GaffaCHinO
Peter Sullivan (51)
He has been opening the batting for the last 12 months ;-) the way out top order has being going thats is.
Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my GT-I9300T using Tapatalk 2
3rd test Aus V SA, Perth 30 Nov to 4 Dec
- Thread starter mark_s
- Start date
- Status
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Well played 
The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
Unfortunately we aren't spoiled for batting talent like we used to be. When we used to bat the newbies lower in the order, we had the calibre of batsmen at the top that could take the pressure off. We don't have that luxury anymore. Batting the likes of Clarke and Hussey way up the order removes one of our only batting strengths.
I firmly believe that Watson should bat at 5 or 6. However, if we want to ease a guy into the team he needs to stay at 3 for Sri Lanka. The highest I would move Clarke to is 4. Huss bats well with the tail, and now scores most of his runs from 6. He is the cool headed guy you want coming in down the order if it all goes to shit at the top. Ideally, this means the new guy gets a run at 5, but I think he will be tossed out at 3 or 4, ala Quiney.
I firmly believe that Watson should bat at 5 or 6. However, if we want to ease a guy into the team he needs to stay at 3 for Sri Lanka. The highest I would move Clarke to is 4. Huss bats well with the tail, and now scores most of his runs from 6. He is the cool headed guy you want coming in down the order if it all goes to shit at the top. Ideally, this means the new guy gets a run at 5, but I think he will be tossed out at 3 or 4, ala Quiney.
Hussey has a limited lifespan. I highly doubt he will be playing test cricket after the home Ashes series in 2013/14. He may as well stay at 6 for the remainder of his test career. Watson can slot down to 6 at that time. If Clarke moved up to 4 then Watson could move down to 5 then.
Personally, I'd be trying to move Warner down the order. I don't understand why being a short form opener makes him a test opener. Gilchrist opened in ODI and T20 cricket and no one ever suggested it would be a good idea to have him open the batting in test cricket.
Warner is such a fast scorer that if he can bat for a whole session in good batting conditions he will score close to 100. It would seem to me that guaranteeing that half his first innings' are in the opening session on the first day which is one of the most difficult times to bat isn't the best way to maximise his input.
Personally, I'd be trying to move Warner down the order. I don't understand why being a short form opener makes him a test opener. Gilchrist opened in ODI and T20 cricket and no one ever suggested it would be a good idea to have him open the batting in test cricket.
Warner is such a fast scorer that if he can bat for a whole session in good batting conditions he will score close to 100. It would seem to me that guaranteeing that half his first innings' are in the opening session on the first day which is one of the most difficult times to bat isn't the best way to maximise his input.
PaarlBok
Rod McCall (65)
If he can learn the skill of playing his eye in first he,ll be very good. He and our Levy have the same problem.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
Tend to agree Paarl. Part of the maturing process for a batsman (or a playmaker in rugby) is knowing when it's "on" and when it's not. Warner has a tonne of talent, great timing and a good eye, but he sometimes chases deliveries that he shouldn't be. He'll eventually come to realise that he can still be successful without trying to hit the cover off every ball he faces.
PaarlBok
Rod McCall (65)
Plus he is a LH batsman. His biggest problem is the arrogance. Only need to pull his head in a bit and understand working harder on his batting dissplines and he'll be an all time great.
mark_s
Chilla Wilson (44)
Our number one aim with the batting order should be to stablise the top 4. We cant leave Hussey at 6 because he bats well with the tail. I would rather us be 2 for plenty and wondering whether we will kick on than 3 or 4 for not many and worrying whether we will fight a reguard actions. Hussey is averaging 44 this year, not bad but not nearly good enough to demand the rest of the order be fitted in around him.
The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
I'm not sure about that. A quick check of cricinfo suggests that Hussey has averaged 51.28 since 01Jan2012, second only behind Michael Clarke. In the SA series he averaged 59, far better than he has usually fared against the Saffas. That is higher than his career average, and he is a very effective 6. I say leave him where he is.
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Looks like Hughes has first crack. We want Hussey higher, and Watson and Warner lower.
