*Official* First Test at Swalec Stadium, Cardiff

[Richard]

Think a lot of you are going to be shocked when Hauritz is named in the XI with Stuey 12th this Wednesday. I think there's no way Aus will go into the Test with 4 quicks.

I'm not particularly going to be surprised, but I am going to be disgusted at the rank stupidity.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm not particularly going to be surprised, but I am going to be disgusted at the rank stupidity.

I'll be there with you.

 

[Richard]

As a side note, hate the term 'Bunsen' - one of the lamest and on CW overused pieces of slang.

After the tour matches, my Aussie team going in would be
Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
North
Haddin
Johnson
McDonald
Lee
Siddle
12th: Clark

Don't know that Clark has demonstrated he's regained his edge after his injury woes and he was woeful without that edge when last he played.

So you'd pick McDonald ahead of Clark, reverse Hussey and Clarke in the order just as Hussey appears to be regaining some nick, and put the openers a way around they clearly much prefer not to bat.

ITSTL.

 

[GIMH]

I'll probably do a little dance

 

[Richard]

I like that team, except I would have Hauritz in for North.

But why? North is no less a spinner than Hauritz, and an infinitely better batsman.

 

[Richard]

Selvey in yesterday's Guardian actually reckoned we might stack the batting with Bell at #6, Prior 7 & Flintoff 8 and Onions/Panesar missing out. Linky.

"England's batting still has a middle-order fragility to it and the prospect of Matt Prior, a fine No7 but suspect at six, may be a risk too far. If this is the case then the second innings from Ian Bell for the Lions, who will be added to the squad, can be instructive."

I'd have said it was unlikely, especially after a scratchy 20, but did see Mike cosying up to Dusty, Ash & Whittaker yesterday, so maybe he has to direct line to the selectors.

I'd say it was extremely unlikely. I'm pretty confident he's wrong, but if he's right I'll be quite ecstatic.

Seven batsmen four bowlers FTW IMO, under almost all circumstances. MSP certainly doesn't merit a place and though Onions does, if there's a fifth bowler in the current climate he's it.

 

[Richard]

TBH Foster'll score more runs then Bell or most of the other's they'd pick

He obviously won't, as Bell is quite clearly a better batsman than Foster regardless of his shortcomings, and if Prior was a decent wicketkeeper I'd never under the remotest of circumstances want to see Foster in there.

However, given Foster is decent and Prior is poor, I'd certainly not be against it. Though I think I'd prefer Ambrose to Foster. But neither options are going to happen. Prior is going to keep wicket in the First Test, and if he scores runs he is going to keep wicket all series regardless of how many chances he misses.

 

[grecian]

He obviously won't, as Bell is quite clearly a better batsman than Foster regardless of his shortcomings, and if Prior was a decent wicketkeeper I'd never under the remotest of circumstances want to see Foster in there.

However, given Foster is decent and Prior is poor, I'd certainly not be against it. Though I think I'd prefer Ambrose to Foster. But neither options are going to happen. Prior is going to keep wicket in the First Test, and if he scores runs he is going to keep wicket all series regardless of how many chances he misses.

Well Richard, I said it was my opinion Foster would score more runs then Bell, obviously I don't have your crystal ball, to know exactly what would happen

 

[Prince EWS]

But why? North is no less a spinner than Hauritz, and an infinitely better batsman.

You won't find many people who rate North's bowling higher than I do, nor will you find many people who rate Hauritz's bowling lower than I do, but even I will admit that Hauritz is the better bowler of the two. As Smitteh (I think it was him, anyway) said before, there's a big difference between bowling 10 overs a day and being a go-to frontline spinner.

I'm certainly not saying that Hauritz should play, and the fact that North's career figures are actually better than Hauritz's on both wickets and averages is a relevant point to the argument, but that's in no way saying that North is actually as good as Hauritz as a frontline bowler. It's frankly not true. North is less a spinner than Hauritz - certainly not less enough to warrant Hauritz's inclusion in a team that contains North, but less all the same.

 

[Uppercut]

You won't find many people who rate North's bowling higher than I do, nor will you find many people who rate Hauritz's bowling lower than I do, but even I will admit that Hauritz is the better bowler of the two. As Smitteh (I think it was him, anyway) said before, there's a big difference between bowling 10 overs a day and being a go-to frontline spinner.

