Tait won’t struggle on the sub-continent, I’d imagine he’ll be more successful than Siddle and probably Hilfenhaus and similar to Johnson. They are both erratic and that’s the only real question for mine – can Australia’s batting afford to carry two somewhat erratic fast bowlers or only the one? They are the two most talented quickies (Siddle is up there but of a different kind, more in the McDermott mould) but if Aus isn’t extremely strong in the batting then only one of them can play.

I suggest North open in test matches(in tandem with Warner), since Lee/Johnson et al are capable batsmen down the order.

I agree that Katich is a decent opener, although he tends to score more in the X and his shuffle reminds me of Chanderpaul and Gambhir (another player who scores in the X).

With the fitness concerns behind ‘pup’ Clarke, he should be induced to retire from T20 and ODIs, so that the OZ can settle as a team. But with the stakes involved I doubt this will be allowed to happen.

Regarding the spinners, there is really nobody in the class of Warne now, although making Katich as the captain might ensure more aggressive usage of spinners.

I think Watson has the potential to be a good test batsmen, but like somebody said his cricket is very robotic. He probably needs guidance/backing from his Captains/senior players. If he is able to reverse the ball at pace, then he would be an useful pick for test matches.

I think Tait will struggle in the slow pitches in the sub-continent.

Warner and Marsh should be backed all the way. They are the most talented young cricketers of the current lot.

Ponting is currently the best ODI player in the world. period. he reminds me very much of the athletic Mohammed Azharuddin.

Unable to make a judgement on Johnson. His batting is very valuable in tests and his wicket taking ability is valuable in ODIs, but he doesn’t give the impression of finished package yet.

Going by the just concluded CLT20, the pace attack can be lead by Siddle with NSW contributing the rest of the pack. But nobody in the class of McGrath or McDermott definitely.

I am one who would prefer to let Ferguson develop at the highest level rather than Shield but your arguments are well founded.

Your irrationality with North is that you don’t include him in your test XI. On all evidence to date he has to be in the XI. I agree that Callum F looks to be very talented, but he has only 4 first-class centuries to his name, versus North’s 27 (+ 3 test centuries!). Ferguson needs to go away and score 10+ centuries in Shield cricket before he should be considered for test cricket. Australian batting is not so weak – far from it – that, a la New Zealand, batsmen get chosen on talent alone. There are hundreds of batsmen as talented as Ferguson in the world, in fact there are hundreds in India alone. What discriminates between these players is their ability to use their talent, something that is only established by making lots of first-class runs and centuries.

As for Hauritz, I do not disagree with anything you write. However the point here is that one doesn’t drop a solid player to replace him with someone worse. When the wicket-taking spinner for whom we all crave arrives on the scene, then Hauritz will make way for that person. Until then, we have to accept that Hauritz is the best we have. I stress that this last sentence is based purely on the last two years of evidence – it is certainly not the view I started out with, and I stress that is a view that I only hold with reluctance.

Hauritz was probably the “pick of the bowlers” (although Siddle was pretty good too) – only because he was so economical. He didn’t look to pose a single threat in his 10 overs, 0/54 was a good return considering the total but look at the overall score and what his contribution was and it’s obvious what he lacks – wickets.

Yes he made a good run-out but we expect out batsmen to be the contributors in the field, Hauritz is there as our spin-bowler and if he can’t take wickets he shouldn’t be in the team.

Dhoni just waited it out, saw him off without a problem and belted the snot out of the quicker bowlers whereas a proper spinner would have attacked the batsmen, one wicket in the middle of the innings would have changed the game, Hauritz failed to deliver but will undoubtedly be praised for being so tidy.

As soon as the pressure is on Aus, Hauritz doesn’t look so good and we don’t have McGrath’s and Gillespies to cover his weaknesses any more, we need a front line spinner and Hauritz ain’t it.

White is mediocre at best and doesn’t have the talent to play international cricket for Australia, Holland I haven’t seen enough of so I’ll give him a chance to prove himself but White, I cannot believe he actually gets picked for Aus.

If we didn’t have a Vic and 3 Tasmanians (quasi-Vics) selecting the side White would never get a match.

