Well I guess #4 ain't bad, but I still am wondering why you would move him from #3 where he has the best possible chance to perform?
I just feel that Ponting's experience could help settle the middle order. The problem that we have been having over the past two years has been the three-out-all-out syndrome. We would get to like 3/250 and then be all out for 325 on a road. That is just unacceptable really. Hussey's new found form should help, but I feel the Punter a bit lower could really help our middle order.
Haven't actually managed to see much of Australia bowling (been mostly on weekends, when I've been playing) but what you describe sounds pretty much how he appeared in India, and also in England when doing well against Pakistan. Looked like a stiff old man, coming in and on occassions he'd barely disturb the speed gun, other times it'd clock through well.
Indeed. I hear Jamie Cox is available.FFS Morgie learn to interpret "" for what it is.
The workload wouldn't be reduced, but the recovery time between bowling spell to batting would be significantly improved. He seems in really good form, yet getting out when set. This has either got to be some psychological issue (relaxing too much after making a 50?) or he's going out to bat when already jaded. However, I do take the point that he record at opener is significantly better than when he batted lower, and his returns could be considered acceptable.
That's basically what I'd choose as well. However, the complete lack of any spin options is a bit of a problem without North in the side. Maybe O'Keefe instead of Johnson or Doug would be better (probably the latter if he is unfit). If O'Keefe was in the side the tail would be incredibly strong as well - the only true tail ender would be Copeland at 11 if Doug was out of the picture.
I guess what I'm really questioning is if you have to actually have a spinning option if none of the options are good enough. I haven't seen a huge amount of O'Keefe so if his performances demand it over someone like Siddle or Johnson include him by all means. I just don't think the bowling of someone like Smith or Dussey should be taken into account considering they're unlikely to shine on what is traditionally a tough pitch for spinners.
Given none of our spinning options are good (or at least untried in the case of O'Keefe), I agree that it isn't necessary to have a spinner who attempts to act as a strike bowler like Swann. But I still think it is very handy to have some decent spin options just for variation, to chance the pace of the game etc. Without North, the only option would be Clarke which is pretty inadequate. Also with Watson in the team having 4 additional quicks is probably a bit redundant.
They're really terrified about Hughes facing the English aren't they.
I agree - nice side. I'd swap DHussey for Smith tho.
He'd do a better job in the side than selecting.Indeed. I hear Jamie Cox is available.
The workload wouldn't be reduced, but the recovery time between bowling spell to batting would be significantly improved. He seems in really good form, yet getting out when set. This has either got to be some psychological issue (relaxing too much after making a 50?) or he's going out to bat when already jaded. However, I do take the point that he record at opener is significantly better than when he batted lower, and his returns could be considered acceptable.
Sure you're not referring to Bollinger?
to see a 250 run Hussey partnership.