i cant see how anyone whos isnt good enough to bat at 5 will be good enough to bat at 7 in tests to be honest. and certainly it would be quite odd(and a first) to pick a specialist bat at no 7 anyways. i dont think marlon samuels technique is particularly brilliant either, which is why i found it quite amusing that chappell kept singing praises about how easy he made batting look, but i think hes good enough to succeed at 5 or 6.Prince EWS said:
Something to do with the fact that he averages 40odd opening the batting. He might have a loose technique but so does Chanderpaul. Most of the time its effective, if there was better opener in Windies with good techniques and are capable of opening the batting at Test level, then you could think about dropping him down the order. But ATM his their best opening option.Prince EWS said:
But thats my point - I dont think hes quite good enough to be classed as a test-class specialist batsman. His technique and his record more fits in with those who bat at number 7, so thats why I put him down as a #7. He'd obviously prefer to bat 5 or 6, but who wouldnt? He just gives me #7 batsman feel when he walks out onto the pitch to bat.
for one thing, sehwag isnt a slogger in test match cricket. gayle's respectable record is all on flat tracks(and more often than not mediocre bowling) and is inflated considerably by his 317.chaminda_00 said:
you wouldnt have samuels in the side then? obviously we rate him to different levels as a player then.Prince EWS said:
Im not denying that hes their best opening option, but I think he would be more suited batting at #6. He averages about 39 opening the batting, but I think he could average slightly more if he batted down the order, and I dont think he has succeeded opening in conditions where the ball is moving around. As for Chanderpaul, I dont know why you brought him up, because I never pinpointed him as a candidate to open. His loose technique is the very reason that he bats down at the #4 - #6 range.chaminda_00 said:
One innings out of 90odd inflats someone averages does it?tooextracool said:
I'd have Samuels in the side, simply due to the fact that he is the best option. I dont really rate him as test class quite yet, but the Windies dont really have test class batsmen falling from trees at the moment.tooextracool said:
Well i think his loose technique will be found out where he bats, aganist good swing bowling. Your better off batting where he feels comfortable, which is opening the batting. Also in the handful of innings that his batted down the order his averaged 20odd, so he would probably do worse down the order IMO.Prince EWS said:
Basing you judgements on a "handful of times". How convincing...chaminda_00 said:
A Cricket Australia spokesman said that Watson is expected to have scans later on Sunday, but the full extent of the injury will not be known until Monday.Slats4ever said:
He also started his ODI career bat at 3 and below...Prince EWS said:
how much would you call considerable?chaminda_00 said:
Fair enough, but its still a lot better then other opening options the Windies have...tooextracool said:
Again though, I never actually denied that. If I was picking a full-strength West Indies team right now, I'd open the batting with Chris Gayle. I think he is more suited to #6, but he is the best option due to the fact that the other openers around are either too raw (eg. Marshall, Ramdass) or simply not good enough (eg. Ganga). Best option for Gayle would be to bat #6, but the best option for West Indies would be for him to open with Devon Smith.chaminda_00 said:
possibly, but instead of picking players like ww hinds at 6, they might be better off going in with gayle at 6 and having their complementary bunny up the order instead.chaminda_00 said:
