Should Brett Lee be selected for the Ashes?

[Jakester1288]

How has Bollinger outperformed Hilfenhaus in Tests? Fact of the matter is, Bollinger would have played in SA and would be over in England if he'd done as well in Test cricket as you've suggested. He played one Test, performed respectably, that's about it. Hilfenhaus took important (top order) wickets and maintained pressure in sustained spells in South Africa. That's what Test cricket is about. His stats aren't flash yet but there is much more to it than that. He also offers the side a geniune workhorse option - something which Bollinger certainly doesn't.

ODI cricket, well, that's irrelevant to the Ashes tour discussion but due credit Bollinger did bowl well in his couple of games, although Hilfenhaus has done the job at times too. Again, numbers not telling the whole story.

By bowling better.

In his one test, he looked dangerous for periods of time, and whilst it didn't reflect in the averages, he bowled well. He had a lot of possible wickets (more than two chances off the edge went to ground). He troubled Smith, and other South African batsmen too.

Admittedly, I didn't see much of the South Africa tour, but what I saw, Hilfenhaus was bowling short, and at times too wide as well, and getting smacked. He has lots of potential, is young, and has a bright future. I am not doubting he is a good cricketer, or can swing the ball, or will be a good player for Australia in the future, or anything else like that. I am simply saying that, IMO, Bollinger is a better bowler than Hilfenhaus, at least at the present time.

 

[Andre]

By bowling better.

In his one test, he looked dangerous for periods of time, and whilst it didn't reflect in the averages, he bowled well. He had a lot of possible wickets (more than two chances off the edge went to ground). He troubled Smith, and other South African batsmen too.

Admittedly, I didn't see much of the South Africa tour, but what I saw, Hilfenhaus was bowling short, and at times too wide as well, and getting smacked. He has lots of potential, is young, and has a bright future. I am not doubting he is a good cricketer, or can swing the ball, or will be a good player for Australia in the future, or anything else like that. I am simply saying that, IMO, Bollinger is a better bowler than Hilfenhaus, at least at the present time.

Right...

Now, I will clarify, that I'm not a doctor, or Test selector, or anything like that, so I don't have all the answers, but surely if Bollinger had bowled better than Hilfenhaus, he'd be playing ahead of him? That would seem the logical thing.

TBH, I think you just like Bollinger better...

 

[Jakester1288]

TBH, I think you just like Bollinger better...

That's true.

I think Hilfenhaus is overrated, whilst Bollinger is underrated. Although, from what I have seen in some places, it is the complete opposite.

I can see them both batting to gain positions in the Australian side in the future, as long as Johnson and Siddle remain fit and bowling well.

 

[Andre]

Personally, I don't see Bollinger being a long-term viable Test option. I just don't quite think he is up to it. He might possibly be a decent ODI option though. Hilfenhaus looks a infinently better prospect as a Test bowler, he's underrated if anything. Has done a lot of back-breaking work on flat pitches, his numbers aren't what they could be.

 

[Top_Cat]

Corey and Andre in 'agreeing on who the better bowler is' shocker.

If he gets a game, reckon Hilf's stats in SA will be looked-upon as an aberration.

 

[tooextracool]

By bowling better.

In his one test, he looked dangerous for periods of time, and whilst it didn't reflect in the averages, he bowled well. He had a lot of possible wickets (more than two chances off the edge went to ground). He troubled Smith, and other South African batsmen too.

Honestly, from what I saw of Bollinger, I cannot logically see how he can be expected to be test class. Yes he performed ok in his only test, but his style of bowling is not going to get wickets around the world and its definetly not going to get him very far when the ball is not moving about. Lets just remind ourselves firstly that he played his only test at Sydney, one of the few grounds where swing is still alive in Australia and also that this is also where he plays the vast majority of his games in domestic cricket. If Australia wanted a tall left handed swing bowler who couldnt take a wicket unless the ball was swinging, they might as well go with Nathan Bracken.

 

[Burgey]

Took plenty on the "A" tour of Pakistan, TBF.

