Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[aussie]

David Hussey was picked for the wrong format, ODIs. If he was the successor to Damien Martyn, his batting average would be 45-50 right now, and we wouldn't have this number 6 problem. North really isn't a long term option and despite his century, he doesn't have the record of consistency to back up.

Or rather like M Hussey before him, North has made the Australian team in the peak form of his career.

 

[Jakester1288]

Eh? Bollinger? Buddy, Bollinger wasn't chosen in the 15.

Oh yeah, that right, that hack Hilfenhaus got in before him. Bollinger > daylight > Hilfenhaus.

Ok, seeing as Bollinger is not in the mix, I want an attack of:

Johnson
Siddle
Clark
Lee/Hauritz (Depending on their fitness, form and the pitch).

 

[inbox24]

Or rather like M Hussey before him, North has made the Australian team in the peak form of his career.

The difference is that David is a more talented player capable of playing 2 forms of the game with a proven record at domestic level.

 

[Noble One]

Oh yeah, that right, that hack Hilfenhaus got in before him. Bollinger > daylight > Hilfenhaus.

How did you reach that conclusion?

Very little seperates the quality of Bollinger and Hilfenhaus as bowlers. Nothing from the opportunities I have seen of Bollinger suggests he is clearly a better bowler than Hilfenhaus. The off-days that Bollinger has are just as poor as the bad-days for Hilfenhaus. Whereas when Hilfenhaus is in form and bowling well he has proven to be the most dangerous bowler in Australian domestic cricket over the past 3 seasons.

Both are coming off good domestic seasons. Both have had mediocre; but promising starts to Test cricket. Hilfenhaus has more potential to cause damage in English conditions, but is unproven. Bollinger was largely a failure at County Cricket two years ago.

As it stands, Hilfenhaus won't play unless injury strikes one of the members of the squad. I have more confidence that Hilfenhaus will be just as dangerous an option as Doug Bollinger.

 

[Jakester1288]

How did you reach that conclusion?

Very little seperates the quality of Bollinger and Hilfenhaus as bowlers. Nothing from the opportunities I have seen of Bollinger suggests he is clearly a better bowler than Hilfenhaus. The off-days that Bollinger has are just as poor as the bad-days for Hilfenhaus. Whereas when Hilfenhaus is in form and bowling well he has proven to be the most dangerous bowler in Australian domestic cricket over the past 3 seasons.

Both are coming off good domestic seasons. Both have had mediocre; but promising starts to Test cricket. Hilfenhaus has more potential to cause damage in English conditions, but is unproven. Bollinger was largely a failure at County Cricket two years ago.

As it stands, Hilfenhaus won't play unless injury strikes one of the members of the squad. I have more confidence that Hilfenhaus will be just as dangerous an option as Doug Bollinger.

It's more my like for Bollinger and opinion on him. Both are dangerous, as you said, but I'd say Bollinger just has the edge on Hilfenhaus. Comparing their tests performances, I think it's safe to say Bollinger has been better over their limited opportunities.

It would be good if Bollinger has played some more ODI's, to compare them in that format, but in Bollingers 3 matches he has taken 5 wickets @ 20.20 (albeit that all those wickets came in one game) compared to Hilfenhaus' 15 @ 34.93 in 12 games. It's not quite possible to compare them in that form yet, although Bollinger also has a better List A record than Hilfenhaus. So seeing as it's only fare to compare them in tests and first class, I'd say Bollinger > Hilfenhaus in tests (not on record, on what I actually think of their performances) and Bollinger = Hilfenhaus in FC (based mainly on stats and my limited viewing of state cricket).

 

[Malleeboy]

McDonald appears to have a marginally better FC stats then Bollinger and Hilf- and much better Test stats especially given he played his 4 tests against SA.

He adds variety as a medium pacer, gets through his overs and can contain.
Not to mention his vastly better batting.

If you play Watson at 6, then why would you need four frontline pacemen, it makes sense to play a different sort of bowler, so it's between Hauritz and McDonald.

If M Hussey doesn't regain form then Watson appears to be the extra batsman in the squad, so Australia could end up playing both North and Watson, and if Hauritz doesn't suddenly improve I could well see McDonald playing as well. The other option is too bring in another opener (eg Rogers) and drop Katich down. Or to give Hodge another go, it isn;t like he exactly failed in his first Test appearances.

