Definitely the operative word there. :OJust to put a different perspective on who to pick for the first test, the averages for Australia V England since 2000
Hussey 734 runs @ 56.46
Clarke 1172 runs @ 55.80
North 367 runs @ 52.42
Ponting 2075 runs @ 51.87
Watson 248 runs @ 48.00
Haddin 278 runs @ 46.33
Katich 604 runs @ 33.55
I think the Eastern states are expecting quite a wet summer this year, so Anderson may get conditions to suit him afterall. More than usual, anyway.He will get the support,i expect Broad and Finn to do well and use their height to advantage.Both are very fast learners and should be able to adapt to bowling the different lengths needed in Australia.Anderson is a worry,yes he will destroy the Aussies if he gets the right conditions but how often is he likely to get them in Australia,the rest of the time he is cannon fodder though he is a little bit wiser and less of a liability than he was 3 or 4 years ago.
Hopefully but you can't bank on it when you go to Australia.You know beforehand in England there will be a couple of grounds he will get help no matter what and may at others due to conditions anyway.If he does get conditions to suit then Australia could be in serious trouble as they don't play the swinging ball well at all.I think the Eastern states are expecting quite a wet summer this year, so Anderson may get conditions to suit him afterall. More than usual, anyway.
**** off, are you serious? Why?? Sounds ridiculous.The Australian team for this game will be announced on 15 November.
That's right, before the Australia A game, and before the full round of Shield matches.
lol
Whilst what your saying is undoubtedly correct, it's absolutely ludicrous that North and/or Hussey could fail a number of times and potential replacements succeed without it making one iota of difference to the selectors thinking - it's that sort of attitude that has got us where we are ffsSaw Roebuck state that today. Think it doesn't make a difference, the top 6 will be the same as what we've seen, these rounds of matches are just to sort out the pecking order of potential replacements.
Agree with this, and I think Hauritz should bat at 8 and Johnson should bat at 9.Sometimes four isn't enough though. Having five (six even tbh, North's useful) bowling options > having four. You can't just ignore the fact that Australia have an extra couple of decent bowling options - or you can, but then it doesn't make sense to then take the batting all the way down to nine.
I'll put it this way - I don't think the bowling of Watson and North is less likely to have an impact on the series than the difference between the batting of Hauritz/Johnson and Broad/Swann.