Anyone for cricket?

[Macca 17,007]

I think this could be a small blessing in disguise.

By sucking in Melbourne, and with Sydney a second dead rubber, we may see changes to the side. Specifically, we may get to see someone in the place of Watson and/or Bailey, the two biggest problem players in our side.

Faulkner may get a game at 6, though I'm not sure if his batting is good enough for 6 (and I don't like seeing us push the keeper up to 6). We may also see a new batsman, potentially.

Either way, it may well mean we get something more important than we otherwise would have out of Sydney.

And now this Test takes another turn. Amazing sport for that sort of thing. Some sports can be very predictable but Test cricket constantly throws up these sort of twists. One wicket can change things dramatically - or that one wicket can lead to a dramatic change.

You'd reckon that South Africa won't be letting us off the hook when we tour there in Feb/March. 5 or 6 down for not many against their renowned attack? Our top order has to get better - maybe Hughes will get another chance? Or Maddinson? Hughes had a terrific tour over there in 2009 (so did Johnson)

If Hughes or Maddinson (or another top order batsman) come into the team, Watson should drop down to no.6 (his bowling is still invaluable) Bailey might be the one to make way (if there is a change to the team) However, if we go on and win this Test, I can see another unchanged team*

Interestingly, the South Africans haven't beaten us in a home series (over there) since that infamous 4 nil loss we experienced in 1970.

*Edit: Watson might be doubtful for Sydney with that groin injury. He may be bowling in the knowledge that it can't get any worse (but could still rule him out for Sydney)

this last 3 hours of today will be the real test. The bowlers and fielders are getting tired..how tired???

We just need one wicket (preferably KP's wicket! )

Edited December 28, 2013 by Macca

[titan_uranus 25,020]

And now this Test takes another turn. Amazing sport for that sort of thing. Some sports can be very predictable but Test cricket constantly throws up these sort of twists. One wicket can change things dramatically - or that one wicket can lead to a dramatic change.

You'd reckon that South Africa won't be letting us off the hook when we tour there in Feb/March. 5 or 6 down for not many against their renowned attack? Our top order has to get better - maybe Hughes will get another chance? Or Maddinson? Hughes had a terrific tour over there in 2009 (so did Johnson)

If Hughes or Maddinson (or another top order batsman) come into the team, Watson should drop down to no.6 (his bowling is still invaluable) Bailey might be the one to make way (if there is a change to the team) However, if we go on and win this Test, I can see another unchanged team*

Interestingly, the South Africans haven't beaten us in a home series (over there) since that infamous 4 nil loss we experienced in 1970.

*Edit: Watson might be doubtful for Sydney with that groin injury. He may be bowling in the knowledge that it can't get any worse (but could still rule him out for Sydney)

We just need one wicket (preferably KP's wicket! )

I don't think Bailey gets to go to South Africa. If he plays and fails in Sydney, there's probably no chance. Of course, he might come good, but I'm not confident that will happen. He also mightn't make it to Sydney, especially if we lose this Test and he doesn't contribute.

As for who replaces him - if Watson stays in the side (I'm also not sure that should happen), he might drop to 6, but then we need another number 3. I don't know how I feel about going back to Hughes (or Khawaja for that matter). They've had their chances in the side, each time being dropped, then recalled for strong domestic form, then sucking and being dropped again. So I'm not sure whether that's a good choice. However, we need someone.

KP's the big wicket now. Just the very out-of-form tail to come from here, plus the inexperienced Bairstow, and their lead isn't yet 200. Huge session, this.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

That is what we do not have in Australia right now...A number 3 Test Batsman.

Watson has hit runs in the 2nd innings of matches before though.

The Batsmen owe the Bowlers a good innings but how often does that happen in a Test Match.

Edited December 28, 2013 by why you little

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

Nathan Lyon 100 wickets.

Well done...

[45HG 1,549]

I just can't get over how tired the Aussie bowlers are WYL...

