Australia's New Test XI

[blink]

Partly because I am just about sick of winter and partly because I am a self-confessed cricket fanatic, I thought I would bring the following up for discussion:

Obviously with the retirements of three great players, the new test team is going to be vastly different from the one that took the field in the 5th Ashes Test. So with the Twenty20 World Cup and one-dayers in India not too far away in which players can push for selection, how do you think the new test side should look? This is what I think:

Matthew Hayden
Chris Rogers
Ricky Ponting
Mike Hussey
Michael Clarke
Andrew Symonds
Adam Gilchrist
Shane Watson
Brett Lee
Stuart Clark
Stuart McGill

Unlucky:
Shaun Tait

Pushing for selection:
Phil Jaques
Mitchell Johnson
Ben Hilfenhaus

[mal]

Good team BLINK
I would think Rogers or Jaques MIGHT have first crack at opening
but I dodnt think either will make the grade
ROGERS is too dour
JAQUES is too loose
I would entertain the WATSON experiment opening and inlude HILFENHAUS/TAIT.
OR HUSSEY opening but he is such an anchor in the middle order I would not open him.

[silicone skyline]

Tait for Clark.
Watson and Clark bowl a similar pace and line and length.
Brett Lee is still zippy, slightly slower, but more accurate.
Tait is nuts.
The world cup couldn't get a hold of him, i think the test teams couldn't either.
Let him loose.
I'll happily see four wides down the leg side to see Tait knock Marcus Trescothick's middle peg out the ground again.

[rod_rooster]

There is no way Watson could hold his place as a specialist bowler. Even mal will admit that his batting is the strength in his game. He simply is not up to the task of being the third quick or heaven forbid an injury occurs and he has to take the new ball. With that batting lineup there is no need to strengthen the tail with Watson. Tait, Hilfenhaus etc. etc. are all so far ahead of Watson as a bowler it isn't funny. Pick the best bowling lineup or risk having sides playing out boring draws by batting on and on like India just did against England.

Bowlers win matches and batsmen save them.

[rod_rooster]

On Watson the batsman i have no doubt he would do alright at Test level. I also think there are a number of other young players around who would do better at Test level and therefore should play ahead of him. If he does play though it needs to be as batsman and his bowling should only be seen as a bonus and used only sparingly.

[mal]

On Watson the batsman i have no doubt he would do alright at Test level. I also think there are a number of other young players around who would do better at Test level and therefore should play ahead of him. If he does play though it needs to be as batsman and his bowling should only be seen as a bonus and used only sparingly.

I could not agree more with RR on WATSON
also
Pick your bowlers first
WATSON must be picked purely as a top order batsman who bowls only if needed
TAIT /LEE bowl in short QUICK spells
CLARK as the stock bowler
MACGILL as the spinner
ROY/WATTO/CLARK to share a few overs if needed if the 2 quicks are used sparingly

We must all agree 4 bowlers
The others should only assist

[rod_rooster]

On Watson the batsman i have no doubt he would do alright at Test level. I also think there are a number of other young players around who would do better at Test level and therefore should play ahead of him. If he does play though it needs to be as batsman and his bowling should only be seen as a bonus and used only sparingly.

I could not agree more with RR on WATSON
also
Pick your bowlers first
WATSON must be picked purely as a top order batsman who bowls only if needed
TAIT /LEE bowl in short QUICK spells
CLARK as the stock bowler
MACGILL as the spinner
ROY/WATTO/CLARK to share a few overs if needed if the 2 quicks are used sparingly

We must all agree 4 bowlers
The others should only assist

OK this is strange, i actually agree with mal here I better get myself to a doctor quick smart

[GWW]

I think Clark should be in the side, he hasn't done a lot wrong since hes been in the Test side, i dont think we can underestimate the value of a "McGrath type" bowler. I'm not sold on the idea of a permanent Lee/Tait partnership, but i think they will probably be in the same side reasonably often, but obviously matters such as venue and the form of the various bowlers needs to be taken into account.

