´óÏó´«Ã½

Simply put the Aussies should not be playing a specialist spinner becasue they dont have one good enough.

Several batsmen in the team could bowl 5-10 overs of spin that would be 95% as good as Hauritz, so why not pick a 5th seamer or 7th batsman instead?

Working on a doosra for two years, but still not mastered it? I reckon I could master a doosra in two years and I'm not attempting to be a test spinner.

Anyone else have the feeling that the Aussies are suddenly going to wheel out Shane Warne in Cardiff?

If we could tempt Warnie back we'd be laughing, I think him just walking out there would demoralize England so badly you'd give us the urn! I agree with hackerjack Cameron white would have given strong batting with the addition of decent but not great leg spin, with Michael Clark to pitch in that would've surely covered the spin overs. The wickets are gonna have to come from our seamers anyway... no pressure Brett!

Australia must reap what they sow. The reality is that no young player has had any interest in spin-bowling because they knew that they would never break into the test team with Warney in it. Unfortunately, those 700 wickets of Warneys will have to make do for the next decade because I cant see more than a handful of wickets falling to Aussie spinners during the next 4 Ashes series. The Aussie selectors were short-sighted and they must now pay the price.

I really dont see Hauritz having a massive role to play in ashes. He may well play in Cardiff, if the pitch really is going to be useless for the quicks, but remember it is not the track that Glamorgan got fined for, but an adjacent one, so really it could do anything. All this talk about it being a spinners track, is just that, talk, and based upon one game on a different pitch.

Once they move away, I can see the aussies playing 4 quicks with Marcus North and Michael Clark providing the spin option to tie an end and give the quicks enough rest. Why would you play a spinner if he is not good enough and on current evidence Hauritz is not. The Saffers get away without a top quality spinner a lot of the time.

It would seem to me to be a big waste of a bowling spot to play Hauritz, I guess if Watson is fit, he might play as the all-rounder as part of 5 man attack and North droping out, but personally I would go for 4 top quality quick bowlers and part-time spin, than a spinner who gets carted around.

Wattie-boy, I assume (tho maybe wrong) that you are not Australian, because I dont know one Australian who would advocate playing Cameron white, he is even more of a waste of space than Hauritz. If you are going for a player who does a bit of both, North or Watson are much, much better options.

Krejza was definitely treated poorly by the selectors, as was Beau Casson before him. Judging Krejza so early on after two Tests as not being good enough is very harsh on him. After four Tests, two versus India and two versus Sri Lanka, Warne had a grand total of four wickets at an average of over 90. Krejza may not be a man to turn into a legend like Warne but dropping him is poor and then bringing in someone like McGain and then Hauritz to replace him must be pretty galling.

As a Somerset follower, I've been critical of Justin Langer in that I don't think he has enough faith in the spinners at his disposal. The Australian selectors don't seem to have faith in their spinners either judging by the procession of ins and outs from the teams in the post-Warne era. I wonder if having Warne in the side has rather spoiled some Australians in that anyone who doesn't come close to matching the great man is discarded very quickly, and that they need to realise that Warne really was a one-off and judging the new breed of spinner by Warne's standards is unfair.

Australia got stung in India by not having a recognised spinner. Some say Hauritz gets carted around based on his performance against Sussex. His Test record doesn't suggest that at all and neither does his one-day record at all levels. His role will be to apply pressure and keep it tight and maybe add a few handy runs lower down. I think he should play and personally I'd be musing more on dropping Hussey who still looks completely out to lunch with the bat at the minute.

plow

but if you drop hussey, firstly who would you play and secondly how does the battting line up work? I guess you are thinking of moving Clarke up to 4, but who then bats at 5? Watson or North, I am not really sure about that. Only 4 proper batsman for a test???

I think they made a mistake in not bringing Hodge as cover for the batters, if one gets injured they are in trouble and likewise if poor form continues for someone like Hussey. To bring another all-rounder in Macdonald who will not play, unless he is the pizza boy, over another batsman seems a little short-sighted.

If you play Hauritz, you are prob only going in with 3 quicks, or drop North for Watson and I am not sure about the viability of either of these options. Maybe you think differently, but the Aussies need to take wickets and previous to the away test in SA (where they played 4 quick bowlers), they played 3 quicks and could not take 20 wickets for love nor money. I doubt they will want to go back to this.

For a "First Class" or "Test" bowler to take 2 years to perfect a doosra is ridiculous... if its taking so long dont bother and dont play. If I was the Australia selector I would much rather North, White, Clarke and Katich to bowl 20 overs in an innings and try and buy a wicket rather than Hauritz. He has no variation, no delivery that could surprise the batsman and doesn't turn it enough; so no chance at Test level for me.
By the looks of things, The Aussies seem to have much more selection issues compared to England who's team pretty much picks itself

spin or no spin if our lads have watched the lions than they know what the standard is expected

Quote: "...Hauritz, who claims he has been working on a doosra..." made me smile: is that his ball that doesn't go the other way?

