England v Australia, 3rd Investec Test, Old Trafford, 2nd day August 2, 2013

I backed Warner's judgment 100% - Clarke

33

Michael Clarke has said he backed David Warner's decision to review his dismissal from a thick outside-edge despite telling Warner he thought the ball had made contact with the bat.

Australia's use of the DRS has been poor throughout the series and that continued on the second day at Old Trafford, where Warner brought boos from the crowd when he walked to the crease and further jeers after his ill-judged referral.

The edge off Graeme Swann was deflected off Matt Prior and snapped up at slip, not dissimilar to Stuart Broad's controversial edge and non-walk at Trent Bridge. Clarke was at the non-striker's end when Jonathan Trott completed the catch to dismiss Warner, who had struck his pad with his bat at the same time as the bat hit the ball, apparently confusing his judgement.

"My reaction was, yes, I thought Davey hit it," Clarke said. "But in fairness to Davey, if you have a look at the replay, he actually hit his pad at the same time so he obviously didn't feel the ball hit the bat. We had a little discussion in the middle.

"Let's just say we disagreed, but in saying that, I did say to Davey that I would back his judgement 100%. He was confident he didn't hit it so it was worth a look and I've said before I think that's the way DRS should be used. I think if the batter feels that he didn't hit the ball then his partner should back his judgement."

Acceding to the review could have been dangerous on Clarke's part, because it left Australia at 365 for 5 with no referrals left, and a hefty first-innings score was always going to be necessary on a good batting pitch. As it turned out, Australia didn't need the DRS again, as Clarke compiled 187 - his highest score outside Australia - and Brad Haddin and Mitchell Starc pushed the total to 527 for 7 before the declaration came.

It was also Clarke's first Test century batting at No. 4, a position that he took up in this match after Phillip Hughes was dropped. Despite the success, Clarke said he was unsure if he would remain at second drop in the future or move back to his more usual position at No. 5.

"I got a hundred at No. 4, what a miracle," Clarke joked after play. "I don't know, we'll assess in the second innings let alone the next Test match. The number doesn't bother me. I've been saying it for a while. It's nice though to finally have a hundred batting at No. 4 but I'm not sure.

"I didn't feel that great yesterday or today at the crease. I felt there was enough in the wicket - I played and missed a hell of a lot and had a fair bit of luck. Don't get me wrong, I love the result. It's better than getting zero, that's for sure but I think I'll be able to assess it more if we win the Test match."

Clarke's runs, combined with valuable half-centuries from Chris Rogers, Steven Smith, Haddin and Starc, have at least given Australia a chance of the victory they need to retain any hope of winning the Ashes. The bowlers began well, collecting two England wickets after Clarke declared in the final session, but he said it was important they maintained their patience over the next three days.

"It's not the type of wicket you can force too hard," he said. "You have to build up pressure. The bowlers will have to be exceptionally consistent like they were this afternoon. It is going to take a lot of time to bowl England out. Our bowlers have the discipline. I was pleased with the way Nathan Lyon started today. There was a bit of spin but more importantly there was some bounce there for him as well. He will play a big part in both innings.

"The team should be extremely proud of the position we are in. We copped a bit of criticism after not making enough runs in the first two Test matches and rightly so. The way everybody did their job in the first innings is a credit to all the boys. We have worked exceptionally hard in the lead up to this Test match and it was nice to get the result. There is still a lot of work to do."

Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • humdrum on August 3, 2013, 2:19 GMT

    The good,old fashioned virtues of batting for long periods-so crucial for test match success-have been demonstrated by Australia. Now, if they can back it up by having patience and focus in the field,this could be a classic reversal of fortunes for them. there is much to play for,and one only hopes the umpires don't mess it up.It seems batting on the last day will resemble a minefield walk,so a decent 1st inns lead will prove decisive. The will and character of the English team will be well and truly tested.

  • Optic on August 3, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    @farkin There's a big difference for me between a wicket keeper going up for an edge, than a batsman who's knocked the cover off the ball like Warner did. Wicket keeper's are sometimes unsighted anyway by the batsman and go off a noise and deviation which is what Prior went up for in Khawaja's case.