 

[pup11]

It's more my like for Bollinger and opinion on him. Both are dangerous, as you said, but I'd say Bollinger just has the edge on Hilfenhaus. Comparing their tests performances, I think it's safe to say Bollinger has been better over their limited opportunities.

It would be good if Bollinger has played some more ODI's, to compare them in that format, but in Bollingers 3 matches he has taken 5 wickets @ 20.20 (albeit that all those wickets came in one game) compared to Hilfenhaus' 15 @ 34.93 in 12 games. It's not quite possible to compare them in that form yet, although Bollinger also has a better List A record than Hilfenhaus. So seeing as it's only fare to compare them in tests and first class, I'd say Bollinger > Hilfenhaus in tests (not on record, on what I actually think of their performances) and Bollinger = Hilfenhaus in FC (based mainly on stats and my limited viewing of state cricket).

I think both Hilfenhaus and Bollinger are pretty good bowlers, and AFAIC both should have been in the Ashes squad, but having said that, I think you are underestimating Hilfenhaus' performance in South Africa.

Though he bowled too short for my liking, but still he was very economical and accurate right through the series, and he bowled a lot better than what his figures suggest, also I don't think its fair to suggest that Hilfenhaus is not ready for international cricket, agreed he still has a few things to learn, but I am sure being with the Australian squad and working with likes of Cooley would only help him in doing that.

 

[pup11]

The difference is that David is a more talented player capable of playing 2 forms of the game with a proven record at domestic level.

With Symonds now no longer being in the scheme of things, its important Australia show some faith in the ability of a natural stroke-maker like David Hussey.

Marcus North is a very good and reliable batsman, and he is the kind of bloke you can expect to score some tough runs, but the problem with that is, Australia already have blokes like Katich, Clarke, Mike Hussey in the test side, who can do that sort of job.

So therefore having a stroke-player like David Hussey at no.6 would have been a good ploy, but credit to North, he had his chance in South Africa and he grabbed it with both hands, but if he fails to perform in England then David Hussey would be my replacement for him.

 

[Andre]

It's more my like for Bollinger and opinion on him. Both are dangerous, as you said, but I'd say Bollinger just has the edge on Hilfenhaus. Comparing their tests performances, I think it's safe to say Bollinger has been better over their limited opportunities.

It would be good if Bollinger has played some more ODI's, to compare them in that format, but in Bollingers 3 matches he has taken 5 wickets @ 20.20 (albeit that all those wickets came in one game) compared to Hilfenhaus' 15 @ 34.93 in 12 games. It's not quite possible to compare them in that form yet, although Bollinger also has a better List A record than Hilfenhaus. So seeing as it's only fare to compare them in tests and first class, I'd say Bollinger > Hilfenhaus in tests (not on record, on what I actually think of their performances) and Bollinger = Hilfenhaus in FC (based mainly on stats and my limited viewing of state cricket).

Have you ever seen Bollinger and Hilfenhaus bowl?

Bollinger is a good domestic bowler, nothing more, is wildly inconsistent and has the potential to spray them everywhere. Hilfenhaus looks like he has the tools and the motor to be a quality Test bowler.

I know who I would pick.

 

[pup11]

McDonald appears to have a marginally better FC stats then Bollinger and Hilf- and much better Test stats especially given he played his 4 tests against SA.

He adds variety as a medium pacer, gets through his overs and can contain.
Not to mention his vastly better batting.

If you play Watson at 6, then why would you need four frontline pacemen, it makes sense to play a different sort of bowler, so it's between Hauritz and McDonald.

If M Hussey doesn't regain form then Watson appears to be the extra batsman in the squad, so Australia could end up playing both North and Watson, and if Hauritz doesn't suddenly improve I could well see McDonald playing as well. The other option is too bring in another opener (eg Rogers) and drop Katich down. Or to give Hodge another go, it isn;t like he exactly failed in his first Test appearances.

This is most likely to be the Aussie playing XI for the 1st test at Cardiff:
1.P.Hughes
2.S.Katich
3.R.Ponting
4.M.Hussey
5.M.Clarke
6.M.North
7.S.Watson
8.B.Haddin
9.M.Johnson
10.B.Lee
11.S.Clark

I think this is pretty much going to be Australia's playing XI at the beginning of the series, and changes then might be made according to performances of the players, though having seen how gingerly Watto was bowling at the T20 WC, depending on his bowling too much in this series might prove to be a big mistake.

