*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[pasag]

Yeah true, he's gone well with the bat. If we're picking him on batting form though we're going down he same path England trod with Giles. Think Watson could do a better job than Johnson at the moment if we were going for a 5th bowler who didn't have to bowl too many and could bat. Would essentially go for the same team but have Watson in for Johnson and bat him above Haddin.

Unless Johnson performs a miracle between now and the 3rd Test of course.

Don't think it's comparable at all to Giles in any way (who was a top bowler in a slump kept in the side by promoting him to 7 because of his proficient batting abilities which have appeared to be unaffected by his bowlng which if turned around could win us the series??????)

Not against Watson either instead of North, but serious question marks over how much he can bowl. If it's just a few overs here and there, might as well stick with North. Not against Macca either who can bowl long spells and might be good in these conditions. All have their pros and cons and it's one of those times I'm happy I'm not a selector.

 

[pasag]

I think the writing is on the wall for Mitch, with Ponting bowling him for just seven overs at Northhampton.

Is Ponting at the ground?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Don't think it's comparable at all to Giles in any way (who was a top bowler in a slump kept in the side by promoting him to 7 because of his proficient batting abilities which have appeared to be unaffected by his bowlng which if turned around could win us the series??????)

Not against Watson either instead of North, but serious question marks over how much he can bowl. If it's just a few overs here and there, might as well stick with North. Not against Macca either who can bowl long spells and might be good in these conditions. All have their pros and cons and it's one of those times I'm happy I'm not a selector.

It's a big if though at the moment...how long do we wait for him to turn it around? When we've been carrying him for 4 tests and it's 2-0 to England do we then drop him once we realise it's not going to happen? He's not there for his batting, he's there to be a frontline bowler and he's not performing that role at the moment. That's the part that's comparable to Giles. Keeping him because of his batting when he's not playing a role as a bowler (which is what he's in the team for). What we need to do for the next test is pick a team that can win and that has no passengers. Otherwise we'll be one test away from losing the series.

You can only go on what Johnson has given us so far this series. What he's done against SA is irrelevant if he's currently going at 6 an over and not having a great impact. I'd be willing to bet his form going into the SA series was slightly better than it is now.

Agree on Watson or McDonald though, could pick either really. And bowling fitness does go against Watson.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I think the writing is on the wall for Mitch, with Ponting bowling him for just seven overs at Northhampton.

Ponting didn't play tbf.

 

[pasag]

It's a big if though at the moment...how long do we wait for him to turn it around? When we've been carrying him for 4 tests and it's 2-0 to England do we then drop him once we realise it's not going to happen? He's not there for his batting, he's there to be a frontline bowler and he's not performing that role at the moment. That's the part that's comparable to Giles. Keeping him because of his batting when he's not playing a role as a bowler (which is what he's in the team for). What we need to do for the next test is pick a team that can win and that has no passengers. Otherwise we'll be one test away from losing the series.

You can only go on what Johnson has given us so far this series. What he's done against SA is irrelevant if he's currently going at 6 an over and not having a great impact. I'd be willing to bet his form going into the SA series was slightly better than it is now.

Agree on Watson or McDonald though, could pick either really. And bowling fitness does go against Watson.

You're missing the whole point of picking him at 7. With four other bowlers it gives us that breathing space if things go wrong (and will also help him mentally, IMO) and he's no longer being picked solely as a frontline bowler, but a bowling all-rounder. If I would advocate keeping him as one of four bowlers at 8 because of his batting, then you'd have a point comparing him to Giles, but I'm not.

 

[pup11]

Not out of form with the bat though. Could go

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
Clark
Siddle
Hilfenhaus

Haddin's recent fantastic batting means he'd be fine at 6 and because you've got five bowlers, a) Johnson has no responsability which would benefit his bowling and b) he can be hidden if things go wrong, which you can't do with five bowlers. The obvious downside here is that things can go pretty bad with him making no runs and bowling even poorer.

AWTA, irrespective of the risks that's the side I would pick too...

AFAIC, when it comes between choosing an extra bowler or an extra batsmen, then 8 out of 10 times, I would go with an extra bowler, even more so in the case of the current Australian side, which has struggled to bowl teams out twice in a game.

My point is that if your top-order fires, then obviously the batting line-up does well irrespective of whether you are playing with 6 or 7 batsmen, but if your top order crumbles, then rarely has a batsman batting at no.6 been able save the day for his side, the recent Lord's test being a good example of this.

Whereas playing an extra bowler gives your team an attacking edge, and more importantly gives your side a better chance of picking those 20 wickets in a game in order to win.

 

[pasag]

Although do we need an extra bowler with no KP? Just playing devil's advocate till I can get out of bed...

