Aussie Squad Form

[aussie tragic]

I thought I’d have a look at the Aussie form over the last 12-months

Leading Run Scorers

1. S. Katich: 14 Tests, 1376 runs @ 57.33, HS 157, 5 centuries, 7 fifties
2. M. Clarke: 14 Tests, 1160 runs @ 50.43, HS 138, 4 centuries, 5 fifties
3. R. Ponting: 14 Tests, 1021 runs @ 39.26, HS 123, 2 centuries, 7 fifties
4. B. Haddin: 14 Tests, 867 runs @ 39.40, HS 169, 1 century, 2 fifties
5. M. Hussey: 14 Tests, 796 runs @ 31.84, HS 146, 1 century, 5 fifties
6. M. Johnson: 14 Tests, 556 runs @ 34.75, HS 123*, 1 century, 2 fifties
7. P. Hughes: 3 Tests, 415 runs @ 69.16, HS 160, 2 centuries, 1 fifty
8. B. Lee: 10 Tests, 254 runs @ 19.53, HS 63*, 1 fifty
9. S. Watson: 5 Tests, 176 runs @ 19.55, HS 78, 1 fifty
10. M. North: 2 Tests, 160 runs @ 40.00, HS 117, 1 century
11. A. McDonald: 4 Tests, 107 runs @ 21.40, HS 68, 1 fifty

Leading Wkt Takers

1. M. Johnson: 14 Tests, 68 wkts @ 26.02 BB 8-61
2. B. Lee: 10 Tests, 34 wkts @ 37.85, Bb 5-59
3. P. Siddle: 7 Tests, 29 wkts @ 27.65 BB 5-59
4. S. Clark: 6 Tests, 14 wkts @ 34.85, BB 4-43
5. S. Watson: 5 Tests, 12 wkts @ 31.25, BB 4-42
6. A. McDonald 4 Tests, 9 wkts @ 33.33, BB 3-25
7. N. Hauritz: 3 Tests, 9 wkts @ 38.77, BB 3-98
8. B. Hilfenhaus: 3 Tests, 7 wkts @ 52.28, BB 2-68
9. S. Katich: 14 Tests, 6 wkts @ 21.16 BB 3-45
10. M. Clarke: 14 Tests, 6 wkts @ 69.33 BB 2-20
11. M. North: 2 Tests, 2 wkts @ 49.00 BB 1-29

The above stats highlighted some interesting points to me

(1) Clarke is the best performing middle order bat so should probably bat at #4, with Hussey moving down to #5

(2) Hussey’s poor form may be the most critical factor of the Ashes as there is no spare batsman (however North at #5 with Watson, Haddin, Johnson and Lee following is not too shabby)

(3) Johnson definitely should bat #8 above Lee

(4) Johnson and Siddle should be automatice selections, while Lee should be the next picked

(5) Clark and Hauritz should be competing for the final bowler spot as the myth that Katich, Clarke and North can handle the spin is not evident in the stats (only 14 wkts between them in 30 Tests). This means that the selection of Hauritz will likely determine whether Watson or North bat at #6

Based on the stats and my points above, my 13-man squad for the first two lead-up games would be:

1. S. Katich
2. P. Hughes
3. R. Ponting
4. M. Clarke
5. M. Hussey
6. S. Watson / M. North
7. B. Haddin
8. M. Johnson
9. B. Lee
10. N. Hauritz / S. Clark
11. P. Siddle

Edit: Added McDonald to the 12-mth stats bowling list...

 

[vic_orthdox]

Still don't see how Lee should be an automatic pick on those statistics. He's only taken more wickets because of more games. With Johnson playing as the main attacking weapon, I think that the attack would look best with Clark building pressure from the other end.

My ideal side would probably be Watson and Hauritz in, just because the balance looks better then, with four quicks and a specialist spinner. However, with North being the incumbent, I'd suggest that this is what keeps the chances of four quicks being picked.

 

[aussie tragic]

Still don't see how Lee should be an automatic pick on those statistics. He's only taken more wickets because of more games.

Well Lee has taken 3.4 wkts per test, while Clark had only taken 2.3 wkts per test, which is why I put him ahead of Clark...

