*Official* West Indies In Australia

[aussie]

Wow, have only been saying this for a couple of years and now you reach that conclusion? At least Hauritz should now get the continued opportunity his form in the Ashes and since merits.

You have & i have never really agreed with the notion tbf. Last season Krejza & Haurtiz played in all test except the Gabba test & the over-rate issue still an issue. Over in England in the last 2 tests, over-rates wasn't an issue with 4 seamers. AUS can definately get through 90 overs or at least 85 overs a day with 4-seamers while letting North/Clarke/Katich when filling in a few overs when needed.

The strenght in the bowling attack is in the fast bowling ranks & 4 should start the 1st test & always play IMO. Haurtiz/Krejza should only play if:

- its raging turner in the sub-continent or every SCG home test

- Unless Watson can be depended to play as all-rounder consistently in tests in a 5-man bowling attack, without breaking down unexpectedly, which ATM we cant be sure of.

 

[Matt79]

He survived the past 6 months when many didn't, so I think we can chance it, although Id say Watson's bowling is irrelevant as to whether we play Hauritz or not. If Hauritz were not good enough, and the first three quicks picked wer not good enough, I don't think Watto is really going to solve those woes with the ball. He's strictly icing on this bowling cake, as is North.

I think Hauritz should be in the team for three reasons - he has performed well in the past twelve months on pitches that were NOT massive spinning tracks; he gives Ponting some variety to play with in the attack and I think Ricky needs that as a captain, and the overrate issue is a real one with serious consequences that we should seek to mitigate. We're much more likely to be able to keep to the overrate with Hauritz as one of the four main bowlers than with four quicks. As you say, it doesn't guarantee anything, but it's a huge headstart.

 

[Top_Cat]

Would advocate picking Hauritz for form reasons too but also to avoid the situation where a part-timer like North bowls a heap of overs and is shot when he has to bat.

Watto's bowling a non-issue in selection for mine; pick him on form with the bat unless NSW start giving him major overs.

 

[aussie]

He survived the past 6 months when many didn't, so I think we can chance it, although Id say Watson's bowling is irrelevant as to whether we play Hauritz or not. If Hauritz were not good enough, and the first three quicks picked wer not good enough, I don't think Watto is really going to solve those woes with the ball. He's strictly icing on this bowling cake, as is North.


I think Hauritz should be in the team for three reasons - he has performed well in the past twelve months on pitches that were NOT massive spinning tracks; he gives Ponting some variety to play with in the attack and I think Ricky needs that as a captain, and the overrate issue is a real one with serious consequences that we should seek to mitigate. We're much more likely to be able to keep to the overrate with Hauritz as one of the four main bowlers than with four quicks. As you say, it doesn't guarantee anything, but it's a huge headstart.

Hauritz indeed didn't disgrace himself in ENG. But AFAIC that has to alot to do with ENGs batting poor play againts spin. England let Haurtiz bowl to them to much, they hardly tried to come down the wicket to try to hit him off his lenght - Hauritz was played too circumspectly by ENG. This is where Pietersen being injured had a big effect, since he was one batsman who would have really taken it to Hauritz.

So overall Hauritz aint good enough to play as part of 4-man attack againts teams that play spinners agressively (although AUS could get away with in the coming months vs West Indies & NZ but not IND, SA, SRI & PAK). Since ATS the main pace trio of Hilfy/Siddle/Johnson although they have all the ability in the world - they aren't McGrath/Dizzy/Kasper in quality & consistency ATM. If one has an off-day as we saw in the Ashes many times, things could get a very ugly. So thats why its imperitve AUS have at least 4 solid bowlers (4 quicks of contrasting variety) or 5 at least (3 quicks, Watson, Krejza/Hauritz), so that Ponting will have options in case one has an off-day.

This is where Watson's imput as a bowlers still is very important & key if we want to play Krejza/Hauritz consistently. Yes Watson's batting these days should clearly qualify him for a place in top 6 on batting ability alone - but he still should be considered as all-rounder, since his bowling having an input is a VERY important facet of the test attack in this post McWarne era. His bowling will likely never be Flintoff like in quality, but more so like what Kallis was in SA's successful last 3 years in their attack of Steyn/Ntini/Morkel/Harris. If Kallis couldn't bowl i doubt also SA would have played Harris who does a similar containing role to Hauritz - but is anything special.

