly he should bat at 6 in this team and nothing higher.He should also bowl more as his bowling is very handy.If he breaks down then Smith is in the wings.Watson is an all rounder so let's pick him in an all round role.Let's pick specialist at the top of the order.I"ve been saying that for a while now,but many on here and the selectors are convince Watson is the man to open.

No way would Watson make the team back when we were dominating all. That's the point in that era his batting wouldn't get him a spot and with Warne and McGrath at their peak his bowling isn't needed. He would simply be a good 1 day player back then.