From Cricinfo:
The rankings have been around for what, seven years?
I would agree that SL above us and England certainly is a bit tough to take seriously.
Not too sure if you're being serious here or not, but 19 Tests is more than enough to figure out how good someone is. If you've played 32 Test innings and still average under 40, and you're on the wrong side of 30, it's time to go, especially given that he's shown no signs of overcoming his boom or bust problem.
Except he doesn't average 40ish. He averages 37, which is propped up from 35 from a century in his last game, and will more than likely be followed by a string of cheap dismissals like we saw in the second innings. Any team, but especially Australia at the moment given the inconsistency of the middle order, needs a number 6 that can at least stick out it for 30-40 runs each innings, and that is precisely what North hasn't been doing. I'm firmly with howardj here, the sooner North and Hussey are gone the better.
I think that average flatters Hauritz quite a bit though, even if it doesn't necessarily flatter the way he's bowled in his Test career. Given they've both only played seventeen matches I still think what they've done at First Class level is still quite relevant, especially ahead of a home series.
Cool story bro.
Australia tried Bevan there because he was averaging about 1000 in First Class cricket, and he failed anyway. Terrible example. Yuvraj was hardly a success either.
To quote your avatar, I disagree. I think Hauritz is much improved in his time in the Aussie setup and that his FC record is pretty irrelevant these days. I'm a fan of Siddle and don't mean my comment as a knock on him, but I'm pointing out that in an equal number of tests, in 30+ innings, there's actually been little difference in their output. I think the call for a fourth specialist quick ignores that a fourth (fifth with Watson in the team) quick will bring little that isn't already present in better players already in the team. What do we think that Siddle or George is going to add that Bollinger, Johnson, Hilfenhaus and Watson don't already contribute?
Yeah hence the oddness, there's probably going to be a **** ton of hooplah made about them going into Brisbane.
I think the real question is - what does Hauritz add that the others don't? Because it certainly isn't the ability to take advantage of a wearing wicket or spin-friendly conditions - the fact that he's a spinner is a massive bluff with regards to when he's been useful at Test level. Unless he can either provide something different - and bowling with a different action doesn't qualify - he should be judged on his quality against the other bowlers. He falls short against Siddle and Harris just for a start.
"Not too sure if you're being serious here or not". Why would you even say that? I think its pretty obvious I was being serious, just makes you sound like a smart ass.
I think he gives the attack some variety, and I think variety can be an important tool to dislodge batsmen, or to take advantage of the test players out there who are all at sea against spin. Yeah, North can bowl spin, but North is much less deserving of his spot than Ritzy at the moment, so I don't think that's a sensible solution. Clarke and Katich can't be relied on as they both have fitness concerns relating to their ability to bowl.
Has it been a surprise? I don't mean that rhetorically, but a genuine question. What were the thoughts when he was announced captain at the time?
All those things sound like things Smith could do tbh...
There's too many ugly cricketers in the world at the moment.
Yeah, I can't stand Watson either. You aren't alone.
