*Official* Australia in India 2010

[Prince EWS]

It's not entirely irrelevant, tbh. If it was Clarke or Watson then they could be keeping him with the fact that "just a temporary form slump and they'll come good again soon". But it's less likely at 35.

I'd drop Clarke or Watson after such a prolonged run of poor batsmanship if there were decent options in the Shield as well. Age just doesn't come into it at all for me.

 

[Top_Cat]

You lot are hard to please. No kidding, this forum would have been an emo explosion if it was around in '98 when the Aussies basically won two sessions in the whole series.

This side was farrrr more competitive than that lot.

 

[Shri]

sachin and dhoni should have complemented the aussies for a fantastic series....

Coming from a guy who doesn't like the attitude or arrogance of players being mentioned.

 

[Spark]

Well another disappointing series for Australia.

The few positives for me were

- Hilfenhaus
- Ponting
- Watto
- Johnson (semi-decent)

Otherwise, very disappointed that we lose another test match

Paine? Bollinger?

 

[Ikki]

I agree with people saying Hauritz is still good. In these conditions it was expected. I just think he was used poorly by Ponting and at some of the worst times.

 

[GotSpin]

Paine? Bollinger?

Forgot Paine...Bollinger didn't play the second test

 

[alternative]

Well another disappointing series for Australia.

The few positives for me were

- Hilfenhaus
- Ponting
- Watto
- Johnson (semi-decent)

Otherwise, very disappointed that we lose another test match

Bollinger should make the positives too. He was pretty impressive.

 

[Prince EWS]

Can we play Crayfish in India next time please?

 

[Spark]

Forgot Paine...Bollinger didn't play the second test

Which isn't really his fault. You can only judge what was put on the park and what he did put on the park was impressive enough.

But really, that's more than half a team whose performances you'd describe as impressive and better than expected. That's not a bad rap. Granted, the "expected" category was "expectedly poor" and the two unexpectedly poor players just happened to be our two most important players for the last two years, but oh well.

 

[kingjulian]

sachin and dhoni should have complemented the aussies for a fantastic series....

True bad form in front of the mic....probably got carried away.

but it all seemed very friendly at the end of the game...

 

[kingkallis]

I'd drop Clarke or Watson after such a prolonged run of poor batsmanship if there were decent options in the Shield as well. Age just doesn't come into it at all for me.

You want to drop Watson?

 

[GotSpin]

Which isn't really his fault. You can only judge what was put on the park and what he did put on the park was impressive enough.

Well he wasn't there when he was needed so I'm bitter about that.

He's being rested form the ODI series surely?

 

[Ruckus]

It's never time to "prepare for the future". Picking the best team for each and every Test FTW.

That said, I actually don't think Hussey should be in the team anymore. My resistance to the anti-Hussey crowd is only due to my frustration at the fact that his age is repeatedly brought up when I think it should be entirely irrelevant. I don't care if he's 5 or 95; his performances have become unacceptable and it's time to say goodbye.

I've also always thought Hauritz to be well below Test standard but as a pure bowler he's done a lot more than Smith. Neither have done anything in Shield cricket (barring one game from Smith which he averages 70+ without) but Hauritz has put in some surprisingly serviceable Test performances. If you want to play four quicks on a lot of surfaces I can really get behind that but playing Smith as a bowler is something I really can't support, even if it'd satisfy my dream of getting rid of the filthy pie-chucker.

My main rationale for replacing Hauritz with Smith is because, as I said before, the Australian team is largely pace orientated anyway. The spinner doesn't play a spearhead role, like Harb does for India. And when Hauritz is actually required to lead the attack like in India, he fails abysmally anyway. We have enough decent part-timers in out side to share the responsibility while Smith could get some more match practice. Plus, as I said, imagine having a 40+ average no. 7 would really boost our frail batting. All that being said, however, the Hauritz move I wouldn't make before the Ashes because it is too much of an experiment. But I would seriously consider taking a risk on Hussey for the Ashes because if he stays batting the way he is, the replacement could hardly be any worse.

 

[Prince EWS]

You want to drop Watson?

Haha please read the context of the conversation!

I do not want to drop Watson. I would want to drop Watson, however, if he'd put in the returns Hussey has over the past couple of years (ie. average low 30s with the bat and not bowling over a prolonged period, regardless of age).

 

[bagapath]

Coming from a guy who doesn't like the attitude or arrogance of players being mentioned.

this is about on field behavior, shri; a very essential part of cricket.

 

[Spark]

You want to drop Watson?

He's not saying that at all...

Anyone who says anyone other than North, Hussey or perhaps Hauritz should be dropped (Haddin coming in for Paine is not quite the same thing) should have their cricketing credentials seriously questioned at the most basic of levels.

 

[Flem274*]

since you said fc cricket, mcgain definitely says hello.

gagfc

 

[Matt79]

Yeh but he has only played 16 first class matches. I think he is pretty decent at the moment to be honest. And he will only get better, but that takes match practice. As it is anyway, Hauritz averages 43 in FC cricket.

Actually, it's distinctly possible if thrown into a situation like this test and he failed, it would set him back a lot as a bowler. Leggies are a funny bunch - they either have monstrously tough egos and self believe like Warne or O'Reilly or they really need some time to develop a bit of experience that let's them take the rough with the smooth and keep it in perspective. Unless injury forces our hand, I'm pretty opposed to Smith getting a run til he gets another Shield season under his belt. He's very much a work in progress and should be treated as such.

 

[Top_Cat]

My main rationale for replacing Hauritz with Smith is because, as I said before, the Australian team is largely pace orientated anyway. The spinner doesn't play a spearhead role, like Harb does for India. And when Hauritz is actually required to lead the attack like in India, he fails abysmally anyway. We have enough decent part-timers in out side to share the responsibility while Smith could get some more match practice. Plus, as I said, imagine having a 40+ average no. 7 would really boost our frail batting. All that being said, however, the Hauritz move I wouldn't make before the Ashes because it is too much of an experiment. But I would seriously consider taking a risk on Hussey for the Ashes because if he stays batting the way he is, the replacement could hardly be any worse.

In some ways, I agree. No-one was expecting Hauritz to dominate in India but even with the odds stacked against him, it was certainly expected that he do a job and keep the run-rate down. That he didn't is a worry.

That said, in Aussie conditions, would back him to do better than Smith at the moment.

 

[Flem274*]

Actually, it's distinctly possible if thrown into a situation like this test and he failed, it would set him back a lot as a bowler. Leggies are a funny bunch - they either have monstrously tough egos and self believe like Warne or O'Reilly or they really need some time to develop a bit of experience that let's them take the rough with the smooth and keep it in perspective. Unless injury forces our hand, I'm pretty opposed to Smith getting a run til he gets another Shield season under his belt. He's very much a work in progress and should be treated as such.

awtaustralian