The Australian top order doom and gloom thread

[Justo]

Ewww Quiney's still an option? I know he scored 80 against SA in a warm up but he's still pretty well done **** all for the rest of the season.

Anyone know much about Burns' fielding? Rarely get opportunities to watch streams but on the CA commentaries he seems to pull off good catches and saves. Could be a positive for him.

Another positive for him is that he's well experienced in coming in at 3/50 which is invaluable in this team.

 

[howardj]

clarke to 3 hussey 4 watson 5 hughes 6

Yep, must fix top three - otherwise Clarke and Hussey will need to perform rescue missions forever. And, in the last Test against SA, we've seen what happens when they can't pull it off (i.e. we get thumped).

There are a few general principles to work from when fixing our batting order:

FIrstly, Cowan and Warner hasn't worked at all

Secondly, Watson should open. From the time Watson was promoted to open in England 09 until the end of the last Ashes series in Jan 2011, he scored 1696 runs @ 49.88. Since then (2 years) in 17 innings he’s scored 410 runs @ 24.12. In those two years he’s been in and out of the team and moved from opening to number 3. What they need to do is to give him a role and a spot in the batting order and stick with it. It’s no coincidence he played his best when he had certainty and a consistent run in the team. He’s looked half the player coming in and out and moving around the batting order.

Thirdly, our first drop has been a disaster. Watson, Usman, Marsh, Quiney etc have all pretty much flopped. Don't throw the new guys into the furnace at first drop. Which it seems they are going to do again.

Having noted the above, I am going:

Watson
Cowan
Clarke
Hughes
Warner
Hussey

If Usman is to play, it should be as an opener. However, at this point, Cowan has done enough to hold his place.

 

[Justo]

The problem isn't that Cowan and Warner haven't worked though. The real problem is that the loss of 1 wicket has pretty much always resulted in the loss of 3 wickets. Fix positions 3 and 4 and it becomes far less of an issue. Realistically we couldn't weaken these positions more than they've been recently if wanted to.

I don't know why we'd push for Clarke to come in at 3. It's a position he's never really batted in(even domestically) and could ultimately lead him performing worse which would only weaken the batting further. Historically both Border and Waugh batted at 5 and during this time they were the best batsmen in the team. No reason Clarke can't follow their footsteps. Given the most likely replacements are Hughes, Khawaja or Doolan best to stick these guys at 3 where they've played quite a few innings.

The only reason I can think of to move Clarke would be if you were moving Hussey as well and building a lineup something like the below.

Warner
Cowan
Hughes/Khawaja/Doolan
Clarke
Hussey
Watson

While I don't like the idea of moving Clarke around(I'm not as concerned about Hussey since he dominated at 5 last Ashes). I believe that Watson at 6 could be a good thing. Thinking about how he performs in ODIs being generally poor in the 1st innings while being gun in the 2nd innings. To me it seems he's bad at laying down a platform and knowing what his role should be in making a platform. Moving him down the order he would know exactly what the situation requires whether it be 5/60 or 5/400 and hopefully bat accordingly(like he does in 2nd innings ODI chases). Obviously it could backfire but I think it could be well worth a shot. Such a move would also obviously help give him more of a rest between innings as well.

 

[Dan]

I believe that Watson at 6 could be a good thing. Thinking about how he performs in ODIs being generally poor in the 1st innings while being gun in the 2nd innings. To me it seems he's bad at laying down a platform and knowing what his role should be in making a platform. Moving him down the order he would know exactly what the situation requires whether it be 5/60 or 5/400 and hopefully bat accordingly(like he does in 2nd innings ODI chases). Obviously it could backfire but I think it could be well worth a shot. Such a move would also obviously help give him more of a rest between innings as well.

That does have some merit to it; Watson has never struck me as the most intelligent of batsmen, so having his role defined for him every innings can't be that bad an idea. Admittedly when he's coming in at 1/20 the role is rather defined anyway, but getting him away from the moving ball may not be a bad idea.

 

[Viscount Tom]

Clarke has oodles of talent its just up until the point of him been captain he didn't really back it up with the work ethic so much the bloke might as well bat at 3 he's been basically coming in at a similar situation before and its hardly like you could say he's been batting as a no.5 anyway given how poor the starts the top order have been giving Aus recently.

 

[howardj]

The problem isn't that Cowan and Warner haven't worked though. The real problem is that the loss of 1 wicket has pretty much always resulted in the loss of 3 wickets. Fix positions 3 and 4 and it becomes far less of an issue.

Are you serious? So it's OK to be one-down for not many most times? As the article says, they are the second-worst combination for Australia ever.

I don't know why we'd push for Clarke to come in at 3. It's a position he's never really batted in(even domestically) and could ultimately lead him performing worse which would only weaken the batting further.

Even if Clarke was to average just 45 at number 3, that's a full 20 per innings more than has been the case since the start of the 2009/2010 summer by Ponting, Usman, Quiney, Marsh and Watson. Moreover, the middle order wouldn't be exposed - which has been our real problem over the past three years. Consequently, it's madness to say that if Clarke averages less at 3 than he is at 5, that that is weakening our batting lineup. You can't compete with good teams consistently if you're 3 for less than 100 most times (see Perth last week, see 2009/2010 Ashes).

Given the most likely replacements are Hughes, Khawaja or Doolan best to stick these guys at 3 where they've played quite a few innings.

We have seen the results that flow from putting the new boy in at 3 (see above stats).

I believe that Watson at 6 could be a good thing. Thinking about how he performs in ODIs being generally poor in the 1st innings while being gun in the 2nd innings. To me it seems he's bad at laying down a platform and knowing what his role should be in making a platform. Moving him down the order he would know exactly what the situation requires whether it be 5/60 or 5/400 and hopefully bat accordingly(like he does in 2nd innings ODI chases). Obviously it could backfire but I think it could be well worth a shot. Such a move would also obviously help give him more of a rest between innings as well.

From the time Watson was promoted to open in England 09 until the end of the last Ashes series in Jan 2011, he scored 1696 runs @ 49.88. Moreover, opener is one of our key weaknesses. It's a no-brainer therefore that he returns to open.

 

[Spark]

Clarke averaging 60+ at 5 >>>> Clarke average 45 at 3.

It absolutely weakens the lineup to turn your world-class, possibly great batsman into a merely good one.

 

[uvelocity]

there's no evidence that Clarke would score less at 3 than 5. He can handle it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Think it's fair to say if Clarke wanted to bat at 3, he'd be batting at 3.

 

[howardj]

there's no evidence that Clarke would score less at 3 than 5. He can handle it.

Exactly right

I just hate this whole line of thinking

Clarke's game has developed and he'd be a gun wherever he played

 

[Spikey]

clarke being rested for the bbl game = the thunder now wanting to play usman. now out of the sl tour game.

#usmantastin

edit oh wait only for the last day

 

[benchmark00]

Exactly right

I just hate this whole line of thinking

Clarke's game has developed and he'd be a gun wherever he played

If it ain't broke...

Why risk wrecking the only thing in the batting line up that's working awesomely? Don't see your logic at all.

 

[benchmark00]

And furthermore, isn't a problem you have identified that one of the openers always gets out cheaply? If that's the case, then you're exposing Clarke to a new ball on a very regular basis. You may as well just open with him then right?

Clarke's game is suited to the 5 position, why would you jeopardise that? Why would you want to throw Clarke into a volatile position, only have him get out and Australia in a massive, massive hole. At least now when Australia lose quick wickets you have the best batsmen still to come in Hussey in Clarke. If the new ball does damage then you won't have that luxury.

 

[NUFAN]

Once our number 3 and 4 bats start batting a little more consistently the talk for Clarke to move up will die down. Quiney, Ponting and Watson combined for 71 runs @ 7.10 this series, you can't win many series with those sort of numbers.

If Clarke was often getting stranded on 60* or so batting at 5, I would be wanting him to move up the order, but its not happening at all. Hussey, Wade and the tail have been offering solid support for quite some time, so its a different sort of issue compared to say how Chanderpaul was for West Indies when he batted 5.

 

[benchmark00]

Yeah exactly. Clarke has made four scores of 200+ this year alone at 5. At no point is he ever facing a moment where he's running out of partners.