Rogers is the right option for me, i recall he made a double ton against Australia in England a few years back, hes fairly consistent for WA as well. I'm not sure of their respective ages but i think (without looking them up) Rogers is mid to late 20's whilst Jacques is early 30's. Jacques has had some opportunities and hasn't taken them, and may very well be a Valetta type who dominates at a state level but doesn't go the next step. So yeah, Rogers for me.

As for Watson, hes the type of player i'd only play if he was in great form (in early pura matches), scoring hundreds and/or taking bags of wickets (more so than anyone else).

[blink]

I think Clark should be in the side, he hasn't done a lot wrong since hes been in the Test side, i dont think we can underestimate the value of a "McGrath type" bowler. I'm not sold on the idea of a permanent Lee/Tait partnership, but i think they will probably be in the same side reasonably often, but obviously matters such as venue and the form of the various bowlers needs to be taken into account.

Rogers is the right option for me, i recall he made a double ton against Australia in England a few years back, hes fairly consistent for WA as well. I'm not sure of their respective ages but i think (without looking them up) Rogers is mid to late 20's whilst Jacques is early 30's. Jacques has had some opportunities and hasn't taken them, and may very well be a Valetta type who dominates at a state level but doesn't go the next step. So yeah, Rogers for me.

As for Watson, hes the type of player i'd only play if he was in great form (in early pura matches), scoring hundreds and/or taking bags of wickets (more so than anyone else).

I agree with all your thinking here GWW!

1. Clark should definitely be in the side, has has done nothing but impress in Test cricket. His Ashes form alone will ensure he remains for at least this summer. I am sure he will excel even further.
2. I agree about Rogers too. He appears to be a much more long term prospect than Jaques. But this will be the toughest position for the Aussie selectors to fill and we may see one of them start out in the side but be quickly replaced by the other. Another interesting option could be to promote Hussey to opener and bring in Brad Hodge or Simon Katich (yes, he has been playing very well of late) in to bat at 4 or 5, depending on where they wish to bat Clarke.
3. Watson's situation is a very interesting one. Obvoiusly the selectors (and Punter) seem to like the extra option he adds to the team. I think they are still slightly hooked on the idea that Watson can do for Australia what Freddie did for England in the 2005 Ashes. Symonds now has even more of an edge over Watto now Warne has gone, due to his ability to bowl half-decent spin and I can't see the selectors playing two all-rounders, unless form warrants - as you have said.

[rod_rooster]

Rogers turns 30 on August 31. Jaques turned 28 on May 3.

[blink]

There you go, and here I was thinking Jacques was older than Rogers!

[Rik E Boy]

**** Watson. Shit shot selection. Watch him sky that pullshot during the first session when the brownose arsewipe gets the opening gig ahead of the more deserving Jaques or Rogers. An overrated lemon.

regards,

REB

[GWW]

Rogers turns 30 on August 31. Jaques turned 28 on May 3.

Ahh interesting. I think i'd probably still go for Rogers to see how he goes at international level. I"m not really sold on Jacques as far as test cricket is concerned. Its probably a 50/50 proposition unless they move Hussey to opener.

[Pup]

My side would be:

Chris Rogers
Matthew Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Michael Clarke
Michael Hussey
Andrew Symonds
Adam Gilchrist
Brett Lee
Stuart Clark
Shaun Tait
Stuart MacGill

12th Man- Shane Watson

From the original team that was posted my changes were Clarke to 4 and Hussey to stay at 5 and help sturdy that middle order. Clarke has matured as a batsmen over the past 12 months and i think will be a really good number 4.

I cant fit Shane Watson in my side at the moment purely because his bowling is not good enough for him to be the Third Seamer, his strength is his batting and until he becomes a wicket taking bowler he cant push out the likes of Clark, Tait and Lee.

Symonds deserves first crack at 6 after his great performances in the Ashes but to be honest i am still not sold on him, he has all the attributes but lets just wait and see.

Rogers deserves first crack at being JL's replacement, he had a stellar year last year and now is his time, if he fails that will be it for him at the international level.