I guess this would have been mentione before, but still its surprising that the Australia squad doesn't have any reserve batsman, so in case one of the batsmen proves to be in disastrous form or gets injured on the eve of a test match, Australia basically won't have any out-and -out batsman to replace him with.

 

[Andre]

This is most likely to be the Aussie playing XI for the 1st test at Cardiff:
1.P.Hughes
2.S.Katich
3.R.Ponting
4.M.Hussey
5.M.Clarke
6.M.North
7.S.Watson
8.B.Haddin
9.M.Johnson
10.B.Lee
11.S.Clark

I think this is pretty much going to be Australia's playing XI at the beginning of the series, and changes then might be made according to performances of the players, though having seen how gingerly Watto was bowling at the T20 WC, depending on his bowling too much in this series might prove to be a big mistake.

I guess this would have been mentione before, but still its surprising that the Australia squad doesn't have any reserve batsman, so in case one of the batsmen proves to be in disastrous form or gets injured on the eve of a test match, Australia basically won't have any out-and -out batsman to replace him with.

They do have a reserve batsman - Watson. He's the next best bat in the country, ignore the fact he can bowl as well. I guarantee you that his bowling is seen as a bonus by selectors and he has been picked as the next best bat, which is fair enough too.

No way in the world they would play his as part of a 4 man bowling attack the way his body goes also. His best chance of a start is in the first Test in Cardiff, where Hauritz could play, and Watson could then conceivably edge out North for the number 6 spot.

 

[Malleeboy]

This is most likely to be the Aussie playing XI for the 1st test at Cardiff:
1.P.Hughes
2.S.Katich
3.R.Ponting
4.M.Hussey
5.M.Clarke
6.M.North
7.S.Watson
8.B.Haddin
9.M.Johnson
10.B.Lee
11.S.Clark

I think this is pretty much going to be Australia's playing XI at the beginning of the series, and changes then might be made according to performances of the players, though having seen how gingerly Watto was bowling at the T20 WC, depending on his bowling too much in this series might prove to be a big mistake.

I guess this would have been mentione before, but still its surprising that the Australia squad doesn't have any reserve batsman, so in case one of the batsmen proves to be in disastrous form or gets injured on the eve of a test match, Australia basically won't have any out-and -out batsman to replace him with.

Your 11 looks great on paper but if Watto breaks down (again) and with North/Clarke/Katich only being part timers, you really are putting a workload on the 3 main quicks. If Watto is the reserve batsman, given his breakdown rate, should he being bowling at all?

They only place Hauritz might play is Cardiff, otherwise I actually think McDonald might actually play more test then many people think he will.

Anyway my main point was that his FC bowling stats are marginally better then either Hilf are Bollinger, and when given the chance against a good batting unit like SA he took wickets and tied down an end (precisely what was asked of him).

Andre,

If North is playing 6 and Watson's not in the 11 (outside of Cardiff), which 4 bowlers do you want....
Johnson is a certain, Siddle is a probable, then you've got Lee, Clark, Hilf and McDonald.

I think that Johnson, Siddle, Clark (cause his English record is so good but it'll come down to how they bowl in the lead up match between him and Lee) and McDonald to give variety. However if all 4 man quicks are bowling well it would be very tempting to play all four.

 

[Jakester1288]

For Cardiff and spinning pitches:

1. Hughes
2. Katich
3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Clarke
6. Watson
7. Haddin
8. Johnson
9. Hauritz
10. Siddle
11. Clark

For swing/seam bowlers pitches:

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

It depends on how Lee's form is, in the warm ups and the nets. I wouldn't complain having an attack of Johnson, Siddle, Clark and Lee/McDonald/Hauritz.

 

[Jakester1288]

Have you ever seen Bollinger and Hilfenhaus bowl?

Yes. Bollinger has actually performed on the international scene, whilst Hilfenhaus hasn't. Both are very, very good state bowlers, but Bollinger has outperformed Hilfenhaus in Tests and ODI's.

 

[Malleeboy]

Your obviously not worried about over-rates 4 pace bowlers plus Watson is not going to be quick through overs. Furthermore generally sides do look for some variety. If they are going to play 4 front line quicks then I think North will edge out Watson. If they do play Watson then for me they have to play a different style of bowlers. Which leaves Hauritz and McDonald, on English conditions (even Cardiff) I think McDonald adds more to the team.

