It's interesting you think that a couple of changes could make such a difference in the Indian series. Admittedly the first Test was exceptionally close, the second a little more of a gap. Would two inexperienced Test players bridge that gap ? As you say it's down to opinions. Although unless any of those unselected players are a particular good spinner I fear the end result may have remained the same.
We lost due to our middle order collapses and inability to put enough runs on the board in the first innings more so than the spectacular failures of Hauritz IMO.
Indeed the middle order collapses have been somewhat of a recurring theme, especially overseas. Saw highlights of Khawaja's double century, looks an impressive player, will be interesting to watch his development.
Coming good once doesn't excuse the other 7 innings that he's failed in. In the first test he scored a combined 10 runs.
Yeah it's partially why I'm not calling for his head.
Understandable. Although imo he probably needs to show a little more when his side really need him to stand up. And he also needs to think more on his field placings when he's bowling!
I hate this call. The game just drifts along (in the oppositions favour) so much when Hauritz aim is just to get through his overs quickly.
I really mean to say that I don't expect Hauritz to step up when he's especially needed and that it'd be better for him to try keep things tidy from one end as opposed to becoming a wicket taking machineI hate this call. The game just drifts along (in the oppositions favour) so much when Hauritz aim is just to get through his overs quickly.
Australia should just name Marcus North or Mike Hussey as captain and cop the captaincy suspension.
Na, I didn't even use those words. All I said was along the lines of, if we had better team selection, we would have had a better chance of winning either/or both of the tests. Don't really see how you argue against that - better team=more chance of winning.
Japan?