Re Hauritz. Greg, he is the one guy really splitting opinion in Aus right now. I won’t deny he has improved out of sight but he isn’t the weapon that we need for a spin bowler. Australian spinners are used to take wickets, they might be a tad expensive but that is their role in the team.

Warne was exceptional in that he was able to both defend and attack with equal verve, MacGill was just an excellent attacking bowler (hence Warne has the better average, Macgill the better SR). Hauritz on the other hand is a defensive spinner, he holds one end down and will look to frustrate batsmen into giving away their wickets rathen than bowling unplayable deliveries.

This style can work, Swann has had success and he is of a similar ilk but they get found out when their team isn’t dominating. Hauritz isn’t going to turn a game for you, he isn’t highly likely to break a partnership (I’d say M Clarke is a better option when Ponting REALLY needs a wicket) and if the batsmen are on top, Hauritz is more-or-less useless.

At this moment he is probably the best spinner in Aus, but he isn’t the kind of spinner we should accept and get used to, he doesn’t play the way Australia need him to play and that is nothing against Hauritz, that’s just not his style.

His stats back up my theory here Greg, both Warne and his successor in ODI’s Hogg have better average’s (more to do with the extra wickets than tighter bowling) and SR’s than Hauritz while his economy rate of 4.46 is better than Hogg’s and exceptional for this day and age it tells you everything – he is a defensive bowler.

Lee definately over Hilfenhaus and Bollinger (I included Siddle and Johnson so I don’t see why you’re listing them). He is an excellent bowler and will take wickets when we need them, his batting is also very useful down the order while Hilfenhaus doesn’t take enough wickets in my opinion and I haven’t seen enough of Bollinger to rule him out for the future but what I have seen hasn’t impressed me.

Lee is a proven fast bowler with experience on grounds around the world, you can’t JUST have young guys in the team.

Krejza is distinctly average, as evidenced by his inability to make headway at NSW and his run-of-the-mill showings for Tasmania.

He’s all Adam Voges-style hype.

And you actually think Tait is going to sort out his mental difficulties and that horrible action sufficiently to be a stand-out performer at Test level?

Further reason why he should not be captain.

You are also going to have to bury the hatchet with regard to North. I don’t know what you have against him as a test cricketer, but it’s irrational. He deserved his chance, and he has taken it with both hands.

As I made clear with a vignette beneath one of your postings last week (did you see my story about North Sydney Oval?), the primary criterion in cricket selection is common sense. The next most important criterion after that is also common sense. Don’t forget this.

I’d hate for him to get himself fit again and be stuck behind someone like Katich or Hodge, old blokes who’ll milk all the time they can out of playing for Aus.

Ponting may want to play every game he can, Watson and Lee too but they cannot cope with it. Ponting isn’t a spring chicken Vinay, he’ll be 35 in December, he’s been playing at international level for pushing 15 years, he can’t keep it up forever so keep him for the tests, that’s where his true worth to the Australian cause is shown.

Hauritz can do the job at Test level better than any of the other spinners in Australia. And this is not about me being right or you wrong or vice versa. This is my considered opinion.

Lehman and Hodge were never regulars and it is unfortunate they had to contend with Matk Waugh and now Clarke. But there is more to Hodge’s ommission than meets the eye. I dont know the inside story but I would hazard his attitude has something to do with it.

As far as the pressures from journos or photographers is concerned if you play for big bucks it goes with the territory. Some handle it better than others and no one is forcing them to be away from their mummies or WAGS.

Ponting is an exceptional batsman and it would be shortchanging the paying viewer for him to take the money and not play. He would want to play every game he could.

David Hussey is the same, he’s 32 already, hasn’t got a test cap and only 23 ODI’s. Bring in someone (like Ferguson) who has their entire career ahead of them and give them the opportunity at the highest level to gain experience in their mid-20’s rather than in the twilight of their career.

Bollinger I haven’t seen that much of but he hasn’t impressed me so far but I don’t mind your test squad, with the exception of Haurity I could like with it.

