View Full Version : Lee or Clark?
Lee or Clark??
I think one of these guys will come in for the 4th test… but not both..
So… Who should it be??
Both are coming off long term injuries… underdone at test level…
We know that Lee is quick… really quick… and if on song could really shake up the poms and pick up some quick wickets… however… his form before he got injured was terrible and he can also be very expensive…something that the lineup really doesn’t need at the moment… is also good for handy runs lower in the order…
Clark… is Mr Reliable and the leading wicket taker of the last Ashes… he bowls a tight line and gets good bounce and seam movement… seems well suited to English conditions and will keep the runs tight if nothing else…
Personally I would like to see S.Clark included for Pete Siddle..
eagles06
4 Aug 2009, 16:16
We need another reliable bowler like Clark. Clark in for Siddle and if Johnson doesn't perform in the 4th test then hopefully Lee will be right to come in for him.
peternorth
4 Aug 2009, 16:17
clark
jakethesnake
4 Aug 2009, 16:54
Clark.
Selective Retention
4 Aug 2009, 17:06
Everyone on here will say Clark, Lee if fit will be the one that gets picked. Nielsen has something against Clark for some completely unknown reason.
Clark, but if Lee was in form it would be him.
Clark.
But we all know Lee will come in.
Clark.
But we all know Lee will come in.
Why do you say that?
King Elvis
4 Aug 2009, 17:28
Clark, without question.
He's a better bowler fullstop.
He's a more experienced, more successful bowler in England.
He's less likely to break down than Lee.
Has to come in for Siddle, it's a complete no-brainer, surely.
Punchy Bassett
4 Aug 2009, 17:33
Was it an or question? Bring in both drop Siddle and Hauritz.
TheColeTrain
4 Aug 2009, 18:07
The thought of Brett Lee playing makes me physically ill.
So yeah, Clark obviously, he is tailor made for English conditions
Clark.
We need control, not Lee getting hammered all over the place adding even more issues to the leaky boat.
lions_den
4 Aug 2009, 18:36
Both. Out Siddle and Hauritz. North to bowl the majority of spin overs, Clarke to chip in when required (Katich should, but never does).
TorresIsGod
5 Aug 2009, 01:42
Clark in for Hauritz, keep Siddle in the side as well.
Hilfy and Siddle to take the new ball, Clark and Johnson as the change bowlers as the ball gets older and hopefully moves around a bit for Johnson while Clark at the other end is keeping it tight and getting a bit of seam movement.
mattymac
5 Aug 2009, 02:05
clark in for siddle without a second thought.
we have to bowl as a unit, not each man trying for a chance glory ball and going at 4-5 an over. clark is a team bowler. he will bring authority and experience with him.
that episode when freddy got away from us off watto's and siddle's pies and put the game beyond us would never have happened if stuey clark was in. nor would we have lost at lord's if he had played.
if they don't play clark again then its serious bizzaro time.
Clark.
But we all know Lee will come in.
Tend to agree
fraser25
5 Aug 2009, 08:56
Definately Clark.
But I kind've don't like the assertion that we need him in because he keeps it tight.
He is just a brilliant bowler, you don't need to find reasons to include him in any cricket sides other than that fact.
frankrizzo
5 Aug 2009, 09:01
As others have said should be clark(should have been for the third test) will be lee.
Clark has been back playing cricket for months now so the idea he hasn't proved his fitness is laughable.
But he's clearly ranked very lowly by our selection brain's trust, if he was going to play he would have played by now.
Clarke for Siddle
McDonald for Hauritz
Lee not to play a test match. Dont care if he bowls quick, just means the ball gets to the boundary quicker
As much as I love Siddle, Clark has to replace him in the side. We need someone like clark who can dry up the runs aswell as take a couple of wickets.
Lee shouldn't get close to the team. His best cricket is well and truely behind him.
peternorth
5 Aug 2009, 10:29
lee's good mates with ponting and clarke. that is in his favour. he's also nice to the poms.
JimDocker
5 Aug 2009, 10:36
From an England supporter's point of view.
I cannot believe how lucky we have been that the selectors have not yet picked Clark. It could have been the difference in all three tests to have a line and length bowler that takes wickets without bleeding runs.
I do not understand the calls for Hauritz to be dropped on here. While I never rated him at the start of the series, it must be said that he has performed and would be very unlucky not to see the series out.