  • Tumbarumbar on August 3, 2013, 10:31 GMT

    Picture this if you will. The number six batsman gets 4 decisions in 6 innings (a 3 test series) that are shockers and would have easily been reversed on a DRS review but on each occasion numbers 1 through 5 have used the reviews unsuccessfully on what turn out to be umpire's call dismissals. The number 6 batsman only scores a handful of runs in the series and is dropped. As a result he loses a significant portion of his income. Does he approach the nearest workplace equal opportunities organization and complain that by virtue of his position in the batting order he doesn't have the same chance as his team mates? Does he sue the ICC for not providing fair and equitable work conditions? Does he sue his board for unfair dismissal given he did not have access to the same rights as the batsmen before him? Or does he go the whole hog and sue his team mates

  • Big_Maxy_Walker on August 3, 2013, 8:30 GMT

    Did anyone else see Clarke shake his head at Warner five or six times when they were discussing whether or not to review? Clarke as captain should have made the decision for Warner not to review. But I fear with them being so close Clarke let Warner do it anyway

  • ihaq1 on August 3, 2013, 8:02 GMT

    i think that players continue to humiliate themselves...even though i have not really played cricket even an airbrush by the ball is known and felt by teh batsman...batsman should realize that DRS does nobody any favors...and walk...and anyway just playing warner was a favour too after cowans batting in teh previous match

  • HRK118 on August 3, 2013, 7:59 GMT

    About the review rules, it doesn't make any sense to put a limit of two per team. The whole idea is to ensure correct and just decisions, so how can you cap off the level of 'justice'. Fairness cannot be enforced in a truncated manner. Also, Jono is absolutely right. The purpose of the DRS review is to help the principle of correct decision making, not to save the umpires from embarrassment in a self serving attitude.

  • on August 3, 2013, 6:28 GMT

    I think the players would soon learn not to go for too many frivolous reviews as it just costs too much time, on the upside it may just fix the long term over rate issue, two birds, one review. It might also coax the BCCI out of their corner as the Indians should always be able to keep up with the rate at home.

    On the decision making process, the benefit of the doubt MUST go back to the batsmen. To issue the benefit of the doubt to the Umpire is ridiculous, the Umpires should always have full and complete respect, without question, but I feel at the moment as though they are making it all about themselves, it needs to be about the players and the game, an Umpire that isn't standing out like a sore thumb is an umpire that gets and maintains full respect. An Umpire making decisions based on safeguarding the role of his fellow Umpires is quite ridiculous!

    Further more, the elite panel is too small, how can 10 umpires service 4 matches all played at once? Bring back Rauf and Bowden!

  • Rowayton on August 3, 2013, 6:23 GMT

    I think the simple reason England did not review Bresnan's is you don't take even a small risk for a number 8 when you still have all your main batsmen to go. Bad luck Bresnan, you want to get the right to seek reviews you'd better start averaging 45. And is there a wicketkeeper out there who can tell me why so many balls are coming off the keeper's legs? Surely they should be catching them, it's not as if the ball is going downwards - are they coming up out of the crouch too soon?

  • on August 3, 2013, 6:18 GMT

    @Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 3, 2013, 4:57 GMT) Jmc, that is a view I would share, lets face it, the need to review dismissals probably only pops up a couple of times every innings in any case, quite a few of these will already have been reversed decisions via review in any case. The time lost by reviewing all out decisions would be very minor. I think this would be much fairer on batsmen who will always find it hard to be objective and there is just two of them out there to come to a decision.

    My proposal for the fielding team would be to allow them either unlimited reviews, or perhaps say up to 5 (in total, regardless of verdict) per innings, but that they would have to maintain the over rate in order to use them. If you are not up with the over rate, then sorry, you can't review it. No allowances for injuries, dismissals etc, make it 14 or 15 overs per hour as your minimum cut off and if you can keep it at that then review all you like. to be continued...

  • GloryDaysReturn on August 3, 2013, 6:17 GMT

    I totally believe Warner thought he'd missed the ball. While batting myself, I've hit the ground at the same time I've edged and would not, for a second, have believed I'd hit it until I saw second slip catch the ball. Still, if Clarke's instinct told him he'd hit it, it would have been wise to send him on his way. The whole scene was rather embarrassing and would only have been made worse for Warner if Joe Root had been the bowler, or slips catcher!

  • humdrum on August 3, 2013, 2:19 GMT

    The good,old fashioned virtues of batting for long periods-so crucial for test match success-have been demonstrated by Australia. Now, if they can back it up by having patience and focus in the field,this could be a classic reversal of fortunes for them. there is much to play for,and one only hopes the umpires don't mess it up.It seems batting on the last day will resemble a minefield walk,so a decent 1st inns lead will prove decisive. The will and character of the English team will be well and truly tested.