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Fantastic bowling from Lyon and Johnson (plus some awful batting from England). All out for 179. Just what we needed.

Target is 231. The bowlers have done their job. It's now down to our batsmen to do theirs. Plenty of time, so there's no need to take risks. Warner, Watson, Smith and Bailey need to show they can put in long, slow innings.

As for psychological advantages - gee, think how they'll be feeling right now.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

Long as the Batsmen do the job right through.

Bowlers were superb.

10/114

Still a chase at the 'G.

[dee-luded 2,959]

why did we thrash England in the first 3 Tests Titan.

What was the common thread?

Gonna be a long day in the field by the looks of the present score.

Wish we were batting right now.

Had the chance but Clarke was cocky.

bounce & the ball coming thru off hard pitches. the poms didn't like having less moments to (intuitively) play their shots, & australians prefer the ball coming onto the bat, instead of holding up off the pitch.

this is why in our first session with the ball, the medium pace was king, & johnson struggled. after lunch as the pitch surface hardened up, the ball was more responsive off the surface. we got wickets again.

Watson's been handy on the slow pitch. it seems that after lunch, this pitch has coughed up wickets.

imo the poms prefer softer seaming wickets to bowl on, we like concrete.

I doubt this wicket will brakeup inside the 5 days.

[dee-luded 2,959]

That is what we do not have in Australia right now...A number 3 Test Batsman.

Watson has hit runs in the 2nd innings of matches before though.

The Batsmen owe the Bowlers a good innings but how often does that happen in a Test Match.

i think we have, he's opening.

[dee-luded 2,959]

From the lips of Ryan Harris (14 minutes into this BBC podcast)

We could assume from the above that the decision to bowl was not Clarke's alone (regardless of your view on what we should have done when we won the toss)

My view is we should have batted first but that view is based more on not batting last. My view is also not a hard and fast one either - after the completion of day 1, it looked like it was a good decision! We can't have it both ways.

Most 4th and 5th day wickets play up to varying degrees but sometimes they don't play up. It depends on whether you want to bank on the "sometimes". Another argument is that sometimes a first day wicket helps the bowlers more than what was initially thought.

England would have learned a lot about how to bowl on the wicket when they batted in the 1st innings. However, we batted appallingly badly all the same. Both sides of the argument have merit.

It may not be a bad thing to get a kick in the pants anyway. South Africa looms.

great post macca.

I think that if our weakness is our top order, & if the poms strength is their bowling attack on pitches that aid them (anderson), then this holding up pitch may have swayed the decision to Not bat first.

also, our strength is having pommy bats on the defensive from our bowling attack... so we bowl first on a pitch thought to not suit our batsmen.

the proof of all this now (batting 2nd) will show itself tomorrow, if we bat with composure & intelligence.

[Macca 17,007]

great post macca.

I think that if our weakness is our top order, & if the poms strength is their bowling attack on pitches that aid them (anderson), then this holding up pitch may have swayed the decision to Not bat first.

also, our strength is having pommy bats on the defensive from our bowling attack... so we bowl first on a pitch thought to not suit our batsmen.

the proof of all this now (batting 2nd) will show itself tomorrow, if we bat with composure & intelligence.

Some good points there 'dl'

Watson possibly being injured for the Sydney Test might allow the selectors to revamp the batting order in preparation for the South African series. I threw up Hughes' name to bat at no.3 because I believe the selectors might give him another go. I'd much prefer one of Maddinson, Burns or Silk to be given a chance. Doolan is another possibility. Watson is better suited at no.6 and still offers a fair bit as the 5th bowler (when he's fit!) Shane is a bit of an enigma!

I'm not sure any of the players I've mentioned above are going to be the next "Ricky Ponting" but having the all-rounder at no.6 at least has a better look to the order. If Watson is fit, I still believe we need to do something with the no.3 spot. Bailey might have to make way if Watson were to drop down the order (George's form is questionable) I like Bailey as a cricketer but tough decisions have to made if he can't make runs.

However, it might still be another unchanged side for Sydney (especially if we win tomorrow)

In some ways, this series is done in my eyes but not in terms of where we're heading. I hope we win tomorrow but I'd trade a loss here for a Test win in South Africa. One test win probably won't win us the series in South Africa but it might mean we've made some more positive strides. The 3 Tests in South Africa will be played over a total of 22 days (3 days break between the 1st and 2nd Tests and 4 days break between the 2nd and 3rd Tests)

But we never like to lose to England anytime do we? Haddin's 65 in the 1st innings could ultimately prove the difference. Brad is in career best form - a grand effort for a 36 year old.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Some good points there 'dl'

Watson possibly being injured for the Sydney Test might allow the selectors to revamp the batting order in preparation for the South African series. I threw up Hughes' name to bat at no.3 because I believe the selectors might give him another go. I'd much prefer one of Maddinson, Burns or Silk to be given a chance. Doolan is another possibility. Watson is better suited at no.6 and still offers a fair bit as the 5th bowler (when he's fit!) Shane is a bit of an enigma!

I'm not sure any of the players I've mentioned above are going to be the next "Ricky Ponting" but having the all-rounder at no.6 at least has a better look to the order. If Watson is fit, I still believe we need to do something with the no.3 spot. Bailey might have to make way if Watson were to drop down the order (George's form is questionable) I like Bailey as a cricketer but tough decisions have to made if he can't make runs.

However, it might still be another unchanged side for Sydney (especially if we win tomorrow)

In some ways, this series is done in my eyes but not in terms of where we're heading. I hope we win tomorrow but I'd trade a loss here for a Test win in South Africa. One test win probably won't win us the series in South Africa but it might mean we've made some more positive strides. The 3 Tests in South Africa will be played over a total of 22 days (3 days break between the 1st and 2nd Tests and 4 days break between the 2nd and 3rd Tests)

But we never like to lose to England anytime do we? Haddin's 65 in the 1st innings could ultimately prove the difference. Brad is in career best form - a grand effort for a 36 year old.

I think Faulkner's coming in for Harris.

And maybe now, Watson or even Clark may miss, depending on fitness. but Not both at once. imo there is no coincidence Watto is @ 1st slip. I sense he's a highly valued thinker, & get breakthroughs with the ball.

he seems to be well thought of, by this clever team management.

IMO 3 isn't his natural spot, but he's the best atmo, as long as Warner is opening. I'd switch them at some stage.

the bowling attack is really blossoming under Boof & his entourage. I think the batsmen will to, but will take longer to recover from our recent past, than our bowlers have.

Mitch Johnson is bowling great, IMO a product of a few things he's done. his core strength work, the mental & motivational things he's done, as well as the work he's done with DKL & Terry Alderman. not to mention the management of billy & boof.

the core strength work seems evident in his runup, looks odd but is working. his endurance is key.

Siddle is running in different imo??? reminds me a little of billy the kids runup? I think they have Sids doing a different role than his past.

I like the thinking that seems to be going on in our strategies, the style our bowlers are taking, & their differing roles. working a treat.

[dee-luded 2,959]

However, it might still be another unchanged side for Sydney (especially if we win tomorrow)

In some ways, this series is done in my eyes but not in terms of where we're heading. I hope we win tomorrow but I'd trade a loss here for a Test win in South Africa. One test win probably won't win us the series in South Africa but it might mean we've made some more positive strides. The 3 Tests in South Africa will be played over a total of 22 days (3 days break between the 1st and 2nd Tests and 4 days break between the 2nd and 3rd Tests)

But we never like to lose to England anytime do we? Haddin's 65 in the 1st innings could ultimately prove the difference. Brad is in career best form - a grand effort for a 36 year old.

I think they've said Harris will Not play all Ashes tests, so he'll miss in Sydney, & Faulkner is ready I think. @ 12th man.

they may rest a Watson or Clark If necessary. health?

