JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Poll: First drop spot awaits

Shane Watson on the drive - he's set to move down the order following Ponting's departure. Picture: Getty Images

With Shane Watson in line for the No.4 Test batting spot, who should be allocated the No.3 position?

Poll form
  1. Please select an answer.
  2. View results
Phil Hughes

34%

Rob Quiney

20%

Usman Khawaja

32%

Alex Doolan

6%

Other

8%

Total votes: 5096.

Would you like to vote?

You will need Cookies enabled to use our Voting Feature.

Disclaimer:

These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.

Related coverage

Cricket: Another Phil-good story

Cricket: Hughes improves, but how will remain his secret

Watson's likely move to No.4 will expose green top order

18 comments

  • Mickey Arthur said (to paraphrase) "We've got 5 & 6 sorted, now we just need to get 1, 2, 3 & 4 to give us a good platform". Seems strange that they will compromise the first 4 spots to ensure that they don't "break what's working" at 5 & 6. Surely, like has happened for decades, middle order players develop their test game at 5 or 6 before stepping up to take responsibility at 3 or 4. Clarke should bat 4 and the new guy (any of Quiney, Kawaja or Hughes - all thereabouts) can slot in at 5 or 6. (Specialist openers are obviously an exception to this theory). We are no longer the dominant nation who can pluck any shield player out and slot them into a gun side - we need to develop a side like AB did (before Tubby & Waugh reaped the benefits).

    Commenter
    Buzman
    Location
    Date and time
    December 04, 2012, 7:06PM
  • Bring back Khawaja. Hughes has had one too many chances and Quiney just isn't cutting the mustard at this level. Khawaja showed positive signs during his time in the Australia side and if it wasn't for Ponting running him out, I'm sure he would have gone onto bigger and better things. This article makes him out as an arrogant figure, but I believe a good cricketer needs a bit of arrogance and self-confidence to be successful.

    Commenter
    Edward M
    Location
    ACT
    Date and time
    December 04, 2012, 8:01PM
  • Quiney for me, although he has gone cheaply he is far more assured than Hughes who cannot play leg side shots and all the rest are cross bat slogs or snicks. Quiney is a better fielder and can bowl, what more can you say.

    Commenter
    ballarat bat
    Location
    ballarat
    Date and time
    December 04, 2012, 8:02PM
    • You are basing you opinions on Hughes on where he was at 12 months ago, he has improved his technique and his shot range significantly since then, which is why he is one of the leading run scorers in the shield and ryobi cup run tallies. I'm pretty sure that given how everyone in the cricketing world knows how he was being targeted previously, that if he hadn't fixed it up, he wouldn't be getting the runs.

      I'm not saying that Hughes is a better option than Quiney, just that you are ill informed. I believe Quiney probably deserves another chance, but looking more assured does nobody any good if he doesn't score runs.

      In Quineys favor is economical part-time bowling and brilliant fielding.

      Commenter
      M
      Location
      Date and time
      December 05, 2012, 11:15AM
  • Clarke should step up and bat at number 3 instead of hiding down the order. It is criminal that the best batsman in the world is batting at 5.

    Commenter
    Adam W
    Location
    Date and time
    December 04, 2012, 8:11PM
    • I don't think Clarke is a 3 though. 3 and 4 are your best two batsman but traditionally your 3 should be more defensively minded which Clarke is not.

      If anything I think Clarke should be 4 and Watson 6. Watson to me simply is not up to scratch and having three green players above him risks Australia being four for nothing a fair bit, where Watson is more likely to contribute once the ball gets old.

      Commenter
      Don't get it
      Location
      Aus
      Date and time
      December 05, 2012, 10:13AM
    • Sounds great in theory, but what if Clarke is brilliant against an older ball and only kinda average against the newer ball?

      Why not have someone who is not as good as Clarke, but is better suited to the new ball bat at 3 and let Clarke keep batting at 5 where he is killing it? He's averaging something stupid like 100+ for the last year, if you move him to 3 and he only averages 40-50 like most batsmen and the person that replaces him at 5 only averages 40-50, like most batsmen, what have you gained?

      Commenter
      M
      Location
      Date and time
      December 05, 2012, 11:21AM
  • The South Africans have got a wall in Amla; we've got guys who you just know are going to put the team in real strife after one of the openers will inevitably go out cheaply. Gone are the golden days of Australian cricket, we're MAYBE the 3rd best these days, very sad times indeed.

    Commenter
    James
    Location
    Hanoi
    Date and time
    December 05, 2012, 1:47AM
  • I always thought the best batsman in the team batted at three, so shouldn't Michael Clarke step up and lead by example. Then put Hussey at four, the new kid on the bloke ( take your pick) and Watson at six.

    Commenter
    James
    Location
    Date and time
    December 05, 2012, 8:39AM
    • The best batsman does not necessarily bat at 3. People are always use Bradman and Ponting as examples.
      Bradman was a freak of nature and Ponting was not always the best bat in the team even at our peak a decade ago, we had Steve Waugh (6) and Hayden (open) were considered a more valuable wicket at their peak.
      Allan Border was our best in the 80's and he batted 5th while Boon who was never considered our best bat took first drop.
      Look at the two other best Batsman or the last era. Both Lara and Tendulkar moved you and down the order depending on who else came into the team.
      All the batsman currently being considered are top order batsmen. it doesn't make sense to shield them and put them lower in the order where they're not used to batting.

      Commenter
      Vin
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      December 05, 2012, 11:24AM

More comments

Comments are now closed