***Official*** South Africa In Australia

[stephen]

Warner, Marsh and Johnson. Hauritz and Tait are perhaps arguable as well.

I'm definitely not saying all or in fact any of them should be dropped at this point but they didn't really prove themselves in domestic cricket before being picked.

Well obviously Warner is being picked on potential. Hauritz has 119 List A wickets at 31 with an economy of 4.7. It's not great but it is quite solid, particularly for a spinner. Not our best bowler, but our best spinner. He at least is certainly proven at domestic level. Marsh has over 1800 List A runs at 37, which while not world beating is certainly solid, particularly for a young player. Johnson was picked on potential but certainly has proven himself over the last year. Tait has a List A average of 21 with a strike rate of 26.5 and has 137 wickets. That's proven enough for me.

Pretty much all the team has far more experience than our first world cup winning team. IMO you can't just drop players when there aren't better options there.

 

[Precambrian]

Hopes is definitely better than McDonald as far as one day cricket goes.

I have not seen McDonald's batting as much as Hopes. But in the Sydney test match, McDonald showed impressive skills of economy and accuracy.

 

[stephen]

The call on Jaques was just strange though IMO. Sure, he's not an excellent fielder, but he's a liability who drops a stack of catches (like Tait) either.

Nah it was purely political. They had (probably) unfairly dropped Katich from the test side but wanted him to know that he was in the future of Australian cricket. They also wanted to make sure that they picked someone that they could replace with Hayden in the ODI team without any hastles once he'd paid his pennance for his poor ashes performance in '05. If they played Jaques then when he was peaking they'd never have gotten Hayden back in for the '07 world cup.

So it was purely politics from the selectors and Jaques was the poor guy who was made to suffer for it.

EDIT: The selectors hand was shown when they dropped Hodge from the test side for Martyn when Marto really didn't deserve it. Their plans were already drawn up for the 06/07 ashes series and the world cup and it was always in their plans to play Hayden at the top of the order in both forms and Martyn in the middle order. Hodge and Jaques were made to pay the price for this.

 

[social]

Well obviously Warner is being picked on potential. Hauritz has 119 List A wickets at 31 with an economy of 4.7. It's not great but it is quite solid, particularly for a spinner. Not our best bowler, but our best spinner. He at least is certainly proven at domestic level. Marsh has over 1800 List A runs at 37, which while not world beating is certainly solid, particularly for a young player. Johnson was picked on potential but certainly has proven himself over the last year. Tait has a List A average of 21 with a strike rate of 26.5 and has 137 wickets. That's proven enough for me.

Pretty much all the team has far more experience than our first world cup winning team. IMO you can't just drop players when there aren't better options there.[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

People need to get a grip and realise that with injuries and retirements Aus has lost a full team of players in the past 12 months

Assuming everyone is fit and they cast aside political bs for a moment, a team may look something like

Watson (b)
Jaques
Ponting
Clarke (b)
Hussey M
Symonds (b)
Haddin
Noffke/Johnson (b)
Lee (b)
Bracken (b)
Siddle (b)

Give Oz a full complement and they be favourites for the next WC

Take 7/ out of the best lineup (as is occurring atm) and they'll be average

 

[pasag]

Exactly.

People need to get a grip and realise that with injuries and retirements Aus has lost a full team of players in the past 12 months

Assuming everyone is fit and they cast aside political bs for a moment, a team may look something like

Watson (b)
Jaques
Ponting
Clarke (b)
Hussey M
Symonds (b)
Haddin
Noffke/Johnson (b)
Lee (b)
Bracken (b)
Siddle (b)

Give Oz a full complement and they be favourites for the next WC

Take 7/ out of the best lineup (as is occurring atm) and they'll be average

Absurd you'd have Siddle in there as a certain (has never played an ODI) ahead of Johnson who has been fantastic in ODIs for some time.

 

[stephen]

I have not seen McDonald's batting as much as Hopes. But in the Sydney test match, McDonald showed impressive skills of economy and accuracy.

Hopes has the better domestic bowling record, has a much higher strike rate (85 vs 77) with the bat and a lower batting average (27 vs 31).

