This Ashes bowling attack

Cricket is simple – to have any chance at winning a Test match you need to take 20 wickets. Sure, scoring more runs than the opposition is handy and there is the odd occasion when a declaration backfires on the declaring team, but as a rule if you can’t consistently take 20 wickets then you will struggle as a Test team.

Which leads me to Australia’s attack for the Ashes and tonight’s first test. All the talk was that Mitchell Johnson was the only bowler with his named inked on the team sheet for the first test and I couldn’t agree more. Yet, I also feel that Peter Siddle had his name pencilled in right next to Johnson’s. The big, bustling, crowd-stirring Victorian had done enough since that first ball in Test cricket that slammed into Gambhir’s helmet on a flat lifeless deck in India to show that he will be an integral part of Australia’s attack for a few years to come.

Mind you, in making that appraisal I’ll admit that I wear my Victorian bias proudly on my sleeve, but so has Bill Lawry and that hasn’t held him back as a commentator since he took to the microphone way back in the World Series days. But Siddle has also showed in the first tour match in England that he deserves his crack at the ol’ enemy.

Before I mention the final two places let me just say that I was relieved to hear that Brett Lee will be missing the first test and if he misses the Second Test then I will breathe a second sigh of relief in as many weeks. The thought of Australia picking an aging Brett Lee, on the comeback from a long term injury after a poor 2008 and with the less-than imposing 29 wickets in 10 tests in England at an average of 45.44, left me worried. Very worried.

Lee’s injury left Stuart Clark, Ben Hilfenhaus, Andrew McDonald and Nathan Hauritz to battle for the final two spots. As only an insane man, myself or Bill Lawry would pick McDonald without bowling a ball in the two tour matches, this realistically leaves it a three way battle for the final spots.

All of the talk of the raging turner – which is increasingly looking like it may’ve been just talk – clouds the issue somewhat.

If it is spinner’s delight, is Nathan Hauritz necessarily going to be any more effective at taking wickets than Clark or Hilfenhaus?

I honestly don’t think he is, and feel that the Australian selectors have erred in selecting him ahead of the more attacking, though more expensive, Jason Krezja, who was left home to skittle a Pakistan second XI in Darwin. I feel that Hauritz’s contribution is more about helping Mr Ponting avoid suspension for slow over rates than it is towards bowling the opposition out twice.

I go back to my point of needing to consistently take 20 wickets to win Test matches.

Therefore I would be strongly advising the selectors (though seldom do they heed my opinions, funnily enough) to play the four quick men as Clark’s seam and bounce and Hilfenhaus’ swing would seem ideally suited to the traditional English conditions.

Both men, on a bad day, would threaten more than Hauritz’s non-turners.