*Official Third Test at Edgbaston

[oitoitoi]

How stuart clark didn't play at lords is beyond me, the pitch suited him almost perfectly, hauritz was playing on the back of cardiff, but this was a totally different situation and the australians should have recognised that.

 

[GIMH]

This time next week I'll be sat in the sun watching Freddie score a double-century, can't ****ing wait

 

[Richard]

How stuart clark didn't play at lords is beyond me, the pitch suited him almost perfectly

I'm really not sure it did. It was easy-paced (not slow but not quick), true in bounce and offering no seam. Not the sort of deck you expect a seam bowler who doesn't possess much ability with swing to prosper on. Of course, against England's batsman accuracy alone does sometimes suffice, but that's due to the foibles of the batsmen not the pitch. England still managed to score far fewer runs than they should have done despite Australia mostly bowling complete dross, so the idea of Clark playing would've been a potentially worrying one. Fortunately, thanks to Australia batting even more diabolically than they bowled, and some luck with the way the weather worked-out, England still won comfortably.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Cricinfo's headline of "Bell set to be unchallenged" sums things up nicely... we know what will happen once he is challenged unfortunately...

 

[GIMH]

Serious question Scaly, there is a gun to your head and you have to choose one of either Bell or Panesar, who do you pick?

 

[aussie]

Damn i'm really worried the AUS selectors are going to go way left-field with some foolish selections somewhere for the 3rd test. But with KP out for ENG it may not hurt them that much if a major blunder is made TBH. Gievn the KP factor is gone.

I'm 90% sure Watson will harshly but understandably replace North. Hughes if he fails this test, Watson could easily replace Hughes & North recalled though.

Siddle vs Clark is interesting ATM. Both should play. Maybe drop Haurtiz & pick 4 seamers (including Johnson being demoted to first change) at last. But that would mean Watson can't replace North.

So i guess i'd go for:

Hughes
Katman
God
Mr Cricket
Pup
North
Haddin
Johnno
Sidvicious
Rupert
Hilfenhorse

YES.

 

[JBH001]

Pretty rough on Hauritz, no? He and Hilfenhaus have been the two best Australian bowlers thus far. Reckon either Siddle or Johnson have to go if 4 bowlers is still the plan - especially if Edgbaston looks like being, yet another, batting deck, that would be yet another reason to have a decent spinner on hand.

 

[aussie]

Pretty rough on Hauritz, no? He and Hilfenhaus have been the two best Australian bowlers thus far. Reckon either Siddle or Johnson have to go if 4 bowlers is still the plan - especially if Edgbaston looks like being, yet another, batting deck, that would be yet another reason to have a decent spinner on hand.

Welll i actually believe its almost a dead certainty that Hauritz will play. Thats just the team i'd pick, because i don't believe Siddle should be dropped at all, but Clark needs to be accomodated somehow.

AUS i fstarting to feel may have to get tough & take a leaf out of SRIs book recently with the dropping of Mendis & axe Johnson.

 

[Julian87]

Easy.

Watson in for North (for balance of the team, has nothing to do with North's batting, but for the fact Watson's is just as good)
Clark in for Siddle (Because Clark is better)

 

[Nate]

Yes, let's retain Johnson.

 

[howardj]

Never thought I'd write this, but I think Johnson must be replaced for Edgebaston. Likewise, North must make way for Watson.

Johnson is so bereft of confidence, and has from the looks of his figures got no confidence from the Northhampton game, that he would be a liability. Furthermore, Ponting goes very cold on bowlers if he doesn't feel they're up to it. Therefore, even if Johnson was to be picked, I doubt whether Ponting would give him the chance to bowl too many overs (which is reason in itself not to pick him) unless there was some massively positive signs early doors.

The dropping of North would be similarly harsh. But selection is not about fairness, it's about the team's best interests. Those interests are best served by having another pace bowling option (and our best performed bowler in India I might add) as well as a batsman who is just as good as North anyway.

 

[mikeW]

No changes or mine.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Yes, let's retain Johnson.

Yeah, the idea that he's untouchable or 'must come good soon' is baffling to me too. Let's go into a test where we're 1 down in the series with a guy who has gone at a run a ball for the most part and hasn't shown any indication that he's turned it around in the warm-up match on the hope that sometime in the 5 days he becomes really good again and picks up a bag of wickets.

There's no indication he'll do that at the moment, so maybe 5 days in the nets with the bowling coach would be more beneficial to both Johnson and Australia while he works it out. He's probably not going to work it out in the middle of a test match.

Hilfenhaus, Clark, Siddle, Watson, Hauritz sounds ok to me (depending on conditions of course).

Siddle hasn't been brilliant this series either, but he's been better than Johnson. I'm all for Johnson being in the team when he shows some form though.

 

[pasag]

Honestly there's like a million combinations that could work for the next Test but I don't think any of them would make such a major difference over the other.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Honestly there's like a million combinations that could work for the next Test but I don't think any of them would make such a major difference over the other.

There is, but I don't think playing people out of form is a good place to start building a combination.

 

[pasag]

There is, but I don't think playing people out of form is a good place to start building a combination.

Not out of form with the bat though. Could go

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
Clark
Siddle
Hilfenhaus

Haddin's recent fantastic batting means he'd be fine at 6 and because you've got five bowlers, a) Johnson has no responsability which would benefit his bowling and b) he can be hidden if things go wrong, which you can't do with five bowlers. The obvious downside here is that things can go pretty bad with him making no runs and bowling even poorer.

 

[NUFAN]

Not out of form with the bat though. Could go

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
Clark
Siddle
Hilfenhaus

Haddin's recent fantastic batting means he'd be fine at 6 and because you've got five bowlers, a) Johnson has no responsability which would benefit his bowling and b) he can be hidden if things go wrong, which you can't do with five bowlers. The obvious downside here is that things can go pretty bad with him making no runs and bowling even poorer.

Very surprised you've named this side Pasag after saying this on the first page when I had almost the exact team (I had Lee at 8 and no Clark, so extra batting strength)

Not the worst side ever, but I really worry about a Johnson struggling to cope being given extra responsibility. It's one thing having a license to hit when we've lost already, it's another thing batting at 7. Might be worth trying against the West Indies, but not now IMO

.

 

[pasag]

Very surprised you've named this side Pasag after saying this on the first page when I had almost the exact team (I had Lee at 8 and no Clark, so extra batting strength)

.

I didn't say that's the side I'd pick, just the one you "could go" to fit Johnson into the side. I have warmed to the idea a little, but as I said a few posts back I don't think any of the 10 or so combos we could come up with would make a HUGE difference.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Not out of form with the bat though. Could go

Hughes
Katich
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey
Haddin
Johnson
Hauritz
Clark
Siddle
Hilfenhaus

Haddin's recent fantastic batting means he'd be fine at 6 and because you've got five bowlers, a) Johnson has no responsability which would benefit his bowling and b) he can be hidden if things go wrong, which you can't do with five bowlers. The obvious downside here is that things can go pretty bad with him making no runs and bowling even poorer.

Yeah true, he's gone well with the bat. If we're picking him on batting form though we're going down he same path England trod with Giles. Think Watson could do a better job than Johnson at the moment if we were going for a 5th bowler who didn't have to bowl too many and could bat. Would essentially go for the same team but have Watson in for Johnson and bat him above Haddin.

Unless Johnson performs a miracle between now and the 3rd Test of course.

 

[howardj]

I think the writing is on the wall for Mitch, with Ponting bowling him for just seven overs at Northhampton.