Have selectors have lost us another series...

[gbatman]

No spinner on a spinners track, didn't we learn from no spinners in India? Crazy.

see - http://www.bigcricket.com/forum/t69210/

It's time to go Hildtich and Co. if we lose this test match and hence the ashes, since the 2005 series the selectors have cost us countless matches and series.

 

[Blue Dimension]

No matter what they do, it seems they can't please anyone.

Australia has not taken 20 wickets this whole series with an attack of Johnson, Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Hauritz.

The one game we took 20 wickets (and easily might I add) was the game where Stuart Clark was able to apply pressure as the backup paceman to the opening bowlers.

Australia were struggling because their bowlers were leaking too many runs and were unable to contain the English batsman for an extended period of time.

I think they've made a good decision, but I'm betting they'll get absolutely bagged in the media if we lose this game, the same way they'd have gotten bagged in the media if they dropped Clark anyway.

These threads are premature, similarly to those threads that are made after quarter time/half time of a footy match where a footy team is down in a match. Just sit back and watch the game before you make any judgments. There's 5 days of cricket left and the first session isn't even over.

 

[spookism]

Pitch has done absolutely nothing, will find Aussies will also bat well - heading for a draw!

But, agreed BD - 2 hours in with an unchanged team that blew the Poms out in the last test and there is already whinging!

 

[gbatman]

different pitch, different conditions call for different players...

 

[Blue Dimension]

different pitch, different conditions call for different players...

But how can you honestly judge after just a session of cricket?

How would Hauritz have improved that performance on the first session of day 1 of a test match?

Hauritz is irrelevant when discussing this mornings session. The fast bowlers didn't bowl well enough.

Australia has not taken 20 wickets with Hauritz in the side this series.

The fast bowlers have the potential to do so (i.e. Johnson, Siddle, and Hilfenhaus) but need backing up by Clark to increase the pressure a and in turn get the wickets as a result of tight bowling.

 

[maryjames]

Warney thinks so..

 

[King Elvis]

I think they've stuffed up the Selections for the last 4 Series pretty comprehensively, but it's way too early to include this Test in that statement.

 

[frankrizzo]

Biggest issue is some people at bigfooty don't want to face the fact that siddle johnson and hilf while promising are wildly inconsistent at this level.

They are meant to be our 3 frontline bowlers the buck stops with them, at the time this thread was started the 4th bowler picked(clark had 0/6 as his figures) so why focus in on the 4th option when it's our main quick's letting us down?

If none of our main seamers fire then what on earth can hauritz do about it on day 1 with a dead pitch?

 

[holybishop]

I dont like the 'horses for courses' selection policy. Selectors should always stick with 3 fast bowlers, 1 spinner, and maybe 1 all rounder, and only change it under extreme pitch conditions, such as 4 quicks for the WACA or 2 spinners at the SCG or India. You would rarely see any other country do this stupid policy. South Africa will almost always select Harris, India will pick Singh, New Zealand will always play Vettori (I know he's captain now but he would still be picked regardless) and England will go either Swann or Panesar. In each of these teams it's regardless of the pitch conditions.

IMO though, Hauritz should have played at The Oval. The reason they didnt get 20 wickets in the previous 3 tests is not Hauritz fault. Hauritz was their best in the first test, and did his job in the next two. It was because Johnson, and to an extent Siddle and Hilf, were not bowling well consistently enough. While Clark nabbed 3 wickets in the first innings, he was not their best bowler. England were already 3 wickets down and on the ropes when Clark was thrown the ball. He just picked up 3 quick wickets when the batsmen were vulnerable. Sure, good bowling, but not as godly as some people have been claiming.

 

[holybishop]

And take a look at Johnson now. He's back to his erratic best, going at a rate of 5.11 an over, and already 2 wides next to his name. With a bowler like that in his line up, thats reason enough to have a spinner to fall back on, and not some lame duck part timer who barely turns the ball.

 

[weevil]

So there was a huge thread of people chucking tantrums at the selectors because they were thinking of dropping one of the pace bowlers for Ritz.