 

[pup11]

Clarke and Hussey aren't "shot makers"? Wtf? Your definition of shotmaker seems to mean big hitting hack, in which case Dussey should be your man.

Clarke and Hussey are pretty good strokeplayers, nobody is arguing that, but Dussey would be the most suitable bloke to replace Symonds at no.6, we all saw what an advantage having a naturally aggressive batsman like Symonds was in the test side, and Dussey too is quite capable of performing a similar role.

 

[social]

Honestly, from what I saw of Bollinger, I cannot logically see how he can be expected to be test class. Yes he performed ok in his only test, but his style of bowling is not going to get wickets around the world and its definetly not going to get him very far when the ball is not moving about. Lets just remind ourselves firstly that he played his only test at Sydney, one of the few grounds where swing is still alive in Australia and also that this is also where he plays the vast majority of his games in domestic cricket. If Australia wanted a tall left handed swing bowler who couldnt take a wicket unless the ball was swinging, they might as well go with Nathan Bracken.

You obviously havent seen much of Bollinger or recent Sydney tests

 

[pup11]

Your 11 looks great on paper but if Watto breaks down (again) and with North/Clarke/Katich only being part timers, you really are putting a workload on the 3 main quicks. If Watto is the reserve batsman, given his breakdown rate, should he being bowling at all?

They only place Hauritz might play is Cardiff, otherwise I actually think McDonald might actually play more test then many people think he will.

Anyway my main point was that his FC bowling stats are marginally better then either Hilf are Bollinger, and when given the chance against a good batting unit like SA he took wickets and tied down an end (precisely what was asked of him).

Andre,

If North is playing 6 and Watson's not in the 11 (outside of Cardiff), which 4 bowlers do you want....
Johnson is a certain, Siddle is a probable, then you've got Lee, Clark, Hilf and McDonald.

I think that Johnson, Siddle, Clark (cause his English record is so good but it'll come down to how they bowl in the lead up match between him and Lee) and McDonald to give variety. However if all 4 man quicks are bowling well it would be very tempting to play all four.

Its not exactly the XI, I would like to see play at Cardiff, but I am pretty sure this is going to the final XI eventually for the 1st test, Australia have been more than happy to utilize part-spinners ahead of genuine spinners in the past few months, and can't see them changing there attitudes much for this series either.

McDonald is in the squad just as back-up to Watto IMO, so its very difficult to see him playing unless Watto gets injured, niether can I see North being dropped, he was very good with the bat in South Africa and his offies too, gives him an edge over others.

After the 1st test changes might take place in the Aussie XI, but then again that largely depends on the form, fitness of the certain individuals, and the balance of the side.

 

[Malleeboy]

Pup11,

Oddly though Watson is talked about as the reserve batsman in the squad, does that mean that North is the 1st choice all rounder or is it the other way around and the selectors see Watson as the allrounder and North is the reserve batsman. We can all agree that McDonald is a backup allrounder and not the reserve batsman. If the selectors were planning to play both Watson and North in the same team wouldn't they have picked a real reserve batsman (or is that Mike Hussey!).

Just what are the selectors up to? I guess only the 1st test XI will tell.

 

[social]

Its not exactly the XI, I would like to see play at Cardiff, but I am pretty sure this is going to the final XI eventually for the 1st test, Australia have been more than happy to utilize part-spinners ahead of genuine spinners in the past few months, and can't see them changing there attitudes much for this series either.

McDonald is in the squad just as back-up to Watto IMO, so its very difficult to see him playing unless Watto gets injured, niether can I see North being dropped, he was very good with the bat in South Africa and his offies too, gives him an edge over others.

After the 1st test changes might take place in the Aussie XI, but then again that largely depends on the form, fitness of the certain individuals, and the balance of the side.

If Siddle doesnt play in the first test it will be a massive miscarriage of justice - OZ have won 3 out of their last 4 tests and his performances played a large part in that

On the other hand:

a. Lee has been out for months, was woeful in 7/8 tests before that and has a poor record in Eng; and

b. Clark has been out for the entire Oz season and was poor in India.