In my eyes Brad Hodge is still well and truly in the mix even with my severe dislike for him. If Roy fails and Watson breaks down (Which we all know is quite possible) he may get another crack.

and Lets not forget the likes of Bailey, David Hussey, Marcus North, Ben Hilfenaus and the likes. all who may get a crack if something untoward happens. Looking forward to a big summer of cricket.

[rod_rooster]

My side would be:

Chris Rogers
Matthew Hayden
Ricky Ponting
Michael Clarke
Michael Hussey
Andrew Symonds
Adam Gilchrist
Brett Lee
Stuart Clark
Shaun Tait
Stuart MacGill

12th Man- Shane Watson

From the original team that was posted my changes were Clarke to 4 and Hussey to stay at 5 and help sturdy that middle order. Clarke has matured as a batsmen over the past 12 months and i think will be a really good number 4.

I cant fit Shane Watson in my side at the moment purely because his bowling is not good enough for him to be the Third Seamer, his strength is his batting and until he becomes a wicket taking bowler he cant push out the likes of Clark, Tait and Lee.

Symonds deserves first crack at 6 after his great performances in the Ashes but to be honest i am still not sold on him, he has all the attributes but lets just wait and see.

Rogers deserves first crack at being JL's replacement, he had a stellar year last year and now is his time, if he fails that will be it for him at the international level.

In my eyes Brad Hodge is still well and truly in the mix even with my severe dislike for him. If Roy fails and Watson breaks down (Which we all know is quite possible) he may get another crack.

and Lets not forget the likes of Bailey, David Hussey, Marcus North, Ben Hilfenaus and the likes. all who may get a crack if something untoward happens. Looking forward to a big summer of cricket.

I like your side. Only change i'd have would be to keep Hussey at 4 and Clarke at 5. It's working really well currently and i see no reason to change. Clarke will eventually be a long term number 4 for Australia but a little longer batting at 5 will do him more good than harm.

[youngster]

f*** Watson. s***t shot selection. Watch him sky that pullshot during the first session when the brownose arsewipe gets the opening gig ahead of the more deserving Jaques or Rogers. An overrated lemon.

regards,

REB

Hear hear.

[Hondo]

One thing settled, the Huss stays at number 4:

From Cricinfo.com
Open season for opening batsmen
Peter English
August 28, 2007

The flood of serious contenders for Justin Langer's Test spot has been reduced by one after Ricky Ponting decided Michael Hussey would remain at No. 4. Finding an opening partner for Matthew Hayden will be the selectors' major dilemma before the first Test against Sri Lanka in November and they must choose between a couple of specialists and a talented middle-order pair.

Despite being an opener for most of his career, Hussey will remain below Ponting to avoid unnecessary disruptions to a side that is redeveloping after the retirements of Langer, Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath. In an intense competition, the left-handers Phil Jaques and Chris Rogers are jousting with Shane Watson and Brad Hodge, who have requested the out-of-position promotion in an effort to bypass the settled middle order.

[brod]

Ill put my huge reputation behind Chris Rogers opening the batting. I think he has the right mix of temprement and technique to do the job and he has the maturity and experince to be the best choice for the next five seasons.

[mal]

Chris Rogers is not good enough to succeed at test level
He struggles to dominate pura cup attacks
He is a very good solid accuMALator of runs at domestic level
That style of batting might stop him getting selected at the highest level
JAQUES/WATSON/HODGE are more fluent and can play o/d cricket as well
That might give them preference overall when selecting squads on o/seas tours

If ROGERS got a game before HODGE that would be unjust

Horses for courses v SRI LANKA
HODGE is the best player of spin of the above quartet
JAQUES is ok
ROGERS /WATSON would struggle against quality spinners

This will be HUSSEYs greatest challenge as he is unproven against quality spinners

[The sarge]

Would agree with the team that had Watson as 12th man and four bowlers. Dont think we should be going into a test match with 3 bowlers and then watson and Roy as part timers. Also think Macgill should play against Sri Lanka and India sides who play spin well but Cullen Bailey should definately be in the mix.