Macca

At issue here is whether a batsman who has made it all the way to the best 6 batsmen in the Country needs a captain or a coach to make him play better. This is not footy where you're one of 400 who play every week. The different circumstances are extreme. You're either an A grade batsman or you generally won't have a long career - it's as simple as that. When you're out in the middle you're on your own (although whilst there is a lot to be said about batting as a partnership, you've still got to negotiate top quality bowling on your own) Boof and/or Pup have way less influence than many might think. They can't hold their hand. By the time a batsman reaches Test level he should know what to do. Even at 22 years old. Our lack of leaders within the team is a cyclical thing. I maintain that cricket needs a highly active selfish gene. Many just play for themselves and whilst this contributes to the overall team effort, it doesn't necessarily mean they're ever going to be good leaders. It's said that the best captains generally are batsmen who bat in the top order - our top order has been largely dysfunctional for a while now. Therefore we lack leaders. It's fairly simple. Once our top order gets to be good again, another leader or 2 might emerge. Watson made 176 yesterday. Did he bat for the team or for himself? Did he lead by example? Did he show leadership out in the middle? Was his performance great for himself or for the team? Or both? Who's the next obvious captain for England? It might be Prior as Trott, Pietersen or Bell don't stand out as likely candidates. KP has been tried before and the other 2 just don't seem the type. Maybe even Swann would be the next choice. Cook isn't going anywhere so it's not an issue for them right now. We should be saying the same about Clarke. I just hope all these losses isn't going to effect his batting. It's not his fault we're not a good team - in fact, he's doing more than enough and is a tactically sound captain.

I've defended Clarke numerous times on this thread and continue to do so (see the post below for another example) Those who are overly critical of Clarke are damned by their own words. Same as those who have been overly critical of the much maligned Watson. By the way, Shane has made the most runs in this series by an Aussie (392 - which is the 2nd most runs in the series by any player) As for Faulkner, if he picks up a few wickets in this Test anything could happen in the future. He's a bowling all-rounder (his figures indicate this) so he doesn't necessarily have to bat in the top 7 going forward. I've never regarded him as anyone who could bat in the top 6 (and have said so in this thread) but believe he might make it as one of the 3 seamers. If he does have a good all round game then it's a nice problem to have. Aren't we looking for competition for all the spots? There may also have been other reasons that we played 5 bowlers (if we assume Watson isn't bowling in this game) Maybe the selectors have drawn a line through 3 batsmen (for now) and have decided (already) to go in a different direction for the 1st Test in Brisbane. Selectors have been known to do this sort of thing at all levels of sport. (deny opportunities as part of a selection strategy) Harris and Siddle are our only shoe-ins right now although I'd agree that Starc would be next in line (if Pattinson isn't ready) However, Mitchell is no world beater and needs to bowl with more penetration (he may well do that in this Test) Starc now bowls at 135k's which is a maximum of 10k's short of his top pace. From the outside, it looks like the selectors are trying to send him a message (bowl well enough that we can't drop you or 'rest' you) Faulkner deserves a chance at least and I hope he does well when he gets his opportunity.

He hasn't even been on the field yet and you're demanding that he 'blows the lights out on his debut'? How about we give him a few Tests to see what he's like? He's 23 years old for crying out loud. Do you have the same attitude for all debutantes? Do you want him to fail? He's one of your players - how about wish the bloke well like most fair minded people would?

Antonio Smith getting rubbed out for the 2 remaining practice games could be looked upon as a blessing in disguise! Misses the first regular season game but he's lucky he didn't connect with Incognito (odd surname - only in America?) In other news ... what's going on with the Seahawks 'NSC'? ... The Seahawks believe their kinder, gentler philosophy is the future of football We could try this stuff at the Demons! Something's gotta work

One of the joys of sport is when a team or a player comes out against the odds and does something quite substantial. I had Watto out of the 1st Test in Brisbane for a number of reasons but mainly because he just seemed to have had too many chances and he wasn't delivering. Following on from his solid 68 in the 4th Test he comes out and makes a fantastic 176 in this Test. Not only did he go on with it but he was also was struck a fearsome blow behind the ear from Broad that looked awful in real time. (and in replay) The fact that he batted on for another 80 odd runs was great stuff. Well played Shane Watson. A grand innings and if we win this Test, he'll be largely responsible. Oh and 'TD', you might have to make a provision for Watto at the no.3 spot in the 'Poll' (not that I would change my vote!)

