On 05/11/2013 at 23:44, Django said:

I reckon Cosgrove could if he got serious.

wont play unless within 120 metres of a maccas

so definitely unavailable for the wacca/brizzy /adelaide

  On 05/11/2013 at 02:35, titan_uranus said:

Is there anyone in Australia who can actually bat at 3? Watson can't. Smith can't. Khawaja cant. Clarke can, but shouldn't (back). I don't think Bailey can either.

Maybe Doolan gets a game for this reason. 28 years old, so not as young as we might have hoped for, but still could get a decent few years out of him, and he is made for 3.

Why not Warner? imo he could play like boony at 3.

he's got grit & a real fighting spirit. should be quick on his toes.

Watson's best opening, & could get us off to a quick start like gilly did. if he gets out early, then Rogers & Warner can steady the side & push on.

  On 05/11/2013 at 21:04, jazza said:

cant believe your saying Clarke can bat at 3 but shouldn't because of a bad back

if his back is that bad he wouldn't be making doubles at 5

not bowling with a bad back is understandable

making runs at 5 and not at 3 because of a bad back is piffle

we need to consolidate the top 4 spots, especially the top 3 in the short term, if clark stays for the moment at 4.

IMO if his back gets tight, & has to miss a test or 2, we need the top 3 as solid as we can muster.

Rogers has dropped the anchor, as they say, in the match against NSW. 26* off 127. White made 48 before getting out, Quiney just 6. Victoria now 4/100.

Carberry opened with Cook in the England XI v Australia A game. 0/164. Bowlers include Jon Holland, who got hit around for 25 off his 4 overs.

Silk and Cosgrove doing well to have Tasmania 0/109, against bowling including Ryan Harris.

  On 06/11/2013 at 02:26, dee-luded said:

Why not Warner? imo he could play like boony at 3.

he's got grit & a real fighting spirit. should be quick on his toes.

What rubbish. He's got nothing but a desire to be flashy and the ability to hit sixes. I couldn't imagine a worse number 3 choice, to be honest.

Cowan has 'grit and a real fighting spirit'. So does Rogers. Warner is at the other end of the spectrum.

  On 06/11/2013 at 03:16, titan_uranus said:

What rubbish. He's got nothing but a desire to be flashy and the ability to hit sixes. I couldn't imagine a worse number 3 choice, to be honest.

Cowan has 'grit and a real fighting spirit'. So does Rogers. Warner is at the other end of the spectrum.

And there in point is what 20/20 cricket has done to our test players.

  On 06/11/2013 at 03:16, titan_uranus said:

What rubbish. He's got nothing but a desire to be flashy and the ability to hit sixes. I couldn't imagine a worse number 3 choice, to be honest.

Cowan has 'grit and a real fighting spirit'. So does Rogers. Warner is at the other end of the spectrum.

Agree. Warner is no No 3.

  On 06/11/2013 at 03:50, Django said:

And there in point is what 20/20 cricket has done to our test players.

Wrong. Warner has played like that since club days. And he played 20/20 before he played Test cricket. And he has batted like he has always batted.

England 0/310. Carberry 145*. Cook 154*. New opening pair confirmed, you'd have thought. Root to bat at 6.

Cutting, Copeland, Henriques, Holland, Maxwell = all lacklustre.

Meanwhile Victoria is 7/196, Rogers a valiant 87* whilst the rest struggle. Lyon's taken just the one wicket so far (I hate this media crap about a 'bowl off' between Lyon and Ahmed. Lyon is better. Ahmed hasn't done nearly enough yet to be included. Selecting him on the back of one innings where he took a six-for is exactly the kind of haphazard selecting we shouldn't be engaging in).

Edited November 6, 201311 yr by titan_uranus

In the Tasmania vs Queensland game, Tassie 2/268. Silk 107, Cosgrove 74, Cowan 57*, Bailey 22*. Bailey's 22 have come of 20 balls, including five 4s; all the other batsmen had strike rates in the order of 50. Think someone forgot to tell him he's not playing on roads in India any more.

Harris 1/86 and has been the most expensive of the bowlers.

It's ominous with Cook finding touch soon before the first test.

The curator must have taken a kick because the pitch was bowler friendly last year.

The positive out of today's play is that none of today's bowlers should feature in the current Ashes series.....barring injury.

None of them were on my radar.

As for Ahmed he will have his day and Lyon is just a Test by Test proposition.

  On 06/11/2013 at 06:54, Nasher said:

In the Tasmania vs Queensland game, Tassie 2/268. Silk 107, Cosgrove 74, Cowan 57*, Bailey 22*. Bailey's 22 have come of 20 balls, including five 4s; all the other batsmen had strike rates in the order of 50. Think someone forgot to tell him he's not playing on roads in India any more.

