***Official*** West Indies in Australia

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lara hits the ball extremely hard, and still appears elegant. The Mark Waugh style is only one way of being such.

It's the ability to hit the ball and have people sit back and say "wow", due to the sheer beauty of it and not the power.

 

[SquidAU]

haha that's actually true.. he plays very elegantly off his pads especialy these days

But thats only because stoopid bowlers try and york his leg stump and 99% of the time, it turns out to be a half volley or a full toss......

But, McGrath is good enough to get some bat on it now....races away to the boundary!

 

[Mister Wright]

Lara hits the ball extremely hard, and still appears elegant. The Mark Waugh style is only one way of being such.

It's the ability to hit the ball and have people sit back and say "wow", due to the sheer beauty of it and not the power.

Brian Lara may hit the ball hard, but it looks like there is a point to his shot (like placement or it is a really bad ball and gets all it deserves). Clarke on the other hand just appears to try and smack the cover off the ball. I've never considered Lara 'elegant' as such and like Clarke does have some very elegant shots, however he is a great batsman to watch.

 

[luckyeddie]

Brian Lara may hit the ball hard, but it looks like there is a point to his shot (like placement or it is a really bad ball and gets all it deserves). Clarke on the other hand just appears to try and smack the cover off the ball. I've never considered Lara 'elegant' as such and like Clarke does have some very elegant shots, however he is a great batsman to watch.

The only time I really saw a lot of Clarke was in the summer in England, and I reckon his trying to his the ball 'too hard' started after England had stopped giving him any free runs (when he looked as though he was going to cruise to 100 at Lord's). He never really wriggled off that hook again throughout the series.

 

[howardj]

The only time I really saw a lot of Clarke was in the summer in England, and I reckon his trying to his the ball 'too hard' started after England had stopped giving him any free runs (when he looked as though he was going to cruise to 100 at Lord's). He never really wriggled off that hook again throughout the series.

Yeah, he's a little bit like Michael Slater in that respect. If you dry up his scoring, he'll tend to play fairly loosely and force things a little.

 

[burr]

Neither Clarke nor Lara are elegant although both are fantastic players to watch when on their game. The Aussie team now lacks any elegance whatsoever with Martyn's departure. (And don't say McGrath). I think it will really hit me when the summer gets underway and Clarke comes in at 4 that Marto's gone. It's so sad - how I'm going to miss the back foot caress through point, the wristy cut. My fav player gone - the end of an era - so sad.

 

[roseboy64]

He's never in long enough, so doesn't count.

So McGrath stays in longer?

 

[aussie]

I think it will really hit me when the summer gets underway and Clarke comes in at 4 that Marto's gone. It's so sad - how I'm going to miss the back foot caress through point, the wristy cut. My fav player gone - the end of an era - so sad.

think positive mate he may still have a chance to come back....

 

[aussie]

well i see on foxsports.com that Ponting has said that Watson will continue to bat at #7, i really dont like that the bloke should be batting in the top 6 mayn...

 

[howardj]

well i see on foxsports.com that Ponting has said that Watson will continue to bat at #7, i really dont like that the bloke should be batting in the top 6 mayn...

Ponting also says: "Clarke has done well at Test level and has been rewarded with a move up to No.4". In the last 12 months, Clarke has averaged in the mid-twenties. Clearly, he's not ready for such a role. The guy should have been left at six, as he's more suited to that position, for the following reasons - he has several 'gears' in his batting; has all the shots; can really take it to the opposition when he's batting with the tail.

By contrast, Watson - who has a better FC average than Brad Hodge - is more of a one-paced batsman. He's not really suited to batting with the tail, as he struggles to really up the ante. If Watson is going to bat at number seven, then you may as well drop him and play a specialist bowler, as his contributions with the bat are likely to be negligible.

 

[aussie]

Ponting also says: "Clarke has done well at Test level and has been rewarded with a move up to No.4". In the last 12 months, Clarke has averaged in the mid-twenties. Clearly, he's not ready for such a role. The guy should have been left at six, as he's more suited to that position, for the following reasons - he has several 'gears' in his batting; has all the shots; can really take it to the opposition when he's batting with the tail.

