Aust tour squad v NZ announced - Sayers in.

[stampy]

Because no one else in world cricket sulks when things don't go their way...

Not like the Aussies IMO.

India?

That's racist, you're not allowed to accuse India of anything.

hey are u related to liz cabbage?

[Grenville]

hey are u related to liz cabbage?[/quote]

Gerhard Sauerkraut

[whufc]

I think you guys are overreacting a bit with regards to marsh. Reckon he is a test quality number 6, just isn't showing it at the moment. I remember watching his knock against Pakistan in the UAE and it was awesome, though I think we still lost.

With our top 5 being in ridiculous form it allows us to carry his batting until he finds form. It's not as if he has cost us yet.

He allows us the flexibility of always playing Lyon too - even on green tops where we otherwise would have played 4 quicks.

And on the subcontinent it will allow us to play a second spinner whilst also retaining 3 quicks.

Is his batting any worse than wattos was?

Disagree about Marsh.

Statistically he is barely a genuine first class number six nevermind test cricket.

When it comes to his batting he seems to be lacking with his technique and mentality he has ALOT of work to do to become a test number 7 nevermind being a specialist bat.

On the other hand i think he holds his own with his bowling and has the potential to be an out and out bowler.

For some strange reason he reminds me a lot of Stuart Broad.

[bennymacca]

why do we need an out and out batsman in at 6 though? The adage that an all-rounder should be able to hold their spot as either a batter or a bowler is a bit of a misnomer imo. Our top 5 are going great guns (cant believe I am saying that after the previous couple of years)

If he can pull his average up to low 30s in test cricket that would be more than adequate imo.

I dont think he should be compared with other batsmen that could potentially bat number 6, nor compared with our first choice seamers. The choice should be whether we want an all-rounder as part of the structure of the team, and if the answer is yes, then he plays because he is clearly the best allrounder in the country at the moment (seam bowling at least)

[whufc]

why do we need an out and out batsman in at 6 though? The adage that an all-rounder should be able to hold their spot as either a batter or a bowler is a bit of a misnomer imo. Our top 5 are going great guns (cant believe I am saying that after the previous couple of years)

If he can pull his average up to low 30s in test cricket that would be more than adequate imo.

I dont think he should be compared with other batsmen that could potentially bat number 6, nor compared with our first choice seamers. The choice should be whether we want an all-rounder as part of the structure of the team, and if the answer is yes, then he plays because he is clearly the best allrounder in the country at the moment (seam bowling at least)

Getting an average of around low 30's i believe will be a stretch for him.

Personally i do think you need six specialist batsmen (at times the keeper may fall into them six) no matter how well your top 5 are going (at some point like the Ashes your top 5 will get exposed and if you don't have a genuine number 6 your tail will crumble. If you had a Gilchrist who could move to 6 and Marsh at 7 then that would be perfect but at the moment we are almost 4 out all out.

We were only a couple of coin tosses away from potentially having Marsh seriously exposed in this series.

Personally i could see Marsh becoming a seriously good bowler and a number 8 bat.

[bennymacca]

If only we could find another Gilchrist, would solve a lot of problems

[Grenville]

He could be damaging with the bat at 8, but agreed he doesn't look up to the no.6 spot.

[bennymacca]

If we played him as the third seamer, who would he replace in our best team?

Starc and Hazelwood are no-brainers, and I think he is definitely behind Pattinson too. you could probably play him instead of siddle or bird though and not lose too much.

I really do think the flexibility he offers is a big asset though.

[whufc]

If only we could find another Gilchrist, would solve a lot of problems

It certainly would.

I would settle for a keeper batsmen that could average 35-40 at 6 even if they batted in a steady way and was a partnership builder.

I think Neville has a fair bit of potential with the bat and personally i would like to see him have a real crack at 6.

[whufc]

If we played him as the third seamer, who would he replace in our best team?

Starc and Hazelwood are no-brainers, and I think he is definitely behind Pattinson too. you could probably play him instead of siddle or bird though and not lose too much.

I really do think the flexibility he offers is a big asset though.

Yeah i think your right he would be behind Starc, Hazelwood and Pattinson but ahead of Siddle and Bird.

With Starc, Pattsinson and Marsh's history you can almost guarantee one of them will always be injured

[bennymacca]

If only we could find another Gilchrist, would solve a lot of problems

It certainly would.

I would settle for a keeper batsmen that could average 35-40 at 6 even if they batted in a steady way and was a partnership builder.

I think Neville has a fair bit of potential with the bat and personally i would like to see him have a real crack at 6.

Nevill has a first class average of 41, so yeah I too wouldnt mind see him move up to 6.

That may allow marsh to play a little more freely, and we might see some scores similar to his exceptional one day form

[bennymacca]

Just following it on cricinfo, crucial runs here by the Kiwis. we were looking like having to chase only 100 at one stage, and now it could be 150-200, which is a tricky chase

[bennymacca]

Yeah i think your right he would be behind Starc, Hazelwood and Pattinson but ahead of Siddle and Bird.

With Starc, Pattsinson and Marsh's history you can almost guarantee one of them will always be injured

Marsh taking the pressure off of Starc and Pattinson to bowl lots and lots of overs cant be ignored either

[whufc]

Yeah i think your right he would be behind Starc, Hazelwood and Pattinson but ahead of Siddle and Bird.

With Starc, Pattsinson and Marsh's history you can almost guarantee one of them will always be injured

Marsh taking the pressure off of Starc and Pattinson to bowl lots and lots of overs cant be ignored either

Agree would be interested to see data on how big affect the fifth bowler has on the other four bowlers due to allowing them to bowl fresher etc

[whufc]

Just following it on cricinfo, crucial runs here by the Kiwis. we were looking like having to chase only 100 at one stage, and now it could be 150-200, which is a tricky chase

Yep 200 could be very tricky, we wouldn't want to be 4/60 or something

[Jim05]

Just following it on cricinfo, crucial runs here by the Kiwis. we were looking like having to chase only 100 at one stage, and now it could be 150-200, which is a tricky chase

More likely chasing 250 with the junk the bowlers are serving up now

[The Dark Knight]

Get another wicket FFS.

[stampy]

gotta give it to the bastards, their fighting spirit is second to none, four times we have had them on the ropes this test, when they were 3/32, we were 2/356 and 4/438 and then having them 7/215 today - each time they have counter punched and now they have their noses in front i reckon

[am Bays]

Sheep shaggers all out, we're chasing 200

There, that wasn't so hard was it?

[stan]

This will be interesting to say the least.

I have no doubt we will have a go at this.