He is solid but non-threatening. In ODI’s you only have 10 overs, if the pressure is on the other team he will be an effective weapon because he can keep it tight and maybe force a few batsmen to throw their wickets away but if the batsmen are set, they’ll either see him off or belt him around the park, just depending on conditions.

If Aus want to play two spinners he is the ideal muse for a leggie but he can’t be the only spin bowler in the side.

Ponting’s omission is simple. He is the best test batsman we have and that by far, his best fielding days are behind him and while he’s still got great hands, he’s not as nimble as he was even 5 years ago. Save him for the tests, that’s where Aus need him the most. He is still an excellent ODI players but he has had an enormous workload for far too long, I’d like to see him play another 4-5 years of test cricket and I don’t think he’ll manage that unless he gives up ODI’s sooner rather than later.

“He performed poorly in his only Test and like Shoaib Akhtar can be a liability.”

Your analysis of Tait is incorrect and he has played 3 tests. Mentally frail is over-simplifying matters. I’m not sure if you’ve ever been seriously injured but having done my knee a few times I know the frustration of it all, sitting around wishing you could play, even wishing you could walk to the letter box, it’s the mental aspect of injuries that is the hardest to overcome, the rehab at least feels like you’re getting somewhere.

While he may not have the scorn of a Dennis Lillee he is certainly every bit as talented as any fast bowler Australia has produced over the last generation, with the exception of McGrath.

Yes he didn’t flatter in his first test, but here are some other match figures from debuts for you:

Alan Thomson – Golden Duck + 4* & 1/156
Shane Warne – 21 runs (batted behind McDermott!) & 1/150
Glenn McGrath – Golden duck & 3/142
Jason Gillespie – 16* & 2/89
Shaun Tait – 3* + 4 & 3/121

We all know how well the other names there did for Aus so why doesn’t Tait get his chance?

Mark Waugh also played in a different age, his pile of runs was the norm in those days, look at some of the other guys who were in the same boat, Lehmann, Katich, Hodge, to get a place in the team they didn’t have one good summer, they had a good career before they were regulars for Aus and even then, one slip and they were out the door.

You’re correct about the attitude towards the game from some of the players. Many of them I feel are only in it for the money but at the same time, I certainly don’t begrudge them that. Cricket isn’t a sport were players can constantly move clubs and seek new horizons, you’ve only got one team you can play for at the highest level and that team only has 11 spots. To make it you have to be extremely dedicated, the pressures on players private lives are immense, they are hounded by journo’s in the papers for their “poor” performances, by photographers, they are away from their loved one’s for months on end etc etc. While it may be a lot of young boys dream to wear the baggy green, it comes with a lot of baggage for which exceptional financial compensation is deserved.

Lee is in the same boat. A fine bowler and I think underrated since he made his debut (couldn’t get a run for a while) but he is injury prone and I’d rather him in my test line up. You’ve got to think about the work loads of these players. 20 or 30 ODI games in 12 months is a lot of strain on a player, particulary a fast bowler as they have to prepare for these games etc., it’s a lot of work they put on their bodies and it’s been beginning to show over the last few years with the number of injured players Australia has had.

M. Clarke I rate as an excellent accumulator, you can’t have a team of sloggers in a 50 over game, you’ll be found out too often and Clarke along with Hussey and Ferguson will hold the innings together, Hussey to play the role Bevan did so well towards the end of the innings.

I’d also use Johnson as a “floating batsmen”. Captains (Ponting in particular) have become accustomed to not taking risks and just letting the game run. There is no reason to not elevate Johnson to 4 when Australia are cruising, give him the extra time and he might just make 50 off 25 balls and boost a 280 total toward 350.

I don’t rate Hauritz, he doesn’t pose enough of a threat in ODI’s and is only capable of frustrating batsmen into giving their wicket away, that might work in a test match but in a 50 over game that time is too precious for mine.

Cameron White I wouldn’t include in a state team. He is the worst player to represent Aus for the last decade, perhaps even longer.

I tend to agree with you on Clarke, but he’s the golden boy… I’d go for D Hussey over him (neither Marsh nor Voges should be part of the international set up).