 

[Son Of Coco]

You're missing the whole point of picking him at 7. With four other bowlers it gives us that breathing space if things go wrong (and will also help him mentally, IMO) and he's no longer being picked solely as a frontline bowler, but a bowling all-rounder. If I would advocate keeping him as one of four bowlers at 8 because of his batting, then you'd have a point comparing him to Giles, but I'm not.

I can't see any point at picking him at 7 to be honest. He can either bowl or he can't. Hiding him there and hoping he can bowl well doesn't really serve a purpose, regardless of whether there are 4 other bowlers to back him up or not.

I just don't really believe in picking someone and then having backup in case he performs as he has for the early part of the series. If you pick someone else then you remove the problem (assuming they don't perform terribly of course).

The similarity with the Giles situation is that you're essentially weakening the team because a player can perform their secondary role adequately when in all likelihood there's a player waiting in the wings who can outperform them on both fronts (and almost definitely in their major role).

 

[Son Of Coco]

Although do we need an extra bowler with no KP? Just playing devil's advocate till I can get out of bed...

I'm not sure KP has been the biggest threat so far this series.

 

[Furball]

Damn i'm really worried the AUS selectors are going to go way left-field with some foolish selections somewhere for the 3rd test. But with KP out for ENG it may not hurt them that much if a major blunder is made TBH. Gievn the KP factor is gone.

I'm 90% sure Watson will harshly but understandably replace North. Hughes if he fails this test, Watson could easily replace Hughes & North recalled though.

Siddle vs Clark is interesting ATM. Both should play. Maybe drop Haurtiz & pick 4 seamers (including Johnson being demoted to first change) at last. But that would mean Watson can't replace North.

So i guess i'd go for:

Hughes
Katman
God
Mr Cricket
Pup
North
Haddin
Johnno
Sidvicious
Rupert
Hilfenhorse

YES.

Wasn't Watson's stint opening for Queensland an absolute disaster?

 

[pasag]

I can't see any point at picking him at 7 to be honest. He can either bowl or he can't.

But we really don't know whether he can or he can't, early evidence tells us he's struggling to adapt, but he's the type of bowler who always improves as we saw in the West Indies where he was horrible but started to get his act together as time wore on. The whole point of picking him at 7 is that it lets us manage him and if things go wrong we can quickly hide him because we have four other bowlers.

Put it this way - if he continues to be crap we don't lose much aside from a few extra runs you may get from North. BUT if he turns things around, the potential reward is really great.

Let's also not forget we don't want to follow the old England route of constant chopping and changing which totally ruins team stability and is a cancer in the side (though not against dropping people when deserved, obv.)

 

[Son Of Coco]

But we really don't know whether he can or he can't, early evidence tells us he's struggling to adapt, but he's the type of bowler who always improves as we saw in the West Indies where he was horrible but started to get his act together as time wore on. The whole point of picking him at 7 is that it lets us manage him and if things go wrong we can quickly hide him because we have four other bowlers.

Put it this way - if he continues to be crap we don't lose much aside from a few extra runs you may get from North. BUT if he turns things around, the potential reward is really great.

Let's also not forget we don't want to follow the old England route of constant chopping and changing which totally ruins team stability and is a cancer in the side (though not against dropping people when deserved, obv.)

We do though, we lose in the bowling. You can't play him and not bowl him. If you're going to play him and then try to limit the damage he does there's no point really as far as I'm concerned. You can pick someone else who can fill that role more efficiently. I don't see the point in playing 5 bowlers if it's just to cover one of their deficiencies.

People keep talking about him potentially taking a bag full. There's been no indication he's even close to doing this at the moment. And there's a big difference between chopping and changing when you don't have the back up there and when you do.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Wasn't Watson's stint opening for Queensland an absolute disaster?

McDonald's put his hand up for the opening spot

 

[pasag]

We do though, we lose in the bowling. You can't play him and not bowl him. If you're going to play him and then try to limit the damage he does there's no point really as far as I'm concerned. You can pick someone else who can fill that role more efficiently. I don't see the point in playing 5 bowlers if it's just to cover one of their deficiencies.

People keep talking about him potentially taking a bag full. There's been no indication he's even close to doing this at the moment. And there's a big difference between chopping and changing when you don't have the back up there and when you do.

How much do we lose in the bowling? The few overs we got from North? I'm confident he'll come good because that's just the type of bowler he is but have offered that backup plan if he doesn't. The beauty of him being the fifth bowler means we have that luxury. You want an inidication that he'll come good? Look at his ENTIRE career where he's gone from strength to strength and every time he has a setback he works on himself untill he gets it right. He's just that type of cricketer. But as I said, it's not my team necessarily.

