Cricket VI

[Stubby]

Interesting how the bowling section is going to pan out. At this stage Johnson is in, and I'd say that unless he has a major meltdown, Stuart Clark will be a shoo-in. His style (accurate, bit of bounce and seam movement) is very well-suited to English conditions, just as McGrath's bowling was deadly in English conditions. That leaves only two bowling spots for Hilfenhaus, Lee, Siddle and Hauritz.

Mate, you overestimate the Aussie selectors. They will surely pick the Clown as one of the four bowlers.

[Paxter]

How the mighty have fallen.

ETA: I don't know what looks scarier: Stanford in prison clothes and cuffs or that prison woman next to him!

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

So weird. I remember when he had the england team's wives sitting on his lap one by one. Crazy cricket gangster.

[williamjm]

Cricinfo has an article entitled "Gilchrist questions Flintoff fitness". Rather ironic given Shane Watson's normal state of fitness.

Ok, a little harsh. wink.gif But the Australian selectors have to be crazy if they're still thinking of including this guy in a Test team. I doubt he's played more than half a dozen cricket matches of any state in a row without having had to sit one out due to injury, and he's really not getting any younger either.

I know in the past some people have tried to describe Watson as 'Australia's answer to Andrew Flintoff', he seems to have taken that role a bit too literally and also taken on Flintoff's level of fitness as well. I'm not entirely sure Flintoff has played half a dozen cricket matches in a row either since the last Ashes. Of course, there is one difference, Flintoff is a proven match-winner and Watson isn't - so while I can somewhat understand why the England selectors always to pick Flintoff because at his best he is a world-class bowler, I'm a bit more confused why they are so obsessed with Watson.

[Hereward]

OMG. :stunned: I just watched Flintoff score 93 off 41 balls, the highest ever 20/20 score for a number 5 batsman. What's more, he was out to the greatest catch I've ever seen, plucked one-handed out of the air, 9 feet off the ground, 6 inches from the boundary rope.

[Paxter]

OMG. :stunned: I just watched Flintoff score 93 off 41 balls, the highest ever 20/20 score for a number 5 batsman. What's more, he was out to the greatest catch I've ever seen, plucked one-handed out of the air, 9 feet off the ground, 6 inches from the boundary rope.

Go Freddie! If this man can get his batting mojo back we could be in for an interesting Ashes. Hopefully this wasn't just a flash in the pan.

Of course, there is one difference, Flintoff is a proven match-winner and Watson isn't - so while I can somewhat understand why the England selectors always to pick Flintoff because at his best he is a world-class bowler, I'm a bit more confused why they are so obsessed with Watson.

I don't get it either. I have always maintained that an all-rounder should never be picked in a test team unless he is good enough to hold his position in the team based on one discipline only. All of the truly great test all-rounders had/have this attribute (Miller, Sobers, Benaud, Dev, Flintoff, Pollock, Khan, Hadlee, Botham, Cairns, Kallis, Flintoff etc.). Watson has never shown that he has the ability to be picked based purely on his bowling. And his batting, while decent in the limited overs formats, is just not up to the standard of Australia's other test batsman. Add that to the fact that he has never been able to string games together and you have a pretty ordinary all-rounder that should not be picked in a test team.

[IheartTesla]

I see India got whupped in the 2nd ODI against WI. Well, what can I say....my feelings are best expressed by the burning of an effigy. So excuse me a moment while I light this Dhoni-shaped cigarette.

Anyway, I see Watson got injured again. Are y'all sure he is an Australian?

[Horza]

I see India got whupped in the 2nd ODI against WI. Well, what can I say....my feelings are best expressed by the burning of an effigy. So excuse me a moment while I light this Dhoni-shaped cigarette.

Anyway, I see Watson got injured again. Are y'all sure he is an Australian?

To keep putting his hand up for selection (truss permitting) after every single part of him has broken at one stage or another bespeaks a characteristically Aussie lack of common sense in the pursuit of sporting glory.

As to why the selectors keep picking him...

[Rimmer]

Well, Shane Bond has been given a contract at the age of 34; is there hope for NZ test cricket again? I'm pretty pessimistic at the moment, but he's undoubtedly our best bowler since Hadlee (when he wasn't injured), so it'll be interesting. I'm thinking we'll get another 18 months out of him tops. What sort of age have most of the best fast bowlers retired at?

