The next big Aust test transition

[courtjester]

The next big Aust test transition

In the next few years, the Australian test team will lose Ponting, Katich, Hussey. You'd also reckon that North may be gone in 3 years. Ponting is over 35, and Katich and Hussey are almost 35. Four out of our current top six will be gone in 2-3 years, leaving only the incumbent Watson and Clarke.



I contend that this will be as big a problem in transition than losing Warne, McGrath, Hayden and Gilly. We will lose most of our batting stability.



Currently:



North is almost 31 and his form has been questioned. Has been ok in NZ, but must perform when the team is under the pump. Cant afford a bad series.



Ponting is 35, and while his form has been good, he will begin to lose reflex and sight soon.



Hussey is almost 35, and will be in a similar position to Ponting. He has maintained adequate form after being in a slump, but time is harsh on batsmen.



Katich is almost 35 as well, and has been in great form. But as he gets older, opening will get harder.



What I would contend is that the Australian selectors need to act on this in the next few series. I would stagger it like this:



1. North out, Hughes in-
North is the first to go: I am not a fan of North. He doesnt do it when the pressure is on. He would be 1st to go (despite being youngest)



North out-Phil Hughes in, making the order:



Hughes

Watson

Ponting

Clarke

Hussey

Katich



In the first stage, Kat moves to 5-6, where he can do the role North should do, better than North.



2. Ponting/Katich/Hussey 'retire', Steve Smith in.

These three guys have to stagger their retirements to allow the replacement 5-10 tests before the new debutant comes in. Let's say Hussey goes first, the order will then be:



Hughes

Watson

Ponting

Clarke

Smith

Katich



3. The third player goes. Someone comes in.

What are your thoughts?

 

[The Ox]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

No way in hell would I drop Katich to 6.

 

[mas cambios]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

Better off bring in Hughes to bat at 6, at least for the time being. Watson and Katich seem a decent opening pair, why break them up? Even better, stick Watson at 6, if you do have to move one of them around.

 

[Boris]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

Better off bring in Hughes to bat at 6, at least for the time being. Watson and Katich seem a decent opening pair, why break them up? Even better, stick Watson at 6, if you do have to move one of them around.

I don't mind bringing Hughes in after the Ashes, but if he is in I would have him opening, which would mean I would put Watson down, and the way he's going that's not the best option. Maybe Hughes has to wait a little while longer, but by then Watson will probably have an injury or something like that.

 

[courtjester]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

I don't mind bringing Hughes in after the Ashes, but if he is in I would have him opening, which would mean I would put Watson down, and the way he's going that's not the best option. Maybe Hughes has to wait a little while longer, but by then Watson will probably have an injury or something like that.

I like the idea of Watson becoming the number 3 post Ponting. I dont know if Ponting will ever drop down to 5, but if he would, I think it'd work well. Watson needs to open or bat at three I reckon.

 

[Boris]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

I like the idea of Watson becoming the number 3 post Ponting. I dont know if Ponting will ever drop down to 5, but if he would, I think it'd work well. Watson needs to open or bat at three I reckon.

I agree there, still prefer to have Ponting at 3, but if it means it helps out for when these guys retire, then after the Ashes is a good time to do this sort of thing.

Only problem is that Watson has never batted at 3 to my memory in domestic. With the form he is in he could score centuries batting at 11, so of course he will do OK there now, but what happens when that form runs a touch lower and he has to rely on the position and people around him a little more than he is now? He will become of 'normal' form sooner or later, and since he has scarcely batted above 4 for Queensland it's a bit hard to put him in the hardest batting position in arguably the consistently best team in the world. You are pretty much saying he is without a doubt the best batsman in the world and will continue to be, that's true of Ponting, but not sure on Watson. Someone like Clarke would be better suited to 3.

 

[courtjester]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

I agree there, still prefer to have Ponting at 3, but if it means it helps out for when these guys retire, then after the Ashes is a good time to do this sort of thing.

Only problem is that Watson has never batted at 3 to my memory in domestic. With the form he is in he could score centuries batting at 11, so of course he will do OK there now, but what happens when that form runs a touch lower and he has to rely on the position and people around him a little more than he is now? He will become of 'normal' form sooner or later, and since he has scarcely batted above 4 for Queensland it's a bit hard to put him in the hardest batting position in arguably the consistently best team in the world. You are pretty much saying he is without a doubt the best batsman in the world and will continue to be, that's true of Ponting, but not sure on Watson. Someone like Clarke would be better suited to 3.

Yeh, I dunno to be honest that three is the hardest spot to bat. I know a lot of people say that but not sure that it's 'harder' than opening. Watson loves the ball coming on, so opening or three seem ideal to him. I also think he's the sort of bloke that's thrived on the responsibility of being the opener (and three would be similar) rather than a bits and pieces all-rounder. He feels he has a place in the team now, which is good.

