View Full Version : Australian Team Vs South Africa
Kane McGoodwin
8 Dec 2001, 17:17
There has been a fair bit of discussion as to whether Australia should change their line-up (which was unchanged for the NZ Series). Many (such as Ian Chappell & Darren Lehman) have suggested that a 2nd spinner is required for the Adelaide Test. So what are the options?
If Australia were to retain the same batting line-up (as none really deserved to be dropped at this stage), but require 2 spinners, which pace-man misses out? Lee & Gillespie were the best performed bowlers against NZ, but one of them would probably miss, as you can't see the selectors relegating McGrath after one indifferent series.
If the selectors do want a second specialist spinner, who should they choose? Miller can't get a game with Victoria, Young isn't in great form, McGill doesn't compliment Warney, Higgs & Harautz are still pretty raw. My personal choice would be Hogg, as he always seems to play well against the Redbacks on Adelaide Oval. Also, this would gives the the selectors the choice of playing 3 quicks & 2 spinners (dropping a batsman) as Hogg is handy with bat (ie. Gilly @ 6 with the form of Warne & Lee, the batting line-up would still be OK).
Of course the team could remained unchanged as Mark Waugh is not exactly the worst off-spinner going around. Certainly food for thought for the selectors as the Adelaide Test could go along way to determining the momentum of this series (& World Champs)
GoEagles
8 Dec 2001, 17:46
Kane - I'm glad you've brought up this topic, sure to get a lot of debate on who is Australia's 2nd best spinner.
I have to agree with you that Brad Hogg wouldn't be a bad choice for the Adelaide test, considering he bowled quite well in the Shield match the other week on the same ground. Hoggy actually used to be a groundsman at my high school and often used to watch him bowl in the nets at lunchtime. I doubt he gets a lot of exposure over east, but he obviously has caught the selectors eye when he played his sole test against India in 98(?)
Stuart McGill IMO is the 2nd best spinner, at times better then Shane Warne, but If they do go for a 2nd spinner Brad Young might get to wear the Baggy Green.
It's a shame that MacGill is out of favour, although this may be a combination of politics and his own errant behaviour. He is clearly in the best two spinners in the country (with Warne).
Personally, if they don't pick Magilla... why not Michael Bevan? Forget his "failures" as a batsman (average 29 is moderate, not an out-and-out dud) - he has bowlded well at Test and one-day level and even his 29 average will bolster Australia's out of form middle order.
There's a few lefties in South Africa's side, and chinaman bowlers get some vicious turn which can cripple lefties. Bevan has been a little expensive, and can be wayward.. yes it's a gamble but the guy can take wickets and is a brilliant fielder.
His batting average of 29 doesn't look too bad coming in at 7 or 8, does it? Bowling average is 24 by the way. If his past record has him ot of favour, I'd suggest Andy Symonds who has a similar track record as a bowler (short spelss, wicket taker, sometimes expensive) and can be sussed out as a Test batting prospect while not picked specifically as a batsman.
Then again, young Anthony Clarke and Mark Higgs from NSW look good prospects... ;)
BTW, just read an update on the Baggy Green website... Stuart MacGill is in the Test squad.
I would think MacGill will be carrying the drinks, even if the Adelaide pitch is suited to 2 spinners, how can you even think of dropping Lee, McGrath or Gillespie.
None of the batsmen are in danger of getting dropped, After 10 great years, the Waughs had 1 bad series (and Marks series wasnt overly bad) and everyone thinks they should make way. Martyn is in form, while Langer and Hayden couldnt possibly be dropped after their series.
I would suggest to leave the team the same, and have MacGill carry the drinks.
I think they should play the five bowlers meaning one of the batsman would have to miss out. It would probably have to be Damien Martyn even though he doesn't deserve to be omitted. If five bowlers are played i can't see the two openers the Waugh twins and Ponting being dropped before Martyn.
dogboy23
10 Dec 2001, 08:36
We definetly should not play 5 bowlers we will need as many batsman as we possibly can.South Africas bowlers are a tight and disciplined bunch.There will be no easy runs for us and they will bowl a tight annoying line and length all day.Tailenders like Lee and Warne will not have the luxury of coming in with a solid base and will be forced to defend more than there normal aggressive styles.I have big fears about this series because i feel our batting lineup looks brittle against the type of bowling the south africans will employ.Ricky Ponting at number 3 is my biggest worry.He needs to temper his attacking nature against the south africans because they will bowl extremely tight.IMO we should stick with the lineup we already have.;)
hawkfan5
10 Dec 2001, 16:06
Brett Lee would have to be dropped wouldnt he?
They wouldnt drop Gillespie or McGrath.
It's definately out of Lee and MacGill, hawkfan, according to the news. Think they'll stick to the current lineup tho.
Kane McGoodwin
10 Dec 2001, 17:50
I agree with Dogboy, that we cannot afford to play 5 bowlers with the batting ability of the bowlers picked. If the selectors wanted 5 bowlers, they should have picked Hogg, Higgs or Bevan, each of which have some batting ability. As it has been mentioned, Warne & Lee won't find it as easy against the South African attack - so we can't afford a long tail.
It should be kept in mind that M Waugh is a handy offspinner & with Martyn & Ponting's medium-pacers, we have part-time options to support the 4 main bowlers.
It probably comes down to Lee & McGill for 12th man duty. I think Terry Jenner got it right when he mentioned Adelaide Oval doesn't necesarily favour spin bowlers but quality bowlers. I would pick Lee as he is running into a bit of form & I think he will have the suprise element as I don't think he has played the South African's before. Also, he has the ability to clean up the tail & give some of the lesser-experienced batsmen some worrying moments.
Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
I would pick Lee as he is running into a bit of form & I think he will have the suprise element as I don't think he has played the South African's before. Also, he has the ability to clean up the tail & give some of the lesser-experienced batsmen some worrying moments.
LOL - what tail? Those buggers bat a long way down! Lucky for Australia they don't have Richardson and Symcox at 9 & 10 anymore!!!
Having 3 proven all-rounders (Kallis and Pollock are the best in the world, and Klusener can turn it on as well), they can afford to bat them fairly low and stock up on batsmen.
Kane McGoodwin
10 Dec 2001, 18:05
Darky - they are likely to have Nitini, Donald & Henderson playing in the 1st Test (with the allrounders Pollock, Kallis & Kleusner), so they do have a bit of a tail - just a shorter one than most teams. They tend to prefer the extra bowling option rather than the extra batsman, as they still bat down to eight with Boucher.
topjars
10 Dec 2001, 18:08
I hope this big headed pr!kk plays and gets carted out of the ground; maybe then he might learn a few manners.
Hogg would be my pick at Martyns expense
kretchy
10 Dec 2001, 19:29
Originally posted by Darky
LOL - what tail? Those buggers bat a long way down! Lucky for Australia they don't have Richardson and Symcox at 9 & 10 anymore!!!
Having 3 proven all-rounders (Kallis and Pollock are the best in the world, and Klusener can turn it on as well), they can afford to bat them fairly low and stock up on batsmen.
Normally they would also have Boje another all-rounder in the side at the expense of Henderson, which is a shame because it would have been good to see both teams playing at full strength.
Briedis
12 Dec 2001, 10:59
Originally posted by Darky
It's a shame that MacGill is out of favour, although this may be a combination of politics and his own errant behaviour. He is clearly in the best two spinners in the country (with Warne).
Personally, if they don't pick Magilla... why not Michael Bevan? Forget his "failures" as a batsman (average 29 is moderate, not an out-and-out dud) - he has bowlded well at Test and one-day level and even his 29 average will bolster Australia's out of form middle order.
There's a few lefties in South Africa's side, and chinaman bowlers get some vicious turn which can cripple lefties. Bevan has been a little expensive, and can be wayward.. yes it's a gamble but the guy can take wickets and is a brilliant fielder.
His batting average of 29 doesn't look too bad coming in at 7 or 8, does it? Bowling average is 24 by the way. If his past record has him ot of favour, I'd suggest Andy Symonds who has a similar track record as a bowler (short spelss, wicket taker, sometimes expensive) and can be sussed out as a Test batting prospect while not picked specifically as a batsman.
Then again, young Anthony Clarke and Mark Higgs from NSW look good prospects... ;)
I agree darky. Bevan is a versatile cricketer and much better than that average of 29....it'll never happen though.