Aussie- Should they go in with a 4th quickie or Hodge?

[deeps]

Hoggs generally not THAT expensive. I mean he can sometimes go for 5 an over which is by no means economical but it's not in the dangerously expensive category. Tends to pick up 2 or 3 big wickets as well (not just the tail but top order top notch batsman)

 

[pup11]

But how effective would Hodge be at no.7? He takes time to get his innings going, and he is too good at slogging (atleast at the start of his innings).


In a way selecting Haddin has turned out to be a blunder, because if the Aussies would have selected someone like Hopes or White instead of Haddin, then they might have come in more handy compared to Hodgey atm.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Funniest part of this is, in 50 over cricket, White's a top order batsman anyway.
To the matter at hand. I'd take in Johnson. The man can bat well enough to be an 8, Hogg's not a 7 but he'd do a good enough job considering the top order form so far in the WC.

That's true, but so is Watson if you're going to look at it that way, and Haddin. White is clearly the better suited to number seven, which is what matters.

Anyway, it appears most of Australia doesn't rate Cam White, so I'll stop trying to convince you all. It's your team, I don't mind if you lose.

 

[SJS]

The weakest link of the Aussie line up is their bowling. This inspite of McGrath not having had a REALLY bad day in the world cup so far which one suspects he will have soon.

The batting is easily the strongest.

Any decision that redresses the imbalance can only be for the better.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

That's true, but so is Watson if you're going to look at it that way, and Haddin. White is clearly the better suited to number seven, which is what matters.

Anyway, it appears most of Australia doesn't rate Cam White, so I'll stop trying to convince you all. It's your team, I don't mind if you lose.

I certainly rate Cameron White, but the fact of the matter is he's been spanked every time he's bowled in an ODI. He gets little flight, zero turn and doesn't have the confidence in his bowling to throw one up and see if he can deceive. I certainly think he's a good enough batsman, but it matters little when he doesn't have the confidence to bowl, if we're talking about a direct replacement for Watson.

Hopes would be a better option until White can get his bowling into order.

 

[Poker Boy]

I'd pick Clark or Johnson. That top five is batting so well (and I'm sure Hussey will contribute when needed) that IMO Watson's bowling will be missed more so that is where they should strengthen. PS - has Watson got English blood in him? He gets imjured so often it makes you think..

 

[Matt79]

Johnson for mine. The runs we lose having Hogg at 7 and him at 8, we'll 90% of the time regain with interest when you look at how many less runs Johnson is likely to concede off ten overs, compared to Symonds/Clarke/Hodge/Hussey. Unless I've missed it, I don't recall Ponting ever chucking the cherry to Hodge to bowl, so I think his ability with the ball is an academic point.

 

[GIMH]

Hodge has definitely taken a wicket in this WC, so you have missed it tbh

 

[marc71178]

All I'll say for this debate is that as an Englishman, if Australia play an extra bowler on Sunday I'll be delighted.

 

[shortpitched713]

All I'll say for this debate is that as an Englishman, if Australia play an extra bowler on Sunday I'll be delighted.

Thats cause you have no faith in your batsmen taking advantage of the part time bowlers. If Australia go into a match against South Africa with the lineup containing Hodge, they will get hammered.

 

[marc71178]

No, it's because people are seriously under-rating the bowling of Symonds for one, and to a lesser extent Clarke.

I mean Australia coped pretty well for a long time before Watson came in...

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

No, it's because people are seriously under-rating the bowling of Symonds for one, and to a lesser extent Clarke.

I mean Australia coped pretty well for a long time before Watson came in...

Australia usually had the likes of Harvey around, and actually batted Hogg at 7 sometimes in the last WC and so on. Go further back and there was Moody and the Waughs. And relatively recently of course there was Lehmann, who is a much better part-time spinner than someone like Clarke. Australia have always been looking to have other bowling options in the side, and it's only in the last two years or so that they've not had other options to go with Symonds when Watson has been injured. Symonds is a perfectly handy bowler and will send down a decent set of 10 more often than not, but the real concern is what happens when he or Tait or someone gets hammered and there's nobody else to turn to. The attack is just much less threatening and flexible without the 5th bowler in there.

Anyway, I generally agree that picking a fifth specialist bowler probably isn't necessary, and I don't think they'll do it, but there are definitely good reasons for not wanting Symonds to be forced to bowl 10.

 

[shortpitched713]

No, it's because people are seriously under-rating the bowling of Symonds for one, and to a lesser extent Clarke.

I mean Australia coped pretty well for a long time before Watson came in...

But Symonds is coming off of a bicep injury. And he really hasn't looked too good bowling so far in the tournament..

 

[deeps]

bah its only england. Hogg at 7 should be fine, play the extra quick

 

[deeps]

White's a pretty fine number 7 tbh. He bats higher for Victoria, but Hogg used to bat high for WA too...

Hoggs a very handy batsman though, sure he's not as explosive as White, (40 off 15 in the first WC match says otherwise thoughou ), but he's pretty good if you want someone to nudge singles and two's etc.

 

[pup11]

deeps, just because its England Aussies shouldn't take them any lightly [i am sure they won't do that], remember England have beaten the Aussies in the last 3 odi games both these teams played.

 

[Evermind]

England's chances against Aus this weekend are exactly 0.

 

[pup11]

Aussies are still undecided whether to play Hodge or a fourth seamer , John Buchanan said in an interview that he was concerned about English batting depth, so they are still not sure whether to play an extra batsman or a bowler. He also added that Watson's injury was a big blow and it has disturbed the balance of the side and he expected him to recover by the semi-finals.

 

[howardj]

I think its a tricky situation for the Aussies to be in with Watson ruled out atleast till the semi-finals.


So Hodge is looking like the most likely replacement for Watson, but can't see how effective Hodge would be batting at no.7 or no.6 (which would mean Hussey goes further down the order which is also not good)


Considering that Aussie batting is in top form, i would rather pick Clark or Johnson instead of Hodge. What do guys think?

Hodge for mine. Clark and Johnson don't really impress me, and I would not back them to go for less runs than a combination of Symonds, Clarke and Hodge. Plus, having Hodge at seven gives guys up the order more licence earlier on. By contrast, having Hogg at seven could curb the freedom with which the top order bat (especially with BLee unavailable to come in after Hoggy).

 

[age_master]

I would pick Hodge because hes in form and has had time in the middle, something which Symo and Hussey haven't had and gives that little bit of extra batting backup for the top 4. Johnson on his day is definately worth picking but doesn't bowl consistently enough to warrant a place over Hodge - Symonds and Clarke can handle the extra bowling duties for mine.