Hopes fade for Aussies after Proteas fire

Clarke at 3. I've been saying that for ages! He has to be there. Clarke practically bats at number 3 as it is anyways with a top order fail almost always assured with the unpredictable Warner, reasonable Cowan and aging Ponting. Also, like you say Clarke at 3 lets Watson drop down the order so we have the fourth seamer.

Well, I only hope that Ponting gets runs in his last dig, or it could really be said that by not retiring on top last summer - a true indian summer, feasting on a mediocre, disinterested attack - Ponting has cost Australia the no.1 ranking.

Agree. I think he has 2 more tests good grace. I would like to see him at least average 45 over the next five innings.

I think you are right in that Warner is more likely to be a success that Cowan. But I think both of them have a long way to go before they are anywhere near holding down a test openers role.

Give me Warner any day over Cowen.. He has age on his side and sheer explosive talent. I will be surprised if he is not there art the end of the Ashes with Hughes and I believe they have the potential to be an explosive opening pair. Remember this conversation in 12 months James.

Other than Hughes who else can come in as an opener? Khawaja is more a no.3/4 and I would not go back to Watson-Hughes as openers.

Just pointing out that there is no problem with the speed at which Cowan scores. Agree that he needs to convert into more 50's and 100's. 1 hundred and 3 50's out of 15 innings isn't good enough. But neither is Warner's 3 hundreds and 1 50 out of 19 innings. I don't care that Warner scores faster if he isn't making the runs consistently. Honestly, I'll be pleasantly surprised if either of them are our top choice openers at the end of the Ashes tour.

Yes I suspect Khawaja will get the first nod as long as he performs reasonably well in the Chairman's 11,Tthe fact that Hughes was not selected, suggests to me that they are satisfied with what he has done but given its a middle order batsman position he will only get the spot if Khawaja fails. You could be right with Hughes coming in during the Ashes. Even if Cowen fails in the second innings against SA I think they'll keep him on at least for the start of the Sri Lanka tests .

Oh James. Your'e not for one moment trying to compare Taylor with Cowen surely. Yes Taylor was pedestrian in pace but as you'll notice in one of my comments on this thread I qualified the occupying of the crease with scoring at least 50-100 fairly regularly. Though Taylor went off the boil later in his career except for that marvellous triple century, you will find that he was a prolific scorer early on. While Cowen is scoring at an average of 33 after 16 innings, Taylor had scored over 900 runs in the same number of innings at an average over 60. He also had the very flashy Slater with him to keep the scoring moving along at a reasonable pace. he was scoring a century usually less than once every ten innings and a 50 every 3-4 innings. That's a big difference there. Cowen is many levels lower than that.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of either Hughes or Khawaja but there isn't really any competition. I'd probably be looking at bringing Khawaja into the team probably at no 6 and push Clarke and Hussey up. I suspect that it is likely that Hughes will be in the team by the third test of the ashes.

Reply to Bearfax. Of course averages do matter, but Warner at the moment is too volatile to be a good opener. Of his 18 innings, 5 are less than 10 and 4 more less than 20. If it works, it is great. If it doesn't, the middle order is exposed too early which is what is happening to Australia. And the top sides aren't reliant on the quick scorers. You need a balance. Australia was very successful in the late 1990's when they had Mark Taylor opening who had a strike rate significantly lower than Cowan. Kallis only scores slightly faster than Cowan. Of course it is good if you get a quick fire century and keep on going, but it is the rare player who can do that consistently against a top class attack. However, I do agree that Cowan needs to convert his starts much better. But Warner needs to protect the middle order from the new ball or find another position to bat. South Africa is scoring quickly but it is much easier to score quickly when the bowling is poor and not up to standard. You probably do need to check your history around scoring rates in tests. Over the past 10 years, Australia has scored at over 4 per over in 51 innings out of 208 with an average of 3.55 runs per over. In this series, we are scoring at over 4 an over and we are going to lose.