Siddle has bowled with a lot of heart but to me, he should make way for Clark.
That would be the only change that I would make as an Aussie selector.
Personally, I think England have more to worry about on the selection front, with Freddie looking very proppy and Broad performing better with the bat then the ball.
England have had most of the luck in this series and while I feel they have played the better cricket overall, Clark coming in could be all that is needed to turn things around.
aussie1st
5 Aug 2009, 11:13
Both. Out Siddle and Hauritz. North to bowl the majority of spin overs, Clarke to chip in when required (Katich should, but never does).
Wouldn't be against this, the spinners hardly bowled last time a Test was played here.
But if we are picking for Siddle's spot, has to be Clark. Lee is too much of a risk. He won't have any match practice since his injury, who knows what his form will be post injury. McGrath came back from his injury in the 3rd Ashes Test 05 and was way off his best.
Histrionics
5 Aug 2009, 11:59
Clark.
He will come in and bowl a good line and length consistantly.
Belnakor
5 Aug 2009, 12:08
Should be Clark, will be Lee - jobs for the boys
We need another reliable bowler like Clark. Clark in for Siddle and if Johnson doesn't perform in the 4th test then hopefully Lee will be right to come in for him.
I support this idea:thumbsu:
awesome_assassin
5 Aug 2009, 16:12
Should be Clark, but the selectors are morons and it will be an unchannged bowling line up.:thumbsd:
TorresIsGod
5 Aug 2009, 16:49
Should be Clark, but the selectors are morons and it will be an unchannged bowling line up.:thumbsd:
Good.
I'm fairly sure Lee will come in for Siddle. Although it would be nice to have clark, I think hilfenhaus is doing a good job of line, length and swing.
Langford4FBOTC
5 Aug 2009, 17:02
The chances of Lee playing in the series, let alone the 4th test have to be zero... surely? Let's hope the selectors don't add playing unfit players to their list. Playing out of form players is frustrating enough.
Baring injuries, I'm tipping they'll go in unchanged.
Selective Retention
5 Aug 2009, 21:23
Swervin Mervyn on SEN this evening. The way he was talking about Lee not having the requisite fitness base sounded very much like he won't get picked.
Merv also managed to put his foot in mouth. He let slip that the Australian team don't have a doctor on tour, only a physio, and if they did have one available to administer pain killing injections Haddin probably would have played /facepalm
fraser25
5 Aug 2009, 21:29
Clark for Siddle is a near cert I'd say.
ROO BOY IN W.A
5 Aug 2009, 21:51
I would say Lee for Hauritz.I can never understand ppl saying drop Siddle.Do we watch the same game.Gee i think ppl need to have a good look.
OzBomber
5 Aug 2009, 21:59
I'm a Lee fanboy but Clark. Much more consistent and can tie up an end. Something that Lee can not.
I would say Lee for Hauritz.I can never understand ppl saying drop Siddle.Do we watch the same game.Gee i think ppl need to have a good look.
It seems like we don't. I know Hauritz will never be a popular player, but geez....:rolleyes:
OzBomber
5 Aug 2009, 22:11
Merv also managed to put his foot in mouth. He let slip that the Australian team don't have a doctor on tour, only a physio, and if they did have one available to administer pain killing injections Haddin probably would have played /facepalm
It's already known that we don't have a doctor on tour and it's already know that Haddin would have played.
I would say Lee for Hauritz.I can never understand ppl saying drop Siddle.Do we watch the same game.Gee i think ppl need to have a good look.
Yep, I saw Siddle bowling short and wide with no plan of what he was trying to do. What game were you watching?
King Elvis
5 Aug 2009, 23:45
I'm fairly sure Lee will come in for Siddle. Although it would be nice to have clark, I think hilfenhaus is doing a good job of line, length and swing.
Hypothetical; Mitchell falls apart again. Hilfy/Lee have to bowl the absolute bulk of the overs.
How confident are you that Lee could bowl 25+ overs a day without breaking down?
EDIT - Same question to you Roo Boy. And, while Siddle should have a massive future, at present, he's not what we need in the side. Part of his problem is he's been trying to hard to compensate for Johnson's erratic efforts, but that's exactly why we need Clark.
What happened last time we played Lee when he wasn't truly fit? Wasn't that the Saffer home Test where he was useless? And was also picked an unfit and out of
form Symonds?
