Donate Now
Goal amount for the next month: 1000 AUD, Received: 0 AUD (0%)
**** Please donate to the Toowoomba Hospital Foundation as part of the Leon Treadwell Memorial Charity Day ****
Note: If you would like to avoid Paypal from getting their cut, either make a paypal payment to andyp@ozgolf.net as a "Gift", or PM AndyP for OZgolf's bank account details.
-
15th June 2009 06:46 PM
#1
The Ashes
McDonald or Watson
Lee or Bollinger
Even though dougie didnt get the call up i still think Lee will either break down on tour or not be serviceable and dougie will get the call up.
Watson over McDonald for me even though i'm a vic i think watson is the better proposition.
-
15th June 2009 06:57 PM
#2
Senior Member
Touring Pro (European Tour)
Watson and Bollinger..
Wato - Is a much better cricketer.
Bollinger - Time to give someone else a go, Lee has past it.
Golf Map | WITB: Titleist TSR3 9* / Titleist 917F 3W 13.5* / PING G430 5W 17* / Titleist T100S 4I - PW / Vokey SM9 50-8*, 55-10*, 60-10* / PING Sigma2 Kushin C 35.5" / Titleist ProV1
-
15th June 2009 08:57 PM
#3
Moderator
Touring Pro (PGA)
Johnson, Siddle, Clark, Hilfenhaus. Who needs Bollinger or Lee?
Watson or McDonald? Play a specialist batsman instead. If you must pick one, pick McDonald because rangas need a poster boy too.
-
15th June 2009 09:10 PM
#4
Originally Posted by
LarryLong
Johnson, Siddle, Clark, Hilfenhaus. Who needs Bollinger or Lee?
Watson or McDonald? Play a specialist batsman instead. If you must pick one, pick McDonald because rangas need a poster boy too.
I could not agree more if i added 17 million dollars to this post.
Brad Hodge or Marcus North should be No.6. Those four should be the quicks. Shane Watson or Ranga Macca should mix the drinks.
-
15th June 2009 09:13 PM
#5
Senior Member
Golf Hall of Fame Inductee
Depends on the pitch. But lee and bollinger shouldn't really be in the mix.
Watson's form was impressive in India.
Still I hear there are some stiff breeze's in England so he'll probably do a hammy.
-
15th June 2009 09:14 PM
#6
Senior Member
Touring Pro (PGA)
So you pick four quicks and it turns out Cardiff is a bunsen. What then?
-
15th June 2009 09:20 PM
#7
Senior Member
Golf Hall of Fame Inductee
Bunsen burner, turner? I've never heard that expression before.
If thats right I don't know. Personally I would have liked them to stick with Krezja for a bit longer. I think Hauritz is a band aid solution.
I guess with North, and Katich in the side you could maybe drop the Hilf and bung in Watson or McDonald. Probably McDonald as his bowling would suit the pitch a little better.
Or you would just pick the quicks and rely on Hauritz, North, Katich and Clarke.
Ideally I would convince Warne to come back
This is why I try not to bag the selectors too much, its a bloody hard job.
Last edited by Yossarian; 15th June 2009 at 09:23 PM.
-
15th June 2009 09:21 PM
#8
Senior Member
Touring Pro (PGA)
That last line is very true, and scarcely uttered by an Aussie fan!
-
15th June 2009 09:24 PM
#9
Senior Member
Golf Hall of Fame Inductee
Fitting eleven players into one team. In one of the most succesful cricketing nations in the world... Not my cup of tea.
-
15th June 2009 09:37 PM
#10
Originally Posted by
Scottt
So you pick four quicks and it turns out Cardiff is a bunsen. What then?
Marcus North bats six and bowls turners. Michael Clarke bowls left-arm orthodox that goes away from the Poms (they don't like that). And Nathan Hauritz bowls darts. He was dropped by Queensland.
That's my XI. No spinner if we don't have one.
-
15th June 2009 09:38 PM
#11
Oh yeah. And Katich - doesn't bowl enogh. M.Bevan like lefties.
-
15th June 2009 09:40 PM
#12
Ponting doesn't have enough of a crack with his bowlers to do like Mark Taylor and just see what happens.
and i've no idea why they went with Hauritz. Someone could tell me. But if Clarke can take 6/9 in Mumbai and Hauritz cannot, why pick Hauritz ever again?
-
15th June 2009 09:49 PM
#13
Site Owner
Golf Hall of Fame Inductee
Maybe because Clarke has a dodgy back and is also more likely to bowl 0/200 if he had to bowl long spells.
I would assume that Hauritz is being used to tie down an end.
-
15th June 2009 09:53 PM
#14
Senior Member
Touring Pro (PGA)
Katich has back issues as well. He and Clarke are short spell options.
Hauritz will be a good defensive spin option, but he has it in him to take hauls when the deck is turning.
-
15th June 2009 09:57 PM
#15
Senior Member
Golf Hall of Fame Inductee
I agree overall on hauritz but krezja could flat out rip the ball, given time he could have turned out ok. I think he was a better bat than Hauritz to, not that Hauritz can't bat.
It will be Hauritz and North as the real spin options.
What do people think of M Hussey's inclusion?