Hughes to me has run his race, as has khawaja for a while. they don't seem to have the grit for a 5 day game IMO.

Is there an opener around Macca... if Watto is unfit, they could bring in a untried opener & play Warner at first drop. the next test is the right time to try out a kid bat Pre Africa.

I like Smith atmo at 5, & Clark @ 4 for the moment, but in maybe 12 months or so's time, they could maybe be switched? I get the feeling Smith can bat higher some day.

Edited December 28, 2013 by dee-luded

[titan_uranus 25,020]

But we never like to lose to England anytime do we? Haddin's 65 in the 1st innings could ultimately prove the difference. Brad is in career best form - a grand effort for a 36 year old.

Indeed, if we end up winning by one or two wickets, the 40 he put on with Lyon this morning might end up being key.

[Macca 17,007]

I think Faulkner's coming in for Harris.

And maybe now, Watson or even Clark may miss, depending on fitness. but Not both at once. imo there is no coincidence Watto is @ 1st slip. I sense he's a highly valued thinker, & get breakthroughs with the ball.

he seems to be well thought of, by this clever team management.

IMO 3 isn't his natural spot, but he's the best atmo, as long as Warner is opening. I'd switch them at some stage.

the bowling attack is really blossoming under Boof & his entourage. I think the batsmen will to, but will take longer to recover from our recent past, than our bowlers have.

Mitch Johnson is bowling great, IMO a product of a few things he's done. his core strength work, the mental & motivational things he's done, as well as the work he's done with DKL & Terry Alderman. not to mention the management of billy & boof.

the core strength work seems evident in his runup, looks odd but is working. his endurance is key.

Siddle is running in different imo??? reminds me a little of billy the kids runup? I think they have Sids doing a different role than his past.

I like the thinking that seems to be going on in our strategies, the style our bowlers are taking, & their differing roles. working a treat.

Yep, we're switched on. Lehmann and co have made a big difference. The truth might be that many have lifted - coaching staff and players alike. ... and when you've got that sort of attitude, everyone wants to be a part of it. Lyon steps in today with a five wicket haul.

Before I forget, for those without cable, "tunein" radio often offers a radio broadcast of selected Test matches. This link ... Tunein - Cricket Radio currently offers commentary of the 2nd Test between South Africa and India (just click on the date next to the description for live coverage - might take a minute or so to kick in) I'll post the link up again when we're in South Africa in Feb/March.

I think they've said Harris will Not play all Ashes tests, so he'll miss in Sydney, & Faulkner is ready I think. @ 12th man.

they may rest a Watson or Clark If necessary. health?

Hughes to me has run his race, as has khawaja for a while. they don't seem to have the grit for a 5 day game IMO.

Is there an opener around Macca... if Watto is unfit, they could bring in a untried opener & play Warner at first drop. the next test is the right time to try out a kid bat Pre Africa.

I like Smith atmo at 5, & Clark @ 4 for the moment, but in maybe 12 months or so's time, they could maybe be switched? I get the feeling Smith can bat higher some day.

Maddinson and Silk both open but could bat at no.3 at a pinch. I think Burns is mainly a no.3 but has spent a bit of time at no.4. Doolan the same (?)

I just read the odd match report and check the scores of selected Shield games. Back in the day, we all knew a lot more about the up and comers. There's so much sport about these days - it's therefore difficult to keep up. It's always worth at least having a scan through the scores though. Cricinfo or the CA site have all the scores and results.

What I do remember is that previously, a batsman needed to bat in the top 3 or 4 for his State in order to be considered for the Test team. Even Walters started off batting 3 or 4 when he played for NSW (before he played for his Country)

You may be right about Hughes but after the turnaround of a number of our players this season, you just never know. Plenty have come back after being initially written off. You've previously made mention of a much improved environment and maybe someone of Hughes stature needs that sort of thing more than some others. He has had more than his fair share of chances though

Edited December 28, 2013 by Macca

[dee-luded 2,959]

Yep, we're switched on. Lehmann and co have made a big difference. The truth might be that they've all lifted. And when you've got that sort of attitude, everyone wants to be a part of it. Lyon steps in today with a five wicket haul.

