- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
I caught up with an Expert colleague from The Roar in a virtual pub the other night, and we got chatting. Like all good pub conversations, the topic of Australia’s batting came up.
Ryan O’Connell: Hey mate, sorry I’m running late. Can I get you a virtual beer?
Brett McKay: No thanks mate, I’ve started on an actual beer without you.
ROC: Isn’t this supposed to be a virtual thing?
BM: It’s amazing how they can blend the virtual with the actual these days. It virtually tastes like the real thing…
ROC: Let’s not beat around the bush, huh? Let’s get right to it: I personally think the top six is a bit of a mess at the moment. It’s far from settled, put it that way. So, from the six batsmen they have chosen for the first Test against Sri Lanka, what is your ideal order?
BM: I don’t know that the problem is so much the order, just that only a couple of them are making runs. When people see the runs are only coming from numbers five and six, the natural reaction is to move five up, and move three down. It’s not actually solving the real problem; it’s just shuffling the deckchairs.
For Hobart, I’d slot Hughes straight in at three, and I wouldn’t move Mike Hussey for love nor money. I’m not overly fussed whether Clarke comes in before Watson at four and five respectively. There’s a lot to be said about leaving things as they are at five and six, and just hoping Watson can start scoring decently at four.
So, for mine: Cowan, Warner, Hughes, then Clarke-Watson or Watson-Clarke, and Hussey.
ROC: I know you don’t want to move Hussey, but I think the top order is crying out for some experience and stability. A top three of Cowan, Warner, and Hughes scares the hell out of me. I would therefore move Huss to opener or first drop.
As for Clarke, I really don’t mind if he bats four or five. What I would say is that you need to be careful messing with something that is working, and Clarke at five is most certainly working.
BM: I know you wrote about this last week, but what do you want to see in Hobart?
ROC: All things considered, I would open with Hussey and Cowan, with Hughes at first drop, and then Watson, Clarke and Warner coming in at four, five and six respectively. I actually want to see if the theory of Warner not being effective against an older ball holds true before confirming it.
BM: But why would you move Hussey from six when he’s been down there for so long? That’s weakening an obvious strength.
And if the Warners and Hugheses of the world want to be top order bats, they should just get in and do it from the get-go. There are no soft entries in Test cricket.
ROC: I’m looking at the bigger picture. The balance of the top six is out of whack, and moving Hussey can help rectify that.
And the strategy of throwing inexperienced batsmen into ‘the deep end’ is not working. Marsh, Khawaja, and Quiney have all come and gone. Australia should return to system of blooding young batsmen from the number six spot. Or as I like to call it, ‘The Apprentice Position’.
Australia’s best two batsmen of the last ten years, Ponting and Clarke, were both products of that strategy.
Anyway speaking of soft entries, I found it disappointing that John Inverarity revealed that the selection panel didn’t select Hughes for the South African series because they wanted to protect him from the Proteas’ class bowling attack. He actually said,
“We did feel that throwing [Hughes] into a Test against the world number one with their attack was probably not the ideal set of circumstances for him…”
There are so many things wrong with that comment I don’t know where to begin. But I’ll start with the obvious question: why does Hughes get protected, but Rob Quiney, on debut, gets thrown to the wolves? At number three, no less?
BM: This was bizarre. You know those times when you hear or read something being said, and you just think, “Why the hell would they even admit that?” This was one of those times.
Now I feel even sorrier for Rob Quiney than I did before. You have to wonder what would’ve happened had Quiney made runs in Brisbane and Adelaide? And does this mean that there was always something in place for Ponting to go mid-season? They obviously knew Watson would be fit again at some point, and would come back for Quiney, but was the plan always that Ponting wouldn’t play against Sri Lanka and Hughes would?
ROC: I know Quiney made a pair in his second Test, but if they truly were enamoured with his now famous ‘polished’ 9, then he probably should have been given another chance. Dropped after just two Tests, even if he did struggle, is not really fair. Especially when they admit that the South African attack is so brilliant.
As for the Hughes comment, the fact that he was earmarked for the Sri Lankan series is curious. I thought they wanted Ponting to go to the Ashes, so I don’t think replacing him was in their thoughts. So whose spot was it? Did they think Watson may take longer to come back from injury?
More than likely, I believe it’s because they don’t truly feel Cowan is the long-term answer at opener.
BM: That’s madness if that is the case. Cowan’s the sort of guy that you could build a batting order around, particularly for an Ashes series in England. Cowan made a mountain for runs for Gloucestershire and then Australia A at precisely the same time this year that Australia will be touring England next year. He has to be there, for mine.
Anyway, assuming this current order doesn’t change too much, do you think Australia has the batting to win back the Urn in England?
ROC: I think Cowan has done more than enough to hold onto to his spot. Furthermore, I think his style is exactly what Australia needs at the top of the order. Especially now that aggressive stroke-players Warner and Hughes will be alongside him in the top three.
Warner, Cowan, Hughes, Watson, Clarke and Hussey. Are those six batsmen capable of scoring heavy runs against England’s attack? Yes, I actually believe they are. As previously mentioned, I’d play around with the order a little, but I’m confident that there is enough talent there to consistently score over 400.
Even allowing for the potential of the batting, everyone knows you need to take 20 wickets to win a Test match. Does Australia have the ability to do that? Sounds like a great segue into tomorrow’s topic…
BM: Yep, I’d agree with all that. And good plan, let’s reconvene tomorrow…