 

[uvelocity]

for me it's not a running out of partners thing, but the longer he doesn't move and we cycle through underperformers in a tougher spot, the worse it looks for the public and the young men coming in batting above. And it's not like there's some real reason he wouldn't be suited to be batting 3. I wouldn't be averse to huss at 3 and clarke at 4. But the new boy needs to come in at 6 for mine, and I think the best long term guy we have is Hughes. If he finds his feet and one of the other openers are glaringly not up to it, hughes to open and the next new boy to 6.

 

[stephen]

The primary problem with our team since the 06/07 Ashes has been Ponting underperforming at 3/4 and his partner in the other position not contributing at all. Ponting's average of 40 is only passable for a batsman over a 5 year time frame.

Only Hussey has contributed in that position and even he was well below his usual standards.

Other than losing McWarne, this has been the biggest problem that the Australian side has faced over the last five years. We now can't bat out a draw because our #3/4 batsmen have been underperforming.

Ponting has 58 matches in those spots over that time averaging 40
Hussey has 34 matches in those spots over that time averaging 42
All the other batsmen combined have 34 matches in those spots over that time and average 30 (Marsh) or less (Clarke 22, Watson 29, Khawaja 29, Quiney 3 and Lyon 7).

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Player		Span		Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s	
RT Ponting	2007-2012	58	102	4	4004	221	40.85	6879	58.20	8	26	9	450	16	
MEK Hussey	2007-2010	34	58	5	2256	146	42.56	4977	45.32	6	12	7	261	7	
MJ Clarke	2008-2011	16	24	0	522	80	21.75	1060	49.24	0	3	0	58	1	
SE Marsh	2011-2012	7	10	0	301	141	30.10	732	41.12	1	1	3	36	0	
SR Watson	2012-2012	4	8	0	228	56	28.50	503	45.32	0	2	1	24	2	
UT Khawaja	2011-2011	4	8	1	203	65	29.00	515	39.41	0	1	0	22	1	
RJ Quiney	2012-2012	2	3	0	9	9	3.00	22	40.90	0	0	2	1	0	
NM Lyon	2012-2012	1	1	0	7	7	7.00	26	26.92	0	0	0	0	0

In that same time, our #s 5 and 6 have done a lot better (with the exception of Marcus North - though even his stats were better than Clarke's at 4).

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Overall figures
Player		Span		Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s	
MJ Clarke	2007-2012	48	78	9	4639	329*	67.23	8227	56.38	17	14	6	523	15	
MEK Hussey	2008-2012	28	45	2	2044	195	47.53	3818	53.53	7	8	5	216	19	
MJ North	2009-2010	21	34	2	1151	128	35.96	2407	47.81	5	4	5	141	5	
A Symonds	2007-2008	12	20	4	795	162*	49.68	1173	67.77	1	6	2	87	9	
SR Watson	2008-2008	4	7	0	170	78	24.28	382	44.50	0	1	0	24	1	
BJ Haddin	2008-2011	7	8	0	134	42	16.75	194	69.07	0	0	1	17	2	
BJ Hodge	2008-2008	1	2	0	94	67	47.00	175	53.71	0	1	0	13	1	
SPD Smith	2010-2010	2	4	0	87	38	21.75	181	48.06	0	0	0	8	0	
NM Hauritz	2009-2009	1	1	0	75	75	75.00	152	49.34	0	1	0	8	1	
UT Khawaja	2011-2011	2	3	1	60	26	30.00	158	37.97	0	0	0	2	2	
MG Johnson	2008-2010	3	4	0	56	30	14.00	122	45.90	0	0	1	9	0	
AB McDonald	2009-2009	1	1	0	15	15	15.00	54	27.77	0	0	0	1	0	
RT Ponting	2012-2012	1	1	0	4	4	4.00	7	57.14	0	0	0	0	0	
PM Siddle	2012-2012	1	1	0	1	1	1.00	16	6.25	0	0	0	0	0

