Comments on: Lee or Clark: reputation alone won’t take wickets

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:56:44 +0000

Haurible is woeful and shouldn’t even be on tour. There are no good spinners in Australia at the moment, therefore don’t pick one. I think Johnson, Siddle and Clark should play. Lee looks a spent force and has never been successful in England. But he is a fierce competitior and can bat and field well. Hilfenhaus hasn’t really taken his chances and can’t bat. Looks like the selectors have discarded him from 1st test selection. As such attack should be Johnson, Siddle, Lee and Clark. With Clarke, North and Katich doing the spinning. A pretty average team all told and North and Hussey’s batting is a worry. Still we may just be good enough to beat the poms. To be honest if I had to bet my life on this series I’d bet England 2-1.

By: Mick of Newie

Mick of Newie — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:02:50 +0000

If I was an English batsman I would rather face McDonald than Hilfenhaus. Picking McDonald or Watson to bat at 8 would be a negative move. Pick the best 4 bowlers. For me that is Johnson, Siddle, Clark and Hilfenhaus.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:59:10 +0000

Watson has to be out now as he hasnt been picked for the last tour match. I think he is the best all rounder in the country but he never gets on the park!

The headlines say a bowl off between Lee and Clark in this tour match but I think you can throw Haurible into that as well. If he doesnt take wickets I dont see how he can be picked and with suggestions only about 20% of wickets at Sofia Gardens being taken by spinners this season there is every chance of 4 quicks.

I would love to see North score some runs, not convinced he is up to this level yet. If he doesnt and fails in the test then Watson comes into cals providing he is fit (who the hell knows)! Will be intriguing to see whether Katich bowls much in this match. If he does it might be bye bye Nathan.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:17:35 +0000

Sam I didn’t see any of the bowlers, I was commenting on the media reports which I read. Its true that Hauritz didn’t get the return in wickets but the reports did state that he bowled well either side of lunch beating the bat regularly. My mistake about SA, sorry.

Maybe Hauritz was able to build some pressure which helped the seamers to take wickets? Mate, I don’t know exactly what occurred over there and neither do you. I simply gave my opinion, nothing more. I would like to see the guy given more opportunity because I believe he is currently our best spinning option. Maybe if Terry Jenner can give Marcus North some heavy duty tutoring then he will become our best option? Its just opinions and conjecture mate. Cheers,

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:58:42 +0000

Terry, Hauritz didn’t go to SA and he was ordinary in Sydney. McGain was the spinner over in SA. And I don’t think returns of 0/98 and 1/60 was better than any of the seamers. Every other seamer ended up with 3 wickets except for Lee who took 4. Even Hilfenhaus took more wickets and he is now out of the reckoning.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:20:06 +0000

Sam, Hauritz did ok in SA and he won’t give his wicket away cheaply. I’d like to see the selectors give him a go to help build some confidence in his bowling. The reports said he bowled well either side of lunch and was very unlucky, beating the bat regularly on a low slow track. He certainly performed better than the seamers, save Siddle.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:59:57 +0000

Another interesting for the Hilfy backers – he bowled 10 no-balls and a wide. Just 2 short of Lee. That topped with being spanked for 7 an over, it doesn’t make a strong argument for selection, really.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:55:17 +0000

Terry, can an attack with Hauritz really take 20 wickets? Hauritz ended with a massive total of one wicket in the match. Shouldn’t be there for the 1st test IMO.

By: Sam

Sam — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:51:34 +0000

Funny. Lee’s figures were 4/104, Siddle : 3/68, Clark: 3/101 and Hilfenhaus: 3/101. Now, Hilfenhaus is out of the equation IMO, he got absolutely spanked in the 2nd innings. Clark’s lone job was to keep it tight and he ended up going for 4.9 an over. Of the pace bowlers Siddle and Lee were the most economical in the 2nd innings. Of the spinner, well he shouldn’t play in the 1st test. He’s doesn’t even seem to be test quality. I’d go with Johnson, Siddle, Lee and Clark for the 1st test. Hilfy failed to impress and McDonald shouldn’t be considered yet, I’d wait for news on Watson. If he can’t make it, then McDonald would come into play.

By: Jameswm

Jameswm — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:50:21 +0000

MacDonald is supposed to be an equal all rounder (equally average at batting and bowling), which is why I proposed him at 8 and Johnson at 9. Agreed though that Johnson has more form on the board with the bat.

That was supposed to be a left field suggestion of what the selectors would go for. I didn’t mean it was my opinion, but we’ll see.

