*Official* Third Test at the WACA

[ethos]

I'd run with..

1. Watson
2. Hughes
3. Ponting
4. Clarke
5. Hussey
6. Smith
7. Haddin
8. Johnson
9. Harris
10. Cameron
11. Siddle

 

[howardj]

Not bad, Ethos.

 

[King Pietersen]

What happened with Phil Jaques? He always looked the part. Watson looks in good form with the bat, but you can't expect him to shoulder 15-20 overs an innings and guarantee him to make the best use of his form with the bat.

166 runs at 20.75 this season suggests that he wouldn't be the best of choices. Hasn't averaged over 40 anywhere since the Australian season of 07/08, I don't think he'd be the best choice. Phail Hughes or Shaun Marsh are clearly better options. Though from an English point of view Jaques would be a great selection

Hughes
Watson
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Haddin
Smith
Johnson
Harris
Cameron
Siddle

TBH.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

So, you Aussies are convinced that Watson opening is the best use of his skills?

1. Watson
2. Hughes
3. Ponting
4. Clarke
5. Hussey
6. Smith
7. Haddin
8. Johnson
9. Harris
10. Cameron
11. Siddle

Interesting line up. Loads of bowling options and (in form) Johnson & Harris at 8/9 gives plenty of batting depth.

 

[morgieb]

I think he's going good opening, no reason to change it.

 

[ethos]

Not bad, Ethos.

Yeah. I'd like to have Bollinger over Siddle but he looked horrible at Adelaide.

Plus, as far as I'm concerned Hauritz is the best spinner and should never be left out unless we want to play four quicks. And with four quicks at Perth, it's the perfect time to bring in Smith at the expense of North.

edit: Great minds King Pietersen

 

[Spark]

Why not? He averages over 50 opening (and SFA elsewhere) and is doing everything that could be asked for him in terms of blunting the new ball attack - his handling of Anderson on the first session of the test was highly impressive - just converting that he needs to sort out.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

166 runs at 20.75 this season suggests that he wouldn't be the best of choices. Hasn't averaged over 40 anywhere since the Australian season of 07/08, I don't think he'd be the best choice. Phail Hughes or Shaun Marsh are clearly better options. Though from an English point of view Jaques would be a great selection

Bloody hell. Michael di Venuto it is then

 

[Sylvester]

So, you Aussies are convinced that Watson opening is the best use of his skills?

Ideally he'd move down the order, clearly he isn't getting enough overs because of his batting and his bowling seems to be effecting his conversion rate. But since Katich is gone we can't have 2 new openers.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Why not? He averages over 50 opening (and SFA elsewhere) and is doing everything that could be asked for him in terms of blunting the new ball attack - his handling of Anderson on the first session of the test was highly impressive - just converting that he needs to sort out.

Why not? Well, the guy has a big list of historical injury problems, and certainly in these first two tests he's had to shoulder a significant workload of bowling and then has to open the batting. I was thinking that his failure to convert could simply be down to the workload he's shouldering.

 

[TumTum]

Wouldn't say Hughes is a lock in for this Test. He has had a very below par domestic season for his standards and there are still a few matches to go before this Test.

 

[stephen]

I'm going to make some radical selections here, but whatever:

Jaques
Hughes
Watson
Clarke
Hussey
Ponting
Haddin
O'Keefe
Johnson
Harris
Bollinger

Jaques and Hughes are the best two openers in the country, despite Jaques being somewhat out of form. Jaques has made piles and piles of runs against English bowlers and will not fear them. He's also not too badly out of form. Hughes should come in and open with him as well. He's the future and should be given an extended run.

That means dropping Watson down to #3, which is probably a better spot for him anyway if he has bowling duties.

Keep Clarke and Hussey in the middle order as they're our two in form bats. Shuffle Ponting down to #6. From 6 Ponting can read the game situation and play accordingly.

With Harris and Bollinger in the attack, I am happy to gamble again on Johnson. I would also like to see O'Keefe in the side sooner rather than later (though I would not be unhappy if they picked Hauritz).

 

[morgieb]

Bloody hell. Michael di Venuto it is then

Retired from Sheffield Shield, plus his Durham contract would be in jeopardy if we did. He's also turning 37. It'll be like picking Murray Goodwin.

 

[TumTum]

Don't agree with moving Punter down, he will just keep getting out for low scores there.

 

[Prince EWS]

Why not? Well, the guy has a big list of historical injury problems, and certainly in these first two tests he's had to shoulder a significant workload of bowling and then has to open the batting. I was thinking that his failure to convert could simply be down to the workload he's shouldering.

He's technically (and mentally, it seems - especially if you ask him) so much better suited to opening though, or at least batting in the top order. I wouldn't bat him lower than four.

Do you think that batting him at six is going to make him more likely to convert? It's not like the workload would actually be reduced much - he'd still have to bat virtually every innings.

 

[stephen]

Don't agree with moving Punter down, he will just keep getting out for low scores there.

Why do you say that?

 

[Prince EWS]

Retired from Sheffield Shield, plus his Durham contract would be in jeopardy if we did. He's also turning 37. It'll be like picking Murray Goodwin.

FFS Morgie learn to interpret "" for what it is.

 

[TumTum]

Why do you say that?

He has always had early ball problems, doesn't matter where he comes in. But batting him at the bottom will not give him a chance to get the really big scores.

So if you take a sample of his career so far, he made 0,0,0,197 against Pakistan. Well if he batted at #6 it would have been 0,0,0,50 or something like that.

You are just going to limit him batting him there.

 

[vic_orthdox]

He's technically (and mentally, it seems - especially if you ask him) so much better suited to opening though, or at least batting in the top order. I wouldn't bat him lower than four.

Do you think that batting him at six is going to make him more likely to convert? It's not like the workload would actually be reduced much - he'd still have to bat virtually every innings.

Would provide some more recovery time.

Which is a point for batting him at 5 or 6, more than 3 or 4 where he'd have to stick the pads on straight away and mentally switch on to what is going on around him.

 

[stephen]

He has always had early ball problems, doesn't matter where he comes in. But batting him at the bottom will not give him a chance to get the really big scores.

So if you take a sample of his career so far, he made 0,0,0,197 against Pakistan. Well if he batted at #6 it would have been 0,0,0,50 or something like that.

You are just going to limit him batting him there.

I'm not certain that I agree, but what about:

Jaques
Hughes
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin

instead?