Moutarde (post 4) - are you suggesting that the Aussie selectors should have dropped Warne in order to encourage the others? If you are it sounds a bit odd, I'm sure anyone with a bowler like Warne at their disposal would be putting him in every time.

If however you're arguing that the Aussies should at least have shown a desire to play two spinners more often, that's a bit different. One issue though is once you get outside the subcontinent how many test matches are likely to be played on pitches where spin will be your main attacking weapon and not just on Days 4 and 5.

All of a sudden England look to hold the cards on the spin front, with 2-3 players showing signs of genuine test class albeit not in the class of the real top slow bowlers - but with a bit of help from the wicket they have the better options. The Aussies will be relying on their promising but a little inexperienced pace attack, England may be able to match them on that but the spinners might provide an extra edge. Will it be enough? I'd still say the Aussies are favourites, but without having all the bases covered in terms of spin, they are more vulnerable.

Red Army chap:

I'm counting 5 proper batsmen in the side I'm picking for Australia:

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
North
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Hauritz
Siddle
Hilfenhaus or Clark

Haddin is looking in decent form and Johnson can obviously wield the bat as can Lee. I would have Lee in the side because of the extra pace and batting ability he offers, despite not being in top form, and you're got to pick one of either Hilfenhaus or Clark. Those two operate in a very similar way so picking both and dropping Lee would reduce the flexibility of the attack.

Shane Watson wouldn't be in the side because I don't think he's a top 5 batsman at Test level and his bowling at the T20 looked unsure. He bowled with the look of a guy who has had many injuries and therefore isn't entirely at ease with his action, much like James Anderson two to three years ago. Watson wasn't going through his action well. It looked hesitant.

People have been nominating Michael Clarke and Marcus North for the spinning roles. I don't like this as it puts added pressure on them. Clarke hasn't been in top form recently and North is still very much a Test rookie. The Aussie middle order isn't firing. If you play Hussey who is bang out of touch, have Clarke and North almost covering for him in a way with the bat and you ask them to contribute majorly with the ball as well, that's a huge amount of pressure on the middle order.

I really do see it as a case of deciding whether to keep Hussey or drop him and put Hauritz in his place.


SorrySurreyFan:


"He has no variation, no delivery that could surprise the batsman and doesn't turn it enough; so no chance at Test level for me."

Neither does Paul Harris but he made some of the Australians look very stupid in South Africa and he also made some Englishmen look very stupid last year. Many international batsmen are going to find it a little harder than normal switching back to Test mode and batting patiently after so much limited overs cricket and the hurly-burly of the World T20. You actually saw it perfectly today in the womens game with England versus Australia. A lot of the Aussie ladies were still stuck in 20-over bash mode and batted poorly on a flat, albeit slightly slow, wicket. A bowler like Hauritz who does apply pressure and reduces scoring becomes a different proposition. Paul Harris has done that and has bowled very well for South Africa, acting as the perfect foil to the pacemen.

The genius of Warne is that he both strangled the scoring rate and took wickets. In the post-Warne era, the Aussies haven't known what to do. Krejza (gave away runs but took wickets) was tried. Casson (gave away runs but took wickets) was tried. McGain (gave away more runs than an incontinent sheepdog) came and went. Perhaps the selectors have decided that a containing bowler is what is needed. Hauritz can do that job.

Paul, I know what you mean but both sides are in very similar positions. They both have batting line-ups that aren't as strong as they have been. They both have wicketkeepers who offer a lot with the bat but who aren't the best with the gloves. They both have bowling line-ups that look good on paper but we're really waiting to see from this series if they're the real deal.

Hussey might well be one knock away from being back in form but he hasn't shown it in the games played since his break from cricket. His run of form made Collingwood's lean spell look good. More than that, seeing him in the field at times both home and away showed that he was feeling the pressure, lots of misfields and some dropped catches.

I still think England need to go in with Prior at six so having Haddin at six with five batsmen won't leave the Aussies too disadvantaged. If this wicket does turn, then England will go with Anderson, Broad and Flintoff with the ball alongside Swann and Rashid. I can't see Panesar making a case for inclusion. Flower clearly likes Rashid, his abilities with the bat will help the tail, and he might just ruffle the Aussies who did not play Harris well in South Africa.

One of the differences with the Aussies now to 2005 is that they don't have a batting lineup that intimidates. With all due respect to the players involved, Katich is not someone to frighten England's bowlers and Clarke, although possessing a lot of talent, still hasn't gone from 'very good' to 'great'. Marcus North is a good steady bat, Ponting is obviously class, and Hughes is a vibrant talent but it's not a lineup to inspire fear. It's not like the days of Hayden, Langer, Ponting, Clarke, Hussey in form, Symonds at six, and only then do you get down to Gilchrist. The fear factor will be much less for opposition bowlers so the Aussies don't have that advantage now.