On the over rates. Yes AUS can't sweep that issue under the carpet - but at the same time they shouldn't let the issue dictate how the bowling attack is structured. If SA of the 90s & much of this 2000s era could manage to play 4 or 5 seamers without running into to much over-rate issues, i certainly think AUS can with 4 seamers based on what i saw in the last 2 Ashes tests.

 

[Beamer]

Here is an interesting article on Jerome Taylor's dominance over Ricky Ponting since they first played each other in 2006. Digicel Article

All told, Ponting has scored a mere 274 runs against the West Indies when Taylor has played and at a very ‘un-Ponting-esque’ average of 22.8.

Of the 12 occasions that the two have met, Taylor prevailed an astounding nine times. Those are memories to cause Ponting more than mild discomfort as he walks out to bat in the first Test at the Gabba on November 26th.

Taylor’s ability to bowl lethal inswingers at Ponting early in his innings has brought around the Aussie captain’s regular demise. Of the nine times Taylor has snapped him up, five have been through lbws, another two have been bowled and the other two were caught.

 

[aussie]

Haa yea Taylor indeed has been a bowler that has being able to exploit Ponting's weakness early in his innings, better than any bowler outside Ashes 05. Should be a very good battle in the upcoming series.

 

[Matt79]

Don't really accept that Hauritz was only successful because the Poms were circumspect against him. He was attacked a couple of times and he bowled good areas and the occasional very good ball. Often when people attacked him they got themselves out.

He's succeeded against teams that play spin well in ODIs as well.

 

[Top_Cat]

Hauritz indeed didn't disgrace himself in ENG. But AFAIC that has to alot to do with ENGs batting poor play againts spin. England let Haurtiz bowl to them to much, they hardly tried to come down the wicket to try to hit him off his lenght - Hauritz was played too circumspectly by ENG. This is where Pietersen being injured had a big effect, since he was one batsman who would have really taken it to Hauritz.

Despite the fact he tried to go after Hauritz, couldn't and then got out to him playing a silly shot? People who say KP got himself out against Hauritz don't get how spin bowling works.

This is where Watson's imput as a bowlers still is very important & key if we want to play Krejza/Hauritz consistently. Yes Watson's batting these days should clearly qualify him for a place in top 6 on batting ability alone - but he still should be considered as all-rounder, since his bowling having an input is a VERY important facet of the test attack in this post McWarne era. His bowling will likely never be Flintoff like in quality, but more so like what Kallis was in SA's successful last 3 years in their attack of Steyn/Ntini/Morkel/Harris. If Kallis couldn't bowl i doubt also SA would have played Harris who does a similar containing role to Hauritz - but is anything special.

Can't believe you're comparing Watto's bowling with Kallis'. Seriously. Kallis is probably good enough to play in a 4-man attack. Again, unless NSW start bowling him, Watto's bowling should be labelled 'nice bonus only'.

 

[aussie]

Don't really accept that Hauritz was only successful because the Poms were circumspect against him. He was attacked a couple of times and he bowled good areas and the occasional very good ball. Often when people attacked him they got themselves out.

England where indeed cricumspect, that Ashes batting line-up without KP didn't have any truly good players of spin.

In the first test, he was garbage in the 1st innings, getting 2 cheap tail-end wickets, plus i'm sure you have forgotten that lucky dismissal he got againts KP. In the second innings he bowled well - but was helped significantly by a wearing pitch, similar to what Suliemann Benn did to ENG in Jamaica early this year.

In the second test, after he injured his hand in the 1st innings - he didn't disgrace himself gettting 3 good second innings wickets. But he didn't exactly exert any pressure & what happened in the 2nd innings sort of proves why he can't be depended on to be part of a 4-man attack. As you may remember Johnson ATS was @ rock bottom, Siddle wasn't economical & Hilfy was carrying the attack. No sense just being accurate if you aren't going to get people out - as Warne did is 2005 when the pace trio also had gone haywire.

In 3rd test he was solid in his only innings, didn't disgrace himself maintained his usual accurate line. But again ENG sat on him too much, really have to feel if he was bowling againts IND he would have been smoked.

He's succeeded against teams that play spin well in ODIs as well.

You really can't compare how he bowls in the two formats tbf. His strenght is his accuracy which in ODIs thats invalubale (plus in the past year he has adopted a very attacking outside off-stump line). So in ODIs where batsmen try to get after him, having that accuracy & attacking line gets him wickets - thus making him a very solid ODI bowler.

