Nasher

Sometimes I get the impression some (older types) rag on Clarke just because they can't relate to his personality type, and as a result are blinded to his actual performance. The fact is that in recent months he's been excellent with the bat and exceptional as captain; today's effort is just the pinnacle. Well done.

It's not about getting it wrong, it's how you go about communicating your opinion. When you slam a player (as distinct from respectfully disagreeing with his selection) when you haven't seen him play in ages, you're asking for a bollocking I reckon. FWIW I didn't agree with Hilfenhaus' selection either - and said as much - and clearly got that one wrong, but the reason nobody is throwing it in my face is because I wasn't nasty about it. Actually, now that I think of it, I was in the "our tail sucks" camp, too. Backed both the wrong horses there!

Good post Macca - I agree with you. My interest in T20 isn't as strong as it is in Test cricket, but it does have appeal to me. There seems to be this elitist view that you can only enjoy one or the other, and the people who are "purists" in their own minds need to prove that they're true hard core Test cricket lovers by ragging on T20 at every opportunity. I'd challenge anyone to watch Chris Gayle's century the other night with an open mind and tell me that wasn't exciting. Another good analogy would be Volleyball in the Olympics - there's the court variety in which the serious players of the sport compete in, and the beach variety where the competition really just an excuse for the spectacle (though there's fewer women in bikinis in T20 cricket ).

I'd never heard of Watkins before, so I've just done a bit of reading. Makes for an interesting tale: From this article: And his cricinfo profile: Jeez. I can only imagine what a humiliating and degrading experience that must've been. We've all had those "I clearly don't belong here" moments in life, but in the spotlight on an international stage with some of cricket's greats within spitting distance would be horrifying. I'd be scarred for life. Sounds a lot like me when I played cricket through high school - I bowled leggies too. When the confidence was down or I just wasn't feeling the best, I'd have almost no control over the ball whatsoever. On a good day, most of my deliveries landed on the pitch

I pushed for Faulkner a while ago, but gave up when it seemed nobody else had heard of him. In time I expect he could bat at 6 as well.

How come Clarke himself rarely bowls? He's just let Warner toss a few down, given Hussey several overs this game and occasionally calls on Ponting to bowl; why not himself? He's a better bowler than all four of those blokes.

Pattinson just demonstrated how to get around that problem :-) As my colleague at work noted, "can't drop that one"!

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about or what any of this means, nor do I know what I did to deserve what I think (but can't be quite sure) is an attack on my character. Edit: Just so we're clear, all I said was that disagreements were healthy and made the place interesting. I'm not quite sure how we got from there to "I'm a power tripping groupy who has to be right all the time and in control".

If everyone just posted their own opinion and nobody ever challenged anyone elses, this'd be the boring-est place anywhere.

I know, but my (subtle) point was that it's a bit harsh to rib the guy when he wasn't actually out. I realise it wasn't the greatest shot he's ever played in his career, but luck - or lack thereof - played an enormous part in his dismissal.

I was a bit surprised when he was given out when he hadn't hit it.

He makes runs. He's got all the shots, but he still scores too slowly to probably be in consideration for higher honours in these forms of the game.

Cowan in for Hughes, one of Marsh/Christian in for Khawaja, and one of Hilfenhaus/Starc to play. Selectors claiming they want some experience when playing against India. Hard to argue against that, but at the same time it's difficult to see how Hilfenhaus will be any better than Starc. Not a particularly convincing selection for mine. As I already said, stoked for Eddie Cowan though. Really hope he thrives. Cowan, Marsh, Hilfenhaus named for Boxing Day Expected (/hoped) lineup for mine: DA Warner EJM Cowan SE Marsh RT Ponting MJ Clarke MEK Hussey BJ Haddin PM Siddle JL Pattinson MA Starc NM Lyon Still find that tail a worry - not that I was expecting that issue to be resolved considering it's just a by-product of who our best bowlers happen to be at the time, but still. I reckon this side is about the best we can muster at the moment - that Hilfy sits twelfth is indicative of its (lack of) strength. Fingers, toes and elbows crossed that it's enough.

