DIZZY - will he be dropped?

[sqwerty]

When Dizzy was dropped in England I stated on this website that he will be in the Australian IX for the first Ashes test in Australia later this year. This comment was met with much hilarity by many a pom on this website.

Question is - will he be selected?

Stuart Clark has just come off a man of the series effort in SA and would consider himself very unlucky if not selected.

And with Mcgrath presumably back, what will the test attack be? Will Australia continue with 5 bowlers or go back to their preferred 4 bowler attack.

Can Dizzy truly be considered as an allrounder based on one freakish effort against poor opposition?

Can he justify his selection on bowling only considering all he has done has had a good game or two with the ball against poor opposition?

Surely MacGill deserves to play but will they play 2 spinners and 3 quicks?

Is Kaspa now out of the equation.....and what about Tait?

There are a million questions and permutations but what will the sleectors do?

Will Dizzy's performance in the second test against Bangladesh go down as the greatest performance ever by a player that was then dropped?

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

For mine, he should be in the XI ahead of Clark.

 

[oz_fan]

Apparently Clark was dropped for the second test. Seems a bit harsh. I'm glad Gillespie is back in the team though. I don't think he can be considered an allrounder but could be useful with the bat.

 

[Dasa]

When Dizzy was dropped in England I stated on this website that he will be in the Australian IX for the first Ashes test in Australia later this year. This comment was met with much hilarity by many a pom on this website.

I don't think Australia is that good.

 

[andyc]

I don't think Australia is that good.

The double century shouldn't really count that much toward his selection- he's in the team to bowl, not to bat.

 

[sqwerty]

I don't think Australia is that good.

yes very good.....maybe that's why the poms laughed at me.

 

[sqwerty]

The double century shouldn't really count that much toward his selection- he's in the team to bowl, not to bat.

probably influences the decision a bit as to whether they go in with 4 bowlers or 5.

My preferred attack would be:

McGrath
Lee
Dizzy
Warne
McGill.

Stuff youth....plenty of experience there......about a million wickets between them and if they're all somehwhere near their best it is a formidable attack.

 

[sqwerty]

Apparently Clark was dropped for the second test. Seems a bit harsh. I'm glad Gillespie is back in the team though. I don't think he can be considered an allrounder but could be useful with the bat.

I guess the thinking may be that Clark is Mcgrath replacement so if McGrath plays then they may go with Gillespie.

 

[howardj]

I still think Clark is ahead for the first Ashes Test Match. Clark was probably never going to be that effective on unresponsive subcontinent wickets - he seems to need a little bit in the pitch. To that end, the Gabba pitch will be far more responsive, and generally I think, in Australian conditions, Clark has his nose in front of Dizzy. Also, if McGrath and Lee are fit, don't rule out Bracken's chances of playing at the 'Gabba.

 

[howardj]

probably influences the decision a bit as to whether they go in with 4 bowlers or 5.

My preferred attack would be:

McGrath
Lee
Dizzy
Warne
McGill.

Stuff youth....plenty of experience there......about a million wickets between them and if they're all somehwhere near their best it is a formidable attack.

There's no way Australia should go in with just five specialist batsmen against England - particularly with a fading Gilchrist, and a Gilchrist who was dominated in Ashes 2005. Gillespie's batting I doubt will be a consideration, as he averaged only 6 against England in Ashes 2005.

 

[aussie]

I still think Clark is ahead for the first Ashes Test Match. Clark was probably never going to be that effective on unresponsive subcontinent wickets - he seems to need a little bit in the pitch. To that end, the Gabba pitch will be far more responsive, and generally I think, in Australian conditions, Clark has his nose in front of Dizzy. Also, if McGrath and Lee are fit, don't rule out Bracken's chances of playing at the 'Gabba.

Its a tight call between Dizzy & Clark, Dizzy stint at Yorkhsire will be key to him holding a place i say. Plus his batting geez, thats so valuable. I'd be willing to rule out Bracken even though he has a great record at the Gabba, i just cant see him getting a nod over either of them once they are bowling well.