Johnson and Siddle should be the first 2 bowlers picked with the rest competing for a couple of positions

 

[Malleeboy]

Johnson and Siddle have to be the first two bowlers chosen.

You then have to pick 2 bowlers and an allrounder.

The allrounder is going to probably bat at 6, which excludes McDonald for that position. So that leaves North and Watson. (Unless you drop Hussey for one of those two and play both.)

So you have 2 bowling spots left for Lee, Clark, Hilf, McDonald and Hauritz.

Only one spinner spot (if at all) but if your playing North over Watson then you wouldn't pick Hauritz and North in an 11.

So that leaves 1 or 2 pace slots out of Clark, Lee, McDonald and Hilf. Clark should get first go and then its down to Lee versus McDonald. If your playing Watson then McDonald makes more sense cause 5 pase bowlers seems excessive to the task. If your playing North (or Hauritz) then Lee, if in form should be picked.

 

[Jakester1288]

allrounder.

I don't believe in picking an allrounder for the sake of picking an allrounder, same goes for the spinner.

I wouldn't really call North an allrounder, he is a batsmen who can roll the arm over.

You pick your best side. IMO, that features Watson, so we should include him in our team. However, if he is not bowling, I don't think he should play, because North's batting is as good or better than Watsons, and Watsons extra bowling gets him over the line. North hasn't put a foot wrong in his Test match opportunities either.

So

1. Hughes
2. Katich

Set in stone.

3. Ponting
4. Hussey
5. Clarke

Pretty much set in stone there as well.

6. Watson (if bowling)/North

7. Haddin

Set in stone

8. Johnson

Set in stone

9. Lee/Hauritz/McDonald

Depends on the pitch. I wouldn't be disappointed if McDonald gets selected. He hasn't performed poorly in his Test appearances so far, he would just get the job done, not a bad thing. Gets through his overs pretty quickly, and if we name a 4 or 5 (including Watson) prong pace attack, the quick overs are needed.

10. Siddle
11. Clark

Set in stone, unless Clark is no fit.

It's pretty obvious that we will require Clarke, Katich and if he plays, North, to do some bowling in this series. If Hauritz doesn't play, the more bowling they need to share between them, which is a bad thing. On spinning pitches, they should get through their overs well. Hopefully they slip under the radar, and England don't attack them. KP will rip their guts out (unless he has some trouble like he does with Yuvraj Singh, which I doubt he will), and some other English batsmen wont hesitate hitting some easy pickings either.

 

[pup11]

If Siddle doesnt play in the first test it will be a massive miscarriage of justice - OZ have won 3 out of their last 4 tests and his performances played a large part in that

On the other hand:

a. Lee has been out for months, was woeful in 7/8 tests before that and has a poor record in Eng; and

b. Clark has been out for the entire Oz season and was poor in India.

Johnson and Siddle should be the first 2 bowlers picked with the rest competing for a couple of positions

AWTA...
Siddle has to play at all costs, and again the lead-up practice games should pretty much clear all doubts regarding where Lee and Clark stand with their bowling atm, and if they produce sub-standard perfromances in those games, and the younger lot of quicks put up a better show, then the Aussie selectors better bite the bullet and bench either Lee or Clark.

 

[pup11]

Pup11,

Oddly though Watson is talked about as the reserve batsman in the squad, does that mean that North is the 1st choice all rounder or is it the other way around and the selectors see Watson as the allrounder and North is the reserve batsman. We can all agree that McDonald is a backup allrounder and not the reserve batsman. If the selectors were planning to play both Watson and North in the same team wouldn't they have picked a real reserve batsman (or is that Mike Hussey!).

Just what are the selectors up to? I guess only the 1st test XI will tell.

Aussies selectors have made their intentions pretty clear by picking just one spinner in the squad that they don't expect the spinners to win them any games in this series, and therefore likes of North and Clarke are most likely to be used to resurrect over-rates and give the faster men a breather, so one can be rest assured that both North and Clarke would be used as half-baked all-rounders.