By contrast, Watson - who has a better FC average than Brad Hodge - is more of a one-paced batsman. He's not really suited to batting with the tail, as he struggles to really up the ante. If Watson is going to bat at number seven, then you may as well drop him and play a specialist bowler, as his contributions with the bat are likely to be negligible.

totally agree especially on Watson, Ponting & Buchanan need to really think about what they are doing with him. He should be batting in the top 6, while adding good variety to the attack has the 5th bowling option simple........

 

[Top_Cat]

Ponting also says: "Clarke has done well at Test level and has been rewarded with a move up to No.4". In the last 12 months, Clarke has averaged in the mid-twenties. Clearly, he's not ready for such a role. The guy should have been left at six, as he's more suited to that position, for the following reasons - he has several 'gears' in his batting; has all the shots; can really take it to the opposition when he's batting with the tail.

Whilst I agree witht he latter statements (batting well with the tail), how can you possibly be so sure hes not ready for number 4 when he's had a grand total of one Test there? If anything, a move to number 4 could be looked upon as a way to get Clarke away from the moving ball (second new-ball) so he can play his shots to a ball, say, 30 overs old. That certainly was part of the reason Mark Waugh was moved to there from 6 (as well as being the best shot-player in the side).

As it stands, I don't think Martyn should have been dropped in the first place but in his absence, who else should bat at 4 really? Katich? One-paced. Gilchrist? Has to keep. Ponting? No. Love? Not a long-term option. So who else, with minimal disruption to the line-up, could bat there?

 

[age_master]

Number 6 for Australia not only bats with the tail, but also with Gilchrist.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think Katich should definately be at 4. I would be happiest with Clarke at 5, where I think he fits in fairly nicely because of the various gears he has that howardj talked about. Watson at 6, with the possibility of moving him higher if he has some sort of success.

Even at 6, Watson wouldn't be very well suited, just like Katich isn't now. At 7, he's basically a waste.

 

[age_master]

Batsmen who could bat at 4:

Katich - wouldn't bother me though i think hes a slightly longer term SR Waugh replacement at 5.
Clarke - personally i dont see a problem with him batting there.
Hussey - opening batsmen but could easily bat anywhere.
Jaques - another opening batsmen that could really bat anywhere.
Other options - North, Watson, Rogers, Martyn (wont be picked again but should never have been dropped).

 

[burr]

Arghhh. What is Watson doing in the side. He is a project player and I hate project players. All that means is they haven't proven themselves and do not deserve a match. In my opinion he just does not have the talent and is unlikely to ever succeed at test level. I do not see this one working out. You can't just use any 'so-called' allrounder b/c you see how successful Flintoff has been. You either have one or you don't. Australia does not.

 

[parttimer]

I'd be interested to know why the selectors thought Hodge unsuitable to open v the windies and yet good enough to be our reserve batsman for the ASHES. He has been poorly treated imo.

 

[Dasa]

I'd be interested to know why the selectors thought Hodge unsuitable to open v the windies and yet good enough to be our reserve batsman for the ASHES. He has been poorly treated imo.

Maybe Hodge not being an opener had something to do with it?

 

[howardj]

Arghhh. What is Watson doing in the side. He is a project player and I hate project players. All that means is they haven't proven themselves and do not deserve a match. In my opinion he just does not have the talent and is unlikely to ever succeed at test level. I do not see this one working out. You can't just use any 'so-called' allrounder b/c you see how successful Flintoff has been. You either have one or you don't. Australia does not.

A First Class batting average of 45+ (which Watson has), has been enough to get heaps of players a start in Test cricket - whether they bowl or not.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hussey - opening batsmen but could easily bat anywhere.
Jaques - another opening batsmen that could really bat anywhere.

You can't turn openers into middle-order players. They tried the same with Greg Blewett and it didn't exactly work out for him. This whole 'they can bat anywhere' is rubbish; Justin Langer and David Boon were the only Australian players in many years who could bat opening or number 3. Even then, that's mainly because they didn't have to change their games very much. Batting Hussey or Jacques lower than 3 means they have to re-invent themselves as middle-order players when they're openers. Completeley different mindset and quite a few technical changes are required.

Bat players where they've played most of their career or pick someone else. It's not fair on them to do otherwise. Same with Watson; either he bats top 6 or shouldn't be picked.

Other options - North, Watson, Rogers, Martyn (wont be picked again but should never have been dropped).

North? Rogers? Please. Good players they are, Test number 4's overnight they aren't. Be realistic.