Australia in India

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I read some outrageous commentary on Clarke over the weekend by some fellow arm-chair fans who reckon he's a flat track bully and doesn't score runs when we need him to. People have very short memories.

I've said plenty on North and in some ways am frustrated that he's gone out and made a ton in this game. He'll probably make 100 runs total in his next 10 innings and we're no better off.

 

[stoff]

I think the selectors need to be more ruthless with the selection of batsmen. Although I have no stats to back this up, it seems like a bowler will get dropped quickly if his form is not up to scratch, but a batsman can hang around for years doing just enough not to get dropped. This policy worked for us a few years ago, but the guys who were getting the benefits of it were guys who are going to be regarded amongst the all time greats of Australian cricket. There is so much young (and not so young) talent around it is time for the selectors to start letting the batsmen know that mediocrity is not acceptable, and if you don't perform consistently (consistently well that is), that you can go back to the Sheffield Shield to find form, not do it whilst having a mortgage on the baggy green. It would be a controversial decision, but North should be dropped for the first test in Australia to demonstrate that one good innings is not enough to save your place in the Australian side.

 

[Moses]

We can't drop North now, if he was good enough to be picked for this test then being top scorer should get him into the next test.
Besides, we don't want to be blooding Ferguson in an Ashes test, really should have done it in India...

 

[barbarian]

You are right in saying that batsmen get more leeway stoff, but there are many reasons for that. Firstly bowlers are far more injury prone, so there is a high turnover for that reason- either top level bowlers being dropped because of injury, or second tier bowlers being dropped for the top bowlers returning from injury. Also it is a fair bit harder to judge the quality of batsmen than bowlers. Bowlers can be easily judged on their merits- they have very few variables dictating the way they deliver the ball. If you have a bad day you have no excuses.

Batsmen can get a peach of a ball first up and their day is over. They can also get a bad decision, or a dodgy pitch. That happens to bowlers as well but at least they can have another crack next ball, and the one after, and the one after and so on. That is generally the reason we give batsmen more chances to show their talents, where we tend to be more ruthless with bowlers.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I have no issue with batsmen getting a little more of the benefit of the doubt, but we've turned it into an artform. On the one hand, it's great that we've got consistency in selection, but on the other when you've got a team that is under the hammer and players under-performing several tests in a row, you've got to be a little more ruthless.

Mark Waugh was a classic for doing enough to keep getting selected. He'd make nought, but it would be the best duck you'd ever seen! Later in his career, he played some match winning or match saving innings, but he used to frustrate me so much with all that talent and often little result.

 

[Moses]

The thing I don't get is we have a super old team of batsmen who are prone to collapsing. At least replace them with young blokes who may collapse just as well, but have the potential to improve.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Totally agree Moses. We've made a habit of hanging onto batsmen past their best and the current group is as guilty as any. It's not like we lack young talent in this country.

 

[barbarian]

But Moses our most successful batsmen in recent history have been older guys who have made a ton of runs at Shield level- think Hayden, Langer, Martyn. Yeah they made their debuts young, but were dropped and fought their way back. I am not so worried about age, because as a batsmen it doesn't really matter. We shouldn't have young guys in there for the sake of it, we should just pick our best XI each test regardless of age.

In that regard I reckon North is the only one who shouldn't be there, with Ferguson the obvious replacement. Hussey is shaky but I wouldn't drop him yet. If you dropped him I would bring in Hughes to open with Katich, and bat Watson at 3 and bump everyone down one. Watson is the best batsman at the moment, and his technique is suites to a spot high in the order.

Other than that what other young batsmen do we have coming through? None with any weight of runs. Usman Khawaja toured but is still a fair way off in my view, guys like David Hussey and Brad Hodge are probably better prospects still.

 

[Moses]

The problem with suggesting changes to the batting order is that's the sole responsibility of the captain. I suspect Ricky's blank team sheet looks like

1.
2.
3. R. Ponting
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Chris Rogers should still be pretty close to the squad. Here's a blog from cricket with balls the other day, pretty good I thought

Old
If you were casting for a movie about this top order you could use the Space Cowboy cast to fill the team up. The two youngest men in the top six, or top seven when Brad Haddin comes back, are 29. Being that Australia is supposedly in a rebuilding phase, it seems odd that they are using men who in some cases have less than 12 months of cricket in them. Time for James Sutherland to purchase some gold watches.

Shaky
Recently I built a mansion made of cards, sit it outside in Chicago and put the Australian batting order next to it, guess what collapsed first? In their last 17 tests, 10 of those have had massive collapses or pathetic totals in them. Nothing happens though. It is almost as if the Australian selectors don’t watch the team bat at all. When Katich and Hussey bat together is not a bad policy for everyone.

Slow
This is perhaps the slowest batting line Australia has had since the 80s. Now you could argue that they don’t have the bowlers to bat quicker, but batting slowly only works if you do it well. Katich, Hussey and Paine are all slow scorers, and Clarke can be as well, so perhaps carrying these four and a 5th who averages 35 is not the smartest move.

Clubhouse
It is often said getting into the Australian side is harder than leaving it. That isn’t so true now; the bowling line up changes with injuries often as Ricky slowly puts his bowlers to death. Getting into this batting line up is harder than being a lesbian trying to get into the panties of Megan Phelps. Getting out is non existent, it’s the hotel fucken California. North is being given an extended run, Hussey was given 18 months sick pay, it is hard to know what you would need to do to get dropped from this line up. Perhaps sodomizing a goat live on TV and not running it past Cricket Australia first?

Shit
If your dog continues to fall over and pisses himself around the house, it is ok to take him to the vet to get him fixed or put down. I know you love the dog, but the falling down and pissing are quite obvious signs that something is wrong. Don’t wait for him to shit in your bed. This has nothing to do with the Australian batting line up, they’re just shit.

 

[barbarian]

I agree with most of that, but the issue is the players coming through. In the past dropping a batsmen has had just as much to do with the replacement as the incumbent- eg. Hayden and Phil Hughes, Lehmann and Clarke, Slater and Langer. Other than Ferguson and Hughes, there is hardly the torrent of Shield players scoring runs that would justify the widespread changes that that blogger clearly wants.

 

[Scotty]

I am actually of the opinion that Hussey (as much as I like him) should go before North. At least North offers something reasonable with the ball when he fails with the bat, but Hussey hasn't delivered consistently for so long it is ridiculous.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Ronnie MacDonald, that bloke who played a couple of tests and was then quickly thrown on the scrap heap (happens to a lot of Vics), made a big hundred today at the WACA. He's only 29.

 

[Ham]

I don't think age is the issue for the Australian batsmen. Look at Tendulkar.

 

[barbarian]

Ronnie MacDonald, that bloke who played a couple of tests and was then quickly thrown on the scrap heap (happens to a lot of Vics), made a big hundred today at the WACA. He's only 29.

Have always been a fan of McDonald. Think he provides something different with the ball- his dibbly-dobbly medium pacers can hold down one end or put the skids on when the batsmen are hitting out. Something we cannot seem to do at the moment.