Australia's selectors as bad as England's middle order

but there is a difference, England know that their middle order is average but the Aussie selectors think they are infallible.

dave,Haigh is the master of the under-understatement. Its what he says between the lines that makes him the world's best cricket writer. He is saying victory and defeat are both impostors. Above all his writing is compassionate. Nowhere does he belittle the players except for "the Christ like poses"

Gideon haigh redclons the Australian selectors havent been that bad You’ve lost a Test match - it’s not the end of the world http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6797156.ece "....In essence, Andrew Hilditch and his panel have been auditioning players for longer-term roles, trying and discarding some, blooding and recalling others. Ponting’s team have lost some Test matches, a few badly, been pretty hopeless at Twenty20, sometimes embarrassingly, while certain issues remain unresolved; temporary fixes have been found in the matter of slow bowling and the opening partnership....."

You are right Dave, Dont give a mug a break. Got to be switched on every minute you are out there. Its not a park comp.

Clark bowled poorly in the second dig and got towelled up with 11 overs 0-74, but this can happen when you dont bowl well

JohnB,No problem,I did not misread you,just repeating what I said earlier. As a matter of interestJohnson reached a max speed of 91.4 MPH at Headingley. Siddle 89.5,Clark 86.5 and wait for this..Hilfenhaus 94.6. I was surprised when I saw the Hawkeye analysis on Times Sport. For mine regardless of the pitch these four have to play. Hauritz can fight it out with Watson as far as I am concerned. I'd only have one change and that is Hughes to come in for Hussey. And Watson to bat 4. There is still improvement to come for Australia. Whereas England are having to pull skeletons out of the cupboard.

Vinay - thought I said this yesterday, but must have pressed the wrong button. You are misreading me as criticising or downgrading Clark. As far as I'm concerned, if he's fit he's the first chosen, with Hilfenhaus and Johnson dead-heating for second, and then the state of the pitch (and perhaps the fitness to bowl) of Watson deciding between Siddle and Hauritz for fourth. As to momentum - something of a fickle mistress. If Australia play to their ability, they'll be in a strong position. But that's another of those ifs I'm afraid.

He was the catalyst,JohnB,and the younger bowlers fed off him in the first innings. The game was won before lunch on the first day. That is why I maintain that hauritz should not replace Clark. Clark was the spark. I believe the momentum has swung firmly Ponting's way and if the bowlers bowl like they did at Headingley,irrespective of the pitch,Australia should win comfortably.

Vinay - nowhere. Largely just a suspicion arising from the impression that we punters don't get told much in that regard until someone is already in hospital or gone home from a tour. Obviously he was injured most of last season, and had barely played at all in months. There were certainly commentators pointing to him being unfit in connection with his non-selection in the earlier tests, I think based on him being well down on pace in the lead-up games. Frankly, it's also one of the few logical explanations for that non-selection. He still seemed down on pace at Headingley, particularly in the second innings (as well as being seen icing his elbow while Aust batted - granted, that may just be par for the course at his age). Of course, I may be adding 2 and 2 and getting 5.

JohnB,where did you hear about "whether Clark is fully fit" ?

The different commentators have been saying the Oval might turn or might give a bit of bounce or might be very flat - I suspect the weather probably has a bit to do with it, and that (along with whether Clark is fully fit) will probably have more effect on the selection process than our speculations a week ahead of the event! Interesting how ideas of what a particular venue's character is can develop - the Brisbane greentop idea being a case in point. Brisbane has been a lot drier most years in the past 20 than it was in the 70's and before that. Last year's Brisbane test was on an under-prepared strip. That says nothing about Kevin Mitchell - after a week of torrential rain, it was amazing the game went on at all, let alone with almost no time lost. That's the nearest there's been to a test greentop in Brisbane in the last decade. At the same time, Sydney has been rather schizophrenic - lurching from being a road to a slow turner from one year to the next, whether from official pressure or what I don't know.

Just like your prowess with the swinging ball!

You guys do realise of course my suggested team was very tongue-in-cheek, don't you?

Cant argue with the logic you present but I'll go with my instinct and exclude Hauritz. If we need to keep Watson then bat him at four and drop Hussey. Hughes to come in at 0ne.

James, it sounds like that's all he knows - like Kevin Mitchell only producing greentops in Brisbane and Tom Parker producing raging turners in Sydney... That last County match I referred to above: http://www.cricinfo.com/countycricket2009/engine/current/match/383021.html Leicestershire 5 dec/593 and 0/23, drew with Surrey 4 dec/608 (Ramprakash 274)

not to open the batting, no!! I didn't agree with Watson for Hughes at all, but it's hard to argue with three successive fifties in response. Truth be known, I've always thought Watson would be a very handy player, but his injuries tested my faith. Likewise, I'd be happier if he could bowl more. While away on holiday, I scribbled some notes for a column about Watson's future in the Test team, but these notes may never see the light of day now that North is back in the runs, and Haddin is back in the side!! To answer your question, no, can't drop Watson for Hauritz. In fact, can't drop Watson at all, despite him not offering much with the ball. If however you think this is because of the whole "traditional" allrounder thing again, that's not the case. Watson's a batsman now, it would seem. Hauritz for Siddle is the only required change for mine..

As I said England have more worries than Australia.

Surely - SURELY - the curator will not be allowed to produce a road. That would give England no chance. Having said that, it's not like they will dish up a greentop.

Brett,love the airport tarmac,almost as good as Hilditch swallowing a dead fish. Would you then agree to hauritz for Watson? I think I know your answer.

Vinay, agree England will be bringing baggage back to London, but I'm sure even their middle order wouldn't be too worried about facing four quicks on The Oval, which I think you've been polite in describing as a "road". Road on top of motorway on top of airport tarmac sounds more appropriate!! It sounds like the sort of batting paradise I dream of!!! I too am discounting most of the bowling on the third morning at Headingley, but I still maintain that Hauritz has to come in to offer that specialist point of difference.