Overall he's a better package, though MacDonald could be seen to be a slightly more reliable bat but not by enough to pick him.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have not seen McDonald's batting as much as Hopes. But in the Sydney test match, McDonald showed impressive skills of economy and accuracy.

Bowling economically in one day cricket requires a lot more skill than having the ability to send down medium pace at the same spot on the pitch ball after ball, though. Hopes posesses the same ability in this regard to McDonald, really, but he unlike McDonald he has more variation and can accurately change his line and length to suit the situation. McDonald tends to just lose it if he has to bowl outside his normal plan - he's a better four-day bowler than Hopes as he moves the ball more but Hopes is definitely the better one day bowler, IMO.

Similar story with their batting, too. They're both pretty limited but while McDonald has the better technique, Hopes is a lot more inventive. Macca really shouldn't be in one day calculations at all, even though I think he's a better Test prospect than most seem to.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hopes has the better domestic bowling record, has a much higher strike rate (85 vs 77) with the bat and a lower batting average (27 vs 31).

It should be noted that Hopes has really improved his OD batting over the last two or three seasons domestically, too. Admittedly though, that coincided with his move to the top order. He's having the same problems at #7 for Australia as he did for Queensland in that position early in his career, quite unsurprisingly.

 

[stephen]

Absurd you'd have Siddle in there as a certain ahead of Johnson who has been fantastic in ODIs for some time.

Yeah bowling lineup would be:

Lee
Johnson
Bracken
Tait/Hopes/Noffke/Hilf/Hauritz (whoever the selectors feel fits team balance the best).

We've lost Hoggy and Warne and since then the spin cupboard has been bare at best.

EDIT: Clark also will be considered by the selectors for the final spot.

 

[social]

Absurd you'd have Siddle in there as a certain (has never played an ODI) ahead of Johnson who has been fantastic in ODIs for some time.

Fast and accurate does it almost every time - if the guy bowls the way he has in test cricket and keeps improving at the rate that he has, he will be a sensational ODI bowler

If you want Johnson in there, play him in front of Noffke. After all, it was only in the last test that people were talking of him as a future test all-rounder

 

[Johnners]

Lol, You expect him to break the ODI records when he has not even made 100 runs so far in ODIs? The same rule can apply to anyone else. I can say Jason Krejza will break the record for most test wickets if he continues to take 12 wickets a match.

Doh, nice way to put words in someone's mouth. Matt isn't saying he expects Warner to do anything. However, he is saying that because of the type of player Warner is, and from what he's shown in his brief international career, he has the potential to break records. There's nothing certain about it.

 

[pasag]

Fast and accurate does it almost every time - if the guy bowls the way he has in test cricket and keeps improving at the rate that he has, he will be a sensational ODI bowler

If you want Johnson in there, play him in front of Noffke. After all, it was only in the last test that people were talking of him as a future test all-rounder

There's no 'ifs' about Johnson being there - should be one of the first names on the sheet.

 

[Nate]

Well who in this team isn't a proven ODD player?

The only one who is being picked on potential is Warner at the moment. Let's look at the order:

Marsh - doing a very good job. Undroppable at the moment
Warner - picked on potential. Done a good job so far.
Ponting - undroppable
Hussey M - undroppable, but should be moved down to 6
Hussey D - doing a good job with the bat, not great with the ball.
Haddin - underperforming but the best option ATM
Hopes - economical with the ball, not hopeless with the bat. The best fit allrounder at the moment. Very strong domestic performer.
Hauritz - Probably a weak link, is quite a decent domestic ODD bowler, provides variety in the bowling attack. Probably our best spin option nationally.
Johnson - Top bowler over the last year, had a shocker tonight.
Bracken - Best ODI bowler in the world currently
Tait - wicket taker, being used very well but a poor bat and fielder. Needs to be there for strike ability.

Hopes, Hauritz and Tait are the three I have issues with. Hopes is averaging 21 with the bat and 37 with the ball at the moment. Enough said. And my thoughts on Tait and Hauritz have been well documented. Calm down.