I'd be delighted for Ed Cowan if he got a baggy green. He's been scoring runs ever since he set foot in Tassie basically - deserves it. I think when push really comes to shove his Test career will be short, but I'm pleased his name's in the ring anyway. Agree with you re: Hilfy. Another that I really wanted to make it for obvious reasons, but there's a bit of tedium in his name coming up. We've been down that path before with not much success, let's look forward not back.

Because it makes a complete mockery of Katich's little dummy spit not all that long ago.

Clarke pushing for Katich is amusing.

AoB, obviously it's a very difficult concept to grasp.... Bob: Johnson adds batting depth to our lineup Demonland: But Johnson has been bowling woefully for ages! Bob: Okay, forget naming names, our tail is long because none of our bowlers can bat. Demonland: But Johnson has been bowling woefully for ages! Frustrating stuff.

Tasmanian* Ed Cowan is surely ahead of all those other openers (Jaques, Rogers at al). That said, I think it's all a moot point arguing over which almost good enough opener might almost deserve a spot. Warner is powering ahead of them all at this stage. *State of birth doesn't mean a thing, unless I'm talking about Matty Wade in which case I, as a Tasmanian, feel compelled to take all the credit for.

Nearly :-) It pissed down with rain here for about 5 minutes then passed. Hot (relative to recent weather) and humid and yucky.

I'm in your corner too Macca. No science behind it, just think that his rate of progression in the long form of the game has been pretty good, remembering that he wasn't a professional cricketer when he was catapulted in to the Australian T20 side. He's obviously got all the shots - I think in time the temperament and concentration will come. I liked this article - seems to reaffirm what I'm saying: What Sehwag saw in Warner

I don't know that that washes - Glenn McGrath's improvement had no effect on the longevity or effectiveness of his career because ultimately it was still his bowling that did the talking. It was just an added bonus, and probably a testimony to his work ethic and desire to do the right thing for his team. Those other old guys came from a different era and probably spent 0% of the time working on their batting, in the era of professional cricket I'd expect better. Then again, maybe Martin is considered a lost cause, but I find that hard to believe that nobody could teach him how to get forward and block the ball properly when it's on the stumps.

No, don't think I'll be going. I think if I was going to wag work, my wife (who has pregnancy related pelvis issues) would prefer that I stay at home and help look after the kids, and they're too little to enjoy watching hours of Test cricket at a time. There was an article a while ago about Chris Martin being statisically the worst Test batsman of all time, outdoing the likes of Courtney Walsh etc. He's also one of two Test cricketers (30+ matches) to have more wickets than runs scored. I thought that was pretty funny :-) I like his cricinfo bio: "Hardworking with the ball and outrageously feeble with the bat" and "by the end of the decade Martin was New Zealand's fourth highest Test wicket taker of all time but he was equally well known for his comically inept batting. Getting Martin out is as difficult as making a cup of tea and often takes less time. " The guy's nearly 37 years old too, it's amazing that he's managed to forge such a successful Test career as a bowler without making some inroads in to at least being able to stick the bat in front of the ball occasionally. Look at Glenn McGrath's improvement with the bat as his career progressed.

I struggle with having to choose between Siddle and Pattinson. Siddle is currently our best bowler and Pattinson was hot in that second innings; it'd be a momentum sapper to drop him now. Does Harris have to come straight in to the side if fit? I'm assuming he won't be anyway, so it's a bit of a moot point. Everyone seems to be an expert on Hughes' technique. Not saying I disagree with your assessment t_u, but I cringe a little when armchair experts comment on "technique" of professional batsmen.

Out for 96 - disappointed for him. I was thinking after he punished Lyon for two fours that he might do something silly in the last ball of the over, and he did. Deserved the 100.

In Vettori's last 50 or so Test innings he's averaged around the 40.00 mark. Over his career he's transformed himself from a handy defensive lower order "end occupier" to a bona fide middle order batsman. What an amazing story about what hard work and a good temperament (not to mention sheer necessity) can do - some of the more talented batsmen on their list should look at him and feel embarrassed at themselves. Can't think of too many players in Test cricket that I respect more than Vettori.