Who should be the third Aussie quick?

[gettingbetter]

Barring injury, I would say that Tait is the obvious front-runner, but in his case, if he doesn't perform in the selected Tests, he'll be dropped almost immediaetley and won't get another look in for a while.

I know many of you will say that this would be the case with whoever was selected in the positon, but we all know that Tait is extremely volatile as he has displayed on both international arenas thus far in his short career. His bumping of Johnson already highlights that he is above him in the pecking order, but Bracken is another intersting prospect.

Bracken has already showed his skills in the shorter game and his left arm swing would add some variation to the Australian line up. I think that it will be a while for Hilfenhaus to be a feature in the whites, though a place in the ODI team is beckoning.

 

[social]

I'd pick:

Clark
Hilfenhaus

then whichever of Tait and Lee that looks good first up

People seem to be forgetting that Lee was crap for the first 3 tests vs Eng and has basically been injured since before the WC

Whilst he will no doubt be regarded as a certainty by some, I think the jury is well and truly out as to whether he is amongst the 3 best, paticularly given Tait's emergence at the WC

If anything, his batting and fielding give him the edge over Tait but he is clearly behind Clark and Hilfy for mine

 

[gettingbetter]

Cearly behind Hilfy?

He's only played 2 internationals.

 

[Matt79]

I'd pick:

Clark
Hilfenhaus

then whichever of Tait and Lee that looks good first up

People seem to be forgetting that Lee was crap for the first 3 tests vs Eng and has basically been injured since before the WC

Whilst he will no doubt be regarded as a certainty by some, I think the jury is well and truly out as to whether he is amongst the 3 best, paticularly given Tait's emergence at the WC

If anything, his batting and fielding give him the edge over Tait but he is clearly behind Clark and Hilfy for mine

Agree with it not being certain that he's currently in the best 3, but the reality is he'll be given every opportunity at Test level. Assuming he's fit, he'll be one of the first names put down on the team sheet, and it will take more than a series of averageness to dislodge him - it would have to be Gillespie 2005 levels of badness.

 

[Richard]

P.S - Heal is very ugly, do we really want to see his face on tv ?

Well we put-up with old Brad Williams...

 

[chaminda_00]

Just on the OD section of the Emerging Players Tournament -

Aaron Heal - 6 matches, 11 wickets @ 18.54, Eco 3.84
Cullen Bailey - 5 matches, 3 wickets @ 80.00, Eco 5.85

And both performed similiarly in the two 20/20 matches. EDIT: Heal - 4 wickets @ 13.25, Eco 6.62 and Bailey - 3 wickets @ 22.33, Eco 8.37. But you know, give Bailey the CA Contract and trip to Pakistan just because he's a leggie. Gah.

I understand this tournament means nothing in way of an arguement for me, but just for show in the OD matches, Heal was the third leading wicket-taker, had the fourth best average, fifth best economy-rate and foruth best strike-rate comfortably beating Andre Adams, Johan Botha, the Morkel brothers, Ian O'Brien and Moises Henriques in all departments.

Bailey is a pretty poor OD bowler, so really it makes little difference if he bowled crap in the OD section of the series.

Bailey made a name for himself on the back of his FC bowling and ability to bowl some awsome bowls that could get most Test batsmen out. Over the last two seasons, the thing that has him ahead of the other is probably not stats or consistency its his ability to take wickets against top line batsmen.

Heal probably more reilable and better in ODs. But he doesn't have that ability to knock over top batsmen then same way as Bailey or even Cullen. If you want the guy that is the most reilable then go for Heal. But if you want a guy that can take big wickets (maybe not big hauls) you go for Bailey. It just depends on what role you want from your spinner.

Also if MacGill is injuried i'll be very surprised if they don't pick a seamer. With Watson in the side, having 5 seamers is a very predictable attack and wont have the variety to knock over any half decent batting line up twice. Especially considering the inexperience nature of that likely pace attack.

 

[iamdavid]

Bailey is a pretty poor OD bowler, so really it makes little difference if he bowled crap in the OD section of the series.

Bailey made a name for himself on the back of his FC bowling and ability to bowl some awsome bowls that could get most Test batsmen out. Over the last two seasons, the thing that has him ahead of the other is probably not stats or consistency its his ability to take wickets against top line batsmen.

Heal probably more reilable and better in ODs. But he doesn't have that ability to knock over top batsmen then same way as Bailey or even Cullen. If you want the guy that is the most reilable then go for Heal. But if you want a guy that can take big wickets (maybe not big hauls) you go for Bailey. It just depends on what role you want from your spinner.

