Batting Rob Quiney at number 3 in his debut Test match was cruel to him personally, and a mistake for the Australian cricket team in general.
I believe he should have been selected to come in at number six, thereby easing the pressure on him considerably in his first game in the baggy green.
I understand the argument that Quiney bats at the top of the order for Victoria and should therefore do the same at Test level. However, that completely overlooks the fact that international cricket is a massive step up from first class cricket.
Quite simply, it’s not a like-for-like comparison. It’s a little bit different facing Ben Cutting in the Sheffield Shield than it is facing Dale Steyn in a Test match.
In any case, Quiney wasn’t selected as opener for Australia anyway. And that only reaffirms my opinion that he should have come in down the order.
It’s also worth pointing out that Quiney has only recently cemented his spot as an opener for the Bushrangers, and has actually batted almost everywhere in the order for Victoria. Yes, as an opener he has been most impressive, but he’s not a career opener.
Australia has a long history of allowing new batsmen to ease their way into Test cricket by bringing them in down the order. Damien Martyn, Greg Blewett, Ricky Ponting, Stuart Law, Martin Love, Simon Katich, Darren Lehmann, Michael Bevan, Michael Clarke, Brad Hodge and Marcus North are just a collection of Australian batsmen who made their debuts at five or six despite batting at three or four for their respective states.
In a staggering and relevant statistic, of the eleven batsmen listed above, all but Martyn and Katich notched at least half centuries in their debut Test match, with Blewett, Love, Clarke and North all making hundreds.
Bringing the rookies in down the order enabled them to be shielded from fresh bowlers armed with a new ball.
Coming in down the order also protects debutants from the pressure of the match. Come in at six with 400 on the board, and it’s a lot less stressful. Come in at six with just 100 on the board, and at least you know some other experienced batsmen have failed, so you’ve got nothing to lose.
This is not to suggest that Quiney isn’t up to the task of batting first drop at Test level. In his short time at the crease, he looked composed and comfortable. The people suggesting he played rash shots and that it was due to the influence of Twenty20 cricket are way, way off the mark.
Quiney played good traditional cricket shots to short pitched bowling. He wasn’t slogging, he was actually playing the ball on its merit.
To suggest he should have tried to evade the short balls ignores the fact that doing so is a good way to get hurt, or get out.
However, I still think he could have benefited greatly from being eased into Test cricket.
Apart from the fact that it would have been better for Quiney himself and his career if he came in down the order, I could also argue that it was wrong for the team. Quite simply, I didn’t think it was a wise idea to have three inexperienced players at the top of the order.
However, with an overnight score of 4/487, that’s currently an argument with a lot of holes in it. You simply can’t question the results.
Even though I’m certain it wasn’t in Australia’s game plan to be 3 for 40.
Krzysztof
Guest
We Sri Lankans have our own way to enjoy the happy moments and eprxess our support to team(s) either home or visitors. Good to realize that nature by Crick Board. (+3)
stephen
Guest
Ponting is lucky to still be in the test side. They dropped Phillip Hughes at the end of NZ tes series but he was actually performing better than Ponting over the previous 6 months. Sure Ponting scored a lot of runs against India, but they only have a pop gun attack, Good sides these days expose all of Ricks slow reflexes,
pope paul v11
Guest
The Mighty Quiney will no doubt rue giving it away before he realised the pitch was as dead as a doornail but I don't see it as a cruel mistake. That's just the way it goes. Watto may come back and resume but there are mutterings about his ability to bowl and a reluctance to pick him for batting alone. Under the hyper sensitive formometer utilised by the selection panel you'd still think Quiney no chance, given U T Khawaja's stunning 138 amongst the greenery down Tassie way. However, much as Khawaja would strengthen the batting and should have played Brissie in the first place, the selectors will look like ning nongs if they toss the Mighty Quiney on the evidence of a chaotic late afternoon. Besides they seem to like Quiney's catching, bowling and all around good blokiness as well so he'll probably get another burl. If so he'll have to relinquish his honourary membership of the very exclusive Victorian Opener One Test wonders club and I'm sure they'll wish him well. Regards bowling, bearing in mind the lifeless pitch they just bowled on, I think they'll give this lot another run unless Starc does something startling in the current sheild match. He's really short of long game condition and wickets. Still could be be bye bye Hilfenhaus despite him being better for the run.