On the Test team: I wouldn’t have Lee or Tait anywhere near it; Hauritz is better than Krejza; Jaques and Hughes are the best opening pair; Bollinger should be recalled for the West Indies series, so we can see if he can rival the three incumbents for a regular place.

My Test squad: Jaques, Hughes, Katich(c), Clarke, Ponting, North, Haddin, Johnson, Hauritz, Siddle, Hilfenhaus, Bollinger, Watson (middle order reserve).

I won’t go as far as adding new squads here (you’ll get plenty anyway), but I too wondered why you left Ponting out of the ODI side, especially while ever he’s been going so well after we lost Watson early. Like has happened how many times now?? And still he plays across straight balls…

No doubt we’re entering another transition phase in the next few seasons, but thankfully, there’s plenty of talent to go around..

I’ll just address your one-day squad for now

Here it is

ODI Squad
1) P. Hughes
2) B. Haddin
3) S. Marsh
4) M. Clarke
5) S. Watson
6) C. Ferguson
7) M. Hussey
M. Johnson
9) S. Tait
10) N. Bracken
11) P. Siddle
12) D. Warner, S. Katich, T. Paine, B. Hilfenhaus

Firstly, you’re kidding about Marsh, right? At his best he was slow and went through stages of not being able to hit it off the square. he struggled to keep his wicket, let alone score, against top quality new ball bowling.

Next I don’t rate Clarke as a one-day player, and he shouldn’t be let near the T20 team. He is a very good test player now though.

Next – no Hauritz? His one-day bowling has been exceptional for 6 months.

And no Ponting? Was that an oversight?

And no Lee in the one day team? He’s an excellent one day bowler

This would be mine

1) P. Hughes – I agree with having a genuine opener there
2) B. Haddin
3) R Ponting (you had Marsh)
4) C Ferguson up the order (you had M. Clarke). He has done very well since he came into the side. Put Mitch to 4 if we’re 2 for 160 after 28 overs.
5) S. Watson
6) M. Hussey – going better for one-dayers now but I wouldn’t pick him for the tests. I’d put watson to 5-6 and Hughes back tot he top
7) Warner or Katich. Katich can do anything anywhere and Warner would do better at this level without facing the new ball. A Symonds would have been nice if his head was in the right spot. Or else James Hopes here, who remains a solid contributor with bat and ball. Keep him until another all rounder cries out to be picked, whether it be Steve Smith, Henriques or someone else.
M. Johnson – also as a floating batsman. Heck of a strike force coming in at 8
9) B Lee (you had S. Tait) – heck of a batting force to have at 9
10) N Hauritz – our standout one-day spinner
11) N. Bracken or Siddle – can only keep one of them

That’s 14.

Tough on Cam White after how well he’s done lately. Hilfy and Nannes are the other bowlers to consider. Tait if he gets his mojo back, but only then.

Can Magoffin really bat that well? He’d be an interesting option, as I always thought he was a specialist bowler.

Noffke’s another if he gets his mojo back out west.

You omit Ponting from the ODI squad. Do you have a rational explanation for this? Before I damn you with the scant praise I reserve for administrators.

Shaun Tait is an enigma. Physically and mentally frail is my opinion. Why should he get special treatment? He performed poorly in his only Test and like Shoaib Akhtar can be a liability. Guys like Mark Waugh had to score 5000 or so Shield runs before they got a look in. I dont believe in mollycoddling young players. They have enough opputunities if they are good enough. It is rare that anyone with talent escapes the talent trawling net.

If anything the current process is less parochial and a sight more equitable than the situation 50 years ago.
By and large what you are advocating has been in place for quite some time. What has changed though in the last two years is the money now available through IPL and CL. The player’s expectations have changed and I suspect Ponting is looking for players that are focussed on playing for Australia rather than chasing the big bucks. I would suggest that if players focus on playing their best for Australia the money will look after itself. Young men suddenly showered with millions will be encouraged by their “10%” Managers to take the money. Young cricketers in Australia,and all over the world,should be given a refresher course in the traditions and values of the games.We have a lot of cricketing “nobodies” currently swanning around with designer sunnies and gold chains and they are no more than parodies.