MCGGG Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 They need to fit Clarke and Faulkner into the side, who makes way? Watson must be on shaky ground, Clark could replace him at 3, but what about Faulkner? Going to be hard to drop Marsh after tonight, maybe Hazlewood? But if Watson gets dropped that will dent our bowling options.
MCGGG Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 Watson for Clarke Bailey for Faulkner Yeah I came to that conclusion after I posted, it makes the most sense, sucks for Bailey though.
kosingh Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Watson for Clarke Bailey for Faulkner Pretty much. Don`t understand their obsession with Watson
MCGGG Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 Pretty much. Don`t understand their obsession with Watson He's a better batsman than Marsh, and I think he's an overall better player, another option could be to drop Bailey and marsh and move Watson up the order, he would be a brute coming in at 6.
Lord Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 He's a better batsman than Marsh' date=' and I think he's an overall better player, another option could be to drop Bailey and marsh and move Watson up the order, he would be a brute coming in at 6.[/quote'] Current form of Watson is pathetic while Marsh has been good
MCGGG Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 Current form of Watson is pathetic while Marsh has been good True, but I just wonder if Watson deserves a chance down the order, 6 is probably to low, 5 would take the pressure off him a bit, he can bang with the best of em when he has to.
philcric Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Warner Finch * Clarke Smith M Marsh Maxwell + Haddin Faulkner Johnson Starc Cummins / Hazelwood / Doherty (based on pitch and form) It may look like they are one 'proper' batsman short, but practically Marsh, Maxwell, Haddin and Faulkner are all batting well, just like regular batsmen. This way their bowling options are well covered without compromising much on their batting.
MCGGG Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 Warner Finch * Clarke Smith M Marsh Maxwell + Haddin Faulkner Johnson Starc Cummins / Hazelwood / Doherty (based on pitch and form) It may look like they are one 'proper' batsman short, but practically Marsh, Maxwell, Haddin and Faulkner are all batting well, just like regular batsmen. This way their bowling options are well covered without compromising much on their batting. Yeah it's that one proper batsman short that worries me a tad, have Watson at 5 and the Middle order looks strong, even though it is anyway with marsh, but if our top order collapses I'd much rather have Watson than Marsh at 5.
bowl_out Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Watson goes out when Faulkner is fit... Bailey goes out when Clarke is fit.. Simple and easy replacements
bowl_out Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Warner Finch * Clarke Smith M Marsh Maxwell + Haddin Faulkner Johnson Starc Cummins / Hazelwood / Doherty (based on pitch and form) Same team, but play Smith at 3 and Clarke at 4... Batting all the way up to Faulkner... Five pacers (three left and two right) + Maxwell... Dangerous looking team
govinda Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 it would be better for aus if pup doent play
MCGGG Posted February 14, 2015 Author Posted February 14, 2015 it would be better for aus if pup doent play Short memory? He was widely regarded as the best in the world not to long ago, he'll go alright.
HippoSucks Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 If Clarke is fit, there is no way you can not have him on the team.
Precambrian Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Short memory? He was widely regarded as the best in the world not to long ago' date=' he'll go alright.[/quote'] we are talking odi cricket
Precambrian Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Damn with both Clarke AND Faulkner back - at home conditions they are deadly strong team. Bailey's not in prime form so will have to make way for Clarke who scores fast and puts a price on his wicket. Clarke career SR 78 Bailey career SR 87 Clarke avg 44 Bailey 42 Whachatalkinabutbro?
Precambrian Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Ideal situation - Clarke sits out aand Faulkner replaces Watson
HippoSucks Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 Clarke career SR 78 Bailey career SR 87 Clarke avg 44 Bailey 42 Whachatalkinabutbro? An average of 45 in ODIs is low? :cantstop:
Precambrian Posted February 14, 2015 Posted February 14, 2015 An average of 45 in ODIs is low? :cantstop: Not really, but a SR of 78 is too damn low in today's cricket. What'd you prefer? A batsman scoring 42 at 5.22 rpo or a batmsan scoring 44 at 4.68?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now