SA Footy

If he does get up for the 1st test, will he make it through 5 days without suffering another "injury"???

Maybe he's got a heart of glass?? Debbie can you confirm???

1980 Tassie Medalist wrote:Maybe he's got a heart of glass?? Debbie can you confirm???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOnBo13VZsU

Just looking at Watson's physique, I wonder if he is spending too much time pumping iron? Maybe if he gave his body a little more rest time he wouldn't be experiencing the injuries he is.

Good point Hawker. There's no way Watson should play in Brisbane now. I would pick Jaques at six. I watched Jaques, Haddin and Clarke bat against Tasmania and both Jaques and Haddin left Clarke behind in no uncertain terms, but guess who will get the gig. The Poms will be pissing themselves when Pup comes out to bat at number six.

regards,

REB

Jaques should be at 6, no questions. Clarke hasn't proved himself since the last Ashes series at all. I guess he will get a chance on Thursday to prove us wrong.

blink wrote:Jaques should be at 6, no questions. Clarke hasn't proved himself since the last Ashes series at all. I guess he will get a chance on Thursday to prove us wrong.

Jaques should actually be opening. Clarke still shoudn't play though.

rod_rooster wrote:Jaques should actually be opening. Clarke still shoudn't play though.

Who would play at 6 then RR (assuming all are 100% fit)? I would say it would come from one of Watson or Symonds. I personally would like to see MacGill in the side, move Gilchrist up to 6 and play 5 bowlers. 2 Spinners, 3 Pace.

blink wrote:

rod_rooster wrote:Jaques should actually be opening. Clarke still shoudn't play though.

Who would play at 6 then RR (assuming all are 100% fit)? I would say it would come from one of Watson or Symonds. I personally would like to see MacGill in the side, move Gilchrist up to 6 and play 5 bowlers. 2 Spinners, 3 Pace.

I agree with that line up.

2 spinners at the Gabba? LMAO.

regards,

REB

Why would you play Jaques out of position at six? Nah I'd bring in Symonds for that unpredictability factor

Yeah let's bring in a one day bowler who averages 18 runs an innings in Test Cricket instead of a guy who has scored two tons already against England this summer. Have you actually seen Jaques bat MW? He is flat out attacking, an ideal type of batsman for the number six position.

Plenty of Australian batsmen debuted down the order when serving their apprenticeship and I'm astounded that Jaques wasn't the first cab off the rank when Watto went down.

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:Yeah let's bring in a one day bowler who averages 18 runs an innings in Test Cricket instead of a guy who has scored two tons already against England this summer. Have you actually seen Jaques bat MW? He is flat out attacking, an ideal type of batsman for the number six position.

Plenty of Australian batsmen debuted down the order when serving their apprenticeship and I'm astounded that Jaques wasn't the first cab off the rank when Watto went down.

Michael clarke??? WTF? why? what more does Jaques have to do? are we trying to lose the series already? Gotta play the blokes who are in form now, not who was in form 3 years ago. If you were the english captain, who would you rather the aussies pick? this is so frustrating.

Something I dont understand
The selectors pick Watson to be the allrounder[good logic] because they want one.
If he does not play why is a batsman [Clark] taking his spot
The logic should be Symmonds or Hopes.

mal wrote:Something I dont understand
The selectors pick Watson to be the allrounder[good logic] because they want one.
If he does not play why is a batsman [Clark] taking his spot
The logic should be Symmonds or Hopes.

I think the selectors consider Watson's batting to be at least equal, if not better, than the other batsman not in the Test team and the added fact that he can bowl nudges him ahead.

Bring back Roy - One more chance please !!!

Blue Boy wrote:Bring back Roy - One more chance please !!!

Australian cricket rules the roost and the reason is this...when in doubt, Bring in a Bluebagger. Why change a winning combination? Only this time the gits have picked the wrong one!

regards,

REB

Rik E Boy wrote:

Blue Boy wrote:Bring back Roy - One more chance please !!!

Australian cricket rules the roost and the reason is this...when in doubt, Bring in a Bluebagger. Why change a winning combination? Only this time the gits have picked the wrong one!

regards,

REB

We are all scratchin our heads hey !!!

Jaques at six for mine, regardless of whether Watson gets up or not.

Aerie wrote:

mal wrote:Something I dont understand
The selectors pick Watson to be the allrounder[good logic] because they want one.
If he does not play why is a batsman [Clark] taking his spot
The logic should be Symmonds or Hopes.

I think the selectors consider Watson's batting to be at least equal, if not better, than the other batsman not in the Test team and the added fact that he can bowl nudges him ahead.

If the selectors think Watson's batting is the equal or better than the other batsmen not in the Test side then they need to check into rehab. Watson the equal or better as a batsman than Jaques, Hodge, North, Cosgrove, Lehmann etc. I don't think so.