**Official** New Zealand in Australia

[Bahnz]

God, what a dismal effort, made worse by the fact that Vettori isn't a test match 7, Mills isn't a test match 8, Southee isn't a test match 9, O'Brien isn't a test match 10 and Martin isn't a test match 11. I'll say it again, this side has got the balance all wrong.

 

[four_or_six]

Where is Bollinger? Where is Noffke? Bloody hell.

Noffke is injured and out of the T20 with the same back problem that's had him miss a couple of matches this season. I remember reading somewhere it's been troubling him on and off for a year or two, so I wonder if that coupled with his age is something that is going against his selection.

Agreed about Bollinger though. Though presumably they're sticking to the one left-armer thing for some reason.

As far as the squad goes, I wouldn't be surprised if they go for Symonds and Siddle over Krejza and Watson (therefore cutting the players that took 17 wickets in the last match!).

I feel a bit sorry for Watto though, he played his heart out in India and now his teammates are coming out and saying they want Symonds back. I hope he has a thick skin.

 

[Jakester1288]

I feel a bit sorry for Watto though, he played his heart out in India and now his teammates are coming out and saying they want Symonds back. I hope he has a thick skin.

Yeah I agree, he did his best he possibly could, and I want him to have this series. Symonds can just waltz back into the side, and I don't like it. He hasn't done anything notable with the bat so far this season for the Bulls, whilst Watson has been doing a solid job for Australia.

 

[Athlai]

God, what a dismal effort, made worse by the fact that Vettori isn't a test match 7, Mills isn't a test match 8, Southee isn't a test match 9, O'Brien isn't a test match 10 and Martin isn't a test match 11. I'll say it again, this side has got the balance all wrong.

Vettori is easily good enough to be a Test match number 7, might even make it to being a number 6. Mills is a bit meh, Southee could hold 9 though and O'Brien is fine at 10.

Just cos they fail once doesn't mean anything really.

 

[Bahnz]

Vettori is easily good enough to be a Test match number 7, might even make it to being a number 6. Mills is a bit meh, Southee could hold 9 though and O'Brien is fine at 10.

Just cos they fail once doesn't mean anything really.

All of Vettori's batting success has come at number 8 (bar the odd time he's done well as a night watchman), and while he's got a great record over the last few years, I'd never want to push him any higher. Mills is not a number 8, plain and simple. Southee may one day have the potential to bat 9 or even higher. Right now he's a slogger with 0 technique he every now and then has an on day when his natural talent pays off. The rest of the time he's rubbish. O'Brien averages 4 in test cricket and I'd imagine is the only player in the history of the sport to have been out scored by Chris Martin. And Martin is Martin.

 

[stephen]

See I wouldn't even have Siddle in the 2nd Aus XI.

My Aus first XI:

Hayden
Katich
Ponting (c)
Hussey
Clarke (vc)
Symonds
Watson
Haddin (wk)
Lee
Clark
Johnson

12th: Krezja (substitute Krezja for Watson on spinning tracks (Sydney, subcontinent)).

Aus 2nd XI:

Hodge
Rogers
Klinger
Hussey D
Pomersbach
White (c)
Ronchi (vc) (wk)
Noffke
Hauritz? Is there a better spinner?
Bollinger
Hilfenhaus

12th: Dan Marsh (able to stand in as a makeshift allrounder)

 

[James]

Agree with Bahnz here. Tend to think Elliott will come in for the 1st Test to sure up the batting, probably in place of Southee I'm guessing.

Am shocked that a NSW second eleven could cause us this much damage.

 

[mikeW]

Whats with all the hatred towards Siddle?

Pretty happy with the serlected squad, who comes in for Clarke if hes out though? Do we just play both Symonds and Watson?

 

[stephen]

Whats with all the hatred towards Siddle?

Pretty happy with the serlected squad, who comes in for Clarke if hes out though? Do we just play both Symonds and Watson?

I think because there have been better longer term performers than Siddle who are more deserving.

I imagine that many countries would kill to have a player of Siddle's quality in their top 4 bowlers, but in Australia, he's got to be considered at best our 7th best quick bowler, possibly even our eighth or ninth best.

Lee
Clark
Johnson
Bollinger
Noffke
Hilfenhaus
Magoffin
Bracken

All have claim to being better bowlers at the current time to Siddle. He's purely in the squad for development purposes - to train with the big boys.

Our real problem is in the spin department. We have Krezja, who the jury is still out on and part time options. Nathan Hauritz/Aaron Heal are probably the next closest to being considered viable spin options, though neither have set the world alight.

I would be playing both Symonds and Watson anyway at the Gabba.

 

[Prince EWS]

Agree with Bahnz here. Tend to think Elliott will come in for the 1st Test to sure up the batting, probably in place of Southee I'm guessing.