On Clarke, I reckon he is best suited to four or five. He is an ideal player of spin and therefore 4 or 5 suit him. Like Mark Waugh.

 

[Boris]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

Yeh, I dunno to be honest that three is the hardest spot to bat. I know a lot of people say that but not sure that it's 'harder' than opening. Watson loves the ball coming on, so opening or three seem ideal to him. I also think he's the sort of bloke that's thrived on the responsibility of being the opener (and three would be similar) rather than a bits and pieces all-rounder. He feels he has a place in the team now, which is good.

On Clarke, I reckon he is best suited to four or five. He is an ideal player of spin and therefore 4 or 5 suit him. Like Mark Waugh.

No.3 would have to be the hardest spot to bat, you have to be everything in the team and be able to bat everywhere.

Small example: Matt Hayden could open, but you wouldn't want him batting at 6 with the tail, his mental gameplay not quite suited to that sort of thing. Ricky Ponting you could have him opening or playing right down to 6, he would be able to perform well in all spots.

That's what makes a number 3. You may have to come in in the first over at the fall of an early wicket and pretty much play the role of an opener, or you may have to come in at 1/200 and play the role of a number 5 batsman.

It is almost expected in a game of professional cricket that one of your openers will fall cheaply, it's factored into game plans. Facing up to new ball bowling is a tough thing so it's expected, but then it is also expected that your number 3 will be able to recover from that and bat on.

Your number 3 bolsters the team. If he gets out early, then he is directly following the fall of an opener. This quite often starts a collapse. He may not be your best batsman, but is for sure your most important.

Watson started out batting at 6-8. He moved up to 5-6, and then occasionally got to bat at 4 for Queensland. He suddenly decided that his route into the Aussie team was via the opening position, so he opened for Queensland (failed miserably most of the time, but apparently it was enough) and got into the Aussie side in quite spectacular fashion.

He has barely had experience opening, let alone at 3, so I would be hesitant of putting him there. I'm more willing to put Katich there.

I agree with the Clarke staying at 5. He's set to move to 4 ahead of Hussey for the Pakistan away games in June according to some articles, but he seems to be following Ponting's footsteps and copying his career, so I would take the punt at saying he will be the next number 3.

 

[brickwaller99]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

It seems the easiest way to solve the transition is if north declines replace him with smith. Smith should come in for anyone down the order as a simple replacement.

Otherwise, Katich can go longer than the other 2 due to less international cricket but I still believe the opener spot should change first whilst you still have the stability of ponting and hussey so someone can establish themselves. Whether you go with Jaques, Hughes, Rogers or Marsh they must be stuck with until well after the other 2 spots are cemented.

After that I would say that putting clarke at 3 and giving him the captaincy at once when he hasn't batted at 3 in a long game of aeons is a lot of pressure. So if ponting goes next then hussey goes to 3 temporarily until clarke gets his head around captaincy. If hussey goes first then replace him with a number 3, even if they bat at 4 until ponting retires. Not sure who though for a number 3. Leave that up to the experts.

Then if ponting goes second put the new batsman to 3, let clarke get the hang of captaincy(which will take longer than his lifespan) and then move clarke to 3 and the other to 4 and put ponting's replacement at 5.

If hussey goes second then clarke steps into number 3 role and you have new batsman at 4 and 5.

Personally watson should stay at the top, stats show that Matt Hayden was one of the greatest openers of all time and watson gives the same aggresive start to an innings which can break the other team in the first 15 overs.

So the eventual order would be
Watson
Hughes/Jaques/Rogers/Marsh
No.3
Clarke
Hughes/M Marsh/other mid order
Smith/North

OR
Watson
Opener
Clarke
New mid order (defensive)
New mid order (aggressive)
Smith/North

 

[Beeswax]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

I'm not convinced by Watson as an opener. He got dropped a lot over summer and better teams won't hand out that sort of largesse regularly.

Hughes can't be brought in at 6 as he would be facing spin reasonably quickly and he doesn't look like he has much of a clue there. So even though I dislike his batting style and lack of shots, he'd always be better as an opener. He is at least experienced at it and his state record will always keep him in the selectors' minds.

It will be interesting to see how North and Hussey go this summer. It is such a shame that we are yet again playing that team that can't catch as we may not learn much again in England.

Kat would be a good no 6. He's a reliable player these days. We might hold up on the collapsing more than we do if he was coming in later.

 

[Boris]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

I wouldn't move Katich simply for the reason that he was dropped when playing at 6, and become a superstar batsman when he came back opening. He is perfect to have along with an attacking batsman as he can play his natural game and wittle a team to their death or come out blazing like I have seen him do sometimes. All that requires is another opener that won't get run out by his constantly rubbish calling.

I'm not convinced by the Watson opening thing either. With the form he is in he can be batting at number 11 and still scoring centuries (or 99s anyway ), but it has worked so far. My only problem is that when he goes down on form and goes back to a normal high quality batsman, is he then the best choice for opening? He has batted lower order his whole career with the exception of the last 3 years, but perhaps, like Katich, he has found his niche. I also wouldn't bring Hughes in at 6.

