Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath and Justin Langer walk out onto the ground - AAP Image/Jenny Evans
Welcome back to ‘Who’s going to the old dart?’, where you decide which cricketers will be heading to England for The Ashes. We’ve thrown out the selectors and given you, the armchair expert, the chance to form our army to win that tiny urn.
So far you’ve chosen six players: Simon Katich, Phil Hughes, Ricky Ponting, Brad Haddin, Stuart Clark, and Mitchell Johnson.
In the running for the next fast bowling slot is Brett Lee and Doug Bollinger.
“Guys please step forward.
Brett, the judges said you lack match practice, and have struggled in England in the past with a bowling average of 45-runs per wicket. But you do have the experience. You are an extremely handy lower order batsman, helping Australia pile on the runs, when in trouble.
Doug, you’re a true NSW champion, a left-arm hussler, who has already played one Test. The judges said you looked nervous against South Africa, and lacked wicket taking deliveries. Although they did say you were very unlucky.
I can tell you the voting is very even. But one of you will not be going to England.
And that person is Brett Lee! Sorry Brett, Australia has voted. You’re out. Can you please head back to the pavillion.
Well done Doug, you’re on the plane. Here’s your ticket, and your baggy green!”
Now, that’s a show right there. The emotion of missing out on an Ashes spot. The jubilation of a surprise selection. It’s perfect for television.
Much better than a plain press conference, and a cricket ball cake.
Much better than criticising selectors all the time. We’d have to blame ourselves if Australia lost the Ashes. Imagine that!
But at present the selectors are the men in the know. They’ve gone for a ‘safe’ team, in much the same way the Government went for a ‘safe’ budget. And we do have a large deficit to deal with in Shane Warne and Glenn McGrath.
When McGrath landed on a cricket ball four years ago, it was like a Wall Street Crash for Australia. The bookmakers certainly knew how important that moment was, with the odds changing dramatically.
My only concern for 2009 is the repeating of history by throwing the form guide out the window.
Brett Lee hadn’t played a Test for 18-months leading up to the last Ashes series, yet he still got selected.
Now he hasn’t played since the Boxing Day Test, apart from a few IPL matches. And he is in.
Of course, in 2005 there was also the surprise selections of Gillespie and Kasprowicz, despite ordinary form.
I think selecting Shane Watson is great, providing he is fit. But the injury cloud, means he could be ruled out at any stage on the tour. How annoying will it be for Ponting if Watson says he is ready to go, and his back goes in his first over?
Andrew McDonald doesn’t seem to have the all-rounder skills yet, so they could have picked an extra specialist bowler – a spinner to be precise, in case Hauritz gets injured or carted.
But it’s all irrelevant now. The team has been selected. It’s up to the players to perform.
Good luck Nathan Hauritz. I’m sure he will do okay, but I’m still dreaming of Shane Warne rocking up on the first day in Cadiff, in the whites – in much the same way Allan Langer returned from nowhere to play for Queensland.
Okay it won’t happen. But I’m sure Punter still has Warnie’s mobile number just in case.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
The Crowd Says (7) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- What we do and don’t know about our Baggy Greens (112)
- Success of Twenty20 spells trouble for ODI cricket (106)
- Channel 9 commentators an annoyance this summer (102)
- One Day Cricket is suffering from Middle Child Syndrome (89)
- Cricket Australia must take a stand against racist spectators (89)
- Dave’s Warner-ful switch-hit panned by precious critics (84)
- Khawaja shouldn’t have been Shaun from the Test side (71)
- Clarke stars as Australia beat Sri Lanka
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Hall of Fame for Indian legend Gavaskar
- Sri Lanka to target ‘weak’ Aussie bowlers
- India backing Rohit Sharma to find form
- Game-by-game preview of round 19
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Australia vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (197)
- Twenty20 cricket not up to the test (6)
- Pakistan’s win over England a triumph of character (21)
- Steve Waugh is right about cricket’s succession plan (5)
- India vs Sri Lanka, Perth ODI: cricket live scores, commentary (180)
- Let’s talk about selection, Test fans (28)
- Pakistan win shows what’s beautiful about the game (13)
Brett McKay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 9:23am | Report comment
interesting thoughts Conks, I’ll give you that. And you’re right , who WOULD we blame?!? Your article may just have made Andrew Hilditch’s job that much safer you realise…
Just on Watson, I really think too much is being made of this “injury cloud” and Cricket Australia are as much to blame as the cricket media and we the punters. In all honesty, this latest groin strain was only ever mild, and his not taking the field in the T20 against Pakistan was purely precationary. If it was the T20 WC Final, I’m sure he would’ve played, but becuase it was a nothing game (tacked on the end of a nothing tour) they pulled him out, and then pulled him out of the IPL to give him further rest and treatment. There’s no way he’ll be still under a cloud by the time he gets on the plane, and that why I can’t understand why he was listed in the squad “* Subject to fitness”. It’s bought undue scrutiny from everwhere, when in reality, all the tour squad is “subject to fitness”.