All good headaches to have i say..

 

[Richard]

If Gillespie is picked he'll go into the series having not played a real Test since his last 3 against England.
Having said that, it shouldn't really matter - he's bowled superbly in the domestic-standard games - Pura Cup, Bangladesh, and in all likelihood Championship too. I'll be very surprised (and, being a Yorkshire fan, disappointed) if he doesn't do very well this season.
How about...
McGrath
Gillespie
Clark
Lee
Warne
MacGill
Let's face it... none have done anything to be left-out - Australia don't have enough good batsmen to score runs against a full-strength, firing English seam-attack - why not give yourself the best chance of hitting back... and Warne, Lee and Gillespie all have some pretensions with the bat, while clearly none are all-rounders.
The only Australian batsmen I'd back for success this winter are Ponting and Hussey. Hoepfully England will end Martyn's career as we kick-started it.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Are you seriously suggesting Australia pick six specialist bowlers in a test match?

Anyway, what about Langer? He's clearly one of the best players of pace bowling around, and he was Australia's most successful batsman last Ashes. I think Martyn might be a little bit past it right now, but he did play well in South Africa so I'm not willing to write him off yet. I definitely think Hayden is a significant chance to have a good series given how he's been playing, as are Ponting and either Langer or Jaques, while I think the middle order (presumably Clarke and Martyn) might struggle. Gilchrist could go either way. I can see him having one or two significant innings but otherwise struggling, but he'll be very motivated to come back well against England.

 

[Richard]

I don't think there's the slightest chance of it happening (nor, indeed, do I think MacGill will cause us many problems) but I think they could do worse.
I don't think Langer is remotely likely to do much in Test cricket any more - I think he's finally been hit once too often, and it's not like his form in 2005\06 was anything to shout about. Yes, Jaques is undoubtedly a very, very good batsman but he's also far from a proven Test quantity.
I do think we'll expose Hayden and Martyn again, and I think we've a good chance of doing the same to Gilchrist, but as I said a little while ago - it'd be darn foolish to be anything resembling certain of that. I certainly think if Clarke plays he'll do not-much.
So yes, I think Australia could do much worse than
Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath
MacGill
As I say - I'm perfectly well aware it ain't gonna happen, but I think were it to do so, Australia would have a good chance.
Certainly I think they'd be foolish to play less than 5 bowlers. I don't think most Australian batsmen are good enough against our bowlers, but McGrath, Gillespie, Clark, Lee, Warne on a green-seamer could be pretty lethal, too.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Six bowlers in a test match is absolute suicide. The worst possible reaction to facing a good attack is to say "well, to hell with picking batsman, we'll just pack the side with bowlers". It's really one of the most daft things I have ever seen argued about cricket, and I can scarcely believe you are serious about it.

Warne isn't a test number 6. He'll, he's barely even a test number 8. If that team was picked, Gilchrist would be coming in at 3 down and the tail would begin with the fourth wicket. Under such circumstances, at 3/200 (by all means a good start) you'd be one wicket away from exposing the tail and collapsing. It's just unbelievably stupid as a strategy.

Australia should pick four bowlers in the Ashes. To begin with, if your four bowlers are in form that is more than enough. The need for a fifth bowler only really becomes apparent when one or more of your bowlers is struggling, as Australia have shown over the last decade or so. Furthermore, Australia will need the batting. I think you're wrong to suggest that Australia's batsmen won't be able to hack the English seamers in home conditions, and I think you'll be surprised if you expect there to be such significant swing throughout the series for one, but regardless if Australia's batsmen do struggle then it is much better to add extra batting depth than to take it away and hope to bowl the opposition out for 200 consistently. Picking five bowlers is fine against Bangladesh, but not against a potent seam attack.