Also if MacGill is injuried i'll be very surprised if they don't pick a seamer. With Watson in the side, having 5 seamers is a very predictable attack and wont have the variety to knock over any half decent batting line up twice. Especially considering the inexperience nature of that likely pace attack.

Agreed on your assesment of Bailey, and thats the only reason he's even close, they want somebody in the Warne/MacGill mould who is going to be an attacking weapon in test cricket and Heal/Cullen/whoever dont really fit that mould.

And as for OD bowlers, how about Nathan Hauritz? I know he's been written off by just about everybody, and he should never have gotten near test cricket...theres every chance some of the people on this forum would be as threatening as him at FC level. But as a one-day bowler he's been consistently very good since about 2001/02 really, only one bad season since then and he's always near the top of the wicket-charts. Has great control, good through the air and clever with his pace, it looks threadbare in the longer game but in ODI's I think he could do a job.

 

[Richard]

And as for OD bowlers, how about Nathan Hauritz? I know he's been written off by just about everybody, and he should never have gotten near test cricket...theres every chance some of the people on this forum would be as threatening as him at FC level.

Well... perhaps one.

 

[steds]

I'd go Heal.

 

[Nate]

Probably would anyway, but yeah.

 

[Richard]

at Bennett, at Patto -- ......

 

[Johnners]

Grasped the first part of my argument there magnificently - I'd have thought Tait's strike rate to date in FC cricket illustrated the second part of my argument.

Haha, biggest wooooosh i totally mis-read that, thought you'd said "what makes you suspect Johnson or Hilfy would be less prone to getting smacked"

 

[vic_orthdox]

I would've thought that point was obvious. Tait has generally ALWAYS been the more expensive of the 3 bowlers mentioned at Pura Cup level, which is the only level we have to compare them on.

As for wicket taking deliveries, I don't think there is that much of a difference between the 3 of them. Hilfenhaus can obviously produce his fair share of them as he was the no.1 wicket taker in the Pura Cup last season taking 60 wickets, which was 13 better than the next best. Johnson, when he's been fit, has been a constant threat to the batsmen in the Pura Cup, (and lets not forget, he did take 10-fer on a pitch where one team scored 900).

Tait bowls a heap more "wicket-taking" balls than anyone else in Australia stiill playing.

 

[Salamuddin]

Clark's a shoe-in.

So is Macgill......Australia's spin stocks are pretty threadbare and Macgill looks the best of that lot.

Reckon they'll pick Lee if he's fit --- he is the blue eyed boy of Aussie cricket although he has never risen above the mediocre as a test match bowler.

The fourth spot ?? Well, it's highly unlikely it will be Bracken.....The fact that he's close to useless unless the ball swings prodigiously will count against him bigtime. Gillespie is in with a shot IMO ....the fact that he was picked for the A team shows the selectors have him in mind and I get the feeling that his experience will be viewed very favourably. I certainly don't think the Ashes 2005 was the last act of Dizzy's career.
I think Tait is overrated and IMo I'll be damned if he turns out to be any better than Lee at test level BUT he'll get picked if Lee is unfit beacuse the Aussies will want a genuine fast man in their team....I don't think they will pick both of them though.
Johnson and Hilfenhaus are the best bets imo....Hilfenhaus looks like a decent bowler but I think Johnson may have the stronger case....He's reasonably quick, gets a fair amount of lift, can swing the ball and he's a leftie --- all in all, a very delicious prospect...one thing though.....what Lillee said about him though being a "once in a lifetime bowler"....I don't think so....he's good but he won't be as good as Wasim Akram.

 

[Richard]

I certainly don't think the Ashes 2005 was the last act of Dizzy's career.

It'll be a travesty if it is, as it would've been had late 2005 been the final act of Ganguly's, and of Vaughan's too FTM.

 

[Malleeboy]

Ashes 2005??? Seems you've forgotten the little matter of a double century or does cricket against Banga's not count as Test cricket!

Got 201 no, 8 at 11.25 over 2 test. Man of Series and Man of Match (in last test.)
And will probably never play for Australia again.

That is quite a collections of accolades to be dropped with but probably shows how little Banga's are rated in Australia.

 

[Malleeboy]

Actually the attack for the 2nd test was bizarre.

Lee, Gillespie, Warne, McGill and Cullen! Three spinners and a guy who'd been dropped.

 

[Richard]

Ashes 2005??? Seems you've forgotten the little matter of a double century or does cricket against Banga's not count as Test cricket!

Nope.

Not to me. Bangladesh have never deserved Test status so to me no game involving them is a Test.