I have the feeling all along that North was a strange selection. I like him, but he was picked and played as an all rounder, and it didn't work. Only problem was is that he was scoring centuries, and you can't drop someone that does that. It is purely Watson's involvement in the team that has kept his spot, otherwise I think he would have gone a while back. Until he starts failing he stays in, but I would dare say he doesn't have a very long rope to play with.

Very much like the idea of brickwaller's idea of easing Clarke into things. Perhaps the two tone step up to number 3/captain isn't the best idea. We will see how Clarke and Hussey perform in 4 and 5 respectively later in the year.

 

[brickwaller99]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

Yes watson is far better suited to middle order than hughes. Hence why in an ideal world katich goes first leaving the other opening spot for the shittest batsman ever to open. One good bouncer will kill him. But apart from that i only suggested hughes down the order because i have very little contact with the domestic scene.

 

[Boris]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

I can see Katich lasting a little longer though. I have never heard him have an injury actually.

Perhaps it's more likely to just wait for Watson to injure himself.

 

[brickwaller99]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

That's the only problem to my plan. Katich will outlast both if he wants to because he hasn't played as much international cricket but he has been injured, just not badly.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

By shittest batsman, do you mean Jaques or Hughes?

Hughes looks like a tail-ender opening to me, but you can't argue with his numbers so far.

I won't mind if Shaun Marsh never gets a test berth, he reeks of Ian Bell. So many times in ODI's recently, he's got a lovely looking 20 or 30, then suddenly forgotten how to use his feet and got out to a really lame shot.

I hate seeing players do that even worse than watching Clarkey bat in 20/20.

 

[Boris]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

By shittest batsman, do you mean Jaques or Hughes?

Hughes looks like a tail-ender opening to me, but you can't argue with his numbers so far.

I won't mind if Shaun Marsh never gets a test berth, he reeks of Ian Bell. So many times in ODI's recently, he's got a lovely looking 20 or 30, then suddenly forgotten how to use his feet and got out to a really lame shot.

I hate seeing players do that even worse than watching Clarkey bat in 20/20.

I really think if Jaques was in the right place at the right time he would have been as good as any international opener we have seen. Just unfortunate we haven't been able to see more of him.

I don't mind Hughes' unorthodox approach. It does mean there are more places for bowlers to attack him, but it does also mean there are more ways in which he can attack a bowler. He scores at a high strike rate and I think that means more often than not he can outplay a lot of bowlers using the patience ploy, but any bowler looking to get his wicket straight up there and then with vicious balls is when he will struggle, no defence whatsoever.

Shaun Marsh has done so much more domestically than he has internationally, and I think he may be suffering from nerves or something mental like that. Domestically he is very strong mentally, bats for long periods of time and can get those hundreds.

In ODDs he's the same, except he scores at a SR of 90. Internationally he scores at about 70.

Maybe he's not cut out for the big game, but I think he is. He has hit some big hundreds already in ODIs and would like to think he will be a more permanent member in the future. I think he is also Test quality.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

We'll have to disagree on that one, but I would be happy to be proved wrong as he is really good to watch bat.

He is 26 though so he has to get a move on with the concentration levels. I think it is mental with him as he looks too good technically and style wise for it to be that he hasn't got the talent. And the mental part of the game is the hardest by a mile.

 

[Boris]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

We'll have to disagree on that one, but I would be happy to be proved wrong as he is really good to watch bat.

He is 26 though so he has to get a move on with the concentration levels. I think it is mental with him as he looks too good technically and style wise for it to be that he hasn't got the talent. And the mental part of the game is the hardest by a mile.

I do think he has the concentration levels, he seems to have the same levels as his dad. He can bat for hours and bore people stupid, but then come out and hit a 60 ball 100 in T20.

I would like to see him maybe come in a bit later in the order in ODIs for a slight change. Watson and Haddin to open, but Marsh to come in at perhaps 5.

Maybe then he will have a bit of a better time adjusting?

Not really room for him in the team currently anyway. He and Hopes were battling for position and with the last few performances Hopes has won.

 

[Beeswax]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

Shaun Marsh has done so much more domestically than he has internationally, and I think he may be suffering from nerves or something mental like that. Domestically he is very strong mentally, bats for long periods of time and can get those hundreds.
.

You know he only has 5 tons at first class level? That doesn't sound mentally strong to me. He's also injury prone, however, I really like watching him bat, he is a really lovely shot maker. Lefties usually make it look easy somehow, well, apart from Kat.... and North.... and Shiv can be fairly sticky at times, scratch that.

 

[LIONS then DAYLIGHT]

Re: The next big Aust test transition

Hopefully the addition of Mickey Arthur as coach of WA can shake up a few of these players that should be performing better, such as Shaun Marsh.