And Clark has to be the 3rd seamer ahead of Hilfy and Lee.

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:02:42 +0000

Drewster, I said the same thing last week, that I can’t discount Watson. But I will say again (before Vinay falls off his chair, and I think it was Justin too!) that the big proviso is that he must be 100% fit!! He’s a better option than McDonald in my mind..

By: drewster

drewster — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:36:09 +0000

I think Jameswm and Michael C are on the right track with McDonald being the 4th bowler and the the 3 part time spinners. It worked in South Africa so why not try it again. Clark and Hilfenhaus vying for the 3rd seamers role. Watson the dark horse for me

By: Michael C

Michael C — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:33:09 +0000

I agree with Jameswm –

Andrew McDonald might well be ideally suited to England, and his capacity to tie up and end for long periods showed just how far Krejza for example has to go. (noticed he scored 100 odd in the ‘A’ game, but, still got belted for too many when bowling).

And as Terry said, Lee – shouldn’t be there.

By: Justin

Justin — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:06:04 +0000

I dont think we need a bits player at 8, just play another bowler. With Haddin and Johnson there is no need for another all-rounder.

By: Rickety Knees

Rickety Knees — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:03:39 +0000

Thanks Brett and when you consider the closeness of the last Ashes when the games and ultimately the Ashes were won or lost by a couple of runs …

Jameswm – that side would work but Johnson would have to bat above Ronald.

By: Jameswm

Jameswm — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:59:33 +0000

Here’s a left field one (sort of)

First test bowling attack to be Johnson, Siddle, SClark and Ronald MacDonald to tie up one end, with North, Katich and MClarke there as backup.

That puts MacDonald at 8 and Johnson at 9 – very strong batting.

What odds?

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:41:52 +0000

Rickety, just following on from my earlier comment, this today from the tour match report in The Australian:

“Australia sent down an extraordinary 38 no-balls for the match with Lee (3-53 and 1-51) the worst offender as he overstepped 14 times including taking a wicket off a no-ball.”

Old habits, etc, etc…

By: Rickety Knees

Rickety Knees — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:12:25 +0000

Agree with you Vinay – I am not a Hauritz fan either and I can’t believe that the selectors have decided not to invest further in Krejza. Getting 12 wickets on the sub continent against the best players of spin in the world must count for something!
At least Hilfenhaus bowls stump to stump and can move the ball both ways.

By: vinay verma

vinay verma — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:22:31 +0000

Fred- Agree that Siddle ,Johnson and Clark pick themselves. No Hauritz for me and the last spot between Hilfenhaus and Lee. I lean towards Hilfenhaus.

By: Terry Kidd

Terry Kidd — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:53:57 +0000

Brett Lee should not even be touring let alone being considered for the first test. He has previously struggled in England, his pace is down and he is inconsistent. I couldn’t believe that the selectors chose him rather than Doug Bolinger where this tour could have really helped him develop further.

The first test pace attack should be Johnson, Siddle, S Clarke with Hauritz and North to do the spinning backed up by Katich. That is an attack that can take 20 wickets on any track.

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:43:58 +0000

Rickety, heard on the Offsiders yesterday that something like 38 no-balls were bowled in the tour match v Sussex, so it would seem the problem remains. I’m assuming that figure was across the team; no individuals were mentioned. This is also a pet hate of mine, and I’ve been known to give the young punks a serve when they continually overstep at training. Almost to a man, or boy, they counter with “I don’t have any problems in games”, and they generally go silent when I come back with “well you’ve got a massive problem at training”. No, it’s not rocket science, and there is no excuse for it.

Fred, I’m curently working my way through Adam Gilchrist’s lengthy “autobiography”, and I’ve just come up to the 2005 series now. Gilchrist noted that the team was alarmed at Gillespie’s lack of penetration and pace in the First Test, and while that’s no a major revelation in itself, it staggers me to remember that he was perservered with for so long, given the problem was recognised early..

By: Rickety Knees

Rickety Knees — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:28:26 +0000

I could not agree more – Lee is also a serial offender when it comes to bowling no balls, it would be interesting to know how many wickets would have been taken if he had not no-balled. This is beyond my comprehension – surely it is not rocket science to adjust your run tio bowl legal deliveries?

Clark bowls like McGrath – he always bowls on a nagging length and can build pressure from his end. Lee is the opposite for every jaffa he bowls there is an abundance of half trackers and at his pace they usually go for plenty. Every dog has his day and Lee’s has been and gone …..