Am shocked that a NSW second eleven could cause us this much damage.

As I said before, it's basically a third eleven as far as the bowling goes. If you count our internationals, anyway.

First XI attack - Lee, Clark, Bollinger, Casson
Second XI - Bracken, Cameron, ****ley, Hauritz
Third XI - Hazelwood, half-fit Henriques, Lambert, Smith

Would probably swap Bracken and Casson in reality but I wanted to keep the balance the same and it's irrelevant in the context anyway. Thought I'd qualify this in case Nath read it though: Bracken >>>>>>>> Casson.

 

[Athlai]

Vettori plays up the order in FC cricket though and he's perfectly suited to do so. I reckon he only bats at 8 because he focuses on his bowling more.

 

[Johnners]

Whats with all the hatred towards Siddle?

Pretty happy with the serlected squad, who comes in for Clarke if hes out though? Do we just play both Symonds and Watson?

It's not hatred, he's obviously got potential, but there are at least 2 bowlers who are clearly better than him. To have him in the 13 whilst Noffke & Bollinger are around and bowling down the house it's quite ridiculous really.

 

[Bahnz]

Vettori plays up the order in FC cricket though and he's perfectly suited to do so. I reckon he only bats at 8 because he focuses on his bowling more.

Still no reason to shift him from where he's been so succesful in the past, nor does it disguise the fact that the rest of our lower order are going to be hopelessly overwhelmed where they're batting at the moment. And Vettori needs to focus on his bowling. He's the only spinner in the country even remotely close to international class.

 

[Athlai]

Still no reason to shift him from where he's been so succesful in the past, nor does it disguise the fact that the rest of our lower order are going to be hopelessly overwhelmed where they're batting at the moment. And Vettori needs to focus on his bowling. He's the only spinner in the country even remotely close to international class.

While Oram is away I'd much rather Vettori cover him than Elliot. And hey

 

[Bahnz]

While Oram is away I'd much rather Vettori cover him than Elliot. And hey

But...its not like its a choice between Vettori and Elliot. You play both, and the batting is stronger. Again, I'd rather we had a specialist batsman than Elliot, but he's a better batting option than anyone else in the squad, and our batting is what's weakest.

 

[Athlai]

I just wish we had Franklin, then we could be gone with Elliot and still have plenty of batting. Much stronger bowling too.

I think we need the extra bowler, a guy who can take a wicket or two is going to be more valuable than another guy who gets out for less than 10 runs.

 

[Bahnz]

I just wish we had Franklin, then we could be gone with Elliot and still have plenty of batting. Much stronger bowling too.

I think we need the extra bowler, a guy who can take a wicket or two is going to be more valuable than another guy who gets out for less than 10 runs.

I agree about Franklin. For all the faults of our genuine batsmen, we used to have unquestionably the best lower order in the world. Now, with O'Brien, Southee and Martin in the team, you wouldn't bank on the last 3 ever putting together more than 20 between them. Which is why I don't think we can carry all three. And I also don't think another right arm medium pacer is going to help our bowling that much. If it was something a little more varied, like a lefty or pace bowler then I'd be tempted. But I just don't see too much good coming out of having 4 right arm medium pacers, rather than 3.

 

[Polo23]

As I said before, it's basically a third eleven as far as the bowling goes. If you count our internationals, anyway.

First XI attack - Lee, Clark, Bollinger, Casson
Second XI - Bracken, Cameron, ****ley, Hauritz
Third XI - Hazelwood, half-fit Henriques, Lambert, Smith

Would probably swap Bracken and Casson in reality but I wanted to keep the balance the same and it's irrelevant in the context anyway. Thought I'd qualify this in case Nath read it though: Bracken >>>>>>>> Casson.

Casson played, Hauritz played and ****ley wasn't good enough to make the XI. How you think it was a 3rd XI i'll never know.

 

[Polo23]

I agree about Franklin. For all the faults of our genuine batsmen, we used to have unquestionably the best lower order in the world. Now, with O'Brien, Southee and Martin in the team, you wouldn't bank on the last 3 ever putting together more than 20 between them. Which is why I don't think we can carry all three. And I also don't think another right arm medium pacer is going to help our bowling that much. If it was something a little more varied, like a lefty or pace bowler then I'd be tempted. But I just don't see too much good coming out of having 4 right arm medium pacers, rather than 3.

And I don't see how Elliott is going to make any difference. Would still prefer the extra quick.

 

[Prince EWS]

Casson played, Hauritz played and ****ley wasn't good enough to make the XI. How you think it was a 3rd XI i'll never know.

Casson didn't bowl, though - we used Smith instead.

****ley was rested so we could expose Henriques and Hazlewood a bit. He'd have been picked on merit.