Australians have a dislike of medium pace bowlers (they're so English) but when are spinning stocks are so low that batsmen who trundle a bit are our best performing spin bowlers, then we might just have to live with giving an honest but not brilliant medium pace bowler some tests, to play an Ashley Giles type role within the team of bowling tight and quick overs to rest the faster bowlers.

Current test averages...

Hilf 52, Bollinger 65, McDonald 33 (If ODI stats meant anything to our selectors picking Test teams then Bracken would have played a lot more tests.)

If Lee or Clark don't come up to scratch then IMHO McDonald deserves a trundle.

 

[Jakester1288]

Your obviously not worried about over-rates 4 pace bowlers plus Watson is not going to be quick through overs. Furthermore generally sides do look for some variety. If they are going to play 4 front line quicks then I think North will edge out Watson. If they do play Watson then for me they have to play a different style of bowlers. Which leaves Hauritz and McDonald, on English conditions (even Cardiff) I think McDonald adds more to the team.

With Hauritz (on spinners pitches), McDonald (if he gets selected) and Clarke, Katich and possibly North, you've got enough slow bowlers who get through the overs quickly.

I'd go for

Spinning pitches:
Johnson
Siddle
Clark
Watson
Hauritz
Clarke
Katich

Obviously Clarke and Katich won't be used if they aren't needed. About 3-5 overs a day from each would be good in conjunction with Hauritz.

Seam/Swing pitches:
Johnson
Siddle
Clark
McDonald/Lee
Watson
Clarke
Katich

You have to remember Watson won't go through many overs due to being so injury prone, and if McDonald is there with Clarke and Katich, we should get through our overs easily.

 

[Malleeboy]

You obviously have more faith in Hauritz then I do, I'd have more faith in Boof's straight spinners (when he was playing) and Clarke's dodging back and Katich's uncontrolled lobs then I personally have in Hauritz. I'd even draft Hogg from retirement in preference to playing Hauritz. I sincerly hope he proves me wrong but IMO the guys is barely State level, yet alone Test.

 

[Matt79]

With Symonds now no longer being in the scheme of things, its important Australia show some faith in the ability of a natural stroke-maker like David Hussey.

Marcus North is a very good and reliable batsman, and he is the kind of bloke you can expect to score some tough runs, but the problem with that is, Australia already have blokes like Katich, Clarke, Mike Hussey in the test side, who can do that sort of job.

So therefore having a stroke-player like David Hussey at no.6 would have been a good ploy, but credit to North, he had his chance in South Africa and he grabbed it with both hands, but if he fails to perform in England then David Hussey would be my replacement for him.

Clarke and Hussey aren't "shot makers"? Wtf? Your definition of shotmaker seems to mean big hitting hack, in which case Dussey should be your man.

 

[Andre]

Yes. Bollinger has actually performed on the international scene, whilst Hilfenhaus hasn't. Both are very, very good state bowlers, but Bollinger has outperformed Hilfenhaus in Tests and ODI's.

How has Bollinger outperformed Hilfenhaus in Tests? Fact of the matter is, Bollinger would have played in SA and would be over in England if he'd done as well in Test cricket as you've suggested. He played one Test, performed respectably, that's about it. Hilfenhaus took important (top order) wickets and maintained pressure in sustained spells in South Africa. That's what Test cricket is about. His stats aren't flash yet but there is much more to it than that. He also offers the side a geniune workhorse option - something which Bollinger certainly doesn't.

ODI cricket, well, that's irrelevant to the Ashes tour discussion but due credit Bollinger did bowl well in his couple of games, although Hilfenhaus has done the job at times too. Again, numbers not telling the whole story.

 

[Andre]

Andre,

If North is playing 6 and Watson's not in the 11 (outside of Cardiff), which 4 bowlers do you want....
Johnson is a certain, Siddle is a probable, then you've got Lee, Clark, Hilf and McDonald.

I think that Johnson, Siddle, Clark (cause his English record is so good but it'll come down to how they bowl in the lead up match between him and Lee) and McDonald to give variety. However if all 4 man quicks are bowling well it would be very tempting to play all four.

If Watson plays, I would personally play as the other 4 bowlers:

Johnson
Siddle
S Clark
Hauritz.

Personally, I consider Watson/Hauritz as a package and North/McDonald/whoever else as another, in the sense that the selection of one, IMO, would depend on the selection of the other to provide the best balanced side.

But in general, I'd pick North at 6, with Johnson, Siddle, S Clark and Hilfenhaus.