I have big reservations about guys who lob in the scene from nowhere when they're 28 or 29. He only averages 28 in FC with the ball. I just don't think he's that good of a bowler, and am not convinced that at his age that there is great scope for improvement.
I've explained that Bollinger got his Test figures against club standard batting lineups - NZ, WI, Pak. When he came up against a decent batting lineup (SA) he was exposed, and when he played overseas for the first time in a Test (in England) he was woeful. I like to look beyond the stats, and use my judgement. I think Bollinger is massively overhyped, and not even Ponting had confidence in him in England.
Did you have reservation about Stuart Clark when he brust on the scene @ 31 from nowhere with a similar FC average?. What about Colin Miller back in the days also?. I find this a weird reason to have reservations about Bollinger TBH.
Secondly i find it quite odd you would say a bowler in 1st test was exposed. You can never judge a player properly after one test. I would think its pretty obvious that Bollinger is much improved bowler in international cricket since that opening test.
Also as i told you before. The only sub-standard team out of NZ, PAK, WI Bollinger had to bowl to was vs PAK. You seem to forget how well the Windies played in AUS & NZ although AUS beat them fairly easily certainly played weren't the pushovers & Bollinger had to bowl well to get them out. Plus in ENG he just had two bad tests - thats all, its not as if PAKs batting was anything great.
I like beyond stats too & i am stunend your assesment of Bollinger career to date TBH. I see & would think a majority see's a top-quality bowler - by no means is he overated
Smith is unproven. But boy, let's look at him. He's 21, averages 50+ with the bat in FC cricket, has taken a five wicket haul, lands them well, and spins them plenty. He's also a great field. I think he's much more value to the team than someone like North, and I'm just not convinced that Bollinger will go that great over there, although I understand your thoughts in picking him.
Spin doesn't win in IND, much less Smith whose bowling is still very much a work in progress as far as tests is concerned. Added to the fact that Hauritz role will be that of containing bowler (and this is a big IF as aformentioned because i can see the IND batsmen hitting out of the attack), much less young rookie leggie, you playing with too much fire with such a selection. AUS main source of wickets is the pacers - simple.
If North is to dropped as most people would hope, Hughes has to play.
Bollinger can reverse swing the ball - you dont need more convincing than that. I dont hear you quesitoning Johnson given he had a worse series in ENG compared to Bollinger & cant reverse-swing the ball - which would make him AUS least effective quick in IND conditons.
As I say, I'd only overwork Watson in these two Tests - they're unique circumstances. I think allrounders are out strength at the moment, guys like Watson and Smith can give us real flexibility on the subcontinent. I dare say they have picked Hughes instead of Usman because they are looking to drop Watson down the order with the view of bowling him much more in these two Tests.
Watson isn't good enough to play as 3rd seamer, so overbowling him wont make a difference. As i said, given he is arguably our best reverse-swing bowler of the quarter, he should be used in short shapr bursts & rested.
If he has to for eg bowl as the 1st change seamer, on those flat pitches when the ball hasn't begun to reverse yet - he will be easy meat for the IND batsmen.
All-roundersone-day in the near future may very well and be AUS strenght. But it isn't right now since Smith is not one yet, so again for reasons afromentioned Smith can't play.
Watson should open still, even in Hughes plays (hope he does). Katich should be the one to move down back to middle-order instead.