Hughes
Cowan
Hussey
Watson
Clarke
Warner
An experience head at No3 is pretty important and Huss and Clarke are the only two you could say have it. Put the best in the most important spots and 3 & 5 are it in my view.
Hughes
Cowan
Hussey
Watson
Clarke
Warner
An experience head at No3 is pretty important and Huss and Clarke are the only two you could say have it. Put the best in the most important spots and 3 & 5 are it in my view.
mark_s
Chilla Wilson (44)
I like this order.
Red, your right, 44 was Hussey's average over the last two years (from a press article). Interestingly, Hussey career test average at 6 is 47 and at 4 (where people think he failed), its 46. His average as a test opener (from limited games) is better than both the 4 and 6 positions. The arguments for keeping him at 6 is weak in my view, unless we want to protect him so he can extend his career, and we are happy to keep throwing younger and more inexperienced batsmen to the wolves.
On the bowling front, yet another bowler (Hazelwood) has been hit by a feather and is out for the season. WTF is going on?
The Red Baron
Chilla Wilson (44)
I'll leave the Hussey argument, I like him at 6 but I suppose that he would do the job batting anywhere in the order, he is that kind of freak!
It is interesting to note that both Dennis Lillee and Brett Lee have both come out recently and said that the training for our fast bowlers is wrong. Too much emphasis on weights, not enough running. Lillee suggested that the bowlers should go for a jog/run whenever they get the chance.
I think a lot of it is to do with the shorter forms of the game as well. Fast bowlers are bowling in short, concentrated stints, expending all their energy into 4 overs in the case of t20. That is not the sort of conditioning you want when you are being expected to bowl lengthy and controlled spells.
It is interesting to note that both Dennis Lillee and Brett Lee have both come out recently and said that the training for our fast bowlers is wrong. Too much emphasis on weights, not enough running. Lillee suggested that the bowlers should go for a jog/run whenever they get the chance.
I think a lot of it is to do with the shorter forms of the game as well. Fast bowlers are bowling in short, concentrated stints, expending all their energy into 4 overs in the case of t20. That is not the sort of conditioning you want when you are being expected to bowl lengthy and controlled spells.
No4918 I like that batting order. I think Warner would dominate at 6. I think his technique is still lacking to be a really successful test opener. Surviving the new ball on the first morning of a test is more than just choosing which balls to swing at until you get your eye in. You have to be technically sound to survive good bowling when the ball is moving around. I don't think he has that quite yet.
It seems surprising that so many bowlers are suffering from foot injuries these days. You would think the shoe technology is so much better that there should be far less foot injuries. Someone should research why this is happening. Maybe more cushioning isn't helping.
It seems surprising that so many bowlers are suffering from foot injuries these days. You would think the shoe technology is so much better that there should be far less foot injuries. Someone should research why this is happening. Maybe more cushioning isn't helping.
Torn Hammy
Johnnie Wallace (23)
My theory on bowlers' injuries.
Go to any park these days and you will likely see some 8 year olds getting professional coaching. It is out of control. Parents think that if they plough heaps of money into little Johnny's sport of choice, he will become a champion. And usually, it works, as Johnny becomes the happy U9 champion who is loved by his parents and mates.
However, by his 18th birthday Johnny has been training hard for ten years and more than likely has a few chronic injuries. Speaking to other coaches who train athletes in the repetitive action sports, such as running, swimming, javelin and bowling, you hear stories of young elite athletes who have bodies that can't take any more training without risk of permanent injury.
As a kid, you will do well in cricket if you get coached. It is the amount of coaching that is important. Pat Cummins is a good example. When he was 16 he was only allowed to bowl 8 overs a game, yet while training with the NSW U17s he would bowl non stop for 2 hours, three times a week. He's been doing this in rep teams since he was 10- just imagine the wear and tear.
As successful athletes will improve a coaches profile, their self interest will often overide what is best for their young charges. They tell kids that be successful they will have to drop the other sports they play which for me, is bad for overall physical development.
USyd. is doing a study on clapped out young athletes in response to these issues and no doubt it will give an insight as to the best ways to train our young bowlers.
