The fact is we need a complete clean out of the top order.

:lol:

...but would that be considered a good strike rate in women cricket

:-k

Still a better strike-rate than Rogers :P

Wade doesn't go out by LBW every second innings either.

Still a better innings than Shane Watson's. =;

I do not think Wade is the right option either I just mistakenly thought Wade had a slightly higher average than Watson. However I was wrong, the opposite is true.

Strike rate isn't the issue. If they just stay in and have stability it is fine. The odd run here and there makes a huge difference.

She is a bowler batting in support of an opener who is currently 147 not out. When she came to the crease England were 6/113 over 200 runs behind. It looks like it is a highly responsible inning that has helped save England from huge trouble.
Not all innings in this match have been the same, Ellyse Perry smashed 31 of 25 balls at the end of the Australian innings.

SHE'S OUT!!!!

The 5th test is underway and England already on top with Warner failing. Watson batting 3 is now in to be the next batsmen to fail. Only hope is Rogers and Clarke get together and form a partnership.

Did Australia win the toss? That must be the first thing they've won all tour.

Yes they did win the toss and choose to bat. This might be especially telling as England have chosen to include 2 spinners and play 5 bowlers including bowling all rounder Woakes to bat at six.

Looks like Watson's actually come to play. So he goes out for ninety something, yeah?

Wow Watson. Doing well.

I think we've found the solution to Watson's Test batting woes. Just treat every innings as if it's a one day match.

Wow, 100 partnership up for Australia

Shane Watson 80 off 76
Chris Rogers 20 off 81

:lol:

Tbf, he is playing some good cricket shots.

What we are seeing here is ODI Watto, not Test Watto. Never in his test career has he been a guy that looks to score really quickly, he does that in one dayers. SR of 50.31 in tests and 88.48 in ODI

Fixed.

+1

I just don't understand this team...

We've been bowling well, but batting shit

Solution?

Drop a batsman for a BOWLING all rounder...

Am I missing something?

I'm saying 97.

He's going to bat just as well as these shit batsmen and he's going to give us added flexibility to our bowling line-up.

Bowling line up was fine how it was. I fail to see the point in having 3 seamers plus TWO seaming all rounders. So 5 quicks then on a slow dry wicket... yeah makes total sense man!

In terms of the batsman, are you suggesting that we should be trying to develop a bowling all rounder as one of our number 6 batsman going forward? No? Well how about we keep trying to find a proper batsman then...

Kind of like if all of your strikers at a football club is shit, instead of trying a few young strikers or something like that to uncover someone, you instead say "lets just play a defender up front!"



Edited by RJL25: 21/8/2013 10:31:01 PM

Warnie hit the nail on the head. The reason for Faulkner coming in is because Watson probably won't bowl at all, and if he does it'll only be a minimal amount.

If you can name a proper batsman who's actually demonstrated that they actually DESERVE TO BE IN THIS TEAM from their previous performances, then yeah sure let's go with that.

Only they haven't. So let's give this lad a shot.

Faulty metaphor. It's more like Australia not having any good strikers, so we play a scoring midfielder like Tim Cahill up front. And that's worked for years.

Agree to disagree. In terms of POTENTIAL, Khawaja and Hughes have a lot to offer, in the right circumstances either could potentially develop into a very good top 6 batsman for Australia.

The problem for both of them is that they have been sent in as lambs to the slaughter at number 3. Our best number 3 of the past 2 decades, Ricky Ponting, started his career at 6, it took him about 4 of 5 years to work his way up to number 3. Number 3 is the hardest position in the team, its NOT the place for a young nervous batsman who's trying to find his feet at international level.

Playing Khawaja at 6 would have been a better option then just giving up on developing a new top 6 batsman all together by playing a second all rounder in the top 6.

Khawaja has had a terrible series. This match is a dead rubber. Why would you persist with a failing formula when you can give another player the chance to stand up?

Continuing to play exactly the same team in dead rubbers is exactly the reason that australia haven't developed any depth of talent and why they're in this fucking mess to begin with.

Khawaja's problem is confidence, he's not going to find it by being dropped. As you said, this game is a dead rubber, so why not give the kid one last chance to find that confidence before the Australian summer?

And don't forget the Khawaja's had a few soft dismissals yes, he's also had a few dud decisions go against him, and at least one of his dismissals was just a bloody good delivery. He's also made a few good starts too, there is potential there, certainly has more potential to become a top 6 batsman then Faulkner, and thats the point.

Because he's already had 3 tests to prove himself and obviously isn't at the standard. His cumulative totals for both innings barely cover test average for a single innings.

MAN DOWN!!! There's got to be something broken from that one.