Australia's test side for the Ashes in Australia

[LongHopCassidy]

A no dickheads policy would be nice, but I doubt the current Australia A side would fare well at the Oval.

 

[Maximas]

A no dickheads policy would be nice, but I doubt the current Australia A side would fare well at the Oval.

Finch forever Rogers never

 

[LongHopCassidy]

#justice4midge

 

[Top_Cat]

A no dickheads policy would be nice, but I doubt the current Australia A side would fare well at the Oval.

Of course, would rule out most of the A side too. Line-up for The Oval clearly has to be:

N Maddinson
M Harris
K Richardson/M Klinger
G Bailey
A Dools
J Burns
C Hartley
L Butters
N Ritz
Rhino
CHADDDDD(DDD)

Hmmmm. Not as bad as I thought.

 

[Furball]

You/Haigh are probably right that expanding that pool just a little would have given a better chance of good results.

I'm not necessarily saying Australia were right or wrong, I just find it interesting reading back that the selection panel was being heavily criticised for doing the exact opposite of what they're doing now.

I agree with a lot of the rest of your post and it's interesting to note the role inadvertantly played by Marcuss North in Australia's woes over the last 4 years.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think it's a touch over-simplifying to only count the people who played in the top six. I know White and Smith were picked to play at no.8 but surely the selectors would have had one eye on them being top six options later on?

 

[Furball]

I think it's a touch over-simplifying to only count the people who played in the top six. I know White and Smith were picked to play at no.8 but surely the selectors would have had one eye on them being top six options later on?

It's a lot easier to look at batsmen when it comes to looking at consistency of selection. Aside from the fact that bowlers always seem to get the blame and therefore the chop for bad performances, bowlers are also more prone to serious injury and therefore more in need of management than batsmen.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

I was an avid reader of Steve Waugh's tour diaries, and the recurring theme in all of them - at least the one that sticks in my mind - is his commentary on the Poms creating a losing culture by constantly chopping and changing their side and having everyone look over their shoulders. Now that the boot's firmly on the other foot, it's a great deal easier to empathise with the 90's English mindset of selection - we have to persist with someone, but what if that someone is the next Ramprakash or Hick, constantly in the frame by weight of FC runs but never making the step up in temperament for Test matches? That's our only obstacle to a pick-and-stick policy, otherwise we'd have confirmed it by now. Will Hughes go down the same path by the scars of three droppings giving him mental blocks? Is Khawaja just not Test class? Will the People's Champ ever get his breakthrough ton? Hard to see when their Test averages are being challenged by Mitchell Starc.

If we persist with them, they may never deliver. But if we don't persist with them, we'll be forever haunted with the spectre of what if. That's not a traditionally English mindset, it's one of any struggling team of neophytes who don't believe in themselves. When Waugh's team went from losing to winning, he forgot the **** decision that the selectors faced each Test before 1989.

Honestly, I don't envy Invers at the moment. He's on a hiding to nothing whoever he puts in the top 6, and even the spinner and third seamer. Do we want to hop back on the twenty Test merry-go-round of blooding the next big thing and pray they become the proverbial duck to water?

Well put, I'm really happy Faulkner's getting a go, he has been a part of the Tassie side and they're a winning side the past few years same as Queensland have been. Picking between people averaging between 35-40 isn't much of a choice. So getting people in the side who know about winning is a good step forward

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Would say that 6 of the top 7 are locked in now for Brisbane. Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith and Haddin. Harris will obviously play if fit as will Siddle and Lyon should too. So basically just a number 6 and the 3rd paceman to pick. Pattinson if fit would be my choice but not got a clue who i'd choose as 6th batsman.

 

[CarlsbergXpress]

Would say that 6 of the top 7 are locked in now for Brisbane. Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith and Haddin. Harris will obviously play if fit as will Siddle and Lyon should too. So basically just a number 6 and the 3rd paceman to pick. Pattinson if fit would be my choice but not got a clue who i'd choose as 6th batsman.

Agree with this - has anyone got a clue where 6th batsman is concerned?

 

[Prince EWS]

Would say that 6 of the top 7 are locked in now for Brisbane. Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith and Haddin. Harris will obviously play if fit as will Siddle and Lyon should too. So basically just a number 6 and the 3rd paceman to pick. Pattinson if fit would be my choice but not got a clue who i'd choose as 6th batsman.

Pattinson should be second bowler picked if fit but obviously that's a big if.

But yeah I agree - as big a "disaster" as this series will be seen as by some who had their heads in the sand before it started, it seems to have at least settled the top six a bit. Looking at the series as a whole, Clarke, Rogers and Watson have batted well, even if Clarke didn't reach the heights that were expected of him and Watson's big contribution came when the series was done. Smith has a chance to join that group if he pushes on to make a really big score here, while Warner has looked the part in limited opportunities too. Someone actually performing at number three is huge really given the problems Australia have had there for so long, even if it's only been for one innings in a dead rubber so far.

I'm a Hughes man myself; I still think he should be batting in the top three but when he actually did bat 6 in this series he actually played one of Australia's best knocks of recent times, certainly if we exclude Clarke, so I'd be looking at:

1. Rogers
2. Warner
3. Watson
4. Clarke
5. Smith
6. Hughes
7. Haddin
8. Pattinson (Starc or Bird if not fit, conditions/fitness dependant)
9. Siddle
10. Harris
11. Lyon

Funnily enough that's actually the exact lineup I would've picked for Lords with the batting order shuffled around a bit, but they've got Rogers, Watson and Lyon with a lot more substance to their selections now which should help no end.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Yeah Pattinson would be the 2nd bowler as Siddle won't get the new ball. Was just using it as a number saying a 3rd paceman.

