Pick your XI

[age_master]

So Age, you want Hussey, Slater, Clarke, Katich, Bichel and MacGill to replace Hayden, Langer, Lehmann, Love, Lee and Warne do you?

no but they would make any other test side (not all in one but individually, and Slats shouldn't have been dropped)

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

no but they would make any other test side (not all in one but individually, and Slats shouldn't have been dropped)

I agree that Slater shouldn't have been dropped, but Langer certainly hasn't done too badly in his place.

 

[Mr. P]

slats shouldn't have been dropped in the circumstances...but australia have certainly benefited from the decision, haven't they?

 

[Andre]

Tim McIntosh
Mohammad Wasim

Graham Thorpe
Gavin Rennie
Mohammad Kaif

Lance Klusener

Prassana Jayawardena

Brad Williams
Martin Saggers
Darren Bicknell
Saqlain Mushtaq

 

[Mr. P]

brad williams?

 

[marc71178]

no but they would make any other test side (not all in one but individually, and Slats shouldn't have been dropped)

That's not the question asked for the team, and yet again it is a comment which smacks of arrogance.

Of those 6, I would probably only want one in the England side (if that) yet you persist in claiming that they're all great players.

 

[marc71178]

Darren Bicknell

I assume you mean Martin Bicknell?

Incidentally, reading Mike Atherton's book, he and several senior players wanted to elevate Bicknell to the side, but the selectors disagreed.

 

[Andre]

Yeah - sorry mate, meant Martin :P

 

[Rik]

and for the final bowling position i would like to nominate anyone in england except Harmison

Oh...how mature...

 

[Rik]

So Age, you want Hussey, Slater, Clarke, Katich, Bichel and MacGill to replace Hayden, Langer, Lehmann, Love, Lee and Warne do you?

Marc I think your taking this a little seriously...

 

[marc71178]

Marc I think your taking this a little seriously...

You're telling me that list should be in the Australian Side?

 

[Rik]

You're telling me that list should be in the Australian Side?

Not at all. But considering the sides, I take it that they are made up of players who should get a chance or deserve to be in their international teams, or would be in a perfect world where selections are on ability, or in Australia's case, just too many good players. I don't take it that these players should BE in the team, if there are better players around, I take it that they DESERVE to be there. I might be wrong but that's my view on it.

 

[Mr. P]

i agree with Rik on this one. the players listed are most certainly good enough to play for any side, and yes they are world class. I am sure that if they replaced the current players, Australia would still be a strong side. Not as dominating and perhaps not the best team, but certainly a good side.

 

[marc71178]

i agree with Rik on this one. the players listed are most certainly good enough to play for any side, and yes they are world class.

Don't perpetuate this myth. Those players are untried in th emain, and to suggest they could play for any side is disrespectful to the players who currently play in those sides.

As for calling them World Class, well if they're World Class despite in some cases never looking like playing International Cricket, then can I claim to be World Class as well since there's no evidence to suggest otherwise?

 

[Mr. P]

untried? slater, clarke, katich, bichel and macgill have all played international cricket. only hussey has not. in fact, believe it or not macgill is playing the current test.

 

[Eclipse]

That's not the question asked for the team, and yet again it is a comment which smacks of arrogance.

Of those 6, I would probably only want one in the England side (if that) yet you persist in claiming that they're all great players.

I Think MacGill would make the England team with ease.

Slater has a better Test record than every batsman in the English team bar Vaughan.

Bichel would beat Harmison hands down for a spot in the team.

Thats all ready three players.

And I just cant beleve that ether Hussey, Katitch, Clark, etc... are not better than McGrath.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Agreed on all counts.

MacGill is more penetrative than Giles.
Slater is a class act.
Bichel has experience and is a reliable bowler. He can also bat.
Hussey/Katich/Clarke are better batsmen than McGrath (statistically anyway) and Clarke and Katich are probably on par with him with their part-time left-armers.

 

[marc71178]

untried? slater, clarke, katich, bichel and macgill have all played international cricket. only hussey has not. in fact, believe it or not macgill is playing the current test.

But relative to the players they'd be replacing they are untried, and they are all certainly not what you could call World Class!

 

[Mr. P]

Mental note to marc: Bichel got 7/20 against England, in the world cup, probably spell of the tourny.

 

[marc71178]

Slater has a better Test record than every batsman in the English team bar Vaughan.

Yes, but he's an opener, and in Trescothick and Vaughan we're quite happy thank you very much.

Bichel would beat Harmison hands down for a spot in the team.

Except, looking for a like-for-like bowler, Bichel is nothing like Harmison in bowling - he's more competing with the likes of Anderson and Hoggard.

And I just cant beleve that ether Hussey, Katitch, Clark, etc... are not better than McGrath.

Hussey may have a better record, but is an opener. Katich is hardly setting the world alight in County Cricket (on more than one occasion), and Clarke is still a prospect.

If we had a first choice Test team, McGrath wouldn't be in anyone if all things were taken into consideration, but the selectors have to be fair to him and not dump him *just* because someone else has decided he's going to play again.