Well done Watto - must be a relieved man. Copped a nasty hit behind the ear from Broad along the way. Let's hope this is a corner turned.

Apparently the type of side that England picked was decided upon in advance. Don't know much about Kerrigan but his 1st class bowling figures are tidy (164 wickets @ 26.52) Just as well we won the toss with the make-up of our XI. We're going to need a good 1st innings score. Smith might get a few overs.

I meant it more so that Siddle and Harris are the only real certainties to start and there's one spot open - the 3rd one. Starc is in front of everyone else right now but he's no world beater. Starc has been known to bowl at mid 140's but for some unknown reason he's dropped a yard or 2 of pace. He's had a few injury issues so that might be the problem. I'd like to see him bowl with a bit more venom - the selectors might feel the same or maybe they're just trying to manage him well. Seems odd that he only ever seems to play one Test at a time. Warner gone. 4 down and we're into the tail

Batting order looks a little shaky. Nice to see Faulkner get a chance - with Cummins out for an extended time and with Pattinson not assured of being fit for the summer we'll need some depth in our bowling. Was surprised to see James' 1st class bowling average was under 23 and he bats at 30 - not too shabby. I like his competitiveness and combative attitude. Not sure Haddin batting at no.6 will last any longer than this Test but you never know. It would be a big departure from how things have normally been done if it is persisted with. The 3rd seamers spot is up for grabs and Faulkner gets his chance here. Starc and Bird are his competitors for the spot and if he has a good game, he could claim that 3rd spot. Alternatively, if Faulkner could bat at an average of 35 and bowl at an average of 30 odd then he might be able to hold down the no.6 spot. Time will tell and from all accounts, he's going to bat at no.7 in this Test - wish him all the best and I hope he has a good debut.

Ha! Yes, the story just keeps getting bigger unless the Cowboys make it. It's interesting that they've only had 1 losing season in their last 8 seasons. In amongst those years they've gone 13-3 and 11-5 so they're capable. Of course, I reserve the right to disavow or repudiate any predictions involving Dallas if 'Jerry' makes any 'off tap' moves like calling the plays from his superbox. Nothing would surprise me with the Cowboys. Can we bet on some of those game changing interceptions from Tony Romo - Yes!

There's some good threads away from the footy boards. We've got 4 or 5 San Francisco fans and a few Rams fans on this thread so get ready for some spirited debate. You don't see many arguments here which is a pleasant departure from some of the footy threads. We could do with a few more people posting and there's usually a lot to talk about. A weeks a long time in the NFL and the rule of thumb is whatever was said last week means nothing a week later! Seattle should be right up there again but my mob owe you one from last year - I'm a Packers man! We'd have to meet in the playoffs for that to happen although I noticed we play your blokes in a Preseason game next weekend. At Lambeau. 'cfh' suggested we do our predictions for the year and my early smoky is Dallas. No idea why because they nearly always find a way to self destruct. Just reckon they're due for some good luck. KC could get amongst it as well but probably not enough to get into the playoffs. Not sure on the Broncos - Peyton still manages games very well and he's still a champ. How do you reckon Wilson will go in his 2nd year?

Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States is an interesting 10 part mini series (in documentary form) The episodes focus on everything from WW2 through to the Cold War, JFK, Nixon, Vietnam, the Bush's and Obama. Some quotes from a few people who liked it ...