Sambo
Guest
Why all the discussions about Quiney? The real problem was with Warner and Ponting,both out prodding at balls going away. And let us not forget the abysmal effort put in by our bowlers.Short balls,no balls(with one wicket)and an undsciplined churlish performance when a decision went against them.
I am DRS
Guest
It's fair to say that Ponting *wanted* to keep playing ODIs last summer. Wouldn't you say Disco?
Planet
Guest
Quiney averages mid-high 30's in shield, why was he picked at all, aged 30? For a one or two off before watto returns why not d hussey , he averages mid 50's!! And can bowl -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].
Skinnada
Roar Rookie
Quiney should have been brought in at number 5 in between Ponting & Hussey with Clarke batting 3. Clarke is the best batsman and should be batting 3 now Ponting has been shuffled down to 4. My view is Ponting shouldnt be in the team any longer but that is not the case so I no need to go on about that. Khawaja should be in there for Ponting and probably Phil Hughes in test cricket in place of Warner who should be left to play the limited over and 20/20 cricket.
Dingo
Guest
If it was good enough for some of the greatest batsmen in Australian cricket history to start their careers a bit lower in the order, eg Bradman, Greg Chappell and David Boon etc, then I don't see why that same opportunity can't be given to Quiney.
I am DRS
Guest
Yes. Yes I am Brett. And yes Red Kev, it's a 12th man rip off. While we're on this batting order discussion I also like to add that Watson should bat down the order at 5 and Clarke should be at 3 permanently. A top 3 batsman scoring 50 can set up an innings, but a top 3 batsman scoring a 100 can set up a match. Watson rarely converts 50s into 100s and this lack of conversion is not good enough for a no. 3. This can be put down, at least in part, to his bowling workload. Clarke on the other hand has excellent conversion ideal for a no. 3. Aside from this though is the mere fact that Watson's bowling is nothing short of excellent - he averages 28, reverse swings it and has an awesome bouncer - Aus simply want him with the ball in hand a lot. Batting him at 5 allows them to do this without the burden of keeping him fresh for top order batting.
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Haha!
Brett McKay
Expert
At this point, I would like to point out that this comment was made more than a week ago, and that in the 'now, now, now' nature of social media, a statute of limitations of 7 days exists for quoting Twitter comments. Therefore, your evidence in inadmissible and your question will remain unanswered...
sittingbison
Guest
x2
sittingbison
Guest
Yup, superstitious. From golf, every time he hears "four" he ducks.
sittingbison
Guest
Ryan, surely Ponting should bat at 3, and if he cannot hack it then its time to retire. Using the sink or swim analogy from above.
sittingbison
Guest
he had a padded derriere
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
Well, his 9 runs may suggest otherwise. And I'll read you a quote from Twitter from someone whose cricket opinion I respect, the day Quiney was selected: "The question then becomes does Quiney bat 3, or do Ponting and Clarke go up? I know Khawaja did it it, but it's a big ask on debut. . ." Any ideas who tweeted that, Brett?
Disco
Roar Guru
Haven't you heard? Ponting *wants* to play in the next Ashes. And what he wants, he seems to get.
Disco
Roar Guru
On what do you base that assessment on?
Brett McKay
Expert
Quiney's become a career opener though, just as Watson has, and he was picked as the next best top order bat in the country to fill a top order spot. Your thoughts aren't without merit, but in Quiney's case, I think 3 was the right spot for him..
Ryan O'Connell
Expert
The point in using Law, Love and Hodge as examples is that all scored above 50 runs on debut. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, none of them were even dismissed. Whilst a small success in the grand scheme of things (considering the length of their Test careers), their innings' do give some evidence to the belief that coming in down the order is better potentially leads to a better innings. It's not an exact science, otherwise there would be a formula for introducing new batsmen. So the number 6 theory is just my belief, not 'the right way' or anything. You're right, Quiney didn't look lost out there, as I said. But he still only managed 9 runs as well. Imagine if could come in after Clarke and Hussey had demoralised the South African bowlers?