Go to any park these days and you will likely see some 8 year olds getting professional coaching. It is out of control. Parents think that if they plough heaps of money into little Johnny's sport of choice, he will become a champion. And usually, it works, as Johnny becomes the happy U9 champion who is loved by his parents and mates.
However, by his 18th birthday Johnny has been training hard for ten years and more than likely has a few chronic injuries. Speaking to other coaches who train athletes in the repetitive action sports, such as running, swimming, javelin and bowling, you hear stories of young elite athletes who have bodies that can't take any more training without risk of permanent injury.
As a kid, you will do well in cricket if you get coached. It is the amount of coaching that is important. Pat Cummins is a good example. When he was 16 he was only allowed to bowl 8 overs a game, yet while training with the NSW U17s he would bowl non stop for 2 hours, three times a week. He's been doing this in rep teams since he was 10- just imagine the wear and tear.
As successful athletes will improve a coaches profile, their self interest will often overide what is best for their young charges. They tell kids that be successful they will have to drop the other sports they play which for me, is bad for overall physical development.
USyd. is doing a study on clapped out young athletes in response to these issues and no doubt it will give an insight as to the best ways to train our young bowlers.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
It's an interesting argument. A lot of older blokes (e.g. Andy Roberts and Jeff Thompson) say bowlers aren't bowling enough and other sports medicine folks say the opposite. I don't know for sure myself, but I'd like there to be some definitive science done on it, because it's becoming a real problem.
In my time being involved in athletics I saw a lot of our elite or near elite athletes develop more and more injuries. A view began to form among a lot of people that our runners in particular were over training and under competing and also training in a "high impact" manner, on rock hard tracks. I noticed it in myself too and ended up doing less in terms of hours but higher intensity. It seemed to help. The superstar coaches who came in from overseas just seemed to be flogging these guys until they broke down.
Maybe the best way to get fit for bowling is to actually bowl and spend less time in the gym or pounding the pavement? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure someone is attempting to find out.
In my time being involved in athletics I saw a lot of our elite or near elite athletes develop more and more injuries. A view began to form among a lot of people that our runners in particular were over training and under competing and also training in a "high impact" manner, on rock hard tracks. I noticed it in myself too and ended up doing less in terms of hours but higher intensity. It seemed to help. The superstar coaches who came in from overseas just seemed to be flogging these guys until they broke down.
Maybe the best way to get fit for bowling is to actually bowl and spend less time in the gym or pounding the pavement? I don't know the answer to that, but I'm sure someone is attempting to find out.
Torn Hammy
Johnnie Wallace (23)
My major concern is that coaches are flogging very young kids and that these kids are specialising in a single sport. No doubt, like me you have seen 10 year old middle distance kids throwing up with exhaustion or throwing implements for up to an hour non stop, and doing this all year round. I know a cricketer who made his first grade debut with a "five for" at age sixteen, who had stress fractures of the back at ages 15 and 17, and is now virtually out of the game. I know an U20 Oz Champion javelin thrower who wears a brace every day of his life yet still continues in the sport. I know two cricketers who were told by Cricket NSW that if they wanted to play other sports they should go, NOW. They were 16 years old!
Compare this to Sergei Bubka(pole vault) and Werner Gunthor(shot put) who were encouraged to play many different sports and who didn't lift weights until they were in their twenties. I read somewhere that Bubka played rugby. Jeff Thompson played soccer and had a very physical job loading freight trains. An athlete I train has been an Oz age champion in two athletic disciplines, and played state reps in 3 other sports, yet hasn't suffered any injuries. Against the urging of all his coaches he plays the sport only in their particular season.
For me part of the problem is the fact that the unis are churning out hundreds of sports scientists and coaches every year, all who need jobs. This leads to inexperienced coaches over training younger and younger kids all year round. Usually with the consent of their parents. But that is another argument for another time.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
TH it seems that we are developing this East German mentality about sport even though we railed against it so much when they did it!