 

[tooextracool]

If I were an Australian selector, I would go for this side:

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin
Watson
Hauritz
Siddle
Clark
Hilfenhaus

Johnson has to go IMO. Yes, hes only had a couple of bad tests and yes it would not be fair to him, but Australia are 1-0 down and they can't afford to be fair to anyone, they need to pick the best side for the next test. All the talk about how Johnson's confidence will be shattered and he might not recover from it is bull, I dont think it will do his confidence a whirl of good if he gets spanked at 6 an over again and ends up costing his team the game like he did at Lords.

Regarding Watson, his addition to the side adds an extra bowling option and brings stability to the side. Im not a huge fan of his bowling, but Australia desperately need someone like him and his batting isn't too shabby particularly if hes batting at 7 behind Haddin. Also, I dont really rate North, whos technique is Yuvraj Singh-esque and I'd be very surprised if he is a long term success at the test match level, especially if he continues to play at deliveries away from his body with such a high backlift.

Regarding Clark, I would have had him there from the very first test match because, like it or not, he is the only Australian bowler with any sort of success in English conditions, and he is the type of nagging bowler that will cause England some problems. Sometimes, experience is crucial in a big series like this and Australia need to play him in the next test.

On Hauritz, I dont really rate him, but hes caused more problems than I expected even though hes still not a test class bowler. He's in the side, until England learn how to play spin and until some team carts him all over the park, which if it doesnt happen by the end of the series, will happen at some point in the not too distant future thereafter.

 

[tooextracool]

How much do we lose in the bowling? The few overs we got from North? I'm confident he'll come good because that's just the type of bowler he is but have offered that backup plan if he doesn't. The beauty of him being the fifth bowler means we have that luxury. You want an inidication that he'll come good? Look at his ENTIRE career where he's gone from strength to strength and every time he has a setback he works on himself untill he gets it right. He's just that type of cricketer. But as I said, it's not my team necessarily.

I think one thing we know for certain, is that if Johnson plays, so will Watson as Australia will not risk playing Johnson as part of a 4 man attack again at this point in the series. The question is, if Johnson plays, who makes way for Watson. I don't think Australia will bat Johnson at 7, not with the question marks about Hughes and Hussey and certainly not after their batting collapse last test at Lords.

 

[aussie]

The thing that worries be about picking Watson ATS, is are we 100% sure his bowling is 100% now after just 5 overs in a warm-up?. I'd love to back the judgement of the selectors, but there decisions since WI 08 dictates i nor none of us really can't.

Since its clear Watto not 100% with the ball, does give much of a solid balance to a potential 5-man attack.

 

[Top_Cat]

Johnson has to go IMO. Yes, hes only had a couple of bad tests and yes it would not be fair to him, but Australia are 1-0 down and they can't afford to be fair to anyone, they need to pick the best side for the next test. All the talk about how Johnson's confidence will be shattered and he might not recover from it is bull, I dont think it will do his confidence a whirl of good if he gets spanked at 6 an over again and ends up costing his team the game like he did at Lords.

And of course the Aussie batsmen folding for just over 200 on an absolute road didn't cost the game.

Srsly, no need for panic stations people. I'd go into Edgbaston unchanged. I don't believe there's any evidence changing the bowling or batting line-up will significantly change the way the team is playing. They thoroughly outplayed England at Cardiff (should have won, really) and we saw the reverse at Lords so they're not exactly being dominated. Johnson's form is a huge concern, no doubt, but throwing in guys with barely any form to speak of won't solve that problem.

It depends on what the selectors are seeing. If he's making all the right noises at training/in the tour match, I'd definitely persist with him. If he's down on himself, etc., give him a spell and try someone else, sure. Definitely reckon his selection for Edgbaston hinges on stuff none of us will get to see. I'd be surprised if the selectors didn't play an unchanged team for Edgbaston, in fact.

 

[Richard]

Yeah true, he's gone well with the bat. If we're picking him on batting form though we're going down he same path England trod with Giles.

Giles' constant erroneous selection was based far more on the "you must have variety" stuff than his batting, though it did play some part.

 

[Stapel]

And of course the Aussie batsmen folding for just over 200 on an absolute road didn't cost the game.

Indeed a quite underlooked aspect.

I would never claim that the Aussue bowling attack was spot on, but I felt too that it was the Aussie first innngs that decided the test. England's 425 was not too far above par, I reckon. It seemed to be, because of the massive first wicket stand. But all together, 425 was ok. The Aussie reply of 215 was the reason the momentum was firmly put into Engand's camp. Hughes for 4, Ponting for 2, Clarke for 1, North for 0, Johnson for 4....