Anyways moving on, if Watto isn't bowling well, then I wouldn't even consider picking him ahead of North, and despite Watto's batting credentials, I would have still prefered a reserve batsman to be in the squad, someone like a Hodge or David Hussey, who both are familiar with the English conditions and have done well in those conditions would have been good picks to fill in as the reserve batsman, even if that meant adding one extra slot to the squad.

 

[aussie]

Clarke and Hussey are pretty good strokeplayers, nobody is arguing that, but Dussey would be the most suitable bloke to replace Symonds at no.6, we all saw what an advantage having a naturally aggressive batsman like Symonds was in the test side, and Dussey too is quite capable of performing a similar role.

Dont think having an aggressive # 6 is that important. Since 95 the likes of Ponting, Lehmann, Martyn, Katich has had the role. The aggressive lower-middle order batting really has come from 007 Gilly. Haddin ATM has shown he has the game to play that role, plus you got Johnson who can be very dangerous @ #8.

I too was seriously advocating D Hussey going to SA, but North proved his worth. Plus given i believe AUS should be using 4 quicks for at least the 12-18 as its main bowlers, North bowling is also a bit more useful that Hussey at test level.

 

[Andre]

Aussies selectors have made their intentions pretty clear by picking just one spinner in the squad that they don't expect the spinners to win them any games in this series, and therefore likes of North and Clarke are most likely to be used to resurrect over-rates and give the faster men a breather, so one can be rest assured that both North and Clarke would be used as half-baked all-rounders.

Anyways moving on, if Watto isn't bowling well, then I wouldn't even consider picking him ahead of North, and despite Watto's batting credentials, I would have still prefered a reserve batsman to be in the squad, someone like a Hodge or David Hussey, who both are familiar with the English conditions and have done well in those conditions would have been good picks to fill in as the reserve batsman, even if that meant adding one extra slot to the squad.

Not sure about the selection of 1 spinner suggesting that spinners might not win Australia matches during the series - unfortunately it is just a reflection of the current spin stocks in the country. Wouldn't have hated McGain being picked though, TBH.

Watson's selection as the next best bat is probably fair enough - he's got a better record than D Hussey in Shield cricket, and well, (incorrectly) Hodge's cards are marked, unless Ponting, M Hussey and Clarke all fell over on the same day to injury or something. Watson has played a good amount of Shield cricket as a specialist bat and is one of those blokes who could probably play in the top 6 on his own. I'd say, with his injury history in mind, the selectors view his bowling as little more than a bonus.

Worth baring in mind that the selectors would have known for a while Rogers is in the country playing county cricket and is available on short notice. Turns out D Hussey is doing the same now too. That has the reserve batsman spot covered I'd say.

 

[pup11]

Not sure about the selection of 1 spinner suggesting that spinners might not win Australia matches during the series - unfortunately it is just a reflection of the current spin stocks in the country. Wouldn't have hated McGain being picked though, TBH.

Watson's selection as the next best bat is probably fair enough - he's got a better record than D Hussey in Shield cricket, and well, (incorrectly) Hodge's cards are marked, unless Ponting, M Hussey and Clarke all fell over on the same day to injury or something. Watson has played a good amount of Shield cricket as a specialist bat and is one of those blokes who could probably play in the top 6 on his own. I'd say, with his injury history in mind, the selectors view his bowling as little more than a bonus.

Worth baring in mind that the selectors would have known for a while Rogers is in the country playing county cricket and is available on short notice. Turns out D Hussey is doing the same now too. That has the reserve batsman spot covered I'd say.

Well. its true that the Aussie spin stocks are thin atm, but seriously I would always pick a bloke like Krezja whenever Australia play a series away from home, and I would have prefered McGain as the second spinner, McGain might have been destroyed in the only test he played in South Africa, but he's clearly a much better bowler than that, and I think the selectors should have shown more faith in him.

The problem with Watson is, he has all the talent in the world, but his body has time and again let him down, and going by this, the signs don't look good even for this series.

 

[Prince EWS]

I would always pick a bloke like Krezja

How the tide has turned.