In that same time period, our opening combination has been doing average to well. At least our openers have been consistent.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Player		Span		Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s	
SM Katich	2008-2010	33	61	3	2928	157	50.48	5935	49.33	8	17	2	335	6	
SR Watson	2009-2011	24	45	2	1878	126	43.67	3556	52.81	2	15	3	258	11	
PJ Hughes	2009-2011	17	32	1	1072	160	34.58	1929	55.57	3	3	3	143	9	
ML Hayden	2007-2009	14	25	1	886	124	36.91	1468	60.35	3	2	3	107	3	
PA Jaques	2007-2008	9	16	0	806	150	50.37	1509	53.41	3	5	1	88	2	
DA Warner	2011-2012	12	21	2	796	180	41.89	1082	73.56	3	1	0	98	10	
EJM Cowan	2011-2012	10	17	0	586	136	34.47	1342	43.66	1	4	1	69	1	
MEK Hussey	2008-2008	1	1	0	40	40	40.00	94	42.55	0	0	0	3	0	
CJL Rogers	2008-2008	1	2	0	19	15	9.50	27	70.37	0	0	0	4	0

It's that gaping hole at 3/4 that has been killing our results more than any other factor. It exacerbates the problems of having relatively inconsistent openers (seriously, Cowan/Warner isn't statistically great, but they're not dire). While we could sorely use a Phil Jaques at the top of the order, I think it's far more important that we find a Damien Martyn for our middle order.

 

[Red]

As far as I'm concerned the only thing that SHOULDN't change in our batting order is...


5. Clarke
6. M. Hussey

 

[Justo]

Are you serious? So it's OK to be one-down for not many most times? As the article says, they are the second-worst combination for Australia ever.

If you have a 3 and 4 capable of scoring even moderate runs and the other opener sticks around it isn't that terrible though. I'm not saying the opening partnership is great but there are bigger problems in the batting order(3 and 4) that should be easier to fix(simply due to how bad these positions have been for us in recent years) than bringing about a complete upheaval of the batting linup.

Even if Clarke was to average just 45 at number 3, that's a full 20 per innings more than has been the case since the start of the 2009/2010 summer by Ponting, Usman, Quiney, Marsh and Watson. Moreover, the middle order wouldn't be exposed - which has been our real problem over the past three years. Consequently, it's madness to say that if Clarke averages less at 3 than he is at 5, that that is weakening our batting lineup. You can't compete with good teams consistently if you're 3 for less than 100 most times (see Perth last week, see 2009/2010 Ashes).

There's nothing to say Clarke would average 45 at 3 though. He's never batted there before and given just how brilliant he has been at 5 is it really worth risking a major slump in his batting performance? I'd rather Clarke come in at 5 and know that we've got security in the event of a collapse then have Clarke up the order and rely on newbies to save us after a collapse.

We have seen the results that flow from putting the new boy in at 3 (see above stats).

Depends on how you consider it. Khawaja was never given a genuine run at 3 with only odd spread out games against all sorts of opposition in varying conditions. Quiney was coming in off of no real FC form(1 80 in a warmup is not really form and probably wouldn't have been picked by most anyway) and Shaun Marsh(IMO at least) is extremely overrated.

From the time Watson was promoted to open in England 09 until the end of the last Ashes series in Jan 2011, he scored 1696 runs @ 49.88. Moreover, opener is one of our key weaknesses. It's a no-brainer therefore that he returns to open.

Yet he was poor against Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka and SAF in South Africa even while opening. The reality is that he's been in a form slump for a while now(except for 2020s). This slump doesn't have anything to do with opening the batting or not(since it started before being moved down the order) and probably ties into the injuries he's sustained. I'm a fan of Watson but he really is more suited lower down the order where he can punish tired bowlers or counter-attack after the loss of a few wickets. Also when the inevitable run out occurs it'll hopefully be a tail ender rather than a genuine batsmen.

 

[benchmark00]

for me it's not a running out of partners thing, but the longer he doesn't move and we cycle through underperformers in a tougher spot, the worse it looks for the public and the young men coming in batting above. And it's not like there's some real reason he wouldn't be suited to be batting 3. I wouldn't be averse to huss at 3 and clarke at 4. But the new boy needs to come in at 6 for mine, and I think the best long term guy we have is Hughes. If he finds his feet and one of the other openers are glaringly not up to it, hughes to open and the next new boy to 6.

So we play these young blokes out of position, and our experienced blokes out of position just because it looks bad to the public?

The only reason Ponting started his career down the order only because we had established, performing cricketers at 3/4/5 (Boon, Waugh & Waugh). At the moment we don't have performing cricketers at 3&4 so we are looking to introduce a batsman who bats in the top of the order to debut in the top order. Why would you advocate batting everyone out of position just for the sake of it?