 

[Matt79]

Doh, nice way to put words in someone's mouth. Matt isn't saying he expects Warner to do anything. However, he is saying that because of the type of player Warner is, and from what he's shown in his brief international career, he has the potential to break records. There's nothing certain about it.

Exactly. Warner is to date a far inferior ODI player to Simon Katich and Shaun Marsh, and yet he has the potential ability to do something in very specific circumstances that they don't - which was what I pointed out.

Anyway, wasted enough breath explaining what was a perfectly clear remark to 99.9% of readers. Susudear will just have to figure it out himself from here.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Lol, You expect him to break the ODI records when he has not even made 100 runs so far in ODIs? The same rule can apply to anyone else. I can say Jason Krejza will break the record for most test wickets if he continues to take 12 wickets a match.

Totally different and you know it. Calling someone who has shown their ability to score very quickly in the shorter forms of the game a couple of times a hit and miss player who could make a huge score one day if things go his way isn't hype, it's a reasoned comment. The same could apply for example to Sehwag, who isn't much of an ODI player really, but he's definitely someone who could make a huge score one day in an ODI. Matt's comment wasn't "falling for hype", unless you think that any vaguely positive comment about Warner's potential is overhyping him, which is pretty crazy.

And your lack of understanding on what hype actually means is just silly. If you say someone WILL do something it is hyping them up a lot more than saying they MIGHT, which is exactly what Matt did. "Philip Hughes will be a great test batsman and have a 15 year career" as opposed to "Philip Hughes is a talent and could be a great test batsman".

 

[stephen]

Hopes, Hauritz and Tait are the three I have issues with. Hopes is averaging 21 with the bat and 37 with the ball at the moment. Enough said. And my thoughts on Tait and Hauritz have been well documented. Calm down.

Lol I'm perfectly calm.

I'm just asking who you would replace Hopes, Hauritz and Tait with.

Tait is a strike bowler who has an exceptional bowling record.
Hopes is the best all-round option for Australia at the moment (and unless you pick 5 specialist bowlers you need 10 extra overs from somewhere).
Hauritz is dropable, but still our best spin option. Dropping him would leave us D Hussey as our only spinner. Some tracks need a spin option and this is why he's here.

Of the team tonight, who would you replace your "expendable three" with?

 

[Uppercut]

Horrible call. The guy's just won 2 games by coming in at 8 and doing exactly what he's there for.

Read that again. Won 2 games. So how can you say that it's a bad strategy and a waste?

That's one way of looking at it. I'd say when a player at 8 is consistently playing match-winning knocks it shows he should be coming in earlier. Looking at the matches in detail, in the first game he came out mid-collapse, so the difference between coming in at 6, 7 or 8 was about five balls. That knock would have been played just as easily at any of those positions.

In the second game, Albie came out when the game was already lost because it had been left too late to accelarate. Had he come in at 7 instead of Boucher, that wouldn't
have been an issue- if he'd got himself out, not much would have been lost. Failing in a run-chase when never in any danger of being bowled out is a travesty. In this match, SA were almost relying on Neil McKenzie to get himself out to win the game.

It's worked out well in two out of three matches, but that doesn't mean it's the right tactic. Sooner or later he'll run out of time setting a total and not get as many as he could, or have the tail fold and be stranded. Ideally i don't believe batting lineups should be set in stone for one-day cricket, but if they're going to be, his default position shouldn't be 8.

 

[TT Boy]

Funny to hear Albie Morkel post-match totally forget that Gibbs is a recovering alcoholic, unless he meant he was going to buy him a Diet Coke.

 

[Nate]

For the record, with the players available, I'd put forward something like

Hughes/Warner
Marsh
Ponting
North
Dussey
Mussey
Haddin
Johnson
Heal
Bracken
Hilfenhaus/Bollinger

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

For the record, with the players available, I'd put forward something like

Hughes/Warner
Marsh
Ponting
North
Dussey
Mussey
Haddin
Johnson
Heal
Bracken
Hilfenhaus/Bollinger

laughingsmiley.jpg