...your right the whole team is playing as a Unit now, playing together & gfor one another united. its a huge difference,,, & now the culture is one of strength & health, the sort you can blood youngsters into. I expect the next 12 months to see a few get a chance, here and there.

Before I forget, for those without cable, "tunein" radio often offers a radio broadcast of selected Test matches. This link ... Tunein - Cricket Radio currently offers commentary of the 2nd Test between South Africa and India (just click on the date next to the description for live coverage - might take a minute or so to kick in) I'll post the link up again when we're in South Africa in Feb/March.

Maddinson and Silk both open but could bat at no.3 at a pinch. I think Burns is mainly a no.3 but has spent a bit of time at no.4. Doolan the same (?)

I just read the odd match report and check the scores of selected Shield games. Back in the day, we all knew a lot more about the up and comers. There's so much sport about these days - it's therefore difficult to keep up. It's always worth at least having a scan through the scores though. Cricinfo or the CA site have all the scores and results.

What I do remember is that previously, a batsman needed to bat in the top 3 or 4 for his State in order to be considered for the Test team. Even Walters started off batting 3 or 4 when he played for NSW (before he played for his Country)

You may be right about Hughes but after the turnaround of a number of our players this season, you just never know. Plenty have come back after being initially written off. You've previously made mention of a much improved environment and maybe someone of Hughes stature needs that sort of thing more than some others. He has had more than his fair share of chances though

I've never had the trust in Hughes since shortly after his first few games... for a while last year I thought he had changed, but once in the ashes Tests he became rash once again... I just have never felt faith in him that I have with Watto & Johnson, both talented, but with issues in a poor cultured unit, driven by amateurs.

re watching & reading cricket, I stopped since late in Pontings time as leader.

I just didn't like the way the team was heading, there was a lack of aussie-ness & aggression or something, which turned me off. lost me.

but now I'm back onboard, it has to be something Re the leadership.

Edited December 28, 2013 by dee-luded

[dee-luded 2,959]

You may be right about Hughes but after the turnaround of a number of our players this season, you just never know. Plenty have come back after being initially written off. You've previously made mention of a much improved environment and maybe someone of Hughes stature needs that sort of thing more than some others. He has had more than his fair share of chances though

The only place I'd consider Hughes now is in the middle order maybe a replace Bailey, but I think bailey brings a sturdy competative attitude to the team, as a mature leader in the team, Re culture. Hughes maybe is too much Gen Me??? Hoadley's violet crumble.

Hughes only offers quick scoring, I'd rather Watto, Johnson, & Warner.

[Macca 17,007]

The only place I'd consider Hughes now is in the middle order maybe a replace Bailey, but I think bailey brings a sturdy competative attitude to the team, as a mature leader in the team, Re culture. Hughes maybe is too much Gen Me??? Hoadley's violet crumble.

Hughes only offers quick scoring, I'd rather Watto, Johnson, & Warner.

He's not my choice anyway. I mentioned that I thought the selectors might pick him. I won't rule a line through Hughes though. He's still young enough to improve his game. Maybe in 12-18 months? For now, it's time for the selectors to try someone new. But who knows what they're thinking? They are the Australian selectors after all - expect the unexpected!

It might be academic anyway as one scribe reckons that Alex Doolan will come in and bat at no.3 if Watson is out for the Sydney Test. You look like being right re Harris as well. He's another who is now doubtful for Sydney.

[Sir Why You Little 37,052]

Rodgers has booked his spot to South Africa...

[dee-luded 2,959]

He's not my choice anyway. I mentioned that I thought the selectors might pick him. I won't rule a line through Hughes though. He's still young enough to improve his game. Maybe in 12-18 months? For now, it's time for the selectors to try someone new. But who knows what they're thinking? They are the Australian selectors after all - expect the unexpected!