 

[Adders]

Would say that 6 of the top 7 are locked in now for Brisbane. Rogers, Warner, Watson, Clarke, Smith and Haddin. Harris will obviously play if fit as will Siddle and Lyon should too. So basically just a number 6 and the 3rd paceman to pick. Pattinson if fit would be my choice but not got a clue who i'd choose as 6th batsman.

That's actually interesting, before this series the makeup of the Aussie side was all over the place and not many people could agree on a starting 11. Now I'd say you're right, they have got 9 of the 11 locked down (fitness permitting)..........so despite whatever this series score ends up it certainly hasn't been a lost cause by any means.

 

[Furball]

Bumble just threw Johnson's name in as a bolter for selection.

Surely not?

 

[wpdavid]

Pattinson should be second bowler picked if fit but obviously that's a big if.

But yeah I agree - as big a "disaster" as this series will be seen as by some who had their heads in the sand before it started, it seems to have at least settled the top six a bit. Looking at the series as a whole, Clarke, Rogers and Watson have batted well, even if Clarke didn't reach the heights that were expected of him and Watson's big contribution came when the series was done. Smith has a chance to join that group if he pushes on to make a really big score here, while Warner has looked the part in limited opportunities too. Someone actually performing at number three is huge really given the problems Australia have had there for so long, even if it's only been for one innings in a dead rubber so far.

I'm a Hughes man myself; I still think he should be batting in the top three but when he actually did bat 6 in this series he actually played one of Australia's best knocks of recent times, certainly if we exclude Clarke, so I'd be looking at:

1. Rogers
2. Warner
3. Watson
4. Clarke
5. Smith
6. Hughes
7. Haddin
8. Pattinson (Starc or Bird if not fit, conditions/fitness dependant)
9. Siddle
10. Harris
11. Lyon

Funnily enough that's actually the exact lineup I would've picked for Lords with the batting order shuffled around a bit, but they've got Rogers, Watson and Lyon with a lot more substance to their selections now which should help no end.

Hughes is a tricky one, because I rate him too. I know he played one very fine innings at 6, but he struggled horribly in his other 3 innings there. I'd be tempted to play him at 4, given that Watson's played so well at 3 yesterday and Clarke prefers 5 anyway. That also puts Smith at 6, which I think is a fairer reflection of his abilities at this stage.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hughes is a tricky one, because I rate him too. I know he played one very fine innings at 6, but he struggled horribly in his other 3 innings there. I'd be tempted to play him at 4, given that Watson's played so well at 3 yesterday and Clarke prefers 5 anyway. That also puts Smith at 6, which I think is a fairer reflection of his abilities at this stage.

He actually only batted 6 in the first Test; in the second Test he moved up to 4 and scored 1 and 1.

I think I actually prefer the lineup with him at four too and I originally had it named in that way, however putting him there would have given me less right to argue that he was unfairly dropped, and I also think it just seems a little more logical to bring the sixth batsman in at six than to bring him at four and move the team's best batsman and captain down a spot (again). I was against Clarke moving to four in the first place but now that it's happened I think it should probably stay like that, especially since Hughes may fail and then they'd be looking at Clarke having to move again or bringing another new batsman straight into #4. Hughes at six just seems much less complicated in general, particularly since he averaged 81 there and 1 at four in the Tests he played this series.

 

[Flem274*]

1. Rogers
2. Warner
3. Watson
4. Clarke
5. Smith
6. Hughes
7. Haddin
8. Pattinson (Starc or Bird if not fit, conditions/fitness dependant)
9. Siddle
10. Harris
11. Lyon

This would be exactly my team, though like you I'm unsure where to put Hughes. Ideally I'd go for Clarke at five as well but Hughes, Smith or Watson at four doesn't really work.

 

[wpdavid]

He actually only batted 6 in the first Test; in the second Test he moved up to 4 and scored 1 and 1.

I think I actually prefer the lineup with him at four too and I originally had it named in that way, however putting him there would have given me less right to argue that he was unfairly dropped, and I also think it just seems a little more logical to bring the sixth batsman in at six than to bring him at four and move the team's best batsman and captain down a spot (again). I was against Clarke moving to four in the first place but now that it's happened I think it should probably stay like that, especially since Hughes may fail and then they'd be looking at Clarke having to move again or bringing another new batsman straight into #4. Hughes at six just seems much less complicated in general, particularly since he averaged 81 there and 1 at four in the Tests he played this series.

I'd forgotten about his promotion at Lord's. Did Swann account for him in both innings there?

I always thought he was unlucky to be dropped mid-series in 2009. I think the biggest danger now is that he completely loses sight of what sort of a batsman he is supposed to be. Perhaps he should simply open for his state side for a couple of years with a view to replacing Rodgers eventually.

 

[GIMH]

So

Warner
Rogers
Watson
Clarke
Smith
???
Rad
Siddle
Harris
???
Lyon

About right yeah?

 

[91Jmay]

Warner
Rogers
Watson
Clarke
Smith
Hughes
Rad
Siddle
Harris
Pattinson/Bird
Lyon

If Pattison isn't fit then Bird.