  • Optic on August 3, 2013, 15:04 GMT

    @farkin There's a big difference for me between a wicket keeper going up for an edge, than a batsman who's knocked the cover off the ball like Warner did. Wicket keeper's are sometimes unsighted anyway by the batsman and go off a noise and deviation which is what Prior went up for in Khawaja's case.

  • Tumbarumbar on August 3, 2013, 10:31 GMT

    Picture this if you will. The number six batsman gets 4 decisions in 6 innings (a 3 test series) that are shockers and would have easily been reversed on a DRS review but on each occasion numbers 1 through 5 have used the reviews unsuccessfully on what turn out to be umpire's call dismissals. The number 6 batsman only scores a handful of runs in the series and is dropped. As a result he loses a significant portion of his income. Does he approach the nearest workplace equal opportunities organization and complain that by virtue of his position in the batting order he doesn't have the same chance as his team mates? Does he sue the ICC for not providing fair and equitable work conditions? Does he sue his board for unfair dismissal given he did not have access to the same rights as the batsmen before him? Or does he go the whole hog and sue his team mates

  • Big_Maxy_Walker on August 3, 2013, 8:30 GMT

    Did anyone else see Clarke shake his head at Warner five or six times when they were discussing whether or not to review? Clarke as captain should have made the decision for Warner not to review. But I fear with them being so close Clarke let Warner do it anyway

  • ihaq1 on August 3, 2013, 8:02 GMT

    i think that players continue to humiliate themselves...even though i have not really played cricket even an airbrush by the ball is known and felt by teh batsman...batsman should realize that DRS does nobody any favors...and walk...and anyway just playing warner was a favour too after cowans batting in teh previous match

  • HRK118 on August 3, 2013, 7:59 GMT

    About the review rules, it doesn't make any sense to put a limit of two per team. The whole idea is to ensure correct and just decisions, so how can you cap off the level of 'justice'. Fairness cannot be enforced in a truncated manner. Also, Jono is absolutely right. The purpose of the DRS review is to help the principle of correct decision making, not to save the umpires from embarrassment in a self serving attitude.

  • on August 3, 2013, 6:28 GMT

    I think the players would soon learn not to go for too many frivolous reviews as it just costs too much time, on the upside it may just fix the long term over rate issue, two birds, one review. It might also coax the BCCI out of their corner as the Indians should always be able to keep up with the rate at home.

    On the decision making process, the benefit of the doubt MUST go back to the batsmen. To issue the benefit of the doubt to the Umpire is ridiculous, the Umpires should always have full and complete respect, without question, but I feel at the moment as though they are making it all about themselves, it needs to be about the players and the game, an Umpire that isn't standing out like a sore thumb is an umpire that gets and maintains full respect. An Umpire making decisions based on safeguarding the role of his fellow Umpires is quite ridiculous!

    Further more, the elite panel is too small, how can 10 umpires service 4 matches all played at once? Bring back Rauf and Bowden!

  • Rowayton on August 3, 2013, 6:23 GMT

    I think the simple reason England did not review Bresnan's is you don't take even a small risk for a number 8 when you still have all your main batsmen to go. Bad luck Bresnan, you want to get the right to seek reviews you'd better start averaging 45. And is there a wicketkeeper out there who can tell me why so many balls are coming off the keeper's legs? Surely they should be catching them, it's not as if the ball is going downwards - are they coming up out of the crouch too soon?

  • on August 3, 2013, 6:18 GMT

    @Posted by jmcilhinney on (August 3, 2013, 4:57 GMT) Jmc, that is a view I would share, lets face it, the need to review dismissals probably only pops up a couple of times every innings in any case, quite a few of these will already have been reversed decisions via review in any case. The time lost by reviewing all out decisions would be very minor. I think this would be much fairer on batsmen who will always find it hard to be objective and there is just two of them out there to come to a decision.

    My proposal for the fielding team would be to allow them either unlimited reviews, or perhaps say up to 5 (in total, regardless of verdict) per innings, but that they would have to maintain the over rate in order to use them. If you are not up with the over rate, then sorry, you can't review it. No allowances for injuries, dismissals etc, make it 14 or 15 overs per hour as your minimum cut off and if you can keep it at that then review all you like. to be continued...

