Who should Australia leave out for 1st Test vs NZ?

[Richard]

From that article, from Hilditch:
"Whether they play in the same side or not isn't clear yet, but for us the simple formula is to pick our best six batters and our best four bowlers."

Now that is such bull**** - it's like the line that Merv pulled out about Symonds a couple of years back, that he was selected on the basis of his batting alone. How the selectors can honestly expect anyone to believe that either Symonds or Watson are selected on the basis of being one of the best 6 batsmen in the country, when blokes like Hodge, D. Hussey, and for much of the period one or the other has been in the team, Katich, can't get a go, is bewildering.

Although Symonds obviously isn't among the "best" six batsmen in the country, he's one of the six who's got the strongest case to play.

You don't drop someone (barring off-field misdemenours) who's averaged 72 in their last 12 Tests, even if that 72 would only be about 35 but for Umpires who couldn't give out decisions. It disappoints me that Symonds missed the India tour TBH (not that he was dropped, but that he did what he did to deserve being dropped), even if it was neccessary. I never like off-field things damaging on-field playing XIs. Symonds' absence, as we see, has only created more questions. Had he played the whole series, and Watson not, things now would be far more straightforward.

 

[Precambrian]

Obviously Krejza, unless there is a strong case for spin, which appears distant. Symonds wouldnt have been picked if he would not play the test. So no question of dropping him, though I wanted him to be off the team.

The lineup will be

Katich
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Clarke
Symonds
Watson
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Clark

Symonds can do a Krejza impersonation with his off spinner, and on Australian surfaces, the difference would be minimal. And Clarke can compliment with his slow left ****.

 

[gwo]

Siddle out. (as expected)

Symonds in.

Race between Krezja and Watson.

http://livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/11/19/Andrew_Symonds_will_play_against_New_Zealand

 

[Easto241091]

Unlucky Krezja

Unfortunatly i think Krezja will miss out at the Gabba. I believe the best option for australia is to play two all-rounders in Symonds and Watson. The conditions should suit swing bowling which would mean symonds and watson would be well suited. Symonds also provides greater depth to the batting line-up, something which Krezja lacks. As much as i think Krezja is a great spin bowler, symonds versatility being able to bowl swing and off spin if required, will be more beneficial to the team. Symonds fielding as well is invaluable to the team. The aussie team has spinning options with Clarke and Katich.............which Symonds can bowl effective Off-spin as well.

This series against the kiwi's is going to be a cracker.
Im looking forward to the summer ahaead.

 

[Flem274*]

Pick Krejza, pick Krejza, pick Krejza..

 

[Athlai]

Pick Krejza, pick Krejza, pick Krejza..

AWTA

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Would rather Watson didn't play than bowl 30 overs an innings and do his back in.

 

[jondavluc]

Would rather Watson didn't play than bowl 30 overs an innings and do his back in.

oh his hamstring again.

 

[four_or_six]

I understand why, but it does seem funny that the bowling attack struggled in the last series and now we're talking about which of the two players who took 17 wickets between them in the last match is going to be dropped.

 

[four_or_six]

I have never ever seen Shane Watson get such good press as he is right now. Do people finally like him?

But one thinks the chance of Watson upstaging Roy, the headline-star, and demanding his retention for the second Test in Adelaide might ensure spinner Jason Krejza is retained.

 

[Top_Cat]

Haha, my God, what an amateurish article. Aussie journo's suck. The last paragraph is gold. Of course! Watto won't get selected because he might embarrass Roy! It's so obvious!

Best thing Watson can do to 'demand' selection is to score a squillion runs for QLD.

 

[Rant0r]

You don't drop players because of one bad series (and it'd be stretching it in the extreme to call Hussey's a bad series even if it wasn't up to his career numbers) in my book.

4 whole years ago now. That hardly fits the "recent selections" pattern does it?

Heal and Magoffin haven't played a Test, nor got anywhere near doing so. Hilfenhaus hasn't played yet either and in fact has been handled with unusual sense.

Tait was taken on the tour he played his only Test on with the intention of experience, not playing, and though that was short-sighted at least he'd had a record-breaking season the previous year.

Bracken in 2005/06 was indisputably putting in the state numbers to merit selection; and 2003/04 was a long time ago as well now so like Clarke it hardly fits the "recent selections" pattern.

Casson and Krejza were clearly picked because of the "you must have a spinner" crap. Who are these others then?

so magoffin is nowhere near selection because ? and johnson is getting a regular gig because ?

because dennis lillee said he was good, and when the man speaks, the selectors listen.

and four years ago is not that long ago, the ashes loss was nearly 3 and a half years ago.

 

[jondavluc]

Haha, my God, what an amateurish article. Aussie journo's suck. The last paragraph is gold. Of course! Watto won't get selected because he might embarrass Roy! It's so obvious!

Best thing Watson can do to 'demand' selection is to score a squillion runs for QLD.

I Agree.

 

[Richard]

so magoffin is nowhere near selection because ? and johnson is getting a regular gig because ?

because dennis lillee said he was good, and when the man speaks, the selectors listen.

Magoffin's probably nowhere near selection because he's pretty average. He may have got cheap wickets in Australian domestic cricket but he hasn't done so anywhere else. Johnson's playing Tests is clearly mostly based on his ODI success, which flatters him to no little degree.

and four years ago is not that long ago, the ashes loss was nearly 3 and a half years ago.

"Recent" is generally taken to mean the last year or so.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

You watched Magoffin bowl this season? (or last season, for that matter). He's certainly not as rubbish as you claim.

Not that it matters, it's not like you'll reply to this with anything other than "computer says nooooo"

 

[four_or_six]

Best thing Watson can do to 'demand' selection is to score a squillion runs for QLD.

Like Symonds did?

I do agree with you though. Although I think it's a bit much asking him to pull a Freddie with bat and ball in his first test series, so I'd rate him as unlucky to be dropped.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Like Symonds did?

ind33d.

 

[Richard]

You watched Magoffin bowl this season? (or last season, for that matter). He's certainly not as rubbish as you claim.

Not that it matters, it's not like you'll reply to this with anything other than "computer says nooooo"

I've watched Magoffin bowl - in this country - several times, and he's never looked remotely impressive, nor had good figures.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I've watched Magoffin bowl - in this country - several times, and he's never looked remotely impressive, nor had good figures.

Players not allowed to improve over time in your strange world?

 

[Woodster]

I'd be very surprised if both Symonds and Watson play in the same side, there are better specialist bowlers around and I don't believe there is a great need for such an extended batting line-up as I expect the top 6 and Haddin to make enough between them.

If, as it appears, Symonds has been selected, then for me, the remaining choice should have been between Siddle (or any other specialist bowler deemed worthy to challenge) and Krejza. Whether Symonds should have been selected ahead of Watson may be contentious for some, although an in-form Symonds would get the nod for me, however he has no real runs to speak of under his belt.

Would be a bit of a kop out to select both Watson and Symonds.