I'm certainly not saying that Hauritz should play, and the fact that North's career figures are actually better than Hauritz's on both wickets and averages is a relevant point to the argument, but that's in no way saying that North is actually as good as Hauritz as a frontline bowler. It's frankly not true. North is less a spinner than Hauritz - certainly not less enough to warrant Hauritz's inclusion in a team that contains North, but less all the same.

I made a point about this a while back- I'm just taking all the Aussies here's word for it that Hauritz is a better test spinner than North. I've never seen anything at all to suggest that this is the case- nothing statistically, nothing from watching them play. I'm happy to bow to the superior knowledge of those who have watched them both play more than I have, but it still doesn't bode well for Hauritz that he doesn't look a class above North with the ball for Australia.

 

[four_or_six]

Hauritz has gone for 2/260 in the past two games against lesser batsmen then what the English lineup will contain. There's no logical reason to pick him and he doesn't really play any role in the lineup aside that of a

Surely that makes him essential for Cardiff then?

 

[Nate]

I'm not particularly going to be surprised, but I am going to be disgusted at the rank stupidity.

Haha, amennnnnnnnn

 

[four_or_six]

So you'd pick McDonald ahead of Clark, reverse Hussey and Clarke in the order just as Hussey appears to be regaining some nick, and put the openers a way around they clearly much prefer not to bat.

ITSTL.

Apparently Hughes is taking the first ball because Katich is fielding at short leg, and that's the deal they made. Makes a change from the young bloke being forced to field in close!

 

[aussie]

I made a point about this a while back- I'm just taking all the Aussies here's word for it that Hauritz is a better test spinner than North. I've never seen anything at all to suggest that this is the case- nothing statistically, nothing from watching them play. I'm happy to bow to the superior knowledge of those who have watched them both play more than I have, but it still doesn't bode well for Hauritz that he doesn't look a class above North with the ball for Australia.

The only way Hauritz could play is part of a 5-man attack (even then i won't be too happy). Which means Watson needs to be able to play as the all-rounder. Picking him as a part of 4-man attack is madness. Its shocking to think the selectors, Neilsen & probably Ponting haven't learned from the Perth & MCG tests.

Haurtiz is definately a better spinner than North. But based on what i've seen of them in test matches to date, its safe to say any role Haurtiz could do in a test match, North could do as a part-timer.

 

[four_or_six]

You won't find many people who rate North's bowling higher than I do, nor will you find many people who rate Hauritz's bowling lower than I do, but even I will admit that Hauritz is the better bowler of the two. As Smitteh (I think it was him, anyway) said before, there's a big difference between bowling 10 overs a day and being a go-to frontline spinner.

I'm certainly not saying that Hauritz should play, and the fact that North's career figures are actually better than Hauritz's on both wickets and averages is a relevant point to the argument, but that's in no way saying that North is actually as good as Hauritz as a frontline bowler. It's frankly not true. North is less a spinner than Hauritz - certainly not less enough to warrant Hauritz's inclusion in a team that contains North, but less all the same.

North's FC figures are better, but as far as Australian domestic goes I think they're quite similar. And Hauritz hasn't played CC to compare how he'd do over here.

 

[superkingdave]

Looking forard to Wednesday, though a little birdy tells me i might have to be baby sitting...hopefully not. Proper jealous of my dad, who's going to the first day.

Espn classic playing the full ball by ball of oval 2005 day 5 atm. England 301/7 aws

 

[GIMH]

Have sat through highlights of the first four tests, now am just waiting for my dinner to be ready and am then gonna watch the fifth, got the tissues ready as I am always emotional at this point! (First reference to tissues, my Freddie-love and a wins £50)

 

[Jarquis]

Only one of the batting contenders (with all due respect to Denly's leggies & Solanki's offies) who bowls half-decent spin. FC batting average still north of 45 too, which is very decent.

Why'd Vaughan have to go and retire!
Could always give KP a bowl? .
/Jest

 

[Matt79]

You're going down lads.

 

[GIMH]

Matt, I've always liked you. And I'll like you again in about eight weeks, k? Same goes for Nath, Burgey, Smitteh, candy, Gelman. You can all kiss my pasty white arse, England FTW