 

[rivera213]

I don't think anyone needs to worry about the Aussie batsmen. They'll be just as tough as always. I fully expect Michael Hussey to regain form too

The bowling is the only problem. Mitchell Johnson is the only bowler (As an England fan) I know is going to be a handful.

Siddle could be great or suck.

Similar for Hilfenhaus though his record isn't great.

It could be the end for Clark and Lee.

Our bowling isn't great and batting not as good- but we have conditions on our side. I think Australia missed a trick by not including Jason Krejza who, although expensive, takes wickets.

 

[NUFAN]

Andrew McDonald has been left out of the bowling list!

He'd slot into 6th place with 9 wickets @ 33.33 from 4 matches.

 

[morgieb]

My squad:
1. Hughes
2. Katich
3. Ponting
4. Clarke
5. Hussey
6. North/Watson
7. Haddin
8. Johnson
9. Lee
10. Clark/Hauritz
11. Siddle

Bit disappointed they didn't bring a reserve batsman, given North was picked as a all-rounder in SA and Hussey's completely out of form...
Why we need a specialist spinner in the first XI is beyond me. In the 2 games in SA we didn't pick a specialist spinner we won.
Hauritz should only be picked if the pitch is an absolute turner.

 

[Noble One]

(1) Clarke is the best performing middle order bat so should probably bat at #4, with Hussey moving down to #5

I would still back Hussey to outperform Clarke this Ashes series. Clarke has improved immensely, still not convinced he plays the moving delivery well. Hussey has never looked out of touch, just kept finding ways of knicking deliveries he once played and missed. His experience and record in England fills me with more confidence than Clarke. I'm not too worried who bats 4 or 5. I only believe Hussey will play more of a factor than Clarke.

(2) Hussey’s poor form may be the most critical factor of the Ashes as there is no spare batsman (however North at #5 with Watson, Haddin, Johnson and Lee following is not too shabby)

Watson is the reserve batsmen. I would be confident of Watson to play as a pure batsmen at 5 or 6. Fantastic first class record, combined with a very sound technique. Adam Vogues is also playing for Notts, I feel the selectors would have him as a back-up option.

(3) Johnson definitely should bat #8 above Lee

Good luxury to have, Lee would make number 8 for any side in the world. Johnson and Lee are fairly even when it comes to batting ability. Johnson has just struck a rich streak of form.

(4) Johnson and Siddle should be automatice selections, while Lee should be the next picked

No arguments here. Expecting the bowlers to be Johnson, Siddle, Lee and Clark.

(5) Clark and Hauritz should be competing for the final bowler spot as the myth that Katich, Clarke and North can handle the spin is not evident in the stats (only 14 wkts between them in 30 Tests). This means that the selection of Hauritz will likely determine whether Watson or North bat at #6

Not exactly a myth that Katich, Clarke and North can handle the spin bowling spot. Simply hasn't been a need over the past year for numerous overs from any of these batsmen. Australia have generally played a specialist spinner (White, Hauritz, McGain, Krejza).

Katich has been largely underbowled. North has only had two Test matches to show he can bowl. Clarke usually only has a bowl when all options have been used.

 

[Prince EWS]

Not exactly a myth that Katich, Clarke and North can handle the spin bowling spot. Simply hasn't been a need over the past year for numerous overs from any of these batsmen. Australia have generally played a specialist spinner (White, Hauritz, McGain, Krejza).

Katich has been largely underbowled. North has only had two Test matches to show he can bowl. Clarke usually only has a bowl when all options have been used.

Yeah, spin is not compulsory - you don't need to take a certain amount of spin wickets per Test match. The myth isn't that Clarke, Katich and North can handle the spin department; it's that there actually needs to be a spin department.

The selectors will only be cheating themselves by picking Hauritz. He's only in the frame because the selectors like to have a spinner in the team but he doesn't actually fulfil the role of a spinner anyway so he's absolutely pointless. At no stage in England is Hauritz going to bowl a testing a potent spell. If you want someone to tie up an end, bowl long spells and build pressure, pick McDonald.