Any one of Maddinson, Burns, Silk or 1 or 2 others could eventually 'make it' if they're given a chance. We might have to try all of them to find the 'one'. Or more than one might make it. Traditionally, our best batsmen have been picked when they were aged 21-23. However, I'd favour any new batsman starting off down the order so as to ease that player into Test cricket. It's another tradition that we've gone away from a bit. If we cast an eye to the 2015 Ashes campaign (In England) then we'll need to start getting a decent batting order together. We've lost 8 of our last 9 Tests against quality opposition and to a large extent, it's been our batting that has let us down. Hate predicting a loss in any series but I'm struggling to find enough reasons as to how we could possibly win back the Ashes in Australia in a few months. We'd most probably have to win 3 of the 5 Tests. Big big ask. May as well plan for the future if that's the likely outcome (a lost series) If we lose that 1st Test in Brisbane but at the same time give 1 or 2 new blokes a go, it then becomes less painful. Of course, we can win that 1st Test as well - but we'd need to improve a lot (in a hurry) Are any 6 of the current 8 batsmen in England capable of collectively making enough runs to help pull off a win first up in Brisbane? The odds are against it right now. I don't see anywhere near the same level of issues with our fast bowlers, spin bowlers and our potential keepers. In fact, we're looking quite good in those areas with a number of positive options.

If the goal is to be 'great' in every position then the answer lies in how you go about it. Do we pick a team that can be a lot more competitive now (but in all likelihood, still lose) or do we take a punt on youth. We have no hesitation doing it with the bowlers ... Cummins debuted at 18, Pattinson 21, Starc 21 ... none of those 3 were dominating at Shield level when they were picked for their country. They certainly showed a bit of promise though and if they can overcome fitness issues, they are definitely the future. We could say the same thing about our batsmen. Maddinson, Burns, Silk, Doolan (27) and 1 or 2 others show a bit of promise but aren't setting the world on fire. Not all of them are going to make it if they are tried, but 1 or 2 might make it. And if 1 or 2 come through you've got a player or 2 that plays for 10-12 years. Smith, Hughes and Khawaja have been tried and they might still be persevered with. Otherwise, they go back to Shield level and hopefully get lots of runs and force their way back in. It's not the end when a young player gets dropped ... nor should it ever be. Martyn, Langer, Hayden and a number of others came back. I'd introduce one new young batsmen for the 1st Test in Brisbane (batting at no.5 or no.6) If the selectors want to be daring they might pick 2. Or maybe another young batsman can be introduced later in the series (in preparation for the South African tour to follow) We have to start building for the future.

I wonder if the Australian A team is in action before the 1st Test in Brisbane? Maybe they should organise some games regardless - possibly in Australia to play against South Africa A. Obviously we'll have some Shield games to go on as well. If you were a young up and coming batsman right now there's some golden opportunities coming up. It's my bet that the selectors will be looking for batsmen who can bat all day and put a huge price on their wicket. We've got a 36 year old in Rogers showing them how to do it. There's got to be others. I refuse to believe the cupboard is completely bare. But I agree with you about throwing too many new players to the wolves. One at a time and start that player off at no.5 or no.6. That's the way we've traditionally done it over time (with a few exceptions) Neil Harvey began his career at no.6, Greg Chappell started at no.7 and Keith Stackpole started at no.8! Even the great Sir Donald Bradman started at the lowly position of no.7 (the Don's 1st Test) You've possibly got Doolan in and I'd go with him, Maddinson or Burns. My choice of Shaun Marsh was because the alternatives of either Hughes, Cowan or Khawaja doesn't really appeal. Cosgrove has churned out a lot of runs and has claims. Unsure on Smith although he has improved. I do think we should be looking at the Australia A side as a guide. The batsmen who played recently in South Africa ... Doolan, S Marsh, Maddinson, Henriques and Maxwell could well be the ones to look out for.