  • GloryDaysReturn on August 3, 2013, 6:17 GMT

    I totally believe Warner thought he'd missed the ball. While batting myself, I've hit the ground at the same time I've edged and would not, for a second, have believed I'd hit it until I saw second slip catch the ball. Still, if Clarke's instinct told him he'd hit it, it would have been wise to send him on his way. The whole scene was rather embarrassing and would only have been made worse for Warner if Joe Root had been the bowler, or slips catcher!

  • farkin on August 3, 2013, 5:50 GMT

    "I backed Warner's judgment 100% - Clarke" Matt Prior got it just as wrong as clarke and warner on UT Khawaja caught behind which just goes to show that all cricketers can get it just as wrong as any one

  • jmcilhinney on August 3, 2013, 4:57 GMT

    I have an idea regarding DRS and I'm interested to hear what others think of it. It doesn't address reviewing not out decisions so it is not a complete approach, but it could be part of an approach that could please more of the people more of the time. The dismissals of Warner and Bresnan are further evidence that the batsman doesn't always know what happened. I reckon that the batting team should not be responsible for reviews at all but they should just review every out decision. The rules for what constituted sufficient evidence to overturn a decision would have to be clarified too. This might lead to umpires initially giving close decisions out in order to allow a review but this could be curtailed in time if the ICC monitored the proportion of out decisions overturned and addressed the issue with those umpires for whom it rose significantly. Perhaps performance-based rewards could encourage them to get the decision right first time. What thinketh thou?

  • sfarazi on August 3, 2013, 4:50 GMT

    Warner has always been overrated and I have never felt that he was right for test cricket. Yeah, he's amazing in the shorter formats but he doesn't possess the temperament of a test player and therefore should be better utilised in T20 and ODI games. Watson and Warner are the same - powerful players without proper technique. Unfortunately bashing the ball around and scoring a 100 every once in a while (or not in Watson's case) seems to be the criteria to get a spot on the team whereas youngsters like Smith, Khawaja and Hughes have to work their asses off in the hope that the selectors will notice them. Warner's review gave some reassurance to the umpires that some batsmen really have no clue of whether they hit it or not.

  • landl47 on August 3, 2013, 4:04 GMT

    Anybody who can say they backed David Warner's judgment 100% with a straight face deserves an Oscar nomination. What good judgment has Warner ever shown?

  • AltafPatel on August 3, 2013, 3:43 GMT

    Warner went same way Watson did, both put team aside for selfish. Politics against captain is also clearly visible.

  • on August 3, 2013, 3:31 GMT

    The Australians look fired up and England players are looking confused . Let us have no doubts . Australia will win this test match .A victory for Australia will infuse interest in the series and we can witness a tooth and tail fight in the coming tests.

  • xylo on August 3, 2013, 3:19 GMT

    If Clarke had a review left, his dismissal might have been turned over by the third umpire Dharmasena... now we never know what might have happened.

  • Rowayton on August 3, 2013, 2:46 GMT

    As an umpire, I find this very reassuring - just goes to prove how often the players haven't got a clue what really happened.

  • on August 3, 2013, 2:30 GMT

    batting well on the first two days of a what is a good batting wicket was achieved ,the surface may be conducive to spin and bounce for the rest of the match but england will bat for a draw ,knowing that they have nothing to lose being 2-0 up in a series that they will eventually win at home and away because they win more crucial tosses and make those wins at the toss count when they bat or bowl ,something australia will have to challenge themselves to re- discover

  • Webba84 on August 3, 2013, 1:59 GMT

    Think Clarke has it the wrong way around. The batsman should 100% back the judgement of the bloke at the other end who has a better view and will be much less likely to fall prey to wishful thinking.

  • TheBigBoodha on August 3, 2013, 1:53 GMT

    Why does everything involving David Warner get blown hugely out of proportion? He hit his pad at the same time as the ball hit the bat and he didn't think he'd hit it - otherwise why would he ask for a review in front of a hostile crowd? It wasn't the smartest review, but it was hardly an act of human evil. Leave the guy alone!

