*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[Top_Cat]

The Aussie selectors know he almost definitely won't perform, but,
1. They aren't willing to take the big decisions on team balance dropping Midge would involve.
2. They refuse to believe that their star all-rounder isn't bowling well and are kidding themselves.
3. They can't bear to let such a solid pro and good bloke suffer the humiliation of being "dropped".

To me, that's taking the easy way out.

Be pretty unprofessional if any of the above was true.

 

[Uppercut]

Be pretty unprofessional if any of the above was true.

I suspect it's mainly the third. Selectors like to play the players they know are good, the ones who have done the job for them before. Dropping the player who almost single-handedly kept them at world number one just a few months ago would be showing a lack of respect. As man-management goes, it might not feel like a good idea.

On the other hand, it's the middle of the Ashes and Stuart Clark is sitting on the bench like a bell-end having put Midge to shame in a warm-up game. No one can seriously claim that Australia are more likely to win the Edgbaston test with Johnson in the team than they are with Clark. But that's what they're implying.

 

[irfan]

I suspect it's mainly the third. Selectors like to play the players they know are good, the ones who have done the job for them before. Dropping the player who almost single-handedly kept them at world number one just a few months ago would be showing a lack of respect. As man-management goes, it might not feel like a good idea.

On the other hand, it's the middle of the Ashes and Stuart Clark is sitting on the bench like a bell-end having put Midge to shame in a warm-up game. No one can seriously claim that Australia are more likely to win the Edgbaston test with Johnson in the team than they are with Clark. But that's what they're implying.

Totally AWTA with you, DCYE & howard. Absolutely mystified (if Howard's spies are to be believed) that Johnson is still in the side. I was all for Johnson's inclusion even after Lord's, thinking he will rediscover a bit of form against a rubbish county XI. But no, he continued to bowl pus-filled pies. The selectors should then have realised that ' Project get Johnson back in form' is well and truly down the ****hole.

I can't believe they intend to leave Clark OUT again. The one bowler in the squad who has a fabolous record against England can't even get a go. I could understand his omission at Cardiff, given the pitch and the fact that Siddle is the incumbent. I could just about understand his omission at Lord's given that we nearly got 20 wickets in the previous match, but to leave him out again will be nothing short of scandalous.

Clark = Brad Hosge of Australian bowling

 

[Scaly piscine]

I figured the selectors were hoping the warm-up game the other week would have gone in such a way that they could bring Clark in for Siddle.

Regardless in England, against England Clark >>>>>>>>>>>>> Siddle/Johnson

So it should be a straight choice between Siddle and Johnson. I'll laugh if Clark doesn't play.

 

[Athlai]

I've gotta admit though inbox, the one (and only, tbh) thing I like about your posts is that, unlike a lot of other members, you don't change your opinion based on a few games here or there all the time. You either rate someone or you don't. I respect that.

You've met Richard right?

 

[Prince EWS]

You've met Richard right?

I did say "a lot of other members" and not "all other members"...

That's one of the reasons I like Richard too, although he takes it a little too far sometimes.

 

[Austin3169]

I figured the selectors were hoping the warm-up game the other week would have gone in such a way that they could bring Clark in for Siddle.

Regardless in England, against England Clark >>>>>>>>>>>>> Siddle/Johnson

So it should be a straight choice between Siddle and Johnson. I'll laugh if Clark doesn't play.

What he said.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Hmm Edgbaston looking a wee bit puddly on Cricinfo.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Haddin good enough to bat 6, and McDonald at 7 and Johnson at 8 is a stronger 6 - 7 - 8 than Prior/Flintoff/Broad IMO.

Disagree slightly, but there's not a huge amount in it. I think, all things being equal, I'd favour England's three slightly, mainly based on never having been that impressed with McDonald's batting, but with Fred out of nick and Johnson playing well (bat only), it's a close call.

I did say "a lot of other members" and not "all other members"...

That's one of the reasons I like Richard too, although he takes it a little too far sometimes.

Wonderful talent for understatement there. That's rather like calling 9/11 a "minor setback for the twin towers".

