really good point. If North must play, then #4 isn't a bad idea at all.
Think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on this board that'd disagree with your main points here, tbh. Australian selectors just spineless atm.Hey Australia, have you gone soft?
That's the impression I'm getting lately. Their predicament is partially selector-engineered which is, well, hilarious from an Englishman's perspective because for so long it has been us who couldn't organise ourselves out of a paper bag. But where has the decisiveness gone? The confidence in a young tyro to step up and give us a kick in the nads? Where's the grit? The shoe seems to be on the other foot. Now we're the ones with the settled side, the positive, forward-thinking board and the ability, I think, to terrorise the old enemy for a while. And I've never known an Australian to chuck a hissy fit under the pressure of the big stage as Johnson did in the Ashes last year. Lost your hard edge lads?
All good points TT.
Australia already have 4 seam options including watson who is good on helpful tracks,its better to have a spinner as tails can sometime wag.
North, Katich and Clarke are plenty enough to take care of the tail (provided the fast bowlers don't themselves).
How ironic would it be if we dropped Hussey for Ferguson - a man picked purely based on his ODI career?
They will certainly wag if Hauritz is bowling to them.
This is Hauritz we're talking about. Not Warney
You're spot on. Provided England don't play Anderson and Panesar at 10 and 11.
I just picked the 5 highest ranked bowlers..oh for the days when Freddie allowed a 5th English bowler
Quite simple really,you add all the numbers of the rankings up for ALL the bats and England come out with a better rated line up.Not rocket science.
Well that'd be massively thrown out by the fact that Broad is apparently 40 odd places better than Hauritz, when in reality I highly doubt the difference between their batting is going to have such an effect on the series. I mean, that's about the same difference as the gap between Tendulkar and North. If you just look at the top sevens, Australia have a better battting lineup as per the rankings. If you're going to discount the fifth bowler, I think discounting the 8 and 9 batsmen seems logical as well.Quite simple really,you add all the numbers of the rankings up for ALL the bats and England come out with a better rated line up.Not rocket science.
Don't know how well Onions would've gone here to be honest. Despite his reputation as an honest, hit-the-deck trier, what he actually is, is a pitch-it-up swing and seam merchant, who bowls an extremely large percentage of his balls on the stumps. That can often be highly ineffective in Australia and go for plenty of runs.
Well that'd be massively thrown out by the fact that Broad is apparently 40 odd places better than Hauritz, when in reality I highly doubt the difference between their batting is going to have such an effect on the series. I mean, that's about the same difference as the gap between Tendulkar and North. If you just look at the top sevens, Australia have a better battting lineup as per the rankings. If you're going to discount the fifth bowler, I think discounting the 8 and 9 batsmen seems logical as well.Quite simple really,you add all the numbers of the rankings up for ALL the bats and England come out with a better rated line up.Not rocket science.