 

[Prince EWS]

(1) Clarke is the best performing middle order bat so should probably bat at #4, with Hussey moving down to #5

Perhaps Clarke's been the best performing middle order bat because he's been batting at 5. I'm not suggesting this is definitely true mind you; I just don't see the need to swap them. I can't see it producing more runs between the two of them.

I'd definitely rate Clarke the better player of spin of the two, and Hussey the better player of pace, so to me that suggests that Hussey should be in the top 4 with Clarke at 5 or 6. Even if Clarke was categorically more likely to score runs than Hussey in the series (which I don't think he is), I don't really see it as a problem to have your #5 being a better bat than your #4 unless swapping them would increase the overall output of the two, which I don't think it would.

 

[aussie]

Yeah, spin is not compulsory - you don't need to take a certain amount of spin wickets per Test match. The myth isn't that Clarke, Katich and North can handle the spin department; it's that there actually needs to be a spin department.

The selectors will only be cheating themselves by picking Hauritz. He's only in the frame because the selectors like to have a spinner in the team but he doesn't actually fulfil the role of a spinner anyway so he's absolutely pointless. At no stage in England is Hauritz going to bowl a testing a potent spell. If you want someone to tie up and end, bowl long spells and build pressure, pick McDonald.

What about Clark & Siddle?.

 

[Prince EWS]

What about Clark & Siddle?.

Well yeah, I wouldn't have Hauritz or McDonald in my team, but my point was that McDonald > Hauritz at Hauritz's role, irrespective of whether he pretends to be a spinner or not.

I definitely rate Clark and Siddle as better bowlers than McDonald, but McDonald's better in the specific role that I was talking about. The ability of Clark and Siddle to bowl long spells is questionable given they are both returning from lengthy injuries and the ability to Siddle to bowl consistently accurately is questionable in general. There's little doubt in my mind that they're better overall bowlers than McDonald but my point was that McDonald offers everything Hauritz does and more.

 

[aussie tragic]

Andrew McDonald has been left out of the bowling list!

He'd slot into 6th place with 9 wickets @ 33.33 from 4 matches.

oops....I've added him to the OP now...

Is anyone else concerned that our "Batting Allrounder" stats are the wrong way around:

Watson: Bat 19.75 - Bowl 31.25
McDonald: Bat 21.40 - Bowl 33.33

Then again, maybe our "Bowling Allrounder" could move up to # 7

Johnson: Bat 34.75 - Bowl 26.02

 

[Noble One]

As terrific as Johnson has been with the bat in the past six months, he is clearly not a number 7 batsman. I remember similar calls occuring when Brett Lee was having some form with the bat.

Johnson possess a limited defensive technique. He is bowled far too many times by deliveries that move neither off the pitch or in the air. His ability to hit the ball is unquestionable, but he relies more on having a good eye.

Keep him at number 8, allows Johnson to play his natural game. He already has enough responsibility leading the bowling attack.

 

[Matt79]

I have said this so many times and still yet to hear a sensible answer - for those advocating a four prong pace attack without McDonald or Hauritz, how are the Aussies going to get throughtje required overs? Or are we sanguine about Ponting missing a test through suspension, or having to toss the ball to Clarke at a vital stage for overrate considerations? Do we trust North's bowling enough to rely on him for fifteen overs a day? Or do we want to risk our two clear form batsmen in order to get their humble darts from Clarke and Katich.

My preference is Watson at 6, Macca at 8, Johnson at 9, Siddle in if fit and which ever of Lee or Clark is doing better as the last quick.

 

[Johnners]

Perhaps Clarke's been the best performing middle order bat because he's been batting at 5. I'm not suggesting this is definitely true mind you; I just don't see the need to swap them. I can't see it producing more runs between the two of them.

I'd definitely rate Clarke the better player of spin of the two, and Hussey the better player of pace, so to me that suggests that Hussey should be in the top 4 with Clarke at 5 or 6. Even if Clarke was categorically more likely to score runs than Hussey in the series (which I don't think he is), I don't really see it as a problem to have your #5 being a better bat than your #4 unless swapping them would increase the overall output of the two, which I don't think it would.