I didn't think he would have been your 1st,,, as I recognise your desire to blood young & find class.

I'm surprised Boof has turned thsi teams culture around so quickly,,,, & so Now I think is time to give a kid a chance in a strong team environment of hard competative values & attitudes. So I think its time for your plan, but not drop Watto or Clark permanently. give a kid a game,,, bring in faulkner,,, & a young batsmen, to play or 12th man.

It might be academic anyway as one scribe reckons that Alex Doolan will come in and bat at no.3 if Watson is out for the Sydney Test. You look like being right re Harris as well. He's another who is now doubtful for Sydney.

I'd look at openers as Rogers & also Bailey are short termers,,, as is Clark, in real terms with his back. Our middle order is sound, so I would look at the very top of order first.

And have Warner as a 3rd opener to support any fails,,, with Clark, Smith & Bailey to follow up.

.. however I think Watto will be OK, & it may be Clark who needs to rest his back before O/S. then move everyone down one spot, up to Smith.

[Macca 17,007]

I'd look at openers as Rogers & also Bailey are short termers,,, as is Clark, in real terms with his back. Our middle order is sound, so I would look at the very top of order first.

And have Warner as a 3rd opener to support any fails,,, with Clark, Smith & Bailey to follow up.

.. however I think Watto will be OK, & it may be Clark who needs to rest his back before O/S. then move everyone down one spot, up to Smith.

If Clarke remains fit and Watson drops down to no.6, we're really only looking for a no.3 in the short term. Rogers may end up going on for a couple/few more years - him and Haddin are defying old father time. Good on 'em.

My opinion of an ideal no.3 is the following ...

Must be able to play the role of an opener

Have a great ability to get off strike with plenty of singles

Take the attack up to the bowlers and dictate terms

Have shots all around the wicket

Be one of your best players if not the best.

I guess that's asking a lot but if we're going to no.1 in the world, we'll most probably need someone of this ilk. However, the no.3 doesn't necessarily need to start off in that spot. I prefer to start a new player off at 5 or 6 to help ease them into Test cricket. But again, that's not a hard and fast rule.

[dee-luded 2,959]

My opinion of an ideal no.3 is the following ...

Must be able to play the role of an opener

Have a great ability to get off strike with plenty of singles

Take the attack up to the bowlers and dictate terms

Have shots all around the wicket

Be one of your best players if not the best.

I guess that's asking a lot but if we're going to no.1 in the world, we'll most probably need someone of this ilk. However, the no.3 doesn't necessarily need to start off in that spot. I prefer to start a new player off at 5 or 6 to help ease them into Test cricket. But again, that's not a hard and fast rule.

totally agree with your future *3's skillset.

I think its a special mindset for that pivotal spot, true grit is a must but also grafting runs as well as being able to be a fluent stroke-player all around.

Warner has all the shots but has to prove his temperament for the spot. IMO he has the mojo for the role but needs to mature into it.

I think Watto plays his best as opener against the quicks. but he's starting to look better balanced on his feet. however I'd rather him finish in the middle order,,, but play now @ *1.

I'd prefer Warner to be exposed to the spinners @ *3 & later, than Watto.

my order for the next 2 Yrs would be >

Watto

Rogers*

Warner

Clark

Smith

Bailey*

Haddin

Johnson

**********

**********

**********

* openings for future kids

[titan_uranus 25,020]

Well done Rogers. Fourth innings hundreds are special no matter what the situation of a match is.

[dee-luded 2,959]

For god sake man

I would prefer to have Johnson Siddle & Lyon bowling on a fading pitch in the 4 innings.

Stop throwing up these flimsy arguements. The pitch is playable. It is not green grass.

We now have to field all day during a stinking hot day and bowl really well & then chase down a score to win.

Clarke stuffed up.

happy WYL?

justified imo.

[Demon Jack 6,921]

Well done Australia! Thought Rogers was more deserving for man of the match after that amazing hundred but Johnson is still a fine choice.