  • getsetgopk on August 3, 2013, 1:46 GMT

    99.99% of the time you know you've hit it. It is quite disgusting that in order to win, teams and players have stooped so low that even knowing they've smashed it they still want to play the system and then whinge about the DRS, oh I can't control my emotions oh please take it out of my hand oh please give it to the umpires oh god nooo!!! Man up aussies, you guys played some crappy cricket until now and accept that you're just not good enough instead of squeezing a win somehow out of DRS. Both clark and Warner knew it, what they were trying to do was hope the DRS malfunctions and we get our australian way of winning. Equally disgusting are those articles with headlines like "DRS is breaking spirits", seriously???

  • Chris_P on August 3, 2013, 1:28 GMT

    So, the player is more important than the team? Poor effort Pup, you should have told him to get off & take a look at the replay, at least it didn't come back to bite you. Probably the same for Bresnan & Cook, although to be fair to Cook, it appeared he edged it from front-on (Cook's view) but at least Bresnan put the team ahead of himself, one up than Warner for him, at least.

  • on August 3, 2013, 1:23 GMT

    The Aussie openers should be Warne, Rogers or Cowan. Watson has to drop down to the middle order - he is not a test opener. Khawaja should be kept at number 3 - boy will turn out to be good for sure in time to come. Clarke should be number 4 not get back to number 5. Smith seems to be a good number 5 at the moment with Watson to come at number 6 and do the heroics of Adam Gilchrist as in the past - along with Haddin. Come on Aussies turn the table from this test - give POMS a good run.

  • on August 3, 2013, 1:21 GMT

    And you backed him to take a gamble by reviewing it. Good captaincy? No.

  • on August 3, 2013, 1:19 GMT

    Drop Warner to T20, ODI and Sheffield Shield; he's becoming a liability on and off the field at test level and send Watson with him.

  • hayagriva on August 3, 2013, 1:11 GMT

    Well done Clarke... Bad luck Steve Smith... I think this just shows that Steve Smith needs more experience so that he can compile his hundreds too. He was so close to it, yet got distracted momentarily to play a cheap shot.

  • spinkingKK on August 3, 2013, 1:04 GMT

    "I've said before I think that's the way DRS should be used. I think if the batter feels that he didn't hit the ball then his partner should back his judgement." Isn't it same as saying, the batter should just decide on the review by himself and don't get anyone else involved? Because,regardless of what the non-striker says, he is going to go by his judgement. Warner tried to hurt England (who had no reviews left) by inducing an error from the umpire. However, the umpire wasn't budging (because it was as clear it can get). So, to hide his failed trick, he decided to go for a review as if he didn't know he hit it. If he didn't know if you hit that ball, he wouldn't know he hit when he hits a six. Sorry, that is not how DRS should be used. I think the teams should go to the ground as if there was no DRS and then use it when they really think an injustice has been done against them.

  • on August 3, 2013, 0:56 GMT

    By third day afternoon it can crack up a bit. Both Smithy and even Clarke should come into play in addition to Nathen. If the Aussies can mange 175 lead in the first innings and run up a lead of 325 runs and give 4 sessions time on the fourth and last days, then that's the only chane Aussies have to pull back in the series. Three sessions may be a inadequate. Aussies will give themselves a chance if they have 120 overs and 325 runs for Endlsnd to make . Lets see how Auusies paly from here.

  • jmcilhinney on August 3, 2013, 0:44 GMT

    I think that letting each batsman making the decision on whether to review is fair enough. That said, the Australian batsmen should be encouraged to give appropriate weight to the opinion of the non-striker because, let's face it, no batsman can be impartial where his own wicket is concerned. Warner obviously wasn't aware that he edged the ball because he hit his pad rather firmly at the same time. That's fair enough. That said, he should realise that the fact that he hit his pad doesn't mean that he didn't hit the ball; just that he couldn't feel it. If Clarke told him that he clearly saw the edge then that should have been enough for Warner to accept the original decision. As it turned out, losing that review didn't hurt the team but hopefully Warner and the rest of the team learned something from that. Watson in particular needs to take note, although maybe he's already learned his lesson. I'd still like to know what Chris Rogers said to him before Watson reviewed that plumb LBW.

  • goldeneraaus on August 2, 2013, 23:13 GMT

    Clarke you will always have my full support for your heroic batsmanship and inspired captaincy since you took over the helm from a ruinous time but I cannot agree with this sentiment. It flies in the face of all logic, there are times to back your players but this is not the case, you need a systematic approach and go with evidence not gut, if you saw the nick it seems nonsensical to allow a review, it didn't hurt us this time around thankfully, but we do NOT want another broad situation.