Harris 1/86 and has been the most expensive of the bowlers.

Yes you can see the players telling Bailey to take it easy. Harris is battling a virus. The good part is he has got through the day.

  On 06/11/2013 at 05:07, Rhino Richards said:

Wrong. Warner has played like that since club days. And he played 20/20 before he played Test cricket. And he has batted like he has always batted.

That is my point, the 20/20 matches and the extra focus on it these days really affects the batsman's ability to concentrate, at least in Australia. If Warner had been brought into tests before 20/20 there is a good chance he would have developed better concentration and discipline at the crease, rather than playing rash shots and being indecisive as to when to attack and defend. And I believe that in his club cricket, Warner was also playing 20/20 and 50 over matches.

It is affecting arguably all the bats aside from Clarke, who is obviously our best bat.

He bats like that at club level before 20/20 and Tests. It's the nature of the beast. And he's a five star goose off the field which does not help.. And based on your comment about Warner at Club level, should he have played Tests before club cricket??

The problem affecting our batsman is that they are not technically good enough there are enough examples of players who aren't playing considerable 20/20 and just have not made the grade because they are flawed batsman. Hughes Cowan are just two examples.

  On 06/11/2013 at 07:27, Rhino Richards said:

He bats like that at club level before 20/20 and Tests. It's the nature of the beast. And he's a five star goose off the field which does not help.. And based on your comment about Warner at Club level, should he have played Tests before club cricket??

The problem affecting our batsman is that they are not technically good enough there are enough examples of players who aren't playing considerable 20/20 and just have not made the grade because they are flawed batsman. Hughes Cowan are just two examples.

No, I was saying a lot of his club cricket has probably also contributed to the 'hit out or get out' mentality that he often shows.

I agree that we are bereft of technically good batsman, that much is obvious. 20/20 though is affecting the players games though, as I said above, in terms of concentration at the crease and not knowing when to attack or defend. There are plenty of examples of our batsmen getting themselves out over the past couple of years in that way and the big scores (batsmen batting on after 100) are less and less each year. Due in part to talent and skill but also this plight.

  On 06/11/2013 at 03:16, titan_uranus said:

Rogers has dropped the anchor, as they say, in the match against NSW. 26* off 127. White made 48 before getting out, Quiney just 6. Victoria now 4/100.

Carberry opened with Cook in the England XI v Australia A game. 0/164. Bowlers include Jon Holland, who got hit around for 25 off his 4 overs.

Silk and Cosgrove doing well to have Tasmania 0/109, against bowling including Ryan Harris.

What rubbish. He's got nothing but a desire to be flashy and the ability to hit sixes. I couldn't imagine a worse number 3 choice, to be honest.

Cowan has 'grit and a real fighting spirit'. So does Rogers. Warner is at the other end of the spectrum.

geez, I certainly didn't see Warner that way. Is this inside information from state cricket? I haven't heard that before about him.

I know Cowan has grit & thats what I saw in his career as an opener, but he went off as well over the last 12 - 18 months, that horrible timeframe for our test team.

But Cowan doesn't seem to my eyes that he has enough shots? certainly not for a 3, I think.

If your right about Warner, whats he doing in the test team in the first place? & at the top of the order.

Rogers is the one I thought/hoped would come into 3, when they called him up in the UK.

  On 06/11/2013 at 07:37, Django said:

No, I was saying a lot of his club cricket has probably also contributed to the 'hit out or get out' mentality that he often shows.

I agree that we are bereft of technically good batsman, that much is obvious. 20/20 though is affecting the players games though, as I said above, in terms of concentration at the crease and not knowing when to attack or defend. There are plenty of examples of our batsmen getting themselves out over the past couple of years in that way and the big scores (batsmen batting on after 100) are less and less each year. Due in part to talent and skill but also this plight.

India is besotted with 20/20 yet still manages a production of batsman adept at both forms of the game. You are using the lack of temperament of one batsman as the "proof" that 20/20 is culprit when it's a crutch. I have mentioned a number of cricketers who a technically flawed players when they reach the top echelons and it's nothing to do with concentration. It's ineptitude of technique. You can just watch a Cowan a Hughes or a Watson with leaden foot and angled bat seem at loss when they Achilles heel is probed and probed until they fall. It's a Chinese water torture.

  On 06/11/2013 at 09:07, dee-luded said:

geez, I certainly didn't see Warner that way. Is this inside information from state cricket? I haven't heard that before about him.

I know Cowan has grit & thats what I saw in his career as an opener, but he went off as well over the last 12 - 18 months, that horrible timeframe for our test team.