Agree with this. Don't see the need to move Clarke up the order just when he's really hitting form at #5. The fact that he's, as you say, the better player of spin, and Hussey better player of pace, their positions at 4 & 5 make perfect sense, especially when you can't guarantee that swapping them is going to see an immediate (or gradual for that matter) increase in their output.

 

[Prince EWS]

I have said this so many times and still yet to hear a sensible answer - for those advocating a four prong pace attack without McDonald or Hauritz, how are the Aussies going to get throughtje required overs? Or are we sanguine about Ponting missing a test through suspension, or having to toss the ball to Clarke at a vital stage for overrate considerations? Do we trust North's bowling enough to rely on him for fifteen overs a day? Or do we want to risk our two clear form batsmen in order to get their humble darts from Clarke and Katich.

Hustle. The law doesn't exist to make teams pick medium pacers and spinners; it exists to stop teams from dawdling. I fail to see how it's that hard to get through your overs just because your bowlers have long run-ups - if it was, I think the limit would be increased. It's an issue that needs to be solved away from the selection room IMO.

In any rate, if it means North bowling 10-15 overs a day, I'm perfectly okay with that; I think his bowling's under-rated. He has more First Class wickets at a lower average than Hauritz and although Hauritz has improved of late, so has North - he has a good bowling record in England, too. I'm not saying North's a better bowler than Hauritz because he isn't, but I don't see the difference as being so significant as to contemplate picking Hauritz in a specialist role.

My preference is Watson at 6, Macca at 8, Johnson at 9, Siddle in if fit and which ever of Lee or Clark is doing better as the last quick.

McDonald definitely gets through his overs quicker than the other quicks but it's not like he absolutely races through them like a spinner, and I couldn't really see him getting that many overs as part of that attack.

I'd actually be surprised if Lee/Johnson/Siddle/Watson/McDonald produced a faster over-rate than Lee/Johnson/Clark/Siddle/North.

 

[Matt79]

Well, I'm not thrilled about Hauritz full stop, so North being better doesn't cut a lot of ice with me. I'd prefer the attack with McDonald because I'd back him to bowl 15 overs a day without placing Ponting and the rest of the attack under pressure.

I suppose Johnson/Siddle/Clark/McDonald/North would be the quickest combination.

As for simply hustling, we seem to have proven pretty comprehensively that we can't do that in anything less than ideal circumstances, and therefore unfortunately, I think its something we should factor into team selection. Or else we end up in the situation where Ponting is warned he'll be suspended unless 18 overs are bowled in the last session and he throws the ball to Hussey and Clarke at a critical juncture in the match.

 

[aussie tragic]

I was thinking the move of Hussey to # 5 was more for his benefit, rather than any advancement of Clarke.

Another check of stats shows the following for Hussey:

# 4: 40 Inns, 1660 runs @ 47.42, HS 146, 5 hundred and 8 fifties
# 5: 15 Inns, 936 runs @ 78.00, HS 182, 3 hundreds and 4 fifties

 

[Johnners]

Just looking at the basic stats of it is misleading though imo. He was indeed wonderful when batting 5, but without looking myself, I'm assuming he was close to just as good in his intial period whilst batting at 4? Are people really suggesting that his downturn in form is to do with him batting #4 instead of #5? Which really would be the only logical reason for perhaps swapping he and Clarke around in the middle order. Or is it simply the poor patch of form that most people predicted he would eventually have, and it just so happens that he's batting at #4 at the time?

 

[rivera213]

Well, I'm not thrilled about Hauritz full stop, so North being better doesn't cut a lot of ice with me. I'd prefer the attack with McDonald because I'd back him to bowl 15 overs a day without placing Ponting and the rest of the attack under pressure.

I suppose Johnson/Siddle/Clark/McDonald/North would be the quickest combination.

As for simply hustling, we seem to have proven pretty comprehensively that we can't do that in anything less than ideal circumstances, and therefore unfortunately, I think its something we should factor into team selection. Or else we end up in the situation where Ponting is warned he'll be suspended unless 18 overs are bowled in the last session and he throws the ball to Hussey and Clarke at a critical juncture in the match.

For the Cardiff test (don't know about thereafter) Ponting has suggested Hauritz (when he comes on) will hold up and end, getting through his overs and bowling defensively while the seamers operate at the other end.