I think the variety of sports point is well made. It's a bit like studying, don't go too specialised too early. I would encourage any young athelete to play a winter and summer sport. It breaks up the monotony if nothing else. I myself played rugby in the winter, even while I was training hard, because it was fun! I played cricket as a junior too and eventually returned to it as an adult after I decided to give athletics away.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but what we're doing with strength and conditioning for a lot of these young athletes appears to be breaking them. That can't be a good thing.
I think the variety of sports point is well made. It's a bit like studying, don't go too specialised too early. I would encourage any young athelete to play a winter and summer sport. It breaks up the monotony if nothing else. I myself played rugby in the winter, even while I was training hard, because it was fun! I played cricket as a junior too and eventually returned to it as an adult after I decided to give athletics away.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but what we're doing with strength and conditioning for a lot of these young athletes appears to be breaking them. That can't be a good thing.
Torn Hammy and The_Brown_Hornet and anyone else interested in the bowlers injury problems.
I think part of the problem is actually the opposite and that kids are too protected from bowling long spells and that is what causes more of them to break down. Whilst I think overall it is probably a good thing that kids are protected from overworking their bodies, I think it has pushed the problem further down the line.
Generally talented kids end up playing cricket with adults from a fairly young age. Previously they would just be made to bowl lots of overs and would either break down and not make it to playing professional cricket or they would be fine and it would toughen them up for elite cricket.
Now that they're protected as kids, these guys get exposed to the rigours of professional cricket without ever really testing their bodies beforehand. Invariably many of them break down.
We now have the problem where we don't know whether some of these young guys will ever be able to have a decent cricketing career despite their talent. Fast bowling puts a lot of strain on the body, particularly the back. Some people just aren't built for it. Potentially we might end up spending huge amounts of money on people like Patrick Cummins who whilst enormously talented might never be able to cope with the demands of being an international fast bowler.
I think part of the problem is actually the opposite and that kids are too protected from bowling long spells and that is what causes more of them to break down. Whilst I think overall it is probably a good thing that kids are protected from overworking their bodies, I think it has pushed the problem further down the line.
Generally talented kids end up playing cricket with adults from a fairly young age. Previously they would just be made to bowl lots of overs and would either break down and not make it to playing professional cricket or they would be fine and it would toughen them up for elite cricket.
Now that they're protected as kids, these guys get exposed to the rigours of professional cricket without ever really testing their bodies beforehand. Invariably many of them break down.
We now have the problem where we don't know whether some of these young guys will ever be able to have a decent cricketing career despite their talent. Fast bowling puts a lot of strain on the body, particularly the back. Some people just aren't built for it. Potentially we might end up spending huge amounts of money on people like Patrick Cummins who whilst enormously talented might never be able to cope with the demands of being an international fast bowler.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
BH that is the thesis of the blokes I mentioned earlier and my gut tells me they could be onto something. I don't have anything scientific that says one way or the other, but what you're saying makes intuitive sense. The point about young blokes playing against men is well made and that is what the club system is great for. We destroy that system at our peril in my view and the same goes for rugby too.
The current system is much better at ensuring kids don't injure themselves playing cricket.
It is much worse for turning young cricketers into potential test cricketers.
It goes both ways. One of my mates was an elite junior cricketer and played for England U19s in a test series against New Zealand back in the day. He is 6'6 and was a fast bowler but his back fell apart from bowling too many overs as a kid. Whilst you could certainly make the judgement that he had the talent and physique to be a professional cricketer, his body just couldn't stand up to it. If he'd been coddled as a junior he might have still been a fast bowler in his early 20s but I have no doubt that his body would have still broken down and he wouldn't have been able to maintain a career as a professional cricketer.
It is much worse for turning young cricketers into potential test cricketers.
It goes both ways. One of my mates was an elite junior cricketer and played for England U19s in a test series against New Zealand back in the day. He is 6'6 and was a fast bowler but his back fell apart from bowling too many overs as a kid. Whilst you could certainly make the judgement that he had the talent and physique to be a professional cricketer, his body just couldn't stand up to it. If he'd been coddled as a junior he might have still been a fast bowler in his early 20s but I have no doubt that his body would have still broken down and he wouldn't have been able to maintain a career as a professional cricketer.
- Status