But Cowan doesn't seem to my eyes that he has enough shots? certainly not for a 3, I think.

If your right about Warner, whats he doing in the test team in the first place? & at the top of the order.

Rogers is the one I thought/hoped would come into 3, when they called him up in the UK.

He's in the side because he has talent, there aren't many decent batsmen going around in Australia at the moment, and CA is desperate for Australian cricket to have 'stars' to attract kids and the like.

Grit isn't everything, which is why Cowan's Test days look numbered. But Warner doesn't have it. He's not the kind of batsman to just bunker down in the face of strong bowling, he doesn't have that lion-hearted fighting spirit. That's not him. His runs come from big shots and dominating bowlers.

  On 06/11/2013 at 10:09, Rhino Richards said:

India is besotted with 20/20 yet still manages a production of batsman adept at both forms of the game. You are using the lack of temperament of one batsman as the "proof" that 20/20 is culprit when it's a crutch. I have mentioned a number of cricketers who a technically flawed players when they reach the top echelons and it's nothing to do with concentration. It's ineptitude of technique. You can just watch a Cowan a Hughes or a Watson with leaden foot and angled bat seem at loss when they Achilles heel is probed and probed until they fall. It's a Chinese water torture.

Watson, who continually makes it to the 90's, only to get himself out? The evidence is there, just look around.

Pissing down with rain this morning here. I live half an hour south of Hobart and it tends to rain more here than it does there, but let's hope it's raining up in the "big smoke", so that play is abandoned and we stop running their batsmen in to form with the pie chuckers we've got in the 'A' side.

  On 06/11/2013 at 21:07, Django said:

Watson, who continually makes it to the 90's, only to get himself out? The evidence is there, just look around.

Agree. The evidence is there.

A technically flawed batsman whose front pad thrusts in all forms of the game are embarrassing. If he could deal with that problem there is no reason why he could not prosper in all forms of the game.

Warner showing his 'grit' with 28* off 21 and 6 fours.

I suspect he's a given for the first Test, though I would prefer him never to play Test cricket again, so it probably doesn't matter.

Siddle with the early wicket of Maddinson is a good sign; he's been a bit out of form so far this season, and we're no chance in the Ashes if he's not taking wickets.

If Cowan goes on to make a century, I wonder whether that will change the selectors' minds? I doubt it, I feel like he'd need to make successive big scores because his cards appear stamped, but at least he'll be in form if we need back up.

  On 06/11/2013 at 10:54, titan_uranus said:

He's in the side because he has talent, there aren't many decent batsmen going around in Australia at the moment, and CA is desperate for Australian cricket to have 'stars' to attract kids and the like.

Grit isn't everything, which is why Cowan's Test days look numbered. But Warner doesn't have it. He's not the kind of batsman to just bunker down in the face of strong bowling, he doesn't have that lion-hearted fighting spirit. That's not him. His runs come from big shots and dominating bowlers.

I agree grit isn't everything. but in the top 3 imo its an imperative necessity. (see boon/chapelli)

I agree Cowan has it but i don't think he has the class to bat at 3 or 4. nor does Watson. this is why I likes them together as 1 & 2. the strokemaker & the grit.

Khawaja imo hasn't the grit & composure to bat at 3; or even 4 as yet.

Warner I hoped had the necessary to follow them @ 3, but from what you say, he's not the one I'd hoped for...

What about Rogers for 3? has he got the attributes to temporarily hold the 3 spot, until someone natural comes along ready to take it? my thinking is to not throw some young green stick into the position, whilst the side is on the mental backfoot, but to blood the kids higher up to acclimatise, them then promote when they're & the sides more ready.

So why Warner @ opener if he's so iffy? why not in the middle order & do away with hughes all together?

  On 06/11/2013 at 23:28, Rhino Richards said:

Agree. The evidence is there.

A technically flawed batsman whose front pad thrusts in all forms of the game are embarrassing. If he could deal with that problem there is no reason why he could not prosper in all forms of the game.

He manages to front pad thrust his way to 90 pretty well...

Bailey out for 34, didn't add to his overnight score. Disappointing.

Meanwhile Cowan continues, now on 75. Warner's up to 60 off 52.

Rain in Hobart preventing Doolan from getting out there and having another shot at the Test side.

  On 07/11/2013 at 01:12, titan_uranus said:

Bailey out for 34, didn't add to his overnight score. Disappointing.

Meanwhile Cowan continues, now on 75. Warner's up to 60 off 52.

Rain in Hobart preventing Doolan from getting out there and having another shot at the Test side.

If Cowan posts a very big score, it will be interesting to see the selectors reaction.

Spoke too early, Cowan out for 78.