If they just named him, without the caveat, then the focus might have been more on the balance of the squad, rather than how Watson has displaced Symonds, but Watson’s still injured, so maybe Symonds will still go?? Please, just let him play..
And did anyone else notice the ridiculous-looking ’5′ on top of the cake at the announcement (big issue, I realise, but if you saw it, you’d understand..)
Benjamin Conkey said | May 22nd 2009 @ 10:12am | Report comment
Brett, I’m intrigued. I’ve revisited the picture of the cake, and can’t see the 5 being out of the ordinary…apart from being bigger than the 0. What am I missing? I’m hoping you have a Cake-gate scoop for us!
Read a bit of the Herald-Sun recently..and they’re not happy about Hodge being left out. You have to feel for him. I guess the problem is our batting has been okay. But then again Hussey is struggling and he’s still there.
ozziejag said | May 22nd 2009 @ 10:23am | Report comment
G’day Ben
How come Michael Clarke wasn’t in the top six players picked ? A monumental omission !
I think Brett Lee will have to fire up & get a bag of wickets in the two lead up games prior to the First Test at Cardiff to secure his place in the Test team so how about we pick the First Test team on current form & this is it in batting order:
Katich
Hughes
Ponting
Clarke
Hussey ?? His form will have to improve like Lee .
Watson . Don’t want to put the ” mozz ” on him but if the worst happens substitute Symonds
Haddin
Johnson
Lee
Clark
Siddle
Hilfenhaus 12th
ozziejag said | May 22nd 2009 @ 10:25am | Report comment
Sorry I left out North. He will have to take Hussey’s spot !!
Greg Russell said | May 22nd 2009 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
Guys, those of you who know me will know that there are few people who are more critical of Andrew Hilditch.
But on the issue of Brett Lee vs Bollinger, I have to defend the selection panel. I mean, Lee has taken 300+ test wickets, he was as good as any fast bowler in the world in the 18 months prior to injury, and he’s several classes above Bollinger (and just about all cricketers) as a natural athlete … can one seriously argue that Lee should have been ditched for a guy who has played one test with modest success, just because that guy has captured the public’s imagination with his colourful inteviews?
None of this is to say that Lee will have a bonza tour. But he should be cut some slack. His poor bowling in the second half of 2008 has to be seen in the context of injury, divorce, and Indian pitches specifically prepared to nullify him. In the absence of any information to the contrary, we have to assume he is largely over these things now.
It’s also unfortunate that both Lee and Clark are simultaneously working their way back from injury, making it risky to choose both. But since they are ready to play cricket now, and given the sustained excellence of their records as test cricketers (has Clark ever played a bad test?), I really cannot see that either could reasonably be left out.
Brett McKay said | May 22nd 2009 @ 2:36pm | Report comment
One day Conks, I’m going to be able to make a claim like CakeGate and Roarers will just agree with me!! Now you want proof!!!
Fortunately, I’ve found it (no tail-between-the-legs withdrawal today!): http://content.cricinfo.com/engvaus2009/content/image/405107.html
That to me, looks suspiciously like an upside-down ’2′ twisted around to look like a ’5′. Methinks a bungled order and/or delivery. And what’s with the cake anyway?? Why does the Ashes being 50 days away need a bloody big cake??
(As an aside, the cake looks pretty cool actualy, I certainly don’t recall seeing that one in the Women’s Weekly Birthday Cake book, otherwise I would have had one every year!!)
westy said | May 24th 2009 @ 11:42pm | Report comment
brett Brett lee takes wickets each of his wickets at 45 in the old dart.
Please remind me when Watson has played five Shield games in a row let alone let alone back to back 5 test series.
Ronald mcdonald brings as much fear as his hamburger counterpart.