  • TheQambar on August 2, 2013, 22:47 GMT

    People have been criticizing Davey but they need to understand that there are many ways a batsman can't sense whether he nicked the ball or not. Clarke did a good job there by backing his player.

  • khurrambhai on August 2, 2013, 22:27 GMT

    Doesn't it justify Broady's decision to not to walk off. ?

  • khurrambhai on August 2, 2013, 22:27 GMT

    Doesn't it justify Broady's decision to not to walk off. ?

  • TheQambar on August 2, 2013, 22:47 GMT

    People have been criticizing Davey but they need to understand that there are many ways a batsman can't sense whether he nicked the ball or not. Clarke did a good job there by backing his player.

  • goldeneraaus on August 2, 2013, 23:13 GMT

    Clarke you will always have my full support for your heroic batsmanship and inspired captaincy since you took over the helm from a ruinous time but I cannot agree with this sentiment. It flies in the face of all logic, there are times to back your players but this is not the case, you need a systematic approach and go with evidence not gut, if you saw the nick it seems nonsensical to allow a review, it didn't hurt us this time around thankfully, but we do NOT want another broad situation.

  • jmcilhinney on August 3, 2013, 0:44 GMT

    I think that letting each batsman making the decision on whether to review is fair enough. That said, the Australian batsmen should be encouraged to give appropriate weight to the opinion of the non-striker because, let's face it, no batsman can be impartial where his own wicket is concerned. Warner obviously wasn't aware that he edged the ball because he hit his pad rather firmly at the same time. That's fair enough. That said, he should realise that the fact that he hit his pad doesn't mean that he didn't hit the ball; just that he couldn't feel it. If Clarke told him that he clearly saw the edge then that should have been enough for Warner to accept the original decision. As it turned out, losing that review didn't hurt the team but hopefully Warner and the rest of the team learned something from that. Watson in particular needs to take note, although maybe he's already learned his lesson. I'd still like to know what Chris Rogers said to him before Watson reviewed that plumb LBW.

  • on August 3, 2013, 0:56 GMT

    By third day afternoon it can crack up a bit. Both Smithy and even Clarke should come into play in addition to Nathen. If the Aussies can mange 175 lead in the first innings and run up a lead of 325 runs and give 4 sessions time on the fourth and last days, then that's the only chane Aussies have to pull back in the series. Three sessions may be a inadequate. Aussies will give themselves a chance if they have 120 overs and 325 runs for Endlsnd to make . Lets see how Auusies paly from here.

  • spinkingKK on August 3, 2013, 1:04 GMT

    "I've said before I think that's the way DRS should be used. I think if the batter feels that he didn't hit the ball then his partner should back his judgement." Isn't it same as saying, the batter should just decide on the review by himself and don't get anyone else involved? Because,regardless of what the non-striker says, he is going to go by his judgement. Warner tried to hurt England (who had no reviews left) by inducing an error from the umpire. However, the umpire wasn't budging (because it was as clear it can get). So, to hide his failed trick, he decided to go for a review as if he didn't know he hit it. If he didn't know if you hit that ball, he wouldn't know he hit when he hits a six. Sorry, that is not how DRS should be used. I think the teams should go to the ground as if there was no DRS and then use it when they really think an injustice has been done against them.

  • hayagriva on August 3, 2013, 1:11 GMT

    Well done Clarke... Bad luck Steve Smith... I think this just shows that Steve Smith needs more experience so that he can compile his hundreds too. He was so close to it, yet got distracted momentarily to play a cheap shot.

  • on August 3, 2013, 1:19 GMT

    Drop Warner to T20, ODI and Sheffield Shield; he's becoming a liability on and off the field at test level and send Watson with him.

  • on August 3, 2013, 1:21 GMT

    And you backed him to take a gamble by reviewing it. Good captaincy? No.

  • on August 3, 2013, 1:23 GMT

    The Aussie openers should be Warne, Rogers or Cowan. Watson has to drop down to the middle order - he is not a test opener. Khawaja should be kept at number 3 - boy will turn out to be good for sure in time to come. Clarke should be number 4 not get back to number 5. Smith seems to be a good number 5 at the moment with Watson to come at number 6 and do the heroics of Adam Gilchrist as in the past - along with Haddin. Come on Aussies turn the table from this test - give POMS a good run.