 

[pup11]

Totally AWTA with you, DCYE & howard. Absolutely mystified (if Howard's spies are to be believed) that Johnson is still in the side. I was all for Johnson's inclusion even after Lord's, thinking he will rediscover a bit of form against a rubbish county XI. But no, he continued to bowl pus-filled pies. The selectors should then have realised that ' Project get Johnson back in form' is well and truly down the ****hole.

I can't believe they intend to leave Clark OUT again. The one bowler in the squad who has a fabolous record against England can't even get a go. I could understand his omission at Cardiff, given the pitch and the fact that Siddle is the incumbent. I could just about understand his omission at Lord's given that we nearly got 20 wickets in the previous match, but to leave him out again will be nothing short of scandalous.

Clark = Brad Hosge of Australian bowling

I think its was pretty obvious for a long time now that Johnson was gonna play at Edgbaston so not really surprised about that, but I just can't understand why they won't play Clark, Siddle is bowler with tremendous potential, but atm we just can't have both Siddle and Johnson in the same side, its as simple as that.

The Australian attack is very inexperienced and in the absence of Lee, we should play an experienced bowler like Clark, he has experience of having played in the English conditions, so he is must in the Australian side in the present scenario, its fair enough to back a player when you believe in his talent, but this is just ridiculous.

 

[sephiroth123]

Well in terms of the weather, we've had quite a lot this July (actually seems to be up there in the top 5 wettest in the the last 75 after todays rain) Thursday should be a decent enough day, hopefully the grass will dry out as the day goes on, could be a few showers about.

Friday looks ok, orginally it looked like rain would move in overnight which would have been good with rdgards to cloudcover...but it looks like the weather models have delayed that by 12hrs and now are suggesting rain for a good part of Saturday's playing session. The same now is also being suggested for Monday. Note though this can and very likely will change, esp with regards to Monday.

If either team gets established on the first day and gets a big score, I'm quite tempted to put money on a draw.

 

[kevinpietersen]

Panesar Dropped for Third test. Not surprised his bowling isn't really very useful at the moment and I don't think he was picked because of his batting.

 

[Nate]

Anyone got a reason for not playing Stuart Clark?

 

[jondavluc]

Any got a reason for not playing Stuart Clark?

Yeah but they are terrible reasons. One would most likely be age whether I disagree with it or not.They other is he pissed in the selectors cereal.

 

[Jamee999]

Less than 300 overs of play. Write it in.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Any got a reason for not playing Stuart Clark?

There are a few, but whether one agrees with them is rather more debateable. The most persuasive is, possibly, that a bloke can't go from being one of the best three or four seamers in the world to not being one of the best three or four in Australia in a couple of tests. Leaving aside all Johnson's extra-cricketing finacee/old dear woes this might be viewed as merely common sense, but it also seems counter-intuitive when one factors them in and couples them with his actual performances. If a bloke goes for a run-a-ball and takes one tailend wicket for 100-odd against a second division 2nd XI it's a reasonable to ask if he's the man to (potentially) stake the Ashes on. I guess it depends whether one considers his recent form or that which he showed in SA most pertinent.

The other reason, and one which I can't quite shake off the suspicion that is having an undue bearing on the selectors, is his batting. If McDonald comes in for North the batting potential is lessened and Clark in for Johnson would leave a tail of Hauritz, Siddle, Clark & Hilfenhaus. Hauritz isn't quite a test #8 & Siddle is a 9 and a half at best. Were Lee fit I reckon Johnson my be ditched, but as he isn't...

 

[tooextracool]

There are a few, but whether one agrees with them is rather more debateable. The most persuasive is, possibly, that a bloke can't go from being one of the best three or four seamers in the world to not being one of the best three or four in Australia in a couple of tests. Leaving aside all Johnson's extra-cricketing finacee/old dear woes this might be viewed as merely common sense, but it also seems counter-intuitive when one factors them in and couples them with his actual performances. If a bloke goes for a run-a-ball and takes one tailend wicket for 100-odd against a second division 2nd XI it's a reasonable to ask if he's the man to (potentially) stake the Ashes on. I guess it depends whether one considers his recent form or that which he showed in SA most pertinent.

The other reason, and one which I can't quite shake off the suspicion that is having an undue bearing on the selectors, is his batting. If McDonald comes in for North the batting potential is lessened and Clark in for Johnson would leave a tail of Hauritz, Siddle, Clark & Hilfenhaus. Hauritz isn't quite a test #8 & Siddle is a 9 and a half at best. Were Lee fit I reckon Johnson my be ditched, but as he isn't...

Thats a good point about the batting, I think that might be one of the major reasons why Australia might be leaning away from Clark, if indeed that is the case. Nonetheless, I think it still would be a farce if Clark doesn't play in the next test.

Regarding Johnson, his situation is not too dissimilar to that of Harmison in SA a few years ago. Ranked what was it 1 or 2 in the world and then bowled some absolute pies in SA. Of course, Harmison had a few things going for him in that, 1) that England side had Flintoff and a 5 man bowling attack which was able to cover up for him and 2) that England side was still winning.

 

[Prince EWS]

There are a few, but whether one agrees with them is rather more debateable. The most persuasive is, possibly, that a bloke can't go from being one of the best three or four seamers in the world to not being one of the best three or four in Australia in a couple of tests. Leaving aside all Johnson's extra-cricketing finacee/old dear woes this might be viewed as merely common sense, but it also seems counter-intuitive when one factors them in and couples them with his actual performances. If a bloke goes for a run-a-ball and takes one tailend wicket for 100-odd against a second division 2nd XI it's a reasonable to ask if he's the man to (potentially) stake the Ashes on. I guess it depends whether one considers his recent form or that which he showed in SA most pertinent.

The other reason, and one which I can't quite shake off the suspicion that is having an undue bearing on the selectors, is his batting. If McDonald comes in for North the batting potential is lessened and Clark in for Johnson would leave a tail of Hauritz, Siddle, Clark & Hilfenhaus. Hauritz isn't quite a test #8 & Siddle is a 9 and a half at best. Were Lee fit I reckon Johnson my be ditched, but as he isn't...

Whether or not Johnson is in the team or not, Clark should be in the team anyway.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Whether or not Johnson is in the team or not, Clark should be in the team anyway.

Yes, I do seem to have rather ignored the "Clark for Siddle/Hauritz" options, tbf. If North's gone Hauritz plays, but Clark for Siddle a definite possibility. Be harsh on Siddle, but desperate times, etc.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yes, I do seem to have rather ignored the "Clark for Siddle/Hauritz" options, tbf. If North's gone Hauritz plays, but Clark for Siddle a definite possibility. Be harsh on Siddle, but desperate times, etc.

Yeah. If I had to rank the Australian bowlers on how highly I rated them overall, I'd end up with the following in order:

Clark, Johnson, Lee, Siddle, Bollinger, Hilfenhaus, Noffke, about four or five others, McDonald, a huge long list of players, Hauritz.

As much as the depth is there, however, they're all pretty close and there are several factors bringing them all even closer and creating a huge uncertainty over the whole thing. Clark's lack of recent game-time, Johnson's poor form/lack of confidence, Siddle's inexperience, Lee's injury woes, Hilfenhaus's suitability to English conditions, McDonald's batting and Hauritz's variety all make them extremely line-ball selections. This is compounded by the fact that Hilfenhaus and Hauritz (neither of whom I actually wouldn't have picked for the first Test) have done really well and cemented their places on series performances to an extent.

Really, Clark's still the first guy I'd pick. He's Australia's best bowler IMO (and that's coming from someone who was pretty sceptical of him early on) and has both good suitability to English conditions and form in the last tour game. Whether Johnson plays or not doesn't really bother me a great deal at this stage (although I'd actually lean towards retaining him *ducks for cover from angry CW mob*) but I certainly wouldn't be playing him at the expense of Clark. Assuming Johnson does play that leaves Siddle, Hilfenhaus and Hauritz left to fill two spots and while I think Siddle's a better bowler than the other two, they both offer something different to the attack and have outperformed Siddle so far this series.

I'd honestly leave Hauritz out but I really don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of happening so I'm hoping Siddle gets axed for Clark. As harsh as that would be, I think it's the best I can hope for.