[Stubby]

Well, Shane Bond has been given a contract at the age of 34; is there hope for NZ test cricket again? I'm pretty pessimistic at the moment, but he's undoubtedly our best bowler since Hadlee (when he wasn't injured), so it'll be interesting. I'm thinking we'll get another 18 months out of him tops. What sort of age have most of the best fast bowlers retired at?

Got these from quick wikipedia searches:

McGrath - 36

Gillespie - 32

Lillee - 35

Donald - 36

Walsh - 39

Pollock 35

I guess Bond could have a couple of good seasons left in him.

[Paxter]

With a mere 8 days, 19 hours and 44 minutes before the Ashes commences...we are starting to get an idea of how the Aussies will line up. The team I would pick now remains the same as it was in May:

Australia:

1. Hughes

2. Katich

3. Ponting

4. Hussey

5. Clarke

6. North

7. Haddin

8. Johnson

9. Lee

10. Clark

11. Siddle

I think we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that neither Watson nor Hauritz will be in the starting XI for the first test: the former owing to injury and the latter owing to recent match figures of 38-5-158-1 and a general lack of quality at the test level. Australia's spin options will therefore likely be limited to the part-timers: Katich, Clarke and North (who took the useful wickets of Yardy and Joyce in the tour game). Hauritz would have to pull off a minor miracle in the remaining tour games in order to re-enter the selectors' thinking. Importantly, we now know that Siddle is a certainty - that was confirmed by Neilsen in the aftermath of the Sussex game.

There are now only two questions remaining:

1) Will the selectors have the balls to select the all-specialists line-up above or will they resort to McDonald? In this case, one of Clark and Lee would have to miss out and Johnson would probably bat at 7. If it came down to this, they should pick Clark in front of Lee.

2) Will Ben Hilfenhaus be a surprise inclusion over Lee or Clark? Personally, I doubt it. Both Lee and Clark marginally outperformed him in the Sussex game. Unless he can produce something special in the remaining tour games, he should be dropped.

[DJDonegal]

To keep putting his hand up for selection (truss permitting) after every single part of him has broken at one stage or another bespeaks a characteristically Aussie lack of common sense in the pursuit of sporting glory.

As to why the selectors keep picking him...

Would that also bespeak a characteristically Aussie lack of common sense in the pursuit of sporting glory?

[Stubby]

Would that also bespeak a characteristically Aussie lack of common sense in the pursuit of sporting glory?

Of course.

[DJDonegal]

Just checking.

In other notes, I forgot how stupid the British media is. I saw a column talking about "Australia's Unknown Bowlers" and they listed Stuart Clark in there.

:unsure:

Didn't he take 26 wickets the last time he was here? (I'll fact check this, but post it so I look good if I'm right.)

ETA: I was right.

[Multaniette]

eh, anyone who isn't lee, mcgrath or warne is unknown. it is known.

[Paxter]

Didn't he take 26 wickets the last time he was here? (I'll fact check this, but post it so I look good if I'm right.)

ETA: I was right.

Well, Stuart Clark has never played a test match in England. Nevertheless, calling him "unknown" is a bit rich.

[Hereward]

It's a well-known fact that Test matches don't happen outside England.*

*As a matter of fact, I am old enough to remember the first time England played an overseas Test. God, that's depressing.

[Stubby]

The Barmy Army's New One - 'Hey Ricky!'

Ponting's reaction to this one when they first sing it for him should be entertaining.

[Paxter]

You've got to love the pre-Ashes mind games. Here's some gold from Pietersen:

“I have had a lot of communication with Kallis and Boucher,'' he said with a cheeky smile.

“A lot of it was very, very useful.

“How to dismiss quite a few of their batsmen, how they found it really, really interesting in terms of feet movement and positions and where to bowl and how to bowl to some of their top players.

“Kallis and Boucher, I speak to almost daily about stuff.''

"Almost daily"? Give me a break.

BTW, looks like Hilfenhaus is out of the running for the first test - he won't be playing in the next tour game. Hauritz may yet have an outside chance of making the XI in light of the possibility of a spinner's wicket at Cardiff. So who will get the nod between Clark and Lee? Assuming the selectors are still partially sane: Clark.

[Stubby]

This will bring the crowds back to the WACA

The WACA has announced a major coup for this summer’s Twenty20 Big Bash competition after securing the signature of destructive West Indies batsman Chris Gayle.

It will certainly get me along to a game for a change.