In test he is accurate but lacks penetration, he never going to run through a side. Only a wearing 5th day track as we saw in Cardiff is when he's likely to be at his most dangerous - which isn't good enough to make him a must pick in a 4-man attack.

Hauritz is basically the 2009 version of what Peter Taylor was in late 80s & early 90s.

 

[aussie]

Despite the fact he tried to go after Hauritz, couldn't and then got out to him playing a silly shot? People who say KP got himself out against Hauritz don't get how spin bowling works.

Haa, nothing of the sort. KP went to play his typical big booming slog sweep that he has executed with great effect againts Warne, Murali & Kumble before & got a top edge. Even Ponting has mistimed pull-shots before & got out. Nothing to do with Hauritz skills as a bowler, who was very poor in the 1st innings @ Cardiff.

Can't believe you're comparing Watto's bowling with Kallis'. Seriously. Kallis is probably good enough to play in a 4-man attack.

They are very much the same right now, Kallis had SLIGHT edge given he could still swing the ball if conditions suite. But the both are very much 5th bowling options in tests.

Kallis hasn't taken a 5 wicket haul in tests in over 6 years.

Again, unless NSW start bowling him, Watto's bowling should be labelled 'nice bonus only'.

Why wouldn't NSW bowl him?, he is fit. Watson bowling is a nice bonus in a way, but as i've said if AUS want to play a spinner Krejza/Hauritz - his bowling becomes a very important facet since neither are good enough to play in a 4-man attack. Given the main pace trio of Hilfy/Sids/Jonno aren't conistent quality of a McGrath/Dizzy/Kasper as yet.

 

[Jarquis]

Haa, nothing of the sort. KP went to play his typical big booming slog sweep that he has executed with great effect againts Warne, Murali & Kumble before & got a top edge. Even Ponting has mistimed pull-shots before & got out. Nothing to do with Hauritz skills as a bowler, who was very poor in the 1st innings @ Cardiff.

It wasn't a timing issue, Hauritz saw him coming so chucked it out much much wider where Pietersen, already committed to the shot, had to reach for it. Due to the way Hauritz changed his delivery it resulted in KP getting out, if KP hadn't played the shot then he was about 4ft down the pitch and it was the easiest stumping Haddin was ever likely to get.

 

[aussie]

It wasn't a timing issue, Hauritz saw him coming so chucked it out much much wider where Pietersen, already committed to the shot, had to reach for it. Due to the way Hauritz changed his delivery it resulted in KP getting out, if KP hadn't played the shot then he was about 4ft down the pitch and it was the easiest stumping Haddin was ever likely to get.

Nah KP wasn't out of his crease, so he wasn't likely to get stumped even if he had missed. I found some highlights of that has the dismissal - not the best i'll admit (fast forward to between 3:10 - 3:20). It was still more of a mistake from KP although Hauritz chukced it wide, since KP was sweeping him quite easily throughout that day & it doesn't change the fact that he bowled poorly in that first innings.

 

[Jarquis]

Nah KP wasn't out of his crease, so he wasn't likely to get stumped even if he had missed. I found some highlights of that has the dismissal - not the best i'll admit (fast forward to between 3:10 - 3:20). It was still more of a mistake from KP although Hauritz chukced it wide, since KP was sweeping him quite easily throughout that day & it doesn't change the fact that he bowled poorly in that first innings.

Yeah, my memory was well of then Thought it was a full blown sweep rather than that little attempted paddle over his shoulder. Still it was a lot wider than he was expecting when he made the initial stride forwards.

 

[Uppercut]

Despite the fact he tried to go after Hauritz, couldn't and then got out to him playing a silly shot? People who say KP got himself out against Hauritz don't get how spin bowling works.



Can't believe you're comparing Watto's bowling with Kallis'. Seriously. Kallis is probably good enough to play in a 4-man attack. Again, unless NSW start bowling him, Watto's bowling should be labelled 'nice bonus only'.

I've long been a fan of Watto's bowling. Particularly if Lee isn't playing, he brings reverse swing into play which could potentially be very effective if Ricky Ponting doesn't decide to take him out of the attack so that he doesn't get fined for a slow over rate.

Kallis is obviously a better bowler, but what he really has over Watto is that his body can stand up to it. Whether Watto will be able to bowl at all, never mind be effective, is too unpredictable to take it into account too heavily when picking the side. Purely considering his skills as a bowler though, I think he has a lot to offer.

 

[Andre]

Lee ruled out of Shield game vs Tasmania starting Tuesday due to injury.

Can't see him back in the baggy green again, personally.

 

[Burgey]

Lee ruled out of Shield game vs Tasmania starting Tuesday due to injury.

Can't see him back in the baggy green again, personally.

Confirmed:

Lee out of first Test contention - Cricket - Sport - smh.com.au

 

[Andre]

Lee had to get through the Ford Ranger and Shield match unscathed to have any chance of a Test return. Can't see him getting a look in now for a while as Brisbane was our best chance of playing 4 quicks.

Katich
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
North
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
Siddle
Hilfenhaus

to start IMO, with Bollinger or Clark the likely extra bowler. If Siddle is ruled out, it wouldn't suprise me to see ****ley selected in the squad at least, they've got big wraps on him and he's quite similar to Siddle in what he offers to the attack.

Watson to open because of Hussey's recent improvement in form and Hughes not having much of a chance to bash down the door with first class runs.

Stand by my comments about Hussey being a shot duck at Test level - it's one thing to bat 2 hours in a one dayer with the field spread out, but I personally I think his ability to bat for a session + in Test cricket is gone, that's why his success rate in one form is so contrasting to the other. He's safe for at least 1 more Test, but if he doesn't cash in he's gone.

 

[Top_Cat]

Lee had to get through the Ford Ranger and Shield match unscathed to have any chance of a Test return. Can't see him getting a look in now for a while as Brisbane was our best chance of playing 4 quicks.

Katich
Watson
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
North
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
Siddle
Hilfenhaus

to start IMO, with Bollinger or Clark the likely extra bowler. If Siddle is ruled out, it wouldn't suprise me to see ****ley selected in the squad at least, they've got big wraps on him and he's quite similar to Siddle in what he offers to the attack.

He was 12th on the weekend, though. I'd have thought he was pretty far back in the pecking order, myself.

Watson to open because of Hussey's recent improvement in form and Hughes not having much of a chance to bash down the door with first class runs.

Hate Watto opening, myself. Can't criticise his batting in England but that and subsequent ODI runs are an indicator of his great form more than anything, I reckon. Taking the long view, reckon the selectors will squeeze him in the 6 (possibly 5) with a view to grooming him for the number 3 spot eventually.

Stand by my comments about Hussey being a shot duck at Test level - it's one thing to bat 2 hours in a one dayer with the field spread out, but I personally I think his ability to bat for a session + in Test cricket is gone, that's why his success rate in one form is so contrasting to the other. He's safe for at least 1 more Test, but if he doesn't cash in he's gone.

If, seriously, the selectors are thinking 'one more failed Test and he's gone', personally, that there is the writing on the wall. Strongly suspect he's in real trouble. Don't think Hughes' lack of 4-day time this season will count against him too much in selection and I fully expect him to be in the XI for Brisbane.

 

[Andre]

He was 12th on the weekend, though. I'd have thought he was pretty far back in the pecking order, myself.

Hate Watto opening, myself. Can't criticise his batting in England but that and subsequent ODI runs are an indicator of his great form more than anything, I reckon. Taking the long view, reckon the selectors will squeeze him in the 6 (possibly 5) with a view to grooming him for the number 3 spot eventually.

If, seriously, the selectors are thinking 'one more failed Test and he's gone', personally, that there is the writing on the wall. Strongly suspect he's in real trouble. Don't think Hughes' lack of 4-day time this season will count against him too much in selection and I fully expect him to be in the XI for Brisbane.

Pretty sure Siddle will be fit anyway, so not a real big issue, but I reckon they've made it pretty clear that he is the next 'bolter' so to speak. Can't see them going outside the 3 incumbents, Clark and Bollinger though to be honest... Who'd be next cab off the rank though? Geeves maybe?

Yeah I don't like Watson opening either but I reckon Punter will be able to get Hussey in for 1 more Test... First trip and he's gone though, I reckon. Selectors made a clanger when they kept picking him in the Test XI, and his hundred effectively came when the match was gone rather than in 1st innings when runs were crucial.

Seemingly though, yourself/myself/Howardj are the few who I've noticed suggest that Hussey is gone so am expecting a grilling!

 

[Burgey]

Hasn't Hilf got some sort of minor injury too?