And now we have people chucking tantrums because they did not do it.

It’s very had to take this stuff seriously.

 

[gbatman]

But how can you honestly judge after just a session of cricket? - Easily

How would Hauritz have improved that performance on the first session of day 1 of a test match? Getting 1 or 2 wickets and bowling tight. It's when we get our second crack at them it's important.

Hauritz is irrelevant when discussing this mornings session. The fast bowlers didn't bowl well enough.

Australia has not taken 20 wickets with Hauritz in the side this series. - Not his fault Johnson is not suited there and is bowling crap and leaking runs. I thought Hauritz was pulling his weight.

The fast bowlers have the potential to do so (i.e. Johnson, Siddle, and Hilfenhaus) but need backing up by Clark to increase the pressure a and in turn get the wickets as a result of tight bowling. - Yes, and improve their game and leak less runs

North causing trouble on day 1 ! And he's only an average trundler. Swann might have a good match... We might miss out.

Johnson might do ok, as he bowls cutters and the pitch might make a few grip.

 

[gbatman]

It's a spinning wicket, if we win it's only because they bat poorly and us very well.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Which wasy do you want me to edit the title:

the definitive Selectors have lost us another series

Or the speculative Have selectors lost us another series

??

 

[likka]

FC bowling stats from match thread courtesy of Jed...

North 43.45 (99 wickets)
Hauritz 45.87 (100 wickets)

So we have actually picked the spinner with the best record... don't see a problem.

In addition to losing nothing in the spin dept, we also get to include a world class medium pace bowler in the XI... no brainer.

 

[courtjester]

It is a bit too early to make a big call BUT:

A point was made by Atherton and Botham last night that I agreed with. For the past 10-15 years Australia haven't had to worry about 'horses for courses' because McGrath, Gillespie and Warne (MacGill) all excelled on any 'course'.

Without wanting to 'flog a dead horse' (pardon the pun) those days are gone.

My opinion on Australia's bowling attack for England are as follows:

Stuart Clark must be the first pace bowler picked. He is experienced and usually keeps it together when it could be fraying at the seams.

Next picked must be Hilfenhaus. He is economical over there and his shape has been beautiful.

Hauritz probably should play. I actually think we should almost always play a spinner, and he has been good this series.

That leaves a choice between Siddle and Johnson. I'm inclined toward Siddle at the moment, he is taking wickets, and adding a bit of mongrel to the mix. His series figures have been flattered by cleaning up the tail, but it's a job that needs to be done.

For me, that leaves Johnson on the outer. He's too loose and his bowling is not suited to England. He'll be better back home.

I basically think that the selectors are told by CA that MJ must always play, because of his marketability. Same as Lee a few years ago.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

FC bowling stats from match thread courtesy of Jed...

North 43.45 (99 wickets)
Hauritz 45.87 (100 wickets)

So we have actually picked the spinner with the best record... don't see a problem.

In addition to losing nothing in the spin dept, we also get to include a world class medium pace bowler in the XI... no brainer.

Are you trying to say North is as good as Hauritz? **** me dead. Get a clue. Hauritz before getting dropped was the leading wicket taker (Might've been 2nd/3rd) in the series and our 2nd best performed bowler behind Hilf. North doesnt look like getting a wicket and is there just to get through the overs without being belted.

Clark didnt look like getting a wicket last night and has only had 1 good innings. Looks to be along way behind MJ, Siddle and Hilfy. Could prove to be a shocking selection error.

Also, Clark wasnt the reason we won last test contrary to what some of the clowns on here want to believe. It was more to do with England's pathetic middle order. They were never gonna win a test with the side they picked.

 

[likka]

Are you trying to say North is as good as Hauritz?

They are both as bad as each other.

Are you seriously saying you rate a hack spinner like Hauritz? The same bloke who struggles to get a game for NSW on the most spin friendly track in the country.

 

[bunsen burner]

Pitch has done absolutely nothing, will find Aussies will also bat well - heading for a draw!

Unless there is a lot of rain, this test will not be a draw.

But, agreed BD - 2 hours in with an unchanged team that blew the Poms out in the last test and there is already whinging!