Found the stats - First Test, Lee bowled 48 overs, took one wicket, economy rate of 2.75. Second Test Lee bowled 23 overs, no wickets, economy of around 5.05 And that's on our home decks, which traditionally suit him alright, let alone England, where he averages over 40.
The way he bowled in that Tour Match; if he hadn't injured himself, he'd probably be playing. But he did, and we can't risk it - especially when Stuey Clark is waiting in the wings (honestly, I was almost shaking my head at the thought of that, our best bowler, not playing).
Test Cricket - Winning is everything.
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/418050.html
Bomber Bears
6 Aug 2009, 00:16
Clark
Best bowler we have, should've been playing since Lords or even Cardiff
Langford4FBOTC
6 Aug 2009, 10:23
Hypothetical; Mitchell falls apart again.
EDIT - Same question to you Roo Boy. And, while Siddle should have a massive future, at present, he's not what we need in the side. Part of his problem is he's been trying to hard to compensate for Johnson's erratic efforts, but that's exactly why we need Clark.
That also poses the question...... given that Johnson's form issues are affecting the other bowlers (which I agree with.. and with your assessment of Siddle), should the selectors bite the bullet and bring in Clarke for Johnson?
BTW King Elvis, Grizzlym said to say hi
bombersno1
6 Aug 2009, 10:53
I would say Lee for Hauritz.I can never understand ppl saying drop Siddle.Do we watch the same game.Gee i think ppl need to have a good look.
Siddle has been poor this series, Hauritz has bowled well in each innings, even at Lords where he played on with a busted finger. Yes Johnson has been ordinary, but he is coming off a 60-70 odd wicket season, I'd back him before I'd back Siddle.
fraser25
6 Aug 2009, 11:33
Clark in for Siddle now.
Then IF Lee's fit and IF Johnson isn't up to it, he could come in for the 5th.
Poifict.
King Elvis
6 Aug 2009, 11:34
That also poses the question...... given that Johnson's form issues are affecting the other bowlers (which I agree with.. and with your assessment of Siddle), should the selectors bite the bullet and bring in Clarke for Johnson?
BTW King Elvis, Grizzlym said to say hi
Prior to the last Test, yes; but the way Mitchell bowled, as well as the attitude and aggression he brought to the table, he looks like he finally might come good.
Grizzy cop a ban or something? :(
Langford4FBOTC
6 Aug 2009, 13:37
Prior to the last Test, yes; but the way Mitchell bowled, as well as the attitude and aggression he brought to the table, he looks like he finally might come good.
Grizzy cop a ban or something? :(
I hope like hell he has turned the corner.
Interesting to see the poms bringing Sidebottom into the squad. Points to conditions suiting a 4 man seam attack. We might end up bringing Clark in for Hauritz...... I guess we'll find out an a few hours. <EDIT... make that 24 hours, lost a day there>
Grizzly's still tearing up the forums. He just said to keep an eye out for you on the cricket side of things.
Bombers_Forever
6 Aug 2009, 13:43
Clark - hopefully the selectors are not taking notice of Lee's comments in the media. Everytime he talks himself up after injury he gets smashed.
aaronm46
6 Aug 2009, 18:07
**** off Brett Lee, I do not want you anywhere near an already expensive bowling attack claiming you can be economical, you cannot.
So please just **** off
bigburger
6 Aug 2009, 22:49
Stuart Clark by an absolute ****ing mile.
Clark in for Siddle. Please.
I agree with others, though. Lee and Siddle both have key mates on the selection panel and/or in the XI - so at least one of them will probably play ahead of Clark again despite there being no logical reason why they should.
Subaru Impreza
7 Aug 2009, 11:46
I think Stuart Clark was unlucky not to play in the 3rd test match. But for the 4th test he must play for us to have a chance.
I like Stuart Clarke simply because he bowls a line and length just outside off stump, Glenn McGrath like. He is difficult to face as his height gives something for the batsman to think about as well.
Belnakor
7 Aug 2009, 12:23
Lee is really being incredibly selfish at the moment, he really is carrying on like a pork chop. I mean yes, we know the guy is bowling quick in the nets, but how many times have we heard that Brett is "cherry ripe" and then you find out later that he was carrying an injury?
I can live with the fact the guy really, really wants to play for Australia - but he needs to take a look at himself. Hopefully the selectors will have half a brain, but i very much doubt it and expect Lee to line up tonight.
peternorth
8 Aug 2009, 16:33
i think clarks selection was justified :D