Khawaja just scored a quick fire 85 in the one dayer against NSW today

Occupying the crease is more than just letting a bowling attack work you out and finally get your wicket after you've scored 20-30 runs. If you occupy the crease and score 50-100 that's a different proposition, but Cowen isnt doing that. If your comment were true for this team why are the openers and No 3 getting out so cheaply (though at least Warner is averaging over 40 and sorry but averages do matter). Why are the top sides so reliant on the sehwags, Gayles, Haydens etc who score quickly and consistently. Because they lay the foundation for a potential victory because they are scoring so fast. Even Langer had to learn this and up his pace. A quick fire century gives you time to accumulate big without having to worry too much about time to win the game. A pedestrian pace is more likely to drag the game out to a draw. Check out the teams that consistently win games. They score quickly. Australia's great run of wins was based on scoring around 4 runs an over. Other teams that scored slowly ended up easy meat. West Indies great sides did the same as Oz. Score quickly and put the pressure on your opposition.. Sorry James but I suggest history suggests your more likely to win if you score quickly....as long as you keep scoring. ps And what is South Africa doing right now. Not occupying the crease. They are scoring quickly so they can put the pressure on Oz to win the game. And unless Oz counters with its own quick fire effort, the game is lost

James I'm not challenging the reason he was dropped, only showing that he was still with an average over 34 while Cowen is now 33. Cowen is a good occupier of the crease and occasionally shows a good array of shots. But despite a creditable century recently he is still getting out most of the time cheaply. Occupying the crease is all very well and good if you consistently make 50s and 100s, but not 20s and 30s.. It places too much pressure on players to follow. I dont dispute that Hughes needed to go away and sort out his issues. I think also that, though he was given a very poor offering by the selectors, Khawaja had lost confidence probably because of that issue) and needed to get away and sort out issues. They've both done that and have come back as the top Shield batsmen. Cowen has a flaw in mostly getting out cheaply. But no one seems to be talking about that and in fact lauding his performances. Hmmm there's something amiss here. And Cowen had a poor start at Shield cricket this season

Completely disagree. It is a 5 day test. An opener is there to protect the middle order from the new ball. Scoring quickly can win you games but it also loses you games.

The only caveat that I would suggest is that if there is someone in their early 30's who had a very poor start to their career but has shown very good and sustained performance over 2-3 years, that maybe a sub 40 is possible. But this should be the exception rather than the rule. Why was Hughes dropped? After 2 matches he had scored 350 runs at 87.5, his next 15 matches, he scored 722 at 26.7. He started well and then his technical flaws were found out by the opposition bowlers. Once a player has had a few matches, then they get analysed to death by the opposition who identify and target the flaws. He is worth another go, but that is why he was dropped.

Sorry Buddha but I disagree. Occupying the crease is not the fundamental to winning games. Its scoring runs. What's the use occupying the crease if runs are not being scored. And the longer you just occupy the crease, the more balls you face and the greater chance there is that you will be out cheaply. Australia in the past decade have shown that scoring runs quickly is what wins you games because you blunt the bowling attack. Occupying the crease only allows the bowler to develop a pattern of attack. What players like Warner do is blunt the attack and soften the ball which gives later players then an edge and a start on which to accumulate runs. Thats why Gayle, Sehwag, and the former Sri lanka openers were so effective and gave their team a valuable start. That's why Hayden was so effective, because he plundered and blunted the attack thereby making it easier for batsmen down the order to take control Warner will go a long way to winning you a game. Cowen will at best help you draw it.

Overall, the selection policy of the team has been extremely flawed. It needs to change. Openers - we need 2 openers who are going to stay in together for at least 20 overs on a consistent basis. I don't care how fast they score, but we need to have the shine off the new ball before the number 2 comes in at least. On average, Cowan and Warner last just over 10 overs before one of them gets out which is putting pressure on the middle order - particularly with an unsettled number 3. New batsmen - with the openers we have, you should not be putting a new batsmen in at number 3. It isn't fair on them. Start them at no 6. Bowlers - now we see what happens when you drop your two bowlers who bowled their hearts out on a road and replace them with a wayward quick whose form is based on a 4/103 bowling performance in the shield, an all rounder on debut opening the bowling for Australia and one of the most overrated young bowlers going around. The hype about the bowlers needs to stop. Starc is not the next coming. His first class record is ordinary with 78 wickets at 32 and his test record is also poor with 10 wickets at 32.5 from 4 matches. Cummins is not the Australian pace leader. He has played 4 first class matches and has only taken 5 wickets once. Yes, he had a good match against South Africa on debut. Hazlewood should also be no where near selection for Australia. 15 matches, 43 wickets at 32 is well below many other bowlers. Of course these three bowlers play for NSW and there is a clear media hype engine which seems to surround anyone who plays for NSW. The selectors need to go back to what works. Pick the players who have done well on a long term basis in the shield If someone is having a good year great. Let them back it up for a second year. If a batsman is averaging under 40 in first class matches, then unless they have had a couple of seasons of averaging over 50, then they really shouldn't be considered. This really leaves us with Hughes and Kawaja as our next 2 batsmen with Doolan needing a second decent shield season before he should be considered. The bowlers are much easier. The most successful bowlers recently have clearly been Bird, Faulkner, Cutting and Butterworth. AIt is worth noting that Bird and Butterworth have better records away from Hobart than in Hobart. In addition, Cutting, Faulkner and Butterworth are all handy with the bat. It is the consistently dumb selections that are hampering the success of the side.