When they toured South Africa, I liked how they didn't try to be the same side they used to be. The inclusion of MacDonald, a real bits and pieces man, was a great inclusion as he acted as someone to help bring the team together with a few runs here, a few overs there, a useful breakthrough with the ball or two. They realised that, without the genius element in the bowling and some changes in the batting, they had to knuckle down to a real team ethic, to be a hard working team of good players rather than a team with some legends. It's a bit like watching the USA versus Brazil last night. The USA came close to matching and even beating Brazil through industry and teamwork rather than being a collective of outstanding individuals, and this is a little how Australia went in South Africa. I think bringing Hauritz in for Hussey would be along the same lines, a real 'horses for courses' inclusion.

This is all part of the fun that you have two teams in major transition for different reasons. Australia have had retirements, England lost, gained and lost a captain in a year along with a coach. It all comes down to whether the Aussies think they can score enough runs to warrant five bowlers and five outright batsmen, and how strong they feel England's batting is.

Andy, as always it's lovely to see you again, and glad that at least we can continue our discussions on this forum!

I have always, as you know, been a believer in a strong enough tail to prop up a side, but your proposition seems to me to be a bit middle light as it were. While Mitchell Johnson has shown that he is indeed capable of holding the willow we must remember that one swallow (or two!) doesn't make a summer and we need to see how well he handles himself in further Test series before classing him as an all-rounder. Brett Lee is primarily a batsman and I'm not too sure about Haddin's ability to really contribute much. Hence Hussey's inclusion is vital. One of the things I like a lot about him is that as a late debutant like Andrew Strauss he has showed a great deal of intelligence in order to achieve what he has so far, and I agree with Mr. Fletcher that he's really only one good innings away from rediscovering his touch.

On that note, would it make much sense to replace him with a spin bowler who as people have said will only really tie up an end and not be much of a wicket-taking threat? If the guy had real potential to do damage then it would be understandable, but my feeling is that England would actually struggle a lot more against leg-spinners or left-armers than off-break bowlers, hence the reasoning for giving Clarke and Katich a go. Of course I am the last person to say that they should be given great responsibilities as bowlers, but under circumstances 6-7 overs in an innings from both of them wouldn't be too bad.

Sorry, make that "Brett Lee is primarily a bowler"!! My bad!

The Aussies should ditch Hussey and get Hodge in, he must be the unluckiest man in Australia not to be at least in the squad.

As for Hauritz, do they think he'll be like their version of what Giles was to England in 2005? Holding up an end and maybe snatching a wicket? At least he can bat, if Lee plays with Johnson and Hauritz the Aussies have a decent tail that can get a fair few runs.

Hi Mani!

Andy, as always it's lovely to see you again, and glad that at least we can continue our discussions on this forum!

I think both sides could be said to be somewhat middle light during this series. Both sides have a strong looking pair of openers (one experienced, one younger), Ponting and KP cancel each other out, I feel Bopara and Clarke are similar, the two keepers are similar, and then potentially you have Collingwood versus Hussey in the battle of the guys who look scratchy but might get some runs. If England really are going to play Flintoff at six, then that makes our middle look light given the form/lack of it he's shown with the bat for some time. Neither side has someone like Steve Waugh or even Symonds coming in at six and certainly nothing like Gilchrist batting at 7. This is what I was getting at earlier talking about the intimidation factor. Neither side will intimidate the other with their batting line ups.

I think Mitchell's got the ability to be a true all-rounder so I'll show some faith in him. Lee had a good run with the bat down in Sussex and I think he'll be given that role, to really look to scoring some proper runs.

With Hussey, I know where you and Paul are coming from in that he could be one innings away from rediscovering that touch he showed previously. Alternatively, he could play in that side, Australia could go in with no spinner, and they end up regretting it. Again, if you ask Katich and Clarke to bowl more overs than you place more pressure on the batsmen to score runs, and I don't think Hussey needs any more pressure than that which he is placing himself under with his lack of form. Whatever people say about Hauritz, his Test record isn't that bad. Paul Harris was derided for a long time, not least by Geoff Boycott. Since then, he's grown as a bowler and bowled really well against Australia both home and away. If Hauritz develops in a similar way and isn't derided for not being Warne, he could be useful for Australia.

As a footnote, it's interesting to see today's Somerset-Yorkshire match at Taunton. I said earlier about how I didn't feel Langer trusted spinners and Paul mentioned Jenner's notion that Ponting didn't like spinners (something I felt KP exhibited when he was captain in India. He didn't seem comfortable with how to use them. One of Michael Vaughan's great points was that he was the best English captain when it came to handling bowlers since Brearley). You look at that Somerste match on a hot day, flat Taunton wicket. After 83 overs, Yorkshire are 338 for 5. A total of 8 overs have come from slow bowling, that of Arul Suppiah, probably to quicken things up to get the new ball for the late afternoon spell. Hmmm...