The ideal side right now would be:
Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Clarke
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

MacGill, Clark and Jaques would be the obvious reserves. MacGill should and probably will play in a few games, and he'll come in for Gillespie, one would think. Jaques will play if Langer doesn't (but I think Langer will), and I think he might go okay. He's technically more suspect than Langer, though that might be an illusion created by how ugly he is when he bats, but he's got a lot of talent and will probably get by. The weak spots are obviously Martyn, Clarke and Gillespie.

 

[Richard]

As I say - I reckon Clarke, Hayden, Martyn and Langer are likely to play about as many decisive innings as Warne, Lee and Gillespie.
And in the absence of any better alternatives - bowlers who can bat a bit are enough for me.
Especially when you're in control of the pitches.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

As I say - I reckon Clarke, Hayden, Martyn and Langer are likely to play about as many decisive innings as Warne, Lee and Gillespie.
And in the absence of any better alternatives - bowlers who can bat a bit are enough for me.
Especially when you're in control of the pitches.

You're unbelievable! I dub this the unfortunate six-bowler theory.

How in the world do you expect Australia to utilize 6 front-line bowlers in a Test innings against any opposition in this day and age? Even with 5 bowlers there tends to be one or two who don't get much of a bowl, and I'm wondering how exactly they justify their place if they bowl just a handful of overs.

Unbelievable!

 

[oz_fan]

I don't think there's the slightest chance of it happening (nor, indeed, do I think MacGill will cause us many problems) but I think they could do worse.
I don't think Langer is remotely likely to do much in Test cricket any more - I think he's finally been hit once too often, and it's not like his form in 2005\06 was anything to shout about. Yes, Jaques is undoubtedly a very, very good batsman but he's also far from a proven Test quantity.
I do think we'll expose Hayden and Martyn again, and I think we've a good chance of doing the same to Gilchrist, but as I said a little while ago - it'd be darn foolish to be anything resembling certain of that. I certainly think if Clarke plays he'll do not-much.
So yes, I think Australia could do much worse than
Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath
MacGill
As I say - I'm perfectly well aware it ain't gonna happen, but I think were it to do so, Australia would have a good chance.
Certainly I think they'd be foolish to play less than 5 bowlers. I don't think most Australian batsmen are good enough against our bowlers, but McGrath, Gillespie, Clark, Lee, Warne on a green-seamer could be pretty lethal, too.

So you want six bowlers when one of them (Warne) is going to bowl at least one third of the overs?

 

[sqwerty]

I don't think there's the slightest chance of it happening (nor, indeed, do I think MacGill will cause us many problems) but I think they could do worse.
I don't think Langer is remotely likely to do much in Test cricket any more - I think he's finally been hit once too often, and it's not like his form in 2005\06 was anything to shout about. Yes, Jaques is undoubtedly a very, very good batsman but he's also far from a proven Test quantity.
I do think we'll expose Hayden and Martyn again, and I think we've a good chance of doing the same to Gilchrist, but as I said a little while ago - it'd be darn foolish to be anything resembling certain of that. I certainly think if Clarke plays he'll do not-much.
So yes, I think Australia could do much worse than
Jacques
Hayden
Ponting
Hussey
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
Clark
McGrath
MacGill
As I say - I'm perfectly well aware it ain't gonna happen, but I think were it to do so, Australia would have a good chance.
Certainly I think they'd be foolish to play less than 5 bowlers. I don't think most Australian batsmen are good enough against our bowlers, but McGrath, Gillespie, Clark, Lee, Warne on a green-seamer could be pretty lethal, too.

are you taking the p!ss?

6 specialist bowlers?? You can only use 2 at a time......what's the point having 6?

And as for Australian batsmen not being able to handle the poms attack - I hardly think they're going to fold and play as poorly as they did in England this time around on home soil.

 

[Linda]

Apart from anything else, Ponting can barely handle 4 bowlers properly. 6 is asking too much of the young fella.