So what do ya reckon jazza? A partial rebuild, a total rebuild or a rebuild of the rebuild! Dare I say it ... "It is what it is" Maybe CA can give the MFC a call (or walk across the road for a chat) and find out all about those rebuilds

You know what TD? You're probably right but what are our other choices? Those who have had a go all come into the same category ... not really good enough! Is Marsh any worse than half of the batsmen in England at the moment? Shuffling the deck chairs? Hughes, Khawaja, Smith or Cowan could stay for now but I'm not sure any of those 4 are the answer going forward. If it was me I'd be biting the bullet and bringing in 2 new young batsmen (England have done it with Root and Bairstow) but I doubt whether the selectors would take the risk with 2 new young players as part of the top order. Maddinson could be given a chance at no.3 and Burns at no.5 but that would be quite a radical move. However, I'd be quite surprised if we didn't see at least one new batsman for the Brisbane Test. I also can't see the Selectors going away from having the keeper batting at no.7 either (although they might do it for the Oval Test) Faulkner would have to bat too high for his batting ability if he was slotted in at no.6. And that brings us back to Watson. If they replace him with a 'like for like' then that brings an inexperienced batsman/bowler in to bat at no.6. Henriques is probably our next best choice but he's no world beater either. I'd give Moises a go all the same. But getting back to Marsh, he showed a bit when he first came into the side and then went off the boil. I suppose I'm using the Australia A side as a guide and if those players are next cabs off the rank, then Marsh is in the mix. Doolan was part of the Australia A team so maybe he'll get an opportunity. Who knows???

Putting the team for the Oval Test aside (in some ways it's not altogether relevant for the make-up of the team for the 1st Test in Brisbane) ... it's hard to know where to start with the make-up of the XI going forward (for the 1st Test in Brisbane) Obviously our batting is our main issue and if Clarke, Rogers and probably Warner are the mainstays, then that leaves 3 spots up for grabs. I maintain one of our batsman needs to fill the 5th bowlers spot so it's Henriques or Watson to bat at no. 6. (Maxwell, Faulkner and Mitchell Marsh have a fair bit of improvement to do to challenge for the same spot) We need a no.3 and a no.5. They could bring in Maddinson or Burns but it might be best to ease either of them into the team down the order. If the selectors only bring in one new player then maybe Shaun Marsh gets another chance at no.3. But who knows which way the selectors will go? They might decide to persevere with 6 of the current 8 batsmen in England. As for the keeper, at some stage in the not too distant future Brad Haddin needs to be replaced and maybe Tim Paine will ultimately come in. I'd keep Brad in the team for now as he does provide good experience and he is the vice-captain. Haddin could be our keeper up until at least to the end of the South African tour. The keeper should nearly always bat at no.7 (ideally) The fast bowling stocks are very good and with a fit Pattinson and Cummins we're well placed in that area. (although Cummins has broken down with another injury apparently) ... Pat Cummins' injury sees him leave Australia A tour Lyon stays and his bowling in this current Test has been very good. Reckon that Ahmed will get his opportunity soon enough though so Lyon needs to maintain his form. Team for the Brisbane Test Rogers Warner S Marsh Clarke Maddinson Henriques/Watson Haddin Pattinson Siddle Harris Lyon As for the make-up of the team for the Oval Test, there could be a few changes and maybe a couple of our batsmen can save their careers. A century by any of our batsmen with a question mark against them will probably be required (and maybe a big 100) Hughes may get another chance at no.3 and Cowan could get a call up as well. If Watson isn't passed fit they might replace him with a batsman only. Wouldn't be surprised if they rested Harris and/or Siddle for Starc and/or Faulkner but it depends on whether the selectors use the game for experimentation or they pick the best XI. If they pick the best XI then Harris and Siddle have to play.

It's a big ask but it would be a great victory if we can chase this score down. I suppose if Rogers plays the sheet anchor then that is one part of the equation ticked off. Khawaja needs to bat some good time as well. Warner, Clarke, Smith and Watson to be the aggressors? They've got the bowling for this sort of wicket though. We'll need a slice of luck.

England leading by 202 runs with 5 wickets in hand gives them an advantage if they can convert that to an overall lead of 275+. Anything can happen though and we just need to get 1 wicket to possibly trigger a collapse. Ideally we can remove Bell fairly quickly as he could guide England to a good total. 3rd ton in this series for him now and he's certainly batted very well. In other news ... Shane Watson struggling again as injury likely to rule all-rounder out of final Test at The Oval

Lets agree to disagree. Time will tell whether this whole DRS system works or not. If it does work long term, well and good. Right now, it comes down to a matter of opinion. We'll know DRS is working when it's talked about without any reasonable degree of controversy. Thanks jazza, but you're way too kind. At the end of the day, it's all just about opinions. And you know what they say about opinions!