-
15th June 2009 10:06 PM
#16
M Hussey has plenty of "good will" if you like, left over ... he's still averaging ... 65? Scottt would have the stats to hand.
But yes ... he's running out of chances.
The fact they're picking Hauritz to "tie down an end" is, i think, un-Australian.
**** that. A spinner should be there to take wickets. Old Brycey had a shocker against the Indians and Jaapies ... and maybe the Poms would have flogged him about also.
but ... i'd still have him over Hauritz's straight do-nothin darts.
And Krezja? Casson? Those kiddies from Adelaide?
Nope - they're not Warney. But as attacking, wciket-taking spin bolwign options they're better value than Hauritz.
-
15th June 2009 10:19 PM
#17
Senior Member
Touring Pro (PGA)
Hussey is down to avergaing mid 50s, I believe.
The fact you seriously suggest either Dan Cullen or Cullen Bailey tells me how much you follow cricket.
-
15th June 2009 10:28 PM
#18
I'd take either of em over Nathan Hauritz.
Un-Australian to hold up an end with a spinner who bowls darts.
Etiher of those Cullens would be better. As would McGain. As would Krezja. As would Mo Matthews.
I watch a shit-load of cricket. Too much.
You're a fan of Haurie's, Scott?
You'd have him in the team over a 4-prong pace attack of Clarke, Siddle, Johnson and Hilfenhaus, with spin from North, Katich and Clarke?
?
-
15th June 2009 10:35 PM
#19
Senior Member
Golf Hall of Fame Inductee
Gotta have a spinner, hauritz has done an ok job. He just doesn't look like he will set the world on fire anytime soon.
-
15th June 2009 10:41 PM
#20
Yeah, he's okay ... but i disagree you need one just to have one.
The Windies never had one. And Australia doesn't have one worth a damn. There's 4 excellent quicks, and 3 blokes who can bowl slow if required. Marcus North ... Test hundred on debut and a few wickets. He'll do if we need spin. If not him, Clarke or Katich. That gives you seven bowlers, 4 of them excellent quicks with different qualities.
and M.Johnson has more Test hundreds in him.
I'd bin Bing Lee. He's hanging around for the cash.
-
15th June 2009 10:44 PM
#21
Senior Member
Golf Hall of Fame Inductee
Sorry I meant on a deck that is going to do a bit, I would always always play a spinner, especially if he can hold a bat which Hauritz can.
The Windies were an exceptional side when they were at their peak, Australia atm not so exceptional, the variety can be useful.
Anyway back to the ashes, whats the word on flintoff over in Englad scottt? He was injured i think??
-
15th June 2009 10:47 PM
#22
Moderator
Touring Pro (PGA)
Could Shane Watson be taught to bowl tweakers? Might keep him off the injury list.
I should clarify that I don't necessarily think we should play 4 quicks. I was just pointing out that there are 4 to pick from before you even started thinking of Lee, let alone flying Bollinger over there.
I think they'll play 3 quicks and either McDonald or Hauritz, depending on what the track looks like. I probably don't mind McDonald getting a game I suppose as long as he doesn't bat at 6. If nothing else, he keeps you from falling asleep when Ponting inevitably loses control of the over rate.
Wouldn't want to be picking the side myself, either. I change my mind every five minutes if I sit down and think about the ideal side.
Sure, Clarke took 6-for in Mumbai, but he basically cleaned up the tail on a diabolical wicket. Hauritz managed to take 5 wickets in that test, but it was really a lottery. That test should be swept under the carpet, with the remains of the pitch it was played on.
-
15th June 2009 10:50 PM
#23
Senior Member
Golf Hall of Fame Inductee
Ahh indian wickets, i reckon i could get a game bowling tweakers on some of those decks
-
15th June 2009 10:50 PM
#24
Yeah - Hauritz can bat a bit. BUt so can North, much better, and I don't think their bowling is that much removed, especially on a deck doing a bit.
and I agree variety is good ... but I think with those 4 quicks you get variety in left-arm express heat and bounce (Johnson), right-arm express heat and bounce (Siddle), right-arm McGrath-esque accuracy and seam (Clark) and big-bending outswing and occasional bouncers (Hilfenhaus).
Chuck in spin from katich, clarke and North, especially on a spinning wicket, and I think you've got enough weapons to knock over the Poms 20 times per Test.
And if we don't, we could just about give it up. And I don't think Hauritz - or ****ing McDonald or Watson - should be there for "balance".
Six batters, keeper, four bowlers - and if the're no spinner, there' s no spinner.
what i think.
-
15th June 2009 10:52 PM
#25
Agreed that Mumbai was a minefield. But really, if Clarke took 6-fer, Hauritz should have too.
Warne or MacGill would've been unplayable.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
By lovethecricket in forum Sports Bar
Replies: 0
Last Post: 8th April 2009, 12:40 PM
-
By Courty in forum 19th Hole
Replies: 12
Last Post: 20th December 2006, 11:27 PM
-
By chappy1970 in forum Tour Talk
Replies: 15
Last Post: 20th July 2006, 03:09 PM
-
By Fishman Dan in forum Sports Bar
Replies: 441
Last Post: 21st September 2005, 10:02 PM
-
By Fishman Dan in forum Sports Bar
Replies: 24
Last Post: 2nd March 2005, 03:58 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules