The trouble was, Quiney was Australia's best bowler

Promote Quiney to opening bowler for the 2nd innings, then we might have half a chance!

Well hitting 138 when 49 is the next best score from the other 29 wickets to fall is a good statement.

He made them play yes but did he trouble them? No. Both of them are patient enough and do not mind to concede certain periods to bowlers. I do not sell him short or not saying he did anything wrong but to say he was the best bowler or the best on the pitch because hew bowled 1 over before tea and three or four overs before the close of play would be unfair.

or lacked ancient Indian legends to ping

Ussie is clearly the best Aussie batsman outside the Australian team. He's better than at least 3 in the current top 6 in the Australian team. This bucketload of runs is a myth created by the current selection panel, for reasons that can only be speculated upon. They have used the idiotic Argus report select "in form" players mantra, and by implicatiion drop certain players on dodgy premises, as an excuse. He is already 26 and Australia has been deprived of him being given a decent run of test matches in the season past. At the very least he is a building block the future. As for the alleged fielding, strike turnover rubbish. Whisky Tango Foxtrot? Was any decent test batsman, or bowler for that matter, ever prohibited for his fielding or abiliity to hit a single?

What on earth is happening here is exactly what should be happening here. The young blokes go back to the Sheild, make a bucket of runs, sort their issues out and eventually get back in the XI. At which point they'll be all of 25 and still have a 10 year career ahead of them. I can't see too many problems with that.

Never ceases to annoy me regarding the double standards set by these selectors. Here we have Khawaja, just having scored 138 for Queensland on a seaming wicket, and being the top scorer in shield cricket in the country with an average near 50, and he's told by selectors that he has to address turning the strike over more regularly and scoring more 'ones'. What planet are these people from!. Here we have Cowen with a test average of 29 and one of the slowest scorers in the game who takes ages to score and get off strike, and who has done nothing in shield or other forms of the game this year, and they select him and say how well he's playing.. Yet Khawaja leads the shield runs and scores a century with 21 fours, and he's told he's not good enough. Add to that Hughes early season strong form that is being ignored for lesser players and you wonder what on Earth is happening up there. No wonder Australia is likely to get belted this summer. We've got selectors who quite rankly dont want them to win.

Maybe McDermott was a brilliant bowling coach, or the radar was off by 10kms per hour. Pitch was allegedly a bit on the slow side. No coincidence that they seemed to lack a yard in pace, and a couple of yards of aggro, under the new bowling instructor. The new ball (read first session) field settings didn't exactly encourage aggressive bowling either.

A few years ago I decided I wanted to "do" an Ashes tour after I had retired. That was in the days of Taylor and Waugh. I tagged $80k from my super so my wife and I could do the whole tour. I just didn't realise we would have a Daily Telegraph celebrity as our captain and a mob of over paid sooks who keep breaking down pretending to be playing for love of country.

I don't know how hilfy didn't get a wicket on review. That point aside, the conditions were made for him and he should have been almost unplayable. I'm more concerned the selectors bypassed the left armer, offie combo. I was under the impression that it is very wise, if you play a right arm offie, to play a left arm pace man to build rough for the offie. Not to mention the variety a lefty provides. The selectors just don't seem to look at the test team as a whole unit. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download it now [http://itunes.apple.com/au/app/the-roar/id327174726?mt=8].

Not sure why Hilfenhaus or Starc were picked for this match. They simply have not bowled enough overs with a red ball to know what sort of form they have. Hilfenhaus seems to be very round arm at the moment- probably needs to play a lot more before being considered.

I tend to agree on the basic point - the appearance of depth in our fast bowling ranks is largely because our best bowlers simple arenotthat good. Serviceable at Test level, but nothing more on a regular basis. If the best are second-rate, there should be a lot of depth at that level. That doesn't necessarily mean that the next crop of youngsters are any better. We really need more of top line players playing more Shield games in order to really make these comparisons. (Why aren't there Shield games between the Tests?) There is no point dropping a player if the next in line isn't any better, and Hilf can bowl better - hopefully he just needs a long workout after playing so much of the 20 over game, he did beat the bat a couple of times and things may have been differene if he had pitched it up an extra metre more regularly. btw, I am relieved to see someone still mention Copeland, a lot wrote him off after his short run at the top level. He may not be a part of the answer

I suspect these tests will reveal something to Australia, what many of us have thought for some time. That we are well behind the best teams in the World. South Africa were playing with us on the first day, such is the awesome brilliance of their batting and the lethal power of their bowling, that is yet to come. That's not to say Australia wont get something positive out of these tests. I've felt that Australia has some very fine fast bowlers on the rise, and perhaps it is time to bring in the younger ones like Starc and Cummins when he is again fit, because along with a few other fine bowlers in Cutting, McDermott, Faulkner and Hazelwood they have the basis of a world class fast bowling group....but they are about 2 years from that yet. Point is not to expect to much of this group too soon and give them time to develop facing the best. For mine, though I acknowledge that Starc should have been included probably for Hilfenhaus, luck wasnt on Australia's side on this first day and but for some uncharacteristic mistakes and very close decisions, they could have been in a much better position. Quiney did well, but as stated is a Hussey mode bowler and I wouldnt be making too much of that. For me it is the Australian batting, that is likely to be facing a 500-600 run chase, where I suspect Australia's true vulnerabilities will appear. I'll reserve judgement on Quiney because though 30 years old and having a sub 40 first class average, he has been on a 50 average over the past two years. I suspect he'll be found lacking, but he may prove me wrong. But It is time for Warner to stand up and show more defensive discipline rather than going for a quick fire 30-40. We need him to score big. I'll be surprised if Cowen offers much other than occupying the crease for an hour or two for 20-30 runs. This will leave Clarke and the old timers Ponting and Hussey, upon which so much of Australia's hopes have rested in recent years. Hopefully Wade will also reveal more than potential and pick up a decent score. But I suspect with Australia's vulnerable batting line up, we will be probably following on and, barring rain, potentially losing the test by almost an innings. The true indication of how Australia is going will then, I suspect, start to take realistic shape.

I think the issue is that our bowlers probably just aren't that good. I am a fan of Starc and Hazelwood but they need to perform at first class level before they make the test team. Mitchell Stark has a fairly poor first class record with an average of over 32 and taking less then 3 wickets a match and Hazelwood is fairly similar. Jackson Bird has played the same amount of matches as Hazelwood and taken almost twice as many wickets at an average of 20.16, and a strike rate of 40 and takes 5 wickets a match on average. Alistair McDermott is another who has a significantly better record in first class cricket. In our starting line up I think Pattison is the best of the young bowlers in Australia and our best bowler. Siddle has the heart of a lion and has a fairly solid record and I think is the perfect 3rd quick. The position of Hilfernhaus is a concern to me. At his best as he was last year he is a good bowler but he is back to his one spot round arm swingers yesterday and IMO struggle to hold his spot. As to who should replace him - well it should be down to weight of wickets in first class cricket and that counts out both Starc and Hazelwood who have the worst records of anyone in contention. I think both have a future in particular Hazelwood but they have to prove it. I would personally say it should be between 4 bowlers - Bird, Cutting, Copeland, McDermott - who all have good records and bring different things to the team Cutting - Great bowler , good results and has the added stregth of being a bowling all rounder have scored his first 100 and a 50 already in this yrs sheffiled shield Copeland - Has the best economy rate of all the choices and not only takes wickets but creates wickets at the other end, although is a bit slower then the others McDermot - Young quick and a wicket taker with his upbringning meaning he is likely to fit in well with the team Bird - Takes wickets and lots of them - form and results - this is what test cricket used to be about and what the NSP and everyone else talks about with batsmen that they need to us the wieght of runs well bowlers need a heap of wickets and he is taking them

Quiney did bowl well but it also must be taken into consideration SA scouted Pattinson, Hilfenhaus, Lyon and Siddle. A good tight stump to stump line- Australia will be laughing if he bats as well as he bowls.

Not sure that those calling for Starc and Hazlewood are providing any supporting solid reasoning. Clear indication of NSW bias (coming from David Lord again..... Surprise, surprise). Both have average first class records. Therefore those complaining that Rob Quiney shouldn't be in the team because he averages less than 40 with the bat shouldn't be calling for Starc, Hazlewood or Cummins who all average above 30 with the ball. James Faulkner should be ahead of Starc. I agree with you though jamesb, both Siddle and Hilfenhaus shouldn't be in the same team. Having Hilfenhaus in the team yesterday showed the limitations. Hilf had to bowl from one end (which was also Pattinson's preferred end) and have the new ball when he is most effective. In reality the new ball should have gone to Patto and Siddle, with Patto bowling from his preferred end.

It's not that both are workhorses for me. Their pace was much lower than last year again the Indians. Hilfenhaus was barely getting passed 130kph, the bowling arm was very low at times. Siddle was 135-139, but that some 5-7 kph down than what he normally bowls. If they are going to be bowling at reduced pace, they shouldn't be selected. There's plenty of seam bowling available.

I like to see Tasmania's Jackson Bird get given a go as well. Australia does have depth in fast bowling, so we don't have to always saddle up with Hilfenhaus or Siddle. I also think what it showed yesterday was that Siddle and Hilfenhaus shouldn't be in the same side. Both are workhorse type bowlers. We need some class. Either we have one or the other, or that both should be dropped.

The worrying think is Hilfenhaus and Siddle have been letdowns in the past, yet after doing well against a relatively terrible Indian side - they are deemed Test class. Siddle and Hilfenhaus should be axed for good. Pattinson, Starc would be first choice for me, in the absence of Ryan Harris and Patrick Cummins. I think Josh Hazlewood would be an excellent 3rd seamer behind any of the 4 I mentioned above. Nathan Lyon, just like Graeme Swann was in SA's last Test series, will be taken apart.

Quiney Australia's best bowler?!? I'd describe him as competent, in a Mike Hussey kind of way. Good to roll the arm over without leaking too many runs, but he never looked like taking a wicket. Siddle was very disappointing, particularly with the no-ball wicket. He's developing a bit of a habit of doing that.