From cricinfo on the Pietersen dismissal in the 2nd innings of the 3rd Test ... Did KP nick it? Without DRS he may well have walked off the ground and accepted the umpires decision without showing any dissent. Then again he might have shown dissent ... we'll never know. Most neutral observers might form an opinion either way but under the old system, the 'rub of the green' comes into play. Now, because of the use of DRS and the unreliability of 'hotspot' we're even further confused. If we 'trust' hotspot then KP shouldn't be out and if we don't trust hotspot we're left scratching our heads. We've now got a situation were we are most probably stuck with the new technology but it needs a lot of work. Not sure they can fix everything anyway and at some stage, we're going to have an almost identical incident to the one involving KP. For what it's worth, I believe that Pietersen nicked the ball and I believe he knew he hit it. Other batsmen in this series have done the same thing so he's not on his own there. Reckon he was testing the technology and if you allow batsmen to review decisions, they'll always be tempted to review those decisions. Unnecessary reviews can happen because of all sorts of situations. What if a batsman is just plain selfish or is battling to save his career? What if the team requires him to review a decision he may have ordinarily walked on? (think Gilchrist) At the very least the reviews should be taken away from the players. Just let the 3rd umpire review everything. It will slow the game down appreciably but at least it will help eliminate the howler and any 'perceived' cheating. Of course, that's assuming that DRS stays.

Perhaps the ICC could have trialled a fully operational DRS at the next level down. Shield, County, Currie Cup games or the like could have easily been set up with the technology. 2 or 3 years of a fully operational DRS being used in a multitude of games at the next level down could have the effect of ironing out any issues. The ICC is well cashed up so it can't be a money issue. Perhaps they're just incompetent. In an interview with Warren Brennan (the inventor of hotspot) Warren indicated that the 3rd umpire can have a lot more information and video at his immediate disposal. Currently he believes that's not the case and we have a situation where the 3rd umpire is waiting on the host broadcaster to 'feed' him the information. And the quality of that information can vary quite significantly. Again, it's amateurish and the ICC must shoulder the blame. The following BBC podcast features Warren Brennan. Goes for 3.50 mins but he does explain things quite well ... well worth a listen ... The inventor of Hot Spot explains the limitations of his system The problem with using hotspot as an 'aid' is that if it's always going to be somewhat unreliable, what's the point of using it? When can we 'believe' hotspot? It's not like one can pick and choose. You either trust in it or you don't.

Those opposed to DRS talk about its flaws (certainly in my case) 'Not liking it' comes as an overall judgement because of those flaws. This is not about not embracing new technology or being suspicious of anything new. It's whether a new system is as good or better than the old system. I was never opposed to trying the system out but was of the belief that it didn't have the amount of flaws that have been shown up (e.g. snicko not always being used because it's not up to real time, hotspot being largely unreliable, Hawk-eye now being talked about as 'dubious', the inventor of hotspot being concerned about certain coverings of the bats, technology varying according to the host broadcaster etc) DRS has worked a lot better in this Test and it's about time. Perhaps the ICC should have made sure the system was working properly before they went down the path of using it. It seems they've decided to go in with a 'boots and all' approach but will have to iron out the problems and flaws as it progresses. For a supposed professionally run organisation, it's seems quite an amateurish way of doing things. But of course, we are talking about the ICC.

Need to break this partnership ... Harris is still bowling very well and looks the most likely. Like to see Lyon on again - he's bowled 5 overs and only conceding 7 runs. He may just be the one to tempt KP into a false shot. It's been a very good Test match with a pitch that gives a bit to the seamers. England lead by 97 with 7 wickets in hand. They might be marginally ahead but a wicket now can change things.