Horses for courses. This is a deck for pace and spin. Australia need to bat for a day and half and get 150 in front and then bowl out England for 250. Hauritz would come in handy on day 4 trying to bowl them out for sub 250. We don't want to chanse much more than 120 in the 4th innings.

 

[bunsen burner]

But how can you honestly judge after just a session of cricket?

How would Hauritz have improved that performance on the first session of day 1 of a test match?

Hauritz is irrelevant when discussing this mornings session. The fast bowlers didn't bowl well enough.

Australia has not taken 20 wickets with Hauritz in the side this series.

The fast bowlers have the potential to do so (i.e. Johnson, Siddle, and Hilfenhaus) but need backing up by Clark to increase the pressure a and in turn get the wickets as a result of tight bowling.

Do you know anything at all about cricket? Anything?

1. It is The Oval. Suits pace early, spin late. Average 4th innings score is sub 150.

2. Hauritz probably wouldn't have done much yesterday but that's not when we'll need him.

3. No, we haven't taken 20 wickets so far with hauritz, but we haven't had a spinning deck like this either. You seem completely oblivious to this.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

They are both as bad as each other.

Are you seriously saying you rate a hack spinner like Hauritz? The same bloke who struggles to get a game for NSW on the most spin friendly track in the country.

FC right now is totally irrelevant. What is relevant are his first 3 tests of this ashes campaign. Are you telling me he's performed badly? He was the best spinner from the 2 countries. Far, far better than Swann and Monty. Tell me I'm wrong. Even the biased English commentators admitted it.

I know plenty of people werent happy that he's on the tour, you included, but you gotta let it go and see for what it really is. What other spinner were the selectors to pick? McGain? lol. Him getting a baggy green is the biggest disgrace in Australian cricket history.

Hauritz at worst has performed solidly on this Ashes campaign and really should be playing on this spin friendly track.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

The fast bowlers have the potential to do so (i.e. Johnson, Siddle, and Hilfenhaus) but need backing up by Clark to increase the pressure a and in turn get the wickets as a result of tight bowling.

WTF is wrong with some of you people? You're all like sheep. Love to listen to the media and believe it. This pressure stuff is just pure BS. You telling me Hauritz wasnt building up pressure? ECO of 3 v Clark's ECO of 3.6. You tell me who's building the pressure more.

 

[bunsen burner]

They are both as bad as each other.

Are you seriously saying you rate a hack spinner like Hauritz? The same bloke who struggles to get a game for NSW on the most spin friendly track in the country.

Hauritz is a dud but he should be playing in this test. As much as he's a dud there's a big chance on this wicket that he'd win the test for us. North may well do it, but Hauritz is more likely and the better option.

We need to have a 1st innings lead of at least 100 to be a reasonable chance to win this test. It's very unlikely it will be a draw. We may only have to bat last on a 4th day pitch. That may just save us.

 

[bunsen burner]

WTF is wrong with some of you people? You're all like sheep. Love to listen to the media and believe it. This pressure stuff is just pure BS. You telling me Hauritz wasnt building up pressure? ECO of 3 v Clark's ECO of 3.6. You tell me who's building the pressure more.

Hauritz is a spub but credit where credit's due - he's done the job this tour. He'll never be a Warne or Magill, he's more of a tuffnel or Giles - pretty shit but when the wicket is turning he'll bowl a team out. Unfortunately he won't have that opportunity but the rest of the time he did his bit a got wickets and held the batting on average decks for spinning.

Amazed how many don't know the basics of test cricket yet are willing to make out they do.

 

[Cousin Jed]

Hauritz is a spub but credit where credit's due - he's done the job this tour. He'll never be a Warne or Magill, he's more of a tuffnel or Giles - pretty shit but when the wicket is turning he'll bowl a team out. Unfortunately he won't have that opportunity but the rest of the time he did his bit a got wickets and held the batting on average decks for spinning.

Amazed how many don't know the basics of test cricket yet are willing to make out they do.

Hauritz has never bowled a team out in his life.

And Cardiff was a turning deck