Not sure I understand some of the positions other posters are taking even though they are recognising the deficiencies in the Australian line up and especially the batting. A few rules of thumb surely though need to apply with batting. Firstly. You dont select batsmen who are 30+ who have a first class average under 50...or in desperate situations 45. At 30 + its pretty certain you've hit your potential. Its unlikely that you are going to get much better. Choosing players like Shaun Marsh, Quiney, Christian and Cowen, who have averages at 40 or less is not going to give you match winners and more often than not they will be liabilities. Hussey was chosen when 30 but he had a 50+ first class average and was coming into a strong team. He would have been in the team earlier but for the champion side we had. Secondly. A young buck in the 19-27 year range is still developing. Almost every one of them selected for tests will struggle at first, deficiencies will be exploited and as with most potential champions they will be dropped to go back and sort out their problems. Ponting, Clarke, Steve Waugh, Hayden even Bradman etc were dropped in their early career and their test averages were often in the 20s and 30s for a time. But at that age they are still developing and have not reached their peak, some not even close to what their potential is. But you stick with them because you can be pretty sure they will improve. What that means is that a player llike Hughes and Khawaja, who are both still kids of the game, have followed the same pattern as so many top batsmen before them. Ponting and Clarke were just considered potential stars when they were young and people were criticising them for similar issues young Khawaja and Hughes are copping now. Hayden couldnt score beyond 20-30 in his first dozen or so tests because of a weakness. he was dropped and came back as arguably Australia's best opener of all time. Now the issue is this. Hughes and Khawaja have been dropped, sent away to address their issues and are both demonstrating at Shield level that they are effectively addressing their deficiencies. They are no less talented than the batsmen we had in the last decade but they are learning their craft and being still 'kids' they have time on their side. Most young players sent away usually get back within a year or so and then show a far more composed performance. Batsmen over 30+ havent got that time. They are at their prime. Clarke for example is 31. When he was in his early 20s he was just a kid with talent. Its even possible that Warner may at some stage be dropped to address defensive issues. But he has the talent to be a star. For this reason Australian selectors have got to stop bringing in the 30+ batsmen with sub 40 first class averages and stick with the kids, who are showing better averages and talent. Warner, Hughes, Khawaja, Burns maybe Doolan and Cosgrove, all under 30 with improving first class averages, are the key to an Australian resurgence. And I strongly believe Khawaja and Hughes need to be brought in now and given time to settle into their positions before the Ashes. And for those wanting to keep Cowen, ask the question. How is it after 16 innings this over 30 year old has a test average of 33. And how is it that Hughes was dropped with a better average supposedly because of a batting flaw. Where is consistency?

yeah look i haven't seen a lot of warner but that shot yesterday was compete rubbish and showed he'd didn't grasp what test batting is all about --ultimately its about occupation yes its true that over the last 20 years against second rate attacks scoring fast has caught people's attention but the fundamental fact is that occupation of the crease wins more test matches. I wouldn't put too much credence in averages -- there's only 3 sides who know how to play test cricket anymore ( 4 if you count India in india) and lots of the bowling is really sub standard over a 5 day test match -- yesterday was the key day of this match and Warner should have known that -- plus putting your foot down the track and smashing through the line might occasionally work in OZ but jimmy